269Chapter 10 CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY .docx

269
Chapter 10
CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Correctional psychology is the application of psychological
theory and
research to the correctional system (Clements et al., 2007;
Magaletta,
Patry, Dietz, & Ax, 2007). We begin this chapter with
overviews of the
structure of the correctional system and the history of
correctional psy-
chology in the United States. Next, we discuss in greater detail
two of the
most important topics in correctional psychology: offender
assessment and
management. The selection, training, and support of
correctional staff are
covered in Chapter 9 .
In this chapter, you will become familiar with:
The structure of the correctional system in the United States
T he practice of correctional psychology and how it has
changed
over time
The importance of risk assessment and risk management in
correc-
tional psychology
The major approaches to risk assessment and risk management,

as
well as some specifi c examples of risk assessment instruments
and
correctional treatment programs
•
•
•
•
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
Suppose you are a judge trying to determine the proper sentence
for the fol-
lowing case: white male, divorced, about 36 years old. Will
plead no contest to
drug-related offenses after being found intoxicated in violation
of the conditions
of probation. History of polysubstance abuse, including cocaine
and heroin,
since the age of about 8 years old. A penchant for self-
destructive behavior—in
the offender’s own words, “It’s like I have a loaded gun in my
mouth and my
CASE STUDY
c10.indd 269c10.indd 269 11/3/09 5:47:48 PM11/3/09
5:47:48 PM
C
o
p
y

r
i
g
h
t
2
0
1
0
.
W
i
l
e
y
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v

e
d
.
M
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
i
n
a
n
y
f
o
r

m
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
s

h
e
r
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
a
i
r
u
s
e
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
n
d
e

r
U
.
S
.
o
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
l
a
w
.

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed
on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER UNIVERSITY
AN: 309009 ; Roesch, Ronald, Hart, Stephen D., Zapf, Patricia
A..; Forensic Psychology and Law
Account: strayer.main.eds-live
270 Correctional Psychology
fi nger’s on the trigger, and I like the taste of the gunmetal.”1
Substance abuse has
caused serious family and employment problems, including
divorce and inability
to get steady work. Numerous arrests for drug-related offenses
including driving,
carrying a handgun, and housebreaking while intoxicated.
Multiple incarcerations,
with sentences ranging up to three years. Repeated failure on
community super-
vision, including probation and parole violations, some
stemming from refusal to
provide or failure of court-ordered drug tests. Repeated attempts
at substance use
treatment, including community-based programs and more than
a year spent in a
correctional treatment facility, invariably followed by relapse.
As a judge, what kind of a sentence are you leaning toward?
You could sentence
the offender to lengthy probation and yet more treatment in an
attempt to rehabili-
tate him and help him become a productive member of society,
although this has
been tried repeatedly and over many years without apparent
success. Alternatively,

you could sentence the offender to a lengthy prison term in an
attempt to deter him
(“scare him straight”); at least this would protect the general
public from his reck-
less and irresponsible behavior.
This was the situation faced by a California judge in 2001,
hearing charges
against the actor, Robert Downey, Jr. The judge, infl uenced in
part by state law
regarding sentencing of nonviolent drug offenders and
recognizing Downey’s long
struggle to get control over his addictions, came down in favor
of rehabilitation.
Mug Shot of Robert Downey Jr., as Photographed by the
California Department of Correction
in April 2001
Retrieved May 1, 2008 from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/413283.stm.
Source: The Smoking Gun Date: April, 2001 Author:
Uncredited.
The story of Robert Downey, Jr., reminds us that many
offenders in the
criminal justice system have serious problems and the
corrections system
provides an opportunity to make positive changes. The
challenge is to iden-
tify which offenders are in need of help, what kind of help they
need, and
whether this help can be delivered in a way that also protects
public safety.
1From “Addicted Downey Jnr jailed.” BBC News, 8/6/1999.

