Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion

ISSN: (Print) 2000-8023 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/zvgi19

The relationship between lower intelligence, crime

and custodial outcomes: a brief literary review of a
vulnerable group

James Freeman

To cite this article: James Freeman (2012) The relationship between lower intelligence, crime and
custodial outcomes: a brief literary review of a vulnerable group, Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion,
3:1, 14834, DOI: 10.3402/vgi.v3i0.14834

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3402/vgi.v3i0.14834

© 2012 J. Freeman

Published online: 08 Jun 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19017

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=zvgi20
Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion

WORKING LIFE STRESS, REHABILITATION COUNSELLING

AND INCLUSION

The relationship between lower

intelligence, crime and custodial
outcomes: a brief literary review
of a vulnerable group
James Freeman*
Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Qld, Australia

Abstract
The relationship between intellectual functioning and criminal offending has received considerable
focus within the literature. While there remains debate regarding the existence (and strength) of
this relationship, there is a wider consensus that individuals with below average functioning
(in particular cognitive impairments) are disproportionately represented within the prison
population. This paper focuses on research that has implications for the effective management
of lower functioning individuals within correctional environments as well as the successful
rehabilitation and release of such individuals back into the community. This includes a review of
the literature regarding the link between lower intelligence and offending and the identification
of possible factors that either facilitate (or confound) this relationship. The main themes to
emerge from this review are that individuals with lower intellectual functioning continue to be
disproportionately represented in custodial settings and that there is a need to increase the
provision of specialised programs to cater for their needs. Further research is also needed into a
range of areas including: (1) the reason for this over-representation in custodial settings, (2) the
existence and effectiveness of rehabilitation and release programs that cater for lower IQ offenders,
(3) the effectiveness of custodial alternatives for this group (e.g. intensive corrections orders) and
(4) what post-custodial release services are needed to reduce the risk of recidivism.

Keywords: Intelligence; crime; custody; rehabilitation

*Correspondence to: James Freeman, Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety
Qld
(CARRS-Q), Queensland University of Technology, Room 205, Level 2, K Block, Victoria Park
Road, Kelvin Grove, Qld 4059, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

#2012 J. Freeman. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commer-
cial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation: Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/vgi.v3i0.14834
1
(page number not for citation purpose)
J. Freeman

Individuals with below average intelligent prisoners, inmates and detainees.

quotient functioning (otherwise known as This was supplemented with scanning of
IQ) may be considered a vulnerable group reference lists of relevant manuscripts to
for a range of reasons including being identify other studies of direct relevance.
scholastically, vocationally and socially Studies that involved data collection by
disadvantaged. For example, impair- trained mental health professionals (e.g.
ments in basic executive processes have psychiatrists and psychologists) as well as
been suggested to have a damaging im- non-allied mental health professionals
pact on everyday life activities (Herrero, were included, which may explain some
Escorial, & Colom, 2010). Intelligence of the heterogeneity in the results.
can also have a pervasive effect on func-
tioning throughout the life course, not just
INTELLIGENCE AND CRIME
for those who are considered cognitively
impaired e.g. IQ of below 70. As a result, While it is acknowledged that a range of
there is now a plethora of early interven- personal and environmental factors are
tion programs designed to identify and likely to influence offending behaviour
assist this section of the population (e.g. gender, age, peer support, poverty,
successfully transition through the educa- education, ethnicity, low impulse con-
tion system into the workforce and/or trol, empathy, psychological well-being,
live independently in the community. personality, etc.), the link between low
However, it may be argued that this group levels of IQ and criminal involvement
remains vulnerable throughout their life continues to receive considerable atten-
course, and that one particular problem is tion (Diaz, Belena, & Baguena, 1994;
that they are at a disproportionately high Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004). In fact, a
risk of coming into contact with the meta-analysis of research examining the
criminal justice system. In fact, a sizeable influence of cognitive and affective
body of scientific literature has focused on empathy to offending behaviour found
attempting to determine the strength of that the relationship between low em-
the relationship between lower intellec- pathy and offending disappeared after
tual functioning and risk of committing controlling for intelligence and social
criminal offences, which will be reviewed economic status (Jolliffe & Farrington,
below. 2004). This is not to disregard the
concept of empathy, but rather, the
ability to understand another person’s
METHOD
emotions may be a primary function
Studies that reported on the prevalence of of intelligence, which ultimately
intellectual disabilities in custodial set- also has links with offending (Jolliffe &
tings between 1960 and January 2012 Farrington, 2004). More broadly,
were searched in electronic databases research that has aimed to examine the
including PsychINFO and ScienceDir- origins of offending behaviour (particu-
ect. Keywords were used such as: intel- larly juvenile delinquency) continues to
lectual disabilities, mental retardation, identify low IQ as a predictor of criminal
below average intellectual functioning, behaviour (Diaz et al., 1994).

