Individual risk factors
Considering the lack of instruments and measures specifically designed to assess radicalisation in prisons, the assessment of inmates using adapted instruments that cover the identified risk factors can be an interesting option for prison staff. Therefore, the present section identifies measures that have been adapted to assess the radicalisation risk of inmates.
Initially, it is important to mention that, according to Horgan (2008), some predisposing individual risk factors associated with involvement in terrorism do exist, namely:
i) emotional vulnerability;
ii) identification with the victims;
iii) violence as an acceptable mean to achieve political/religious goals;
iv) sense of reward about joining a terrorist organisation; and
v) family or kinship relations with terrorists.
In addition, Monahan (2012) shows the existence of ten putative risk factors for terrorism, such as i) age (on average, violent terrorists range from 20 to 29 years old, approximately); ii) great preponderance of males (which is particularly relevant in the prison context, since the majority of the prison population is male); iii) unmarried or married with other terrorist’s family members; iv) mainly well-educated middle-class individuals employed in lower status positions; v) without major mental illness, although this is a non-consensual topic; vi) many with criminal record linked to petty criminality, especially drug-dealing, theft, robberies, the sale of counterfeit goods, loan fraud, and burglaries; vii) non-suicidal; viii) non-particularly prone to substance abuse; ix) mainly without psychopathic personality; and x) personality factors that are common to terrorists (not yet consensually known).
Also, based on ethnographic research (van San, 2015), some vulnerabilities of Western converts to Islamic State were identified, namely:
i) age (under thirty);
ii) socio-economic background (lower or middle class);
iii) education (low or medium level of education);
iv) problematic childhood and adolescence (especially girls);
v) and alcohol and drugs consumption.
There are several individual and situational/contextual risk factors that should be taken into consideration as dimensions for an assessment.
Initially, it is important to mention that, according to Horgan (2008), some predisposing individual risk factors associated with involvement in terrorism do exist, namely:
i) emotional vulnerability;
ii) identification with the victims;
iii) violence as an acceptable mean to achieve political/religious goals;
iv) sense of reward about joining a terrorist organisation; and
v) family or kinship relations with terrorists.
In addition, Monahan (2012) shows the existence of ten putative risk factors for terrorism, such as i) age (on average, violent terrorists range from 20 to 29 years old, approximately); ii) great preponderance of males (which is particularly relevant in the prison context, since the majority of the prison population is male); iii) unmarried or married with other terrorist’s family members; iv) mainly well-educated middle-class individuals employed in lower status positions; v) without major mental illness, although this is a non-consensual topic; vi) many with criminal record linked to petty criminality, especially drug-dealing, theft, robberies, the sale of counterfeit goods, loan fraud, and burglaries; vii) non-suicidal; viii) non-particularly prone to substance abuse; ix) mainly without psychopathic personality; and x) personality factors that are common to terrorists (not yet consensually known).
Also, based on ethnographic research (van San, 2015), some vulnerabilities of Western converts to Islamic State were identified, namely:
i) age (under thirty);
ii) socio-economic background (lower or middle class);
iii) education (low or medium level of education);
iv) problematic childhood and adolescence (especially girls);
v) and alcohol and drugs consumption.
There are several individual and situational/contextual risk factors that should be taken into consideration as dimensions for an assessment.
Note: Technical/scientific documents may be provided upon request. Given the sensitivity of the materials, potential harm provided from misuse, ethical and security issues, some materials may only be available to professionals from correctional services that participate in the proposed certification training.
|
Regarding the individual risk factors to join a radicalised group, the ones identified are:
ACTIVISM AND RADICALISM: One important indicator of the risk of an individual to join a radicalised group may be its level of activism and radicalism. These two different but related components have been measured considering the work of Moskalenko and McCauley (2009), already applied in Spain (Trujillo & Moyano, 2016). Activism and radicalism can be distinguished because the first encompasses a legal and non-violent political action, whereas the second represents an illegal and violent action.