c10.indd 270c10.indd 270 11/3/09 5:47:49 PM11/3/09
5:47:49 PM
EBSCOhost - printed on 6/7/2020 3:11 PM via STRAYER
UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-
of-use
Correctional Psychology in the United States 271
So far, Robert Downey, Jr., has made the best of the opportunity
given him
by the sentencing judge. Downey achieved full sobriety in 2003
and has
maintained it since then with the assistance of 12 - step
programs, medita-
tion, and yoga. He established a positive relationship with his
son. He met a
woman and established a stable intimate relationship, marrying
her in 2005.
His career blossomed: Although he always received critical
acclaim for his
acting, he has been working more steadily and on important
productions.
For example, he received a Golden Globe award and an
Academy Award
nomination for his supporting role in the 2008 fi lm, Tropic
Thunder .
CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES
Part of the larger criminal justice system, the corrections
system is
responsible for supervising people who have been arrested for,
charged

with, or convicted of criminal offenses. When most laypeople
think of the
corrections system, they think about prisons. But depriving
people of their
liberty by institutionalizing them is considered a major
infringement of
civil rights, and it is permitted only in limited circumstances.
Only a small
percentage of people in the criminal justice system, perhaps
20% or so, are
institutionalized; the rest are supervised in the community.
Several types of institutions are used in the criminal justice
system. Jails
are most often used for pretrial detention (i.e., to hold people
who have
been arrested until they must go to court) and to house people
convicted of
relatively short sentences (typically, up to 6 or 12 months).
Most jails are
closed, maximum security facilities — movement in or out of
the facility is
very restricted, and the perimeter is demarked with high walls
or fences
and razor wire. The population of jail detainees includes people
whose
lives are in a state of major disruption or confusion: some are
acutely dis-
tressed about being separated from their loved ones or losing
their jobs due
to arrest; others are intoxicated or in withdrawal, or suffering
symptoms of
mental disorder; yet others are fearful of the possibility that
they may be
sentenced to many years in prison. But because the typical stay
in jail is

quite short in duration — a few weeks or a few months, on
average — the
opportunities to offer programs or services are limited.
Prisons and penitentiaries are used to house people who
receive cus-
todial sentences. The length of the sentences may range from
weeks or
months to many years, or even life, refl ecting the diversity of
offenders
and crimes for which they have been convicted. To deal with
this diver-
sity, there are typically several types of prisons in a jurisdiction
’ s correc-
tional system. Some institutions are very low security, perhaps
including
open or unsecured institutions such as work camps. These low -
security
c10.indd 271c10.indd 271 11/3/09 5:47:49 PM11/3/09
5:47:49 PM
of-use
institutions permit the semblance of a normal life for offenders
and facili-
tate rehabilitation and readjustment to the community. Medium
- and high -
security institutions, in contrast, focus on keeping offenders
separated

from the community, but also may offer a variety of treatment
and reha-
bilitation programs.
Most offenders — perhaps 80% or more — are supervised in
the commu-
nity. There are three major forms of community supervision:
bail, proba-
tion, and parole. Bail is also known as pretrial release . It is
used for people
who have been arrested for or charged with criminal offenses
and released
into the community to await trial, and for people who have been
convicted
but are awaiting sentencing. The term of bail is often open -
ended, and may
last for many months. People may be granted bail based solely
on their
promise to attend court as directed, or they may be asked to
guarantee
attendance at court by putting up a bond or surety. In either
case, people
may have conditions placed on them that will (temporarily)
restrict their
rights and freedoms. The most common conditions include such
things as
reporting to a police, bail, or probation offi cer on a regular
basis; not leav-
ing the jurisdiction without permission; and not having contact
with people
who are alleged victims or witnesses to the offenses for which
the person
has been arrested. Violation of the conditions of bail is a
criminal offense
that may result in immediate pretrial detention and new charges.