2
(page number not for citation purpose)
 Literary review of a vulnerable group

A complete review of the predominant 1988; Martell, 1991). Additionally,

theories explaining the relationship evidence exists which demonstrates that
between below average IQ and criminal criminal offenders have lower IQ’s
behaviour is beyond the scope of the than non-offenders (Feldman, 1993;
current paper, as is an in depth analysis Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Wilson &
of the differences between low average Herrnstein, 1985). In fact, a large body
IQ, borderline and mental retardation/ of early research found clear links
intellectual disability. However, it is between lower intelligence and criminal
noted that studies have focused on two behaviour (Hischi & Hindelang,
specific areas: (1) assessment of low IQ 1977; McGarvey, Gabrielli, Bentler, &
on the seriousness of the criminal career Mednick, 1981; Culberton et al., 1989).
and (2) assessment of the influence of This may be because of deficits in the
lower IQ on modus operandi, which in- ‘‘executive functions’’ of the brain, which
cludes planning as well as the seriousness are thought to be associated with ab-
of the offence (Guay, Ouimet, & Proulx, stract reasoning and concept formation,
2005). In regards to the former, there is as well as sustaining attention and con-
evidence that lower IQ is associated with centration (Moffitt, 1990). Alternatively,
delinquency which can naturally set
it may be expected that individuals with
younger individuals on a different life
lower intelligence are more vulnerable to
course (Lynam, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-
engage in reactive-based offences, as they
Loeber, 1993). At the very least, it is
have a reduced capacity to comprehend
noteworthy that a significant amount of
as well as communicate effectively,
literature has found delinquent boys have
particularly to possible interpersonal
lower levels of functioning intelligence
threats (Welte & Wieczorek, 1999).
(Culberton, Ferel, & Gabby, 1989;
This issue has also been suggested to
Moffitt, Gabrielli, & Mednick, 1981).
To some extent, it may be argued that be a primary contributor to why indivi-
delinquency and/or dropping out of duals with intellectual disabilities are
school without receiving a sufficient more likely to become victims of crime
minimal level of education makes such (Wilson, Nettlebeck, Potter, & Perry,
individuals vulnerable in regards to being 1996). Furthermore, research has pro-
vocationally disadvantaged. Additionally, vided preliminary evidence that indivi-
it has been proposed that lower IQ duals who are incarcerated are also more
(especially poor verbal ability) restricts likely to suffer from alexithymia, other-
the probability of academic success at wise known as a diminished ability to
school and this failure in academic identify and/or communicate feelings
achievement increases the likelihood of (Kroner & Forth, 1995). At the very
delinquent acts (Diaz et al., 1994). least, a meta-analytic study by Morgan
A body of research has also demon- and Lilienfeld (2000) found a relation-
strated that individuals with lower IQ ship between lower executive functioning
levels are more likely to commit more and antisocial behaviour, with the latter
severe (and violent) offences (Crocker & factor strongly linked to criminal activity
Hodgins, 1997; Hayes & McIIwain, throughout the literature.

3
(page number not for citation purpose)
J. Freeman

Personal and interpersonal factors disorders, e.g. schizophrenia (Sheitman

et al., 2000) and the complex relation-
However, it is also noted that there is
ship between psychiatric disorders and
conflicting research, and that the rela-
increased risk of incarceration has also
tionship between IQ and criminal of-
been well documented in the literature
fending is not linear (Levine, 2008). It
(Teplin, Abram, & McClelland, 1996).
may also not be as strong as once
Additionally, research continues to
thought (Herrero et al., 2010; Langevin
document that individuals who commit
& Curnoe, 2008). One of the primary offences have often been exposed
difficulties in resolving this issue is that to emotional and physical abuse
intelligence is now accepted to involve a through childhood (Hummel, Thomke,
range of different cognitive processes, Oldenburger, & Specht, 2000), and it
not least performance and verbal intelli- may be suggested that children with
gence. In fact, even the well documented below average IQ are vulnerable to
‘‘executive processes’’ are accepted experiencing a range of unsettlingly
to comprise of a variety of functions events during psychosocial development.
including planning, inhibition, switch- In fact, research indicates that those with
ing, updating and monitoring (Herrero an intellectual disability are almost three
et al., 2010). Preliminary research has times more likely (than those without) to
proposed that IQ differences between also be victims of physical assault, sexual
offender and non-offender populations assault and robbery (Wilson et al.,
may be attributed to verbal reasoning 1996). Holland, Clare and Mukhopad-
(Blackburn, 1999), while others have hyay (2002) reviewed the literature and
suggested it may be due to spatial IQ concluded that offenders with an intel-
(Raine et al., 2005). lectual disability tended to be younger
Others have suggested that the rela- males who experienced severe psychoso-
tionship between IQ and crime is cial disadvantage e.g. high rates of un-
clouded by confounding variables, such employment, other offenders in the
as motivation levels and that more in- family, etc. Finally, overall intelligence
telligent individuals are just less likely to can be measured in a range of different
be apprehended (Moffitt & Silva, 1988). formats (e.g. Wechsler Intelligence Scale,
Additionally, the problem of low IQ and Hayes Ability Screening Index [HASI];
engaging in a reckless manner with little the Learning Disabilities in the Proba-
consideration for the consequences may tion Service [LIPS]) as can the various
be exacerbated through alcohol con- subfactors (e.g. executive functioning
sumption (Welte & Wieczorek, 1999). such as updating, shifting, inhibition).
More specifically, research is demon- A complete review of the various meth-
strating that executive functioning is a ods of assessment including comprehen-
crucial moderator of intoxicated aggres- sive versus brief procedures are beyond
sion (Welte & Wieczorek, 1999). Psy- the scope of the current review, although
chological well-being is another it is likely that these issues increase the
complicating factor, as research demon- level of variability within the literature.
strates that lower intellectual function- For example, the HASI appears more
ing is associated with formal thought validated than the LIPS (Hayes, 2004)