PERSONAL SACRIFICE: The level of sacrifice that an individual is willing to suffer in order to support a cause can be an important indicator or radicalisation. Therefore, the Self-sacrifice scale (Bélanger et al., 2014) can be and important measure to assess the radicalisation level of a person/inmate. Moreover, we can state that the willingness to sacrifice the own life is at the end of the radicalisation process, where the individual has already been indoctrinated and is fully committed to the group or with a cause.
SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION: The belief that a group (or country, or race, among others) is superior to another is a way to legitimate violent and radical action. The social dominance orientation captures the desire that an individual has for dominance based on group characteristics and inequality. Therefore, the Social Dominance Orientation scale (Pratto et al., 2006) can represent an interesting measure to evaluate the in-group superiority factor.
IDENTITY FUSION AND IDENTIFICATION: It represents two related but different constructs. Identity fusion occurs when someone is so embedded in the group that is willing to sacrifice himself for the group. In a different way, identification is related to an alignment with the group’s goals and action. The assessment of both constructs can be done with the scale developed by Gómez and colleagues (2011). The problem related with extreme identification/identity fusion is well pointed out by Loza (2007, p. 150), who stated that “terrorists tend to submerge their own identities into the group, resulting in a kind of ‘group mind’, ‘group identity’, and ‘group moral code’ that requires unquestioned obedience to the group”. In fact, the said unquestioned obedience can led vulnerable people who join terrorist groups to commit extreme acts of violence and that justifies the inclusion of identity fusion and identification as a risk factor.
PERSONAL EMOTIONAL UNCERTAINTY: Personal emotional uncertainty represents a (subjective) “sense of doubt or instability in self-views, world-views, or the interrelation between the two” (Doosje et al., 2013, p. 589) and can be an antecedent of a radical belief system. Therefore, it can be useful to use available measures to assess the emotional uncertainty (of inmates) like the scale used by Doosje and colleagues (2013) and developed by Greco and Roger (2001).
NEED TO BELONG: The need for belonging, in general (Borum, 2014), or the need to belong to an empowering religion/ideology (Sinai, 2014) represents a psychological vulnerability than can put individuals at risk of being radicalised. Moreover, the need to belong, which is “a need to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of interpersonal relationships” represents an innate and nearly universal characteristic (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 499) and thus should be present across different situations/life events, cultures, countries and religions. Therefore, it is essential to assess the need to belong, considering that the higher the need the higher the risk. Leary and colleagues (2013) measure represents a valid instrument that can be adapted to evaluate the need to belong.
SELF-ESTEEM: It can be described as “an individual’s global evaluation of his or her overall worth as a person” (Steiger, Allemand, Robins, & Fend, 2014, p. 325). As defended by Sinai (2014), individuals with a low self-esteem can be more vulnerable to radical messages. The same suggestion, that a low self-esteem represents an identifiable trait of terrorists, is made by other scholars (cf. Loza, 2007). This relationship can be related with the more studied one about self-esteem and violent behaviour and aggression (Feddes, Mann, & Doosje, 2015). The low self-esteem hypothesis is a plausible one, considering current research that found that a “curvilinear association between self-esteem and radicalisation; a moderate level of self-esteem is associated with resilience to violent radicalisation while too high levels of self-esteem (narcissism) can make individuals more susceptible to radicalisation” (Feddes et al., 2015, p. 407). Self-esteem, as a classic psychological variable, can be assessed with numerous instruments, of which we highlight Rosenberg's (1965) instrument that was adapted in the present proposal.
DISTANCE TO OTHER PEOPLE AND SOCIETAL DISCONNECTION: Distance to other people and societal disconnection were found to be determinants of a radical belief system. This is in line with other risks like the need to belong because the more distanced the person is the more he/she deviates from a basic human need. These variables, that represent the individuals’ deviation from the mainstream culture and shared norms, can be assessed with Doosje and colleagues (2013) items, that were adapted in the present proposal for cultural reasons and considering the targeted population.
In sum, the different vulnerabilities that the literature identifies throughout the years can be both correct since different individuals have different motivations to join radical movements, especially when coming from diverse backgrounds. Acknowledging these diverse vulnerabilities is also important because it reflects the complexity of the topic.