Probation (and the related concept of conditional sentence )
is a
punishment following conviction for a criminal offense,
typically con-
sidered more serious than community service or fi nes but less
serious
than imprisonment. People also may be sentenced to probation,
either
instead of a term of imprisonment or following (consecutive to)
a term
of imprisonment. The term of probation generally is fi xed,
lasting from
six months to several years. Probation may include conditions
similar to
those used for people on bail, but often the conditions are more
strict and
may include such things as not using alcohol or other
intoxicating sub-
stances or not associating with people who are known criminal
offenders.
Violation of the conditions of probation is a criminal offense
that may
result in imprisonment (i.e., serving the rest of the term of
probation in
custody) or new charges.
Parole is a conditional release from imprisonment intended to
facili-
tate an offender ’ s return and readjustment to the community. It
is typically
granted when the offender has served a substantial portion of a
term of
imprisonment with good behavior and is released from custody
early as
a reward. The term of parole varies greatly, from weeks to many
years,

depending on the length of the original sentence given to the
offender.
Parole is very similar to probation in terms of the conditions
imposed on
people. Suspected violation of the conditions of parole may
result in a
c10.indd 272c10.indd 272 11/3/09 5:47:50 PM11/3/09
5:47:50 PM
of-use
Correctional Psychology in the United States 273
temporary return to custody, and if proved they may result in
the offender
serving the rest of the original sentence in custody.
The History of Correctional Psychology
Although health care and social service professionals have
worked in the
correctional system for more than a hundred years, the birth of
correc-
tional psychology probably can be dated to around World War II
(Bartol &
Freeman, 2005; Brodsky, 2007; Daly, 2000; Megargee, 2003).
Raymond
Corsini (1945), working as a correctional psychologist at that
time, esti-
mated that there were about 200,000 adults imprisoned in the
United States

(which then had a population of about 149 million) and about
100 psy-
chologists delivering services to them. Many of these
psychologists came
together in 1953 to found the organization now known as the
American
Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
(AACFP).
According to the organization ’ s fi rst offi cial publication, the
Journal of
Correctional Psychology , it had 92 members in 1956.
The decade of the 1970s was a time of special growth in
correctional
psychology (Bartol & Freeman, 2005; Brodsky, 2007).
Membership in
what is now the AACFP expanded to over 300 people. Its offi
cial jour-
nal was revamped and renamed Criminal Justice and Behavior .
The
organization developed the Standards for Psychology Services
in Adult
Jails and Prisons , which were published in the journal
(Levinson, 1980).
A new generation of “ practitioner - scholars ” — correctional
psychologists
who delivered services in prison but also conducted research —
emerged
from within its ranks.
The AACFP now has more than 400 members. But it is not the
only
professional organization that serves correctional psychologists.
Many
correctional psychologists belong to organizations such as the
American

Psychological Association ’ s Division 18 (Psychologists in
Public Service)
and Division 41 (the American Psychology - Law Society), in
addition to or
instead of the AACFP. Criminal Justice and Behavior is
regarded interna-
tionally as one of the most important and prestigious journals in
the fi eld
of forensic psychology.
Several factors may be responsible for the growth of
correctional psy-
chology (Bartol & Freeman, 2005; Brodsky, 2007). One is a
tremendous
increase in the prison population in the United States. Recall
the statistics
Corsini cited in his 1945 article, summarized above, and then
compare them
to contemporary statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Right now,
more than 2.25 million people are in penitentiaries, prisons, or
jails, and
another 5 million are on probation or parole on any given day.
Put another
way, almost 1% of the entire population of the United States is
incarcerated
c10.indd 273c10.indd 273 11/3/09 5:47:50 PM11/3/09
5:47:50 PM
of-use