4
(page number not for citation purpose)
 Literary review of a vulnerable group

and different assessment approaches fo- number of angles to examine this group,
cus on different aspects of intellectual one of the most common being to
functioning. This is also the case with the compare them with non-sex offenders
different forms and categories of below (Guay et al., 2005). But similar to above,
average functioning (e.g. cognitive defi- such studies have been limited by
cits, impairment, borderline) and it is methodological weaknesses or variability,
noted that this issue is particularly com- including the use of different assessment
plex given that individuals of average processes and the use of heterogeneous
intelligence can still have specific learn- samples (Guay et al., 2005).
ing deficits (Langevin & Curnoe, 2008). On the other hand, some recent re-
search has suggested that sex offenders
have lower levels of intellectual function-
Different types of offenders ing than non-sexual violent offenders,
In an effort to elucidate the complex particularly in the areas of vocabulary,
relationship between IQ and criminal comprehension, arithmetic, mathe-
activity, researchers have also attempted matics, letter-number sequencing, per-
to categorise offenders into subgroups. formance IQ and total IQ (Guay et al.,
Two large scale studies provided indica- 2005). In fact, Guay et al. (2005)
examined a cohort of incarcerated sex
tion that the offence of murder is dis-
offenders and reported that 35.7% of the
proportionately over-represented among
sample had IQ scores below 75, with
inmates with an intellectual disability
25.1% scored below 70. It is noted that
(Hayes & McIIwain, 1988; Jones &
an IQ of below 70 is often considered
Coombes, 1990). These researchers
indicative of cognitive impairment or
have also suggested that those with an
retardation (Flynn, 1985). The research-
intellectual disability are more likely to
ers concluded that sex offenders may
commit other types of offences, includ-
have 10 times the percentage with IQ
ing against property and person such as scores below 70 when compared to the
assault, arson and theft-related offences. normal population (Guay et al., 2005).
In contrast, offences that require a higher This finding has more generally been
level of sophistication (e.g. drugs, false confirmed with other research that has
pretences) are less likely to be committed indicated that sex offenders have lower
(Hayes & McIIwain, 1988; Jones & IQs than non-sex offenders (Cantor,
Coombes, 1990). While research has Blanchard, Robichaud, & Christensen,
focused on violent versus non-violent 2005), and this group are also at a
offences, a group that has recorded a greater risk of recidivism (Klimscki,
particularly large amount of attention are Jenkinson, & Wilson, 1994). Research
those convicted of sex offences (Hanson, has also begun to examine the emotional
Scott, & Steffy, 1995). This is because intelligence of adolescent sex offenders,
cognitively impaired individuals are over- with preliminary research indicating this
represented in the legal system, both in group score higher on aggression and are
regards to sexual offence victims as well less clear about their own feelings and
as sexual perpetrators (Griffiths & have a reduced capacity to manage
Martini, 2000). Research has utilised a unpleasant moods (Moriaty, Stough,

5
(page number not for citation purpose)
J. Freeman

Tidmarsh, Eger, & Dennison, 2001). Mickenberg, 1981). Researchers have

This finding is particularly relevant given noted that this group may naively divulge
that research has indicated that 50
80% self-incriminating information and/or
of chronic adult sex offenders commit yield to police coercion during interviews
their first sexual offence as adolescents (Wertlieb, 1991). Additionally, indivi-
(Fehrenbach, Smith, Monastersky, & duals with lower IQ functioning are
Deisher, 1986). vulnerable to misunderstanding the
Taken together, and while there re- process of court proceedings, as well
mains considerable debate in regards to as understanding plea bargains (McDo-
the strength of the relationship between nald, 1985). What remains evident is
lower IQ and crime (and the confounding that low IQ offenders appear to be
variables that mediate this relationship) disproportionately represented within
what remains evident is that there is a prison populations, although there has
disproportionate percentage of very low been debate within the literature regard-
functioning individuals (e.g. cognitively ing exact prevalence rates (Hayes, 2004).
impaired group) in the prison population For example, a number of studies have
compared to the general population (Ho, reported over-representation of intellec-
1996). Researchers have suggested that tually disabled offenders within correc-
this is because this group are more likely to tional centres, ranging from 4
10%
be careless in avoiding detection due to (Petersilia, 1997) to 28% (Murphy,
their cognitive impairments (Langevin & Harrold, Carey, & Mulrooney et al.,
Curnoe, 2008). Researchers have also 2000). However, it is noted that intellec-
suggested that the appropriate identifica- tually disabled offenders in some juris-
tion of lower IQ offenders is usually dictions are appropriately diverted to
ignored during the initial stages such as mental health services or probation
police interviews (Noble & Conley, such as in the United Kingdom (Mason
1992). What may yet prove evident is & Murphy, 2002) although such services
that this group present to prison with a are not uniformly available (Petersilia,
range of competing needs, as preliminary 1997). Additionally, studies that have
research has suggested that those with utilised trained psychologists and/or psy-
more severe intellectual limitations (e.g. chiatrists to examine offenders have
retardation) are also more likely to have reported lower prevalence rates, which
sustained a brain injury, have a history of suggests Type II errors may be made in
substance misuse and/or struggle with some circumstances. For example, Bir-
adaptive behaviour (Ho, 1996). mingham, Mason, and Grubin (1996)
obtained data from psychiatrists and
only 1.4% were assessed to have an
CUSTODIAL EXPERIENCES
intellectual disability and a similar study
Historically, it has been argued that low by Ghubash and El-Rufaie (1997) re-
IQ offenders are apprehended and con- ported a 2.9% rate. However, it is noted
victed more easily, and unfortunately, that any comparisons between studies
they are also imprisoned for longer remains difficult due to different custo-
(Hermann, Singer, & Roberts, 1988; dial settings as well as the primary aims