ACTIVISM AND RADICALISM: One important indicator of the risk of an individual to join a radicalised group may be its level of activism and radicalism. These two different but related components have been measured considering the work of Moskalenko and McCauley (2009), already applied in Spain (Trujillo & Moyano, 2016). Activism and radicalism can be distinguished because the first encompasses a legal and non-violent political action, whereas the second represents an illegal and violent action.
PERSONAL SACRIFICE: The level of sacrifice that an individual is willing to suffer in order to support a cause can be an important indicator or radicalisation. Therefore, the Self-sacrifice scale (Bélanger et al., 2014) can be and important measure to assess the radicalisation level of a person/inmate. Moreover, we can state that the willingness to sacrifice the own life is at the end of the radicalisation process, where the individual has already been indoctrinated and is fully committed to the group or with a cause.
SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION: The belief that a group (or country, or race, among others) is superior to another is a way to legitimate violent and radical action. The social dominance orientation captures the desire that an individual has for dominance based on group characteristics and inequality. Therefore, the Social Dominance Orientation scale (Pratto et al., 2006) can represent an interesting measure to evaluate the in-group superiority factor.
IDENTITY FUSION AND IDENTIFICATION: It represents two related but different constructs. Identity fusion occurs when someone is so embedded in the group that is willing to sacrifice himself for the group. In a different way, identification is related to an alignment with the group’s goals and action. The assessment of both constructs can be done with the scale developed by Gómez and colleagues (2011). The problem related with extreme identification/identity fusion is well pointed out by Loza (2007, p. 150), who stated that “terrorists tend to submerge their own identities into the group, resulting in a kind of ‘group mind’, ‘group identity’, and ‘group moral code’ that requires unquestioned obedience to the group”. In fact, the said unquestioned obedience can led vulnerable people who join terrorist groups to commit extreme acts of violence and that justifies the inclusion of identity fusion and identification as a risk factor.
PERSONAL EMOTIONAL UNCERTAINTY: Personal emotional uncertainty represents a (subjective) “sense of doubt or instability in self-views, world-views, or the interrelation between the two” (Doosje et al., 2013, p. 589) and can be an antecedent of a radical belief system. Therefore, it can be useful to use available measures to assess the emotional uncertainty (of inmates) like the scale used by Doosje and colleagues (2013) and developed by Greco and Roger (2001).
NEED TO BELONG: The need for belonging, in general (Borum, 2014), or the need to belong to an empowering religion/ideology (Sinai, 2014) represents a psychological vulnerability than can put individuals at risk of being radicalised. Moreover, the need to belong, which is “a need to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of interpersonal relationships” represents an innate and nearly universal characteristic (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 499) and thus should be present across different situations/life events, cultures, countries and religions. Therefore, it is essential to assess the need to belong, considering that the higher the need the higher the risk. Leary and colleagues (2013) measure represents a valid instrument that can be adapted to evaluate the need to belong.
SELF-ESTEEM: It can be described as “an individual’s global evaluation of his or her overall worth as a person” (Steiger, Allemand, Robins, & Fend, 2014, p. 325). As defended by Sinai (2014), individuals with a low self-esteem can be more vulnerable to radical messages. The same suggestion, that a low self-esteem represents an identifiable trait of terrorists, is made by other scholars (cf. Loza, 2007). This relationship can be related with the more studied one about self-esteem and violent behaviour and aggression (Feddes, Mann, & Doosje, 2015). The low self-esteem hypothesis is a plausible one, considering current research that found that a “curvilinear association between self-esteem and radicalisation; a moderate level of self-esteem is associated with resilience to violent radicalisation while too high levels of self-esteem (narcissism) can make individuals more susceptible to radicalisation” (Feddes et al., 2015, p. 407). Self-esteem, as a classic psychological variable, can be assessed with numerous instruments, of which we highlight Rosenberg's (1965) instrument that was adapted in the present proposal.
DISTANCE TO OTHER PEOPLE AND SOCIETAL DISCONNECTION: Distance to other people and societal disconnection were found to be determinants of a radical belief system. This is in line with other risks like the need to belong because the more distanced the person is the more he/she deviates from a basic human need. These variables, that represent the individuals’ deviation from the mainstream culture and shared norms, can be assessed with Doosje and colleagues (2013) items, that were adapted in the present proposal for cultural reasons and considering the targeted population.
