Prison Break Season 1 Index

[Julia Dodoo]

IrishmanConnor, a prison-break expert, sets up the plan for springing Clay. It involves the Sons taking out the follow car and swarming the prison transport. All nearly goes off without a hitch, until one of the guards shoots Bobby during the getaway. Rather than let the guard continue shooting, Juice opts to run him down. The Sons do get out of there, but Bobby is seriously hurt with a bullet in his chest.

Like many Jesus movies, particularly those that harmonize the four gospels, The Chosen takes bits and pieces from the New Testament and rearranges them to tell its own story. It is also full of references to the past and future, as characters quote the Old Testament while doing things that foreshadow the later parts of the New Testament. (Two episodes even have scenes set during the time of Acts!)

First, here are the passages that are actually adapted within the series. This includes events, such as healings and exorcisms, that are dramatized onscreen, as well as lines of dialogue, such as teachings and parables, that are spoken by Jesus and the other characters, even if that dialogue has been moved to a new setting within the series; for some of the more significant passages, I am also providing brief descriptions:

Second, these are the passages that characters refer to within the series. Sometimes they quote the scriptures in songs and prayer, and sometimes they refer to events that we know about from earlier scriptures (or from earlier chapters in the gospels):

Finally, here is a list of all the passages I alluded to in my recaps, sometimes because the series harks back to them, sometimes because the series stands in contrast to some of them, and sometimes because they fit whatever tangent the series had me going on:

Bold means the passage is dramatized within the episode.

Italics means the passage is specifically mentioned within the episode.

Every other passage is simply mentioned in my recaps.

I have just subscribed, hoping that this would 'open' your commentary on the rest of the Season 3's episodes. Unfortunately I was disappointed to find that only the first episode is available. When can we expect the commentary on the next episodes, please? I need them quite urgently for the Bible classes I'm teaching.

In my analysis of the first two seasons of The Chosen, I have pointed out all the scripture references that I could detect, noting which passages the episodes dramatized and which passages were referenced and foreshadowed. I have also cited many other scriptures along the way, pointing out how the episodes lined up, or didn\u2019t, with parts of the Bible that have not been referenced so far in the series.

If you\u2019re curious to see whether any given scripture is dramatized in this series or cited in my commentary, then this is the index for you. It has three main sections: the passages that are directly adapted in the series, the passages that are quoted or alluded to in the series, and the passages that I referenced in my commentary.

Bold means the passage is dramatized within the episode.

Italics means the passage is specifically mentioned within the episode.

Every other passage is simply mentioned in my recaps.

Developed in the 1980s and first formalized in 1990, the risk-need-responsivity model has been used with increasing success to assess and rehabilitate criminals in Canada and around the world. As suggested by its name, it is based on three principles: 1) the risk principle asserts that criminal behaviour can be reliably predicted and that treatment should focus on the higher risk offenders; 2) the need principle highlights the importance of criminogenic needs in the design and delivery of treatment; and 3) the responsivity principle describes how the treatment should be provided.

Since 1990, a number of principles have been added to the core theoretical principles to enhance and strengthen the design and implementation of effective interventions. These additional principles describe, for example, the importance of staff establishing collaborative and respectful working relationships with clients and correctional agencies and managers providing policies and leadership that facilitate and enable effective interventions (Andrews, 2001; Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews & Dowden, in press). Although we should not lose sight of the full set of principles (we will say a bit more about them at the end of the paper) our focus here will be with the core principles of risk, need and responsivity.

There are two parts to the responsivity principle: general and specific responsivity. General responsivity calls for the use of cognitive social learning methods to influence behaviour. Cognitive social learning strategies are the most effective regardless of the type of offender (i.e., female offender, Aboriginal offender, psychopath, sex offender). Core correctional practices such as prosocial modeling, the appropriate use of reinforcement and disapproval, and problem solving (Dowden & Andrews, 2004) spell out the specific skills represented in a cognitive social learning approach.

Specific responsivity is a "fine tuning" of the cognitive behavioural intervention. It takes into account strengths, learning style, personality, motivation, and bio-social (e.g., gender, race) characteristics of the individual.

This paper summarizes how the RNR model has influenced development of offender risk assessment instruments and offender rehabilitation programs. In so doing, we provide a summary of the evidence that demonstrates how the criminal behaviour of offenders can be predicted in a reliable, practical and useful manner. We also provide evidence of how rehabilitation programs can produce significant reductions in recidivism when these programs are in adherence with the RNR model.

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, the assessment of offender risk was left in the hands of correctional staff (i.e., probation officers and prison staff) and clinical professionals (i.e., psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers). Guided by their own professional training and experience, staff would make judgements as to who required enhanced security and supervision. The assessment of risk was a matter of professional judgement.

Some notable examples of the actuarial risk assessment scales that were developed during this period are the Salient Factor Score developed in the United States (Hoffman & Beck, 1974) and the Statistical Information on Recidivism scale developed for the Correctional Service of Canada (Nuffield, 1982). These risk assessment instruments are still used today and new ones continue to be developed (Copas & Marshall, 1998).

Before long it became clear that these actuarial risk assessment instruments were better at predicting criminal behaviour than professional judgement. Research reviews repeatedly showed that actuarial instruments performed better than clinical or professional judgement when making predictions of human behaviour (gisdttier, White, Spengler et al., 2006; Andrews, Bonta & Wormith, 2006; Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz Nelson, 2000). The superiority of actuarial prediction has been extended to such diverse offender groups as mentally disordered offenders (Bonta, Law & Hanson, 1998) and sex offenders (Hanson & Bussire, 1998). As a consequence of the predictive superiority of actuarial risk assessments, more and more correctional jurisdictions adopted this type of assessment for classifying offenders and assigning differential supervision practices. The period between 1970 and 1980 saw a movement from what Bonta (1996) called first generation assessment (i.e., professional judgements of risk) to second generation assessment (i.e., actuarial assessment of risk).

The second characteristic of second generation instruments is that the non-criminal history items that sample behaviour also tend to be of a historical nature (e.g., history of drug abuse). Criminal history and other factors that sample past behaviour are treated as static, immutable risk factors. This poses a major shortcoming for second generation risk assessment because the scales do not account for offenders changing for the better. Rather, the possibilities are: a) an individual's risk level does not change (if one scored positive for a history of drug abuse that risk factor will always remain no matter if he/she has learned to abstain from drugs, or b) an individual's risk increases (e.g., new offences are committed and criminal history scores increase). There is no possibility for diminished risk (to be fair, some of the second generation instruments do have items that can account for some diminished risk, however the number of items represent a minority of items in these risk scales).

3a8082e126