6
(page number not for citation purpose)
 Literary review of a vulnerable group

of each individual study e.g. assessing REHABILITATION PROGRAMS

intelligence versus psychiatric disorders.
The recognition for the disproportio-
Nevertheless, it has been suggested
nately high number of offenders with
that this group are vulnerable to manip-
low IQs is being reflected in the increase
ulation and influence from the prison
in the number of custodial treatment
population who are not intellectually
programs tailored specifically for this
disadvantaged. This can even include
group, particularly among sex offenders
entering into homosexual relationships
(Demetral, 1994; Haaven, Little, &
for protection (Billinghurst & Hackler,
Petre-Miller, 1990; Lund, 1992;
1982). In regards to extreme cases,
Swanson & Garwick, 1990). For exam-
preliminary research has indicated that
ple within Queensland, the Inclusions
those murdered in jail are also likely to
Sex Offender Treatment Program has
be of lower intelligence to the perpetrator more recently been introduced for in-
(Cunningham, Sorensen, Vigen, & dividuals with low intellectual ability.
Woods, 2010). As highlighted above A preliminary evaluation by Smallbone
and not surprisingly, they also display and McHugh (2010) reported that the
poor adaptive behaviour capacities (Ho, program resulted in improvements acr-
1996), which further limits their ability oss a number of key areas including: life-
to transition appropriately into a custo- style stability, sexuality, self-regulation,
dial environment that usually consists of criminality, offence responsibility, etc.
an array of foreign rules and regulations. However, the sample size for this evalua-
Researchers have suggested that low IQ tion was relatively small (and consistent
individuals are more likely to be impul- with the wider field of sexual treatment
sive and may not consider the conse- programs), research including longer
quences of their actions (Wertlieb, follow-up periods is still needed to
1991). While it has become increasingly examine the impact upon recidivism.
common to house intellectually impaired Additionally, custodial programs are
prisoners in secure custody within pris- also being developed for lower intelli-
ons (to protect them from the wider gence inmates who have committed non-
prison population), it has been noted sexual offences (Mullin & Simpson,
that the type of incarceration environ- 2007), although there is again limited
ment for individuals with low IQ levels published research on their effectiveness.
varies considerably across jurisdictions This is in part due to the problems
(Wertlieb, 1991). Additionally, an intel- associated with undertaking a scientifi-
ligence assessment is not always manda- cally rigorous evaluation (e.g. rando-
tory intake policy and thus this group mised, comparison group) in an applied
can remain vulnerable within a custodial setting such as a custodial environment.
environment for an extended period of Nevertheless and more broadly, a num-
time. In fact, early research provided ber of meta-analytic studies into the
evidence that individuals with mild or effectiveness of a range of offender reha-
moderate degrees of disability may in bilitation programs have demonstrated
fact never be identified (McAfee & that high quality programs can reduce the
Gural, 1988). risk of recidivism (Gendreau, Little, &

7
(page number not for citation purpose)
J. Freeman

Goggin, 1996; Lipsey, 1992; McGuire, tutorial programs are increasingly being
2002). Such treatment programs often implemented in a number of custodial
focus on increasing offenders’ ability to settings. Thirdly, there are many barriers
understand and express empathy, as a to responsivity, not least low intelligence
reduced capacity to empathise with vic- and poor literacy skills (Smallbone &
tims has been proposed to be a contribu- McHugh, 2010). While there is on-going
tor to offending behaviour (Jolliffe & debate in the literature regarding the
Farrington, 2004). Additionally, preli- extent to which programs need to be
minary research has suggested that the individualised to increase offender
most effective programs incorporate the responsivity, there is increasing consen-
three principles of ‘‘risk, needs and sus that lower functioning individuals
responsivity’’ (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). require more specialised programs to
‘‘Risk’’ relates to identifying high risk ensure the above three principles are
offenders, ‘‘needs’’ relates to ensuring met. As a result, specialised programs
the program meets the needs of the are being developed that are increasingly
offending subgroup and the ‘‘responsiv- catering for the needs of low IQ
ity’’ principle suggests that treatment offenders, however comprehensive
programs are most effective when they
evaluations of these programs are yet to
are designed in a manner that maximises
be undertaken and published. This is
therapeutic engagement (Smallbone &
vital given that preliminary research has
McHugh, 2010).
demonstrated that lower functioning IQ
All three factors are particularly im-
is associated with treatment attrition
portant for the current focus on this
(Lueger & Cadman, 1982; Marques,
vulnerable group of lower intelligence
Day, Nelson, & West, 1994), which is
offenders. In regards to risk, research
particularly concerning given that non-
indicates that priority should be given to
high risk offenders, and the above review program completion has historically
suggests this low IQ group are at an proven to be one of the best predictors
increased risk of coming in contact with of re-offending (Marshall, Anderson, &
the law. Secondly, the ‘‘needs’’ principle Fernandez, 1999).
is of particular importance as treatment
programs are most effective when they CUSTODIAL RELEASE
directly target the criminogenic needs of
the offending group (Smallbone & In regards to release from custody, there
McHugh, 2010). These often include is also a lack of published research into
risk and protective factors that can be the relationship between parole success
found within individual characteristics as and lower intellectual functioning.
well as offender’s social network. In Nevertheless, there remains the assump-
regards to this vulnerable group of low tion that probation is more commonly
IQ offenders, particular gains may be granted to individuals with higher intelli-
found in increasing this group’s numer- gence and greater educational/work his-
acy and literacy skills, as well as broader tory and capability. This is consistent
social functioning skills. It is noteworthy with the above mentioned research which
that literacy and numeracy screening and indicates individuals with below average