in a correctional facility and almost 2% is under community
supervision.
And these numbers have grown steadily, at the rate of about 2%
and 3% per
year, over the past decade.
Another factor is that the correctional system has paid more
attention
to offender rehabilitation over the past 50 years. There has
always been
a tension in the philosophy underlying the correctional system
between
the ethics of control versus care . The ethic of control serves
the goals of
protection of public safety, retribution, and individual and
general deter-
rence. It emphasizes the need to ensure that offenders are
detained or
supervised in a safe and just manner. In contrast, the ethic of
care serves
rehabilitative goals. It emphasizes the need to provide offenders
with the
services needed to help them become law - abiding and
productive mem-
bers of society. Correctional psychology has tried to balance
these ethics
by developing effective offender assessment and treatment
services. The
services offered usually address common and most important
risk factors
for crime, such as impulsivity, antisocial attitudes, educational
and voca-
tional problems, substance abuse, anger, disturbed family
relationships,

and mental disorder. The primary goal of these programs, and
the primary
outcome used to evaluate their effectiveness, is reduction in
recidivism
rates. If a program results in fewer offenders committing new
crimes,
this benefi ts everyone; it is thus consistent with both control
and care.
Implementing good correctional treatment programs is costly,
but even a
small reduction in recidivism rates may result in huge economic
(not to
mention humanitarian!) benefi ts.
OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
The process of identifying risk and protective factors for crime
is referred
to as offender risk assessment . Similarly, the process of
preventing
crime by infl uencing risk and protective factors is sometimes
referred to
as offender risk management . Offender risk assessment and
management
are integral to contemporary criminal justice responses to crime.
A risk is a hazard that is incompletely understood; its
occurrence can be
forecast only with uncertainty. The hazard we are concerned
with in this
chapter is crime, and crime clearly is a complex phenomenon.
Criminal
acts can vary greatly with respect to such things as nature,
motivation,
severity of consequences, and so forth. Accordingly, risk is
multifaceted

and cannot be conceptualized or quantifi ed simply, for
example, in terms
of the probability that someone will engage in crime. Instead,
one must
also consider the nature, seriousness, frequency or duration, and
immi-
nence of any future criminal conduct. Also, risk is inherently
dynamic and
c10.indd 274c10.indd 274 11/3/09 5:47:50 PM11/3/09
5:47:50 PM
of-use
contextual. For example, the risk posed by offenders depends on
where
they reside, what kinds of services they receive, their
motivation to estab-
lish a prosocial adjustment, whether they experience adverse
life events,
and so forth.
In essence, then, risk is not a characteristic of the physical
world that
can be evaluated objectively, but a subjective perception —
something
that exists not in fact, but in the eye of the beholder. These
perceptions
regarding the nature and degree or quantum of risk in a given
case, as
well as the selection of risk management strategies and tactics,
are based

in turn on judgments regarding the collective infl uence of
myriad indi-
vidual things or elements, referred to as risk factors. But what
exactly
is a risk factor? It is relatively easy to demonstrate using a wide
range of
research designs that a thing is, on average, correlated with
crime. But
things that are correlated with crime may be causes, features,
concomi-
tants, or even consequences of crime. A risk factor is a correlate
that also
precedes the occurrence of the hazard and, therefore, may play a
causal
role. Demonstrating that something is a risk factor requires
longitudinal
research or well - substantiated theory. Risk factors may be
further subdi-
vided into three types.
1. Fixed risk markers do not change status over time.
2. Variable risk markers change status over time, but these
changes do
not infl uence the outcome.
3. Causal risk factors change status over time, and these
changes infl u-
ence the outcome.
Differentiating among these three types of risk factors also
requires lon-
gitudinal designs, and ideally experimental or
quasiexperimental longitu-
dinal designs.

Considerable attention has been devoted to the identifi cation
of important
risk factors for crime. One family of theories that has proven
quite useful for
this purpose may be referred to as decision theories . They
posit that crime is
a voluntary, purposeful human behavior; or, put differently, that
people engage
in crime because they made a decision to do so. The decision is,
in essence,
a cost – benefi t analysis in which the offender perceived a
situation in which
engaging in crime was one potential course of action; evaluated
the poten-
tial benefi ts of crime and viewed it as a means of successfully
achieving one
or more desired goals; evaluated the potential costs of crime
and found them
acceptable; and then implemented plans to engage in crime.
According to
these theories, risk factors are things that infl uence offenders ’
decisions about
crime — how and why they make decisions to engage in crime.
One decision
theory that is popular in correctional psychology is sometimes
referred to as
Offender Risk Assessment and Management 275
c10.indd 275c10.indd 275 11/3/09 5:47:51 PM11/3/09
5:47:51 PM
of-use

