Offenders Right to Refuse Treatment 233extensively in early experiments in aversive conditioning. The drugs were primarily
given by injection to induce vomiting during an undesirable behavior. This pro-
cedure is very unpleasant and traumatic to the offender. Territo also explains that
in later experiments electric shock replaced drugs as an aversive stimulus. Behav-
ior modification is a highly criticized program. It can make excessive claims about
results, use inmates as guinea pigs, and increase the use of behavior modification
programs that are actually thinly disguised initiatives for furthering institutional ob-
jectives at the expense of prisoners. As a result, proponents of behavior modification
are now using more sophisticated and humane treatment techniques with inmates.
Nevertheless, as a protection, numerous institutional authorities have dropped the
term "behavior modification" from the names of their treatment programs, know-
ing that the term carries negative connotations.
A program that applies learning theory with the aim of altering criminal be-
havior is the contingency management program. A contingency is something that
may or may not happen and management involves increasing the chances that it
will happen. Lillyquist (1985) found that with contingency management in a cor-
rectional setting, the aim is to increase the likelihood of occurrence of certain kinds
of desired behaviors by reinforcing the behaviors when they occur. For example.
participation in educational or vocational training programs, conforming behavior,
and prosperous interviewing for jobs are some of the behaviors that have been dealt
with in contingency management programs. Territo (1989) suggests that tangible
reinforcements such as candy, soft drinks, cigarettes, and snacks can be increased
with access to desired activities such as watching television, making phone calls,
exercising, and receiving extra visits from family members.Forensic Psychology and Policy ImplicationsWhen an inmate's right to refuse treatment is legally quashed to the point that the
prisoner becomes involuntarily medicated, as in the Washington v. Harper (1990)
case, cruel and unusual punishment occurs. However, if an inmate is involuntarily
medicated and a problem occurs with the medication, then the prisoner would have
favorable grounds to initiate a lawsuit against the correctional facility. Therefore,
public policy makers must create stringent and safe testing requirements before an
inmate is medicated. As mentioned earlier, the Kiiecht i>. Gillman (1973) case is
one example of involuntary treatment leading to cruel and unusual punishment.
The psychological problems associated with experimental treatments cause adverse
effects on the correctional system. Correctional facilities need to increase their
treatment programs to care for inmates that are psychologically damaged from pre-
vious experimental and involuntary interventions. Raising the number of treatment
programs means an increase in a prison budget. Therefore, public policy makers
would be required to develop an appropriate budget plan to accommodate this
dilemma in correctional facilities. Today, there are still problems occurring with