8
(page number not for citation purpose)
 Literary review of a vulnerable group

intelligence are imprisoned for longer avoid high risk situations that increase
(Hermann et al., 1988; Mickenberg, the risk of re-offending. These indivi-
1981). A further problem for this vulner- duals are often confronted with an array
able group is that they are less likely to of social challenges when released (e.g.
impress the parole boards with compre- poverty, unemployment), which can ar-
hensive and realistic release plans, which guably place them at an increased risk of
clearly articulate how they will avoid re-offending (Borzycki & Baldry, 2003)
re-offending. In regards to the latter, or experience a poor quality of life
Relapse Prevention Plans (or Safety (Chung, Cumella, Wensley, & Easthope,
Plans) have become increasingly utilised 1999). Additionally, further research is
as a mechanism (within parole applica- clearly needed into this area to not only
tions) to demonstrate a high level of determine the most effective approaches
insight into the origins of an offence as to deal with below average intelligence
well as the ability to recognise and avoid prisoners who are incarcerated, but also
high risk situations in the future once whether alternative options such as in-
they are released from custodial settings. tensive correction orders are more
This places individuals with below suitable (compared to custodial environ-
average intelligence at a distinct disad-
ments) for some types of offenders e.g.
vantage. While there are external fee-
non-violent. There is scant research
paying services (e.g. lawyers) that provide
into this latter issue although anecdotal
assistance developing such applications,
reports naturally suggest that magistrates
questions remain regarding the availabil-
and judges are reluctant to incarcerate
ity of this fee-paying service to this
offenders who are vulnerable to the
vulnerable group.
wider prison population.
In some jurisdictions, it is noted that
custodial environments now include
Transitions-based courses which provide IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE
assistance for those who require addi- RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
tional support and direction when being
released from custody e.g. banking, se- Taken together, there is a need for
curing employment, etc. In broader further research into a range of different
terms, Offender Reintegration Support areas. These include: (1) the extent of
Services are also provided in some cus- lower intelligence prisoners’ incarcera-
todial environments for individuals who tion and the effectiveness of specialised
have higher needs transitioning back into rehabilitation programs, (2) this group’s
the community (particularly offenders functioning within prison, (3) their like-
with psychiatric histories) although there lihood of being approved a community
is again limited published research on supervision order (e.g. court-ordered
the effectiveness of these types of pro- parole) and (4) what services are
grams. What remains evident is that required to reduce the likelihood of
lower functioning individuals who are recidivism. To further determine
incarcerated are likely to require a higher whether low IQ has an influence on
level of personalised supervision once offending behaviour independently of
they are released into the community to other factors, variables with a known

9
(page number not for citation purpose)
J. Freeman

association to offending behaviour need average intellectual functioning) at the

to be controlled (Jolliffe & Farrington, earliest possible point when they first
2004). Overall, there also remains little come in contact with the criminal justice
contemporary and reliable published re- system seems imperative to increase the
search on the proportion of offenders likelihood of receiving appropriate treat-
who have clear cognitive impairments ment to develop the skills and strategies
(Hayes, 2004; Griffiths & Martini, to avoid re-offending in the future.
2000). There is a need to continue to
strive for methodological rigour in
further applied research (e.g. randomisa- Tailored programs
tion, control groups), despite the obvious Additionally, and when considering post-
difficulties associated with conducting offence treatment, a key theme to emerge
applied research in correctional settings. from this review is the ‘‘responsivity’’
Hayes’ (2004) review of intellectual dis- principle and thus the need for correc-
ability in prison populations revealed a tional programs (either community or
number of short-comings of previous custodial) for low IQ individuals to max-
research, including: pre-selection of in- imise therapeutic engagement. More
mates for assessment, non-random sam- broadly, the detection of such individuals
ples, non-representative samples (e.g.
needs to be followed closely with referrals
volunteers), inadequate test batteries
to appropriate treatment programs to
and administration of such tests by
maximise therapeutic engagement and
non-psychologists. Given that substan-
outcomes. Some practitioners have
tial heterogeneity exists between current
argued that offender rehabilitation pro-
studies in the field, considerable caution
grams are becoming increasingly standar-
must be used when synthesising the
dised and manualised, which provides
results and drawing conclusions (Fazel,
little room for tailoring (or individualis-
Xenitidis, & Powell, 2008). Prospective
longitudinal studies with sufficient follow ing) program content and process
up periods are ideally suited to elucidate to match the needs of participants
the relationship between IQ and offend- (W. Marshall, L. Marshall, Serran, &
ing, as well as better estimate re-offence Fernandez, 2006). To counter this, there
rates once this group are released from has been further suggestion that programs
prison. need to be increasingly flexible and focus
In regards to pathway models, there is on professional responsiveness in order to
also the need for further research to maximise therapeutic engagement. This
investigate how this vulnerable group argument appears particularly relevant
can avoid initially committing offences for the current focus group who are likely
e.g. education, community support, etc. to require an individualised approach
It may also be argued that early inter- to maximise understanding and retention
vention and treatment programs for low of core program content. It is noted
IQ offenders (particularly in adolescents) that researchers have argued that treat-
are critical in reducing the number of ment programs that set unrealistic goals
lifelong offenders. Thus, identifying high that are difficult to achieve (for intellec-
risk offenders (such as those with below tually impaired offenders) only promotes