the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC) or the General
Personality and
Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) perspective (Andrews &
Bonta, 2006).
It focuses most heavily on offender ’ s personality, attitudes,
and experiences.
Assessment is the process of gathering information for use in
deci-
sion making. The specifi c assessment procedures used are
determined
by what is being assessed and the nature of the decisions to be
made.
In the case of offender risk assessment, we must assess what
offenders
have done in the past, how they are functioning currently, and
what they
might do in the future. The decisions to be made are strategic in
nature,
including what should be done to cope with or manage the risks
posed by
an offender.
In sum, offender risk assessment can be defi ned as the process
of evalu-
ating offenders to: (1) characterize the risk that they will
commit crime
in the future; and (2) develop interventions to manage or reduce
that risk
(Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Hart, 2001). The task is
to understand
how and why an offender chose to commit crime in the past, and

then
to determine what could be done to discourage the person from
choosing to
commit crime again in the future. The specifi c procedures used
to gather
relevant information typically include: interviews with and
observations of
the person being evaluated; direct psychological or medical
testing of the
person; careful review of available documentary records; and
interviews
with collateral informants such as family members, friends,
employers,
and service providers.
The ultimate goal of offender risk assessment is crime
prevention, or
the minimization of the likelihood of and negative consequences
stem-
ming from any future violence. But offender assessment should
achieve a
number of goals in addition to the protection of public safety
(Hart, 2001).
A “ good ” offender risk assessment procedure should also
yield reliable (i.e.,
consistent or replicable) results. That is, correctional
psychologists should
reach similar fi ndings when evaluating the same offender at
about the same
time. It is highly unlikely that unreliable decisions can be of
any practical
use. Furthermore, a good offender risk assessment procedure
should be pre-
scriptive; it should identify, evaluate, and prioritize the mental
health, social
service, and criminal justice interventions that could be used to

manage an
offender ’ s risk. Finally, a good offender risk assessment
procedure should
be open or transparent. Put another way, correctional
professionals are
accountable for the decisions they make, and it is therefore
important for
them to make explicit, as much as is possible, the basis for their
opinions.
A transparent offender assessment procedure allows offenders
and the
public a chance to scrutinize professional opinions. The
transparency
should protect correctional professionals when an offender
commits crime
despite the fact that a good risk assessment was conducted, as it
can be
c10.indd 276c10.indd 276 11/3/09 5:47:51 PM11/3/09
5:47:51 PM
of-use
demonstrated easily that standard or proper procedures were
followed.
Transparency should also protect offenders and the public by
making it
obvious when an improper offender risk assessment is
conducted.
It is impossible for any single offender risk assessment
procedure to

achieve all these goals with maximum effi ciency. Similarly, it
is impossible
for the various parties interested in offender risk assessment
(correctional
psychologists, prison administrators, offenders, lawyers, judges,
victims,
parole board members, etc.) to reach a consensus regarding
which procedure
is best for all purposes and in all contexts. Instead, correctional
professionals
should choose the best procedure or set of procedures for a
particular assess-
ment of a particular offender.
Approaches to Offender Risk Assessment
Correctional psychologists use two basic approaches to reach
opinions
about offender risk: professional judgment and actuarial
decision mak-
ing. These terms refer to how information is weighted and
combined to
reach a fi nal decision, regardless of the information that is
considered
and how it was collected. The hallmark of professional
judgment pro-
cedures is that the evaluator exercises some degree of discretion
in the
decision - making process, although it is also generally the case
that eval-
uators have wide discretion concerning how assessment
information is
gathered and which information is considered. It comes as no
surprise
that unstructured clinical judgment is also described as “
informal, sub-