In sum, the different vulnerabilities that the literature identifies throughout the years can be both correct since different individuals have different motivations to join radical movements, especially when coming from diverse backgrounds. Acknowledging these diverse vulnerabilities is also important because it reflects the complexity of the topic.
Situational and contextual factors
Having such fact in consideration, some situational and contextual factors should also be considered when assessing one’s risk of committing violent, terrorist-related acts. According to a study on the determinants of a radical belief system that can have an impact on violent intentions, four factors associated with a radical belief system were identified, such as i) perceived illegitimacy of authorities; ii) perceived in-group superiority; iii) distance to other people; and iv) societal disconnection (Doosje, Loseman & van den Bos, 2013).
Having such factors in consideration, it is now clearly explained why is important to perform the analysis of the surrounding (i.e., prison) environment in which the potentially vulnerable inmate lives.
As so, considering the prison context, and even recognising that prisons are not the main incubator for radicalisation, it represents a potential breeding ground because of the following risks:
(1) recruitment of other prisoners;
(2) supporting extremist groups from prison;
(3) getting support from extremist groups outside prison;
(4) preparing for violent extremist/ideological inspired illegal acts after release;
(5) hostility to other groups of prisoners and/or staff;
(6) becoming more radicalised during the prison term.” (RAN P&P, 2016, p. 1).
Additionally, these situational and contextual risk factors, also known as environmental risk factors, if not effectively addressed can certainly enable/facilitate the progression of vulnerability dimensions in individuals within their radicalisation process, especially in prison. According to Sinai (2014), these factors are present in phase 2 of his model of radicalisation in prison:
i) the presence of extremist social networks, such as religious-based gangs, that provide both protection, physical and social support that vulnerable inmates are seeking;
ii) the presence of extremist ideologies;
iii) the presence of charismatic inmate leaders;
iv) the presence of extremist prison chaplains;
v) the presence of outreach programs by external extremist organisations that distribute extremist materials;
vi) the presence of terrorist kingpins; and
vii) the ‘virtual’ presence by terrorist organisations.
Having such factors in consideration, it is now clearly explained why is important to perform the analysis of the surrounding (i.e., prison) environment in which the potentially vulnerable inmate lives.
As so, considering the prison context, and even recognising that prisons are not the main incubator for radicalisation, it represents a potential breeding ground because of the following risks:
(1) recruitment of other prisoners;
(2) supporting extremist groups from prison;
(3) getting support from extremist groups outside prison;
(4) preparing for violent extremist/ideological inspired illegal acts after release;
(5) hostility to other groups of prisoners and/or staff;
(6) becoming more radicalised during the prison term.” (RAN P&P, 2016, p. 1).
Additionally, these situational and contextual risk factors, also known as environmental risk factors, if not effectively addressed can certainly enable/facilitate the progression of vulnerability dimensions in individuals within their radicalisation process, especially in prison. According to Sinai (2014), these factors are present in phase 2 of his model of radicalisation in prison:
i) the presence of extremist social networks, such as religious-based gangs, that provide both protection, physical and social support that vulnerable inmates are seeking;
ii) the presence of extremist ideologies;
iii) the presence of charismatic inmate leaders;
iv) the presence of extremist prison chaplains;
v) the presence of outreach programs by external extremist organisations that distribute extremist materials;
vi) the presence of terrorist kingpins; and
vii) the ‘virtual’ presence by terrorist organisations.
The R2PRIS project is co-financed by ERASMUS + programme ( KA2 - Strategic partnerships for adult education). ERASMUS + is the new EU programme for Education, Training, Youth, and Sports (2014-2020).
This website has been accomplished during the project “Radicalisation Prevention in Prisons” - 2015-1-PT01-KA204-013062 (R2PRIS), implemented with the financial support of the European Commission through the Erasmus + Programme. This publication reflects the views only of the author, The Portuguese National Agency ERASMUS+ Education and Training and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. © Developed by IPS_Innovative Prison Systems
|