Citation

Wormith JS, Gendreau P, Bonta JL. Crim. Justice Behav. 2012; 39(1): 111-120.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0093854811426087

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

We thank Ward, Yates, and Willis (this issue, p. 94) for their commentary to our earlier piece (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011) comparing risk, need, and responsivity (RNR) to the good lives model (GLM) and appreciate the opportunity to respond. Our reply is written, sadly, without the contribution of our original lead author and mentor, Donald Andrews (see Bonta, 2011; Wormith, 2011). Ward et al. proclaim that our characterization of GLM is inaccurate on many fronts and go to great length to elaborate their position. Regardless, upon close review, it is clear that there are some fundamental differences, as well as similarities, both between our models and between our conceptualizations of our counterparts' models.

We have three distinct reactions to Ward et al. and will address them accordingly. One pertains to the nature of their critique, and we will address only what we believe to be some of the important themes in their review. The second raises a valued principle of science, parsimony, and how it relates to the comparison between RNR and GLM. The third concerns a mantra that we have professed throughout our careers and is barely addressed by Ward et al. (this issue), "Let's consider the evidence."

Themes from Ward, Yates, and Willis:

To begin, we are mindful of and concerned about this interchange descending into a "we-said/they-said" exchange, which serves no purpose and only alienates interested readers who are seeking resolution, or at least guidelines, for their own research and practice. So we have resisted the impulse to provide a point-by-point rebuttal. However, we do believe that a few key points are in order.

First, the current interchange leads us to suggest that the proponents of both RNR and GLM should acknowledge that both models are moving targets. This, it appears, has led to some confusion and difficulty of …

Language: en