10
(page number not for citation purpose)
 Literary review of a vulnerable group

treatment dropout (Guay et al., 2005). recidivism, although it is noted that

While some level of trade-off will always poor psychological functioning (e.g.
be evident between following a closely and depression, anger management, etc.)
well-designed program versus profes- are included as risk factors in some
sional discretion, there appears reduced actuarial tests e.g. Sex Offender Needs
value in making a program prescriptive at Assessment Rating (SONAR).
the expense of responsivity.
More research is also required to
determine the content and approach CONCLUSION
required to maximise therapeutic effec- Taken together, it may be suggested that
tiveness for correctional programs im- the two main factors that predominantly
plemented both in the community and in influence decision making throughout an
custodial settings. It is noteworthy that at offender’s interaction with the criminal
present, no best practice principles or justice system (e.g. sentence and release
standards exist regarding maximising eligibility) are: (1) the seriousness of the
change in behavioural programs. Addi- crime committed and (2) the criminal
tionally, this group is likely to present record of the offender (Gottfredson &
with a more complex array of needs and Gottfredson, 1988). Both of these im-
post-custody release requirements that
portant factors can also arguably be
can only be achieved through accurate
influenced by intellectual functioning,
screening and assessment. In regards to
which ultimately places this group in a
sex offenders, and given that this group
vulnerable position as they are disadvan-
are actually at a greater risk of commit-
taged in regards to adjusting to a long
ting non-sexual offences compared to
penal sentence and disadvantaged in
sexual offences upon release (Hanson &
regards to developing the skills and
Morton-Bourgon, 2005), there is a need
relapse prevention plan to increase their
to assess risk for non-sexual offending as
well as general personal functioning release eligibility status. While the debate
levels e.g. numeracy, literacy, etc. There regarding the origins of lower intellectual
may be benefit from research and pro- functioning (e.g. nature vs. nurture) is
gram evaluations focusing on whether likely to continue, it may be argued that a
treatment programs should also target greater level of consensus now exists
criminogenic needs that are associated regarding the need to develop effective
with both sexual and non-sexual offend- interventions to reduce the likelihood
ing. Given this and in regards to the that this vulnerable group are incarcer-
current focus, there may be merit in ated as well as ensure their timely
treatment programs for low IQ offenders release. It is also recognised that the
to also address other factors associated victims of crime are another extremely
with successful functioning in the com- vulnerable (and important) group which
munity (or psychological well being), clearly deserve their own review. How-
such as self-esteem, interpersonal skills, ever, this literary focus has centred on
etc. These factors can be considered the need for a better understanding into
non-criminogenic needs as they may the link between lower IQ and offending
not necessarily directly relate to behaviour (in order to develop protective

11
(page number not for citation purpose)
J. Freeman

factors throughout childhood and ado- Chung, M.C., Cumella, S., Wensley, J., &
lescence), as well as the development of Easthope, Y. (1998). A description of a
forensic diversion service in one city in
evidenced-based interventions to reduce the United Kingdom. Medicine, Science
the risk of recidivism for this vulnerable and Law, 38, 242
250.
group in the future. The current review Crocker, A.G., & Hodgins, S. (1997). The
indicates that while individuals with criminality of non-institutionalized men-
tally retarded persons: Evidence from a
lower intellectual functioning are dispro-
birth cohort followed to age 30. Criminal
portionately represented in custodial set- Justice and Behavior, 24, 432
454.
tings, further research is needed into a Culberton, F.M., Ferel, C.H., & Gabby, S.
range of areas including: the reason for (1989). Pattern analysis of Weschler
this over-representation, the identifica- intelligence scale for children-revised
profiles of delinquent boys. Journal of
tion of key risk factors to prevent such Clinical Psychology, 45, 651
660.
over-representation, the effectiveness of Cunningham, M.D., Sorensen, J.R., Vigen,
rehabilitation and release programs that M.P., & Woods, S.O. (2010). Inmate
cater for lower IQ offenders, and the homicides: Killers, victims, motives, and
circumstances. Journal of Criminal Justice,
development of best practice approaches
38, 348
358.
for both the screening and custodial Demetral, D.G. (1994). Diagrammatic assess-
placement of this vulnerable group. ment of ecological integration of sex
offenders with mental retardation in
community residential facilities. Mental
Retardation, 32, 141
145.
REFERENCES Diaz, A., Belena, A., & Baguena, M.R. (1995).
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The Psy- The role of gender in juvenile
chology of Criminal Conduct (Vol. 3). delinquency: Personality and intelligence.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Personality and Individual Differences,
Billinghurst, J., & Hackler, J. (1982). 16(2), 309
314.
The mentally retarded in prison: Justice Fazel, S., Xenitidis, K., & Powell, J. (2008).
The prevalence of intellectual disabilities
denied? Canadian Journal of Criminology,
among 120000 prisoners
A systematic
24, 341
343.
review. International Journal of Law and
Birmingham, L., Mason, D., & Grubin, D.
Psychiatry, 31, 369
373.
(1996). Prevalence of mental disorder in
Fehrenbach, P.A., Smith, W., Monastersky, C.,
remand prisoners: consecutive case study.
& Deisher, R. (1986). Adolescent Sexual
BMJ, 313, 1521
1524. Offenders: offender and offence
Blackburn, R. (1999). The psychology of criminal characteristics. American Journal of
conduct: Theory research and practice (4th Orthopsychiatry, 56(2), 225
233.
ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons. Feldman, P. (1993). The Psychology of Crime.
Borzycki, M., & Baldry, E. (2003). Promoting New York: Cambridge University Press.
integration: The provision of prisoner Flynn, J.R. (1985). Wechsler Intelligence Tests:
post-release services. Trends and Issues in do we really have a criterion of mental
Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 263. retardation? American Journal of Mental
Canberra: Australian Institute of Crim- Deficiency, 90(3), 236
244.
inology. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996).
Cantor, J.M., Blanchard, R., Robichaud, L.K., A meta-analysis of the predictors of
& Christensen, B.K. (2005). Quantitative adult offender recidivism: What works.
reanalysis of aggregated data on IQ in Criminology, 34(4), 575
607.
sexual offenders. Psychological Bulletin, Ghubash, R., & El-Rufaie, O. (1997). Psychia-
131, 555
568. tric morbidity among sentenced male