jective, [and] impressionistic. ” In contrast, the hallmark of the
actuarial
approach is that, based on the information available to them,
evaluators
make an ultimate decision according to fi xed and explicit rules.
It is also
generally the case that actuarial decisions are based on specifi c
assess-
ment data, selected because they have been demonstrated
empirically
to be associated with violence and coded in a predetermined
manner.
The actuarial approach also has been described as “ mechanical
” and
“ algorithmic. ”
Professional Judgment Procedures
The professional judgment approach comprises at least three
different pro-
cedures. The fi rst is unstructured professional judgment . This
is deci-
sion making in the complete absence of structure, a process that
could be
characterized as “ intuitive ” or “ experiential. ” Historically,
it is the most
commonly used procedure for assessing offender risk and,
therefore, is
very familiar to correctional psychologists as well as to courts
and tribunals.
It has the advantage of being highly adaptable and effi cient; it
is possible
Offender Risk Assessment and Management 277
c10.indd 277c10.indd 277 11/3/09 5:47:51 PM11/3/09

5:47:51 PM
of-use
to use intuition in any context, with minimal cost in terms of
time and
other resources. It is also person centered, focusing on the
unique aspects
of the case at hand, and thus can be of great assistance in
planning inter-
ventions to manage offender risk. The major problem is that
there is little
empirical evidence that intuitive decisions are consistent across
profession-
als or, indeed, that they are helpful in preventing crime. As
well, intuitive
decisions are unimpeachable; it is diffi cult even for the people
who make
them to explain how they were made. This means that the
credibility of the
decision often rests on charismatic authority — that is, the
credibility of the
person who made the decision. Finally, intuitive decisions tend
to be broad
or general in scope, so that they become dispositional
statements about the
offender ( “ Offender X is a very dangerous person ” ) rather
than a series
of speculative statements about what the offender might do in
the future

assuming various release conditions.
The second professional judgment procedure is sometimes
referred to
as anamnestic risk assessment . ( Anamnesis is a medical term
that refers
to the construction of a patient ’ s history through his or her
accounts or rec-
ollections.) This procedure imposes a limited degree of
structure on the
assessment as the evaluator must, at a minimum, identify the
personal and
situational factors that resulted in crime in the past. The
assumption here is
that a series of events and circumstances, a kind of behavioral
chain, led up
to the offender ’ s antisocial behavior. The professional ’ s task
therefore is to
understand the links in this chain and suggest ways in which the
chain could
be broken. However, there is no empirical evidence supporting
the consist-
ency or usefulness of anamnestic risk assessments. Anamnestic
risk assess-
ment also seems to assume that history will repeat itself — that
offenders are
static over time, so the only thing they are at risk to do in the
future is what
they have done in the past. Nothing could be farther from the
truth, of course;
there are many different “ criminal careers. ” Some offenders
will escalate in
terms of the frequency or severity of crime over time, some
change the types
of crime they commit, and some will de - escalate or even desist
altogether.

The third procedure is known as structured professional
judgment .
Here, decision making is assisted by guidelines that have been
developed
to refl ect the state of the discipline with respect to scientifi c
knowledge
and professional practice. Such guidelines — sometimes
referred to as clini-
cal guidelines , consensus guidelines , or clinical practice
parameters — are
quite common in medicine, although used less frequently in
psychiatric and
psychological assessment. The guidelines attempt to defi ne the
risk being
considered; discuss necessary qualifi cations for conducting an
assessment;
recommend what information should be considered as part of
the evalua-
tion and how it should be gathered; and identify a set of core
risk fac-
tors that, according to the scientifi c and professional literature,
should be
…
BILL OF SALE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that , Parties
of the First Part, for and in consideration of the sum of
lawful money of the United States, paid by , Parties of the
Second Part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have
granted, bargained, sold, transferred and delivered, and by these
presents do grant, bargain, sell, transfer and deliver unto the
said Parties of the Second Part, their heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns, all those certain goods located at

