Understanding and Preventing Ideologically Justified Violence in Custodial Settings: The MICO Paradigm

• Author: Christopher Dean
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00328855231154598
• Published date: 01 March 2023
• Date: 01 March 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Understanding and

Preventing Ideologically

Justif‌ied Violence in

Custodial Settings:

The MICO Paradigm

Christopher Dean

1

Abstract

Internationally, secure institutions face a range of challenges presented by

detainees convicted or suspected of terrorism-related crimes and those

interested or involved in groups that support ideologically justify violence

(IJV). Currently, there is an apparent absence of a theoretically grounded

but operationally focused paradigm (or conceptual lens) for understanding

and preventing IJV within such settings. In response, this article presents

such a paradigm, to inform and direct the implementation of coherent orga-

nizational policies and practices to address this issue. The paradigm, its the-

oretical basis, its implications for correctional policy and practice, and

limitations are outlined and discussed.

Keywords

extremism, terrorism, prisons, policy

Introduction

The challenges presented by ideologically justif‌ied violence (IJV) in secure

settings internationally are widely publicized and increasingly better

1

Identity Psychological Services Ltd, Warrington, UK

Corresponding Author:

Christopher Dean, Identity Psychological Services Ltd, Warrington Business Centre, c/o

Townley & Co. Ltd, 67 Bewsey St., Warrington, Cheshire, WA 27JQ, UK.

Email: christopherdean@identifypsychologicalservices.com

Article

The Prison Journal

2023, Vol. 103(2) 194–214

© 2023 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00328855231154598

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

understood (see Basra & Neumann, 2020; Neumann, 2010; Silke, 2014).

These include the challenges presented by the crime-terror nexus; the rising

number of individuals remanded or convicted for terrorist-related crimes;

and the risk of detainees becoming “radicalized”to IJV and carrying out

attacks either inside places of detention or in the community (see Basra &

Neumann, 2020). Measures to prevent this have been implemented through

a range of organizational policies and practices, such as the use of specialized

assessment protocols (see Lloyd & Dean, 2015; Pressman & Flockton, 2012),

tailored interventions (see Dean, 2014; Koehler, 2017), targeted security

operations and intelligence gathering (Newman & Clarke, 2008), and tailored

regimes (see Butler, 2020; Jones & Morales, 2012). These vary signif‌icantly

in the extent to which they are theoretically or evidentially informed, their

aims and outcomes are understood, or they are coordinated within institutions.

While many secure institutions recognize that preventing IJV is important,

this is often not informed by a shared and evidence-based understanding.

Some consequences of this are that policies and practices are implemented

without clear aims or appreciation for their likely outcomes or how these

may integrate and work together, so that staff are less able to judge

whether these are effective or counterproductive. Perhaps most importantly,

this lack of shared understanding may also obscure how perverse outcomes

may be remedied. To address these issues, this article outlines an accessible,

theoretically informed paradigm (or conceptual lens) to help staff understand

why detainees become involved in IJV to inform decision making about how

this can be effectively and appropriately prevented.

Theoretical and Applied Basis of the Paradigm

The term IJV is used to more accurately characterize and def‌ine the nature of

this behavior than other terms referred to in the literature, such as violent

extremism (see Khalil et al., 2019a, 2019b). IJV is primarily distinguished

from other forms of violence by being inf‌luenced by the sociopolitical

context in which it occurs (Cooper, 1985; LaFree & Dugan, 2004).

However, it is not so different that it cannot be conceptualized or managed

in similar ways (Dean, 2016; Mullen, 2010). Commonalities between IJV

and other forms of violence have been identif‌ied by major criminological the-

ories (Lafree & Freilich, 2016) and conf‌irmed by recent meta-analyzes

(Wolfowicz et al., 2020, 2021). Over several decades, correctional policies

and practices internationally—especially those relating to assessment and

rehabilitation—have been informed by the General Personality and Social

Cognitive Learning model of criminal conduct (as translated through the

Risk Need Responsivity Model) and decision or action theories (Andrews

Dean 195