12
(page number not for citation purpose)
 Literary review of a vulnerable group

prisoners in Dubai: Transcultural per- Herrero, O., Escorial, S., & Colom, R. (2010).
spectives. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, Basic executive processes in incarcerated
8, 440
446. offenders. Personality and Individual
Gottfredson, S.D., & Gottfreson, D.M. (1988). Differences, 48, 133
137.
Violence prediction methods: Statistical Herrnstein, R.J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell
and clinical strategies. Violence and Vic- curve. New York: Free Press.
tims, 3, 303
323. Hischi, T., & Hindelang, M.J. (1977).
Griffiths, D., & Martini, Z. (2000). Interacting Intelligence and delinquency: A revisio-
with the legal system regarding a sexual nist review. American Sociological Review,
offence: Social and cognitive considera- 42, 571
587.
tions for persons with developmental Ho, T. (1996). Assessment of retardation
disabilities. Journal of Developmental among mentally retarded criminal offen-
Disability, 7(1), 76
121. ders: An examination of racial disparity.
Guay, J.P., Ouimet, M., & Proulx, J. (2005). On Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(4),
intelligence and crime: A comparison of 337
350.
incarcerated sex offenders and serious Holland, T., Clare, I.C.H., & Mukhopadhyay, T.
non-sexual violent criminals. International (2002). Prevalence of ‘‘criminal offend-
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28, ing’’ by men and women with intellectual
405
417. disability and the characteristics of ‘‘offen-
Haaven, J., Little, R., & Petre-Miller, D. ders’’: Implications for research and ser-
(1990). Treating intellectually disabled vice delivery. Journal of Intellectual
sex offenders: A model residential program. Disability Research, 46, 6
20.
Vermont: Safer Society Press. Hummel, P., Thomke, V., Oldenburger, H., &
Hanson, K.R., Scott, H., & Steffy, R.A. (1995). Specht, F. (2000). Male adolescent sex
A comparison of child molesters and offenders against children: Similarities
nonsexual criminals: Risk predictors and and differences between those offenders
long-term recidivism. Journal of Research with and those without a history of
in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 325
337. sexual abuse. Journal of Adolescence, 23,
Hanson, R.K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). 305
317.
The characteristics of persistent sexual Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. (2004). Empathy
offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism and offending: A systematic review and
studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Be-
Psychology, 73, 1154
1163. haviour, 9, 441
476.
Hayes, S. (2004). Identifying intellectual disability Jones, G.P., & Coombes, K. (1990). The
in offender populations
And what then? prevalence of intellectual deficit among the
Workshop presented at a Seminar Orga- Western Australian prisoner population.
nised by the Prison Research Project, Perth: Western Australia Department of
Liverpool, United Kingdom. Retrieved Corrective Services.
from http://www.qcjc.com.au/research/ Klimscki, M.R., Jenkinson, J., & Wilson, L.
download/3/researchintellectual-disability- (1994). A study of recidivism among
1/identifying-intellectual-disability-in-off offenders with an intellectual disability.
ender-populations.pdf Australia and New Zealand Journal of
Hayes, S., & McIIwain, D. (1988). The pre- Developmental Disabilities, 44, 360
361.
valence of intellectual disability in the Kroner, D.G., & Forth, A.E. (1995). The
NSW prison population: An empirical study. Toronto alexithymia scale with incarcer-
Canberra: Report to the Criminology ated offenders. Personality and Individual
Research Council. Differences, 19(5), 625
634.
Hermann, D., Singer, H., & Roberts, M. Langevin, R., & Curnoe, S. (2008). Are men-
(1988). Sentencing of the mentally re- tally retarded and learning disordered
tarded criminal defendant. Arkansas Law overrepresented among sex offenders
Review, 41, 765
808. and paraphilics? International Journal of