and described as follows:
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said personal property unto the
said Parties of the Second Part, their heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns forever.
AND we do, for ourselves and our heirs, successors and assigns,
covenant to and with the said Parties of the Second Part, their
heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, that we are the
lawful owners of the said goods and chattels, that they are free
from all encumbrances, that we have good right to sell the same
aforesaid, and that we will warrant and defend the sale of said
personal property hereby made, unto the said Parties of the
Second Part, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns
against the lawful claims and demands of all persons
whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties of the First Part have
hereunto set their hand this day of , .
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of:
__________________________ _______________________
Witness #1
__________________________
________________________
Witness #2
STATE OF

COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , by ].
Witness my hand and official seal of County of ,
State of this day of , 20 .
_________________________
Notary Public, State of
My commission expires:
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
Commitment No. File No.
Effective Date
1. Policy or Policies to be issued Amount of Policy
OWNER’S:
Proposed Insured:
MORTGAGEE:
Proposed Insured:
The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this
commitment and covered herein is a fee simple and title thereto
is at the effective date hereof vested in:

The land is described as follows:
By: ___________________________
Agent’s signature
SCHEDULE B-I
Commitment No.
File No.
I. The following are the requirements to be complied with:
1. Payment of the full consideration to, or for the account of,
the grantors or mortgagors.
2. Instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured
which must be approved, executed, delivered and duly filed for
record:

SCHEDULE B-II
Commitment No.
File No.
II. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will
contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are
disposed of to the satisfaction of the company:

Prepared by and return to:
[Insert attorney’s name,
firm’s name, and
firm’s address]
WARRANTY DEED
THIS INDENTURE, Made this day of , 20 ,
between , of the County of , State of ,
hereinafter referred to as grantor, and , of the County of
, State of ,herein after referred to as grantee.
WITNESSETH that said grantor, for and in consideration of the
sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable
considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the
receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted,
bargained, and sold to said grantee, and grantee’s heirs and
assigns forever, the following described land, lying and being in
; to-wit:
and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land,
and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all

persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, grantor has hereunto set his/her hand
and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence:
_______________________ _____________________
_______________________
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I HEREBY certify that on this day before me, an officer duly
qualified to take acknowledgments, personally appeared ,
to me known to be the person described in and who executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged before me that he/she
executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State
last aforesaid this day of , 20 .
____________________________
Notary Public, State of
My commission expires:
Instructions for Deed, Bill of Sale and
Closing Affidavit
June 4, 2020

Dear Class
The use the following facts in completing the Warranty Deed,
Bill of sale for the personal
property and the Seller’s Affidavit and the Title Commitment I
sent to you.
Assume the following facts: John Smith a single man and is
selling his condominium to Josefina
Perez, a married woman for the price of $125,000.00 and a
loan amount of $112,500.00.
There are no restrictions on the deed, except for taxes due prior
to December 31, 2019.
Included in the sale is a range, refrigerator and dining room
table as the personal property on
The Bill of Sale.
Seller’s social security number is 255-98-3456
The effective date of the title insurance is September 30,2019
and the attorney you work for (or
your name) is the Title Agent and their title insurance company
is Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company
Property address 7701 SW 88 Street, Unit B121, Miami, FL
33143-7594 .
Look up legal description at following web site

http://www.miamidade.gov/pa/property_search.asp
I have included the address and look for a link under sales
Information and click the hyper link
and open the deed and then use the legal description from the
deed.
Please prepare the Deed Bill of Sale and Commitment. Use for
the commitment requirements
that you think would apply and the Execptions of the
Declaration of condominium
We will review in class.
Leo Spitale
http://www.miamidade.gov/pa/property_search.asp

269Chapter 10 CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 269Chapter 10 CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY .docx

Similar to 269Chapter 10 CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY .docx (10)

More from domenicacullison

More from domenicacullison (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

269Chapter 10 CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY .docx