13
(page number not for citation purpose)
J. Freeman

Offender Therapy and Comparative Crim- Mason, J., & Murphy, G. (2002). Intellectual
inology, 52(4), 401
415. disability amongst people on probation:
Levine, S.Z. (2008). Using intelligence to Prevalence and outcome. Journal of In-
predict subsequent contacts with the tellectual Disability Research, 46, 230
238.
criminal justice system for sex offences. Marques, J.K., Day, D.M., Nelson, C., & West,
Personality and Individual Differences, 44, M.A. (1994). Effects of cognitive-
453
463. behavioral treatment on sex offender
Lipsey, M.W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency recidivism: Preliminary results of a long-
treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into itudinal study. Criminal Justice and
the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook, H. Behavior, 21, 28
54.
Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Jartmann, L.V. Marshall, W.L., Marshall, L.E., Serran, G.A., &
Hedges, R.J. Light, . . ., & F. Mosteller Fernandez, Y.M. (2006). Treating sexual
(Eds.), Meta-Analysis for explanation: offenders: An integrated approach. New
A casebook (pp. 83
127). New York, York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
NY: Russel Sage FoundationA. Group.
Lueger, R.J., & Cadman, W. (1982). Variables Martell, D. (1991). Homeless mentally
associated with recidivism and program- disordered offenders and violent crimes:
termination of delinquent adolescents. Preliminary research findings. Law and
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, Human Behavior, 15, 333
347.
861
863. Mickenberg, I. (1981). Competency to stand
Lund, C.A. (1992). Long-term treatment of trial and the mentally retarded defendant:
sexual behavior problems in adolescent The need for a multi-disciplinary solution
and adult developmentally disabled per- to a multi-disciplinary problem. Califor-
sons. Annals of Sex Research, 5, 5
31. nia Western Law Review, 17, 365
402.
Lynam, D.R., Moffitt, T.E., & Stouthamer- Moffitt, T.E. (1990). The neuropsychology of
Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining the rela- juvenile delinquency: A critical review. In
tion between IQ and delinquency: Class, M. Tonry, & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and
race, test motivation, school failure, or Justice (Vol. 12, pp. 99
169). Chicago:
self control? Journal of Abnormal Psychol- University of Chicago Press.
ogy, 102, 187
196. Moffitt, T.E., Gabrielli, W.F., & Mednick, S.A.
McAfee, J., & Gural, M. (1988). Individuals (1981). Socioeconomic status, IQ, and
with mental retardation and the criminal delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
justice system: The review from states’ ogy, 90, 152
156.
attorneys general. Mental Retardation, 26, Moffitt, T.E., & Silva, P.A. (1988). IQ and
5
12. delinquency: A direct test of the differ-
McDonald, W. (1985). Plea bargaining: Critical ential detection hypothesis. Journal of
issues and common practices. Washington, Abnormal Psychology, 97, 330
333.
DC: National Institute of Justice. Morgan, A.B., & Lilenfeld, S.O. (2000). A
McGarvey, B., Gabrielli, W.F., Bentler, P.M., & meta-analytic review of the relation be-
Mednick, S.A. (1981). Rearing social tween antisocial behavior and neuro-
class, education, and criminality: A psychological measures of executive func-
multiple indicator model. Journal of tion. Clinical Psychology Review, 20,
Abnormal Psychology, 90, 354
364. 113
136.
McGuire, J. (2002). Integrating findings from Moriaty, N., Stough, C., Tidmarsh, P., Eger,
research reviews. In J. McGuire (Ed.), D., & Dennison, S. (2001). Deficits in
Offender rehabilitation and treatment: emotional intelligence underlying adoles-
Effective programmes and policies to reduce cent sex offending. Journal of Adolescence,
re-offending (pp. 3
38). Chichester, UK: 24, 743
751.
Wiley. Mullin, S., & Simpson, J. (2007). Does execu-
Marshall, W., Anderson, D., & Fernandez, Y. tive functioning predict involvement in
(1999). Cognitive behaviour treatment of offenders’ behaviour following enhanced
sexual offenders. Chichester: Wiley. thinking skills training? An exploratory

14
(page number not for citation purpose)
 Literary review of a vulnerable group

study with implications for rehabilitation. Swanson, C.K., & Garwick, G.B. (1990).
Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, Treatment for low-functioning sex
117
131. offenders: Group therapy and intera-
Murphy, M., Harrold, M., Carey, S., & gency coordination. Mental Retardation,
Mulrooney, M. (2000). A survey of the 28, 155
161.
level of learning disability among the prison Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., & McClelland,
population in Ireland. Dublin: Irish De- G.M. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric
partment of Justice, Equality and Law disorders among incarcerated women:
Reform. Pre-trial jail detainees. Archives of General
Noble, J., & Conley, R. (1992). Toward an Psychiatry, 53, 505
512.
epidemiology of relevant attributes. In R. Welte, J., & Wieczorek, W. (1999). Alcohol,
Conley, R. Luckasson, & G. Bouthilet intelligence and violent behaviour in
(Eds.), The criminal justice system and
young males. Journal of Substance Abuse,
mental retardation: Defendants and victims.
10(3), 309
319.
Baltimore: Brookes.
Wertlieb, E.C. (1991). Individuals with disabil-
Petersilia, J. (1997). Unequal justice? Offenders
ities in the criminal justice system: A
with mental health retardation in prison.
review of the literature. Criminal Justice
Corrections Management Quarterly, 1,
36
44. and Behavior, 18, 332
350.
Raine, A., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Loeber, R., Wilson, J.Q., & Herrnstein, R.J. (1985). Crime
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Lynam, D. and human nature. New York: Simon and
(2005). Neurocognitive impairments in Schuster.
boys on the life-course persistent antiso- Wilson, C., Nettlebeck, T., Potter, R., & Perry,
cial path. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, C. (1996). Intellectual disability and
114, 38
49. criminal victimisation. Trends and Issues in
Sheitman, B.B., Murray, M.B., Snyder, J.A., Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 60.
Silva, S., Goldman, R., Chakos, M., & Canberra: Australian Institute of Crim-
. . . Lieberman, J.A. (2000). Schizophrenia inology.
Research, 46, 203
207.
Smallbone, S., & McHugh, M. (2010).
Outcomes of Queensland corrective services
sexual offender treatment programs. Queens-
land: School of Criminology and
Criminal Justice, Griffith University.

15
(page number not for citation purpose)