ABSTRACT

The focus of this paper is on psychotherapeutic practice in the German prison system from a supervisor's perspective. It was Murray Cox (1996) who made the essential statement at the beginning of his paper on supervision in forensic psychotherapy in the most elaborated volume on forensic psychotherapy from Cordess and Cox (1996) that:

His argument is that the difficult and even perilous work of forensic psychotherapists and institutions needs professional supervision to enable secure treatment for offenders' psychopathology. Following this point super­ vision has to be a part of the treatment setting - it is necessary that supervision is guaranteed

Supervision in forensic treatment settings and in the prison services has a plurivalent character. First of all supervision should be helpful for the therapeutic endeavour of patients and therapists. Here the function of super­ vision is to help understand the meaning of transference and countertransfer­ ence in the therapeutic relationship and to process embarrassing, seducing, humiliating, hurting or sadistic material which is presented by the offender and may shock or frighten the therapist. Especially in the prison setting the supervisor is often asked about aspects of prognostic assessment. Therapists have a legitimate interest in refining their treatment interventions or further decision-making about the prisoner by discussing them in supervision and having them supported by the professional authority of the supervisor. This part of supervision in prisons is often close to the meaning of supervision as control, ensuring that therapy is done the right way in order to be protected from the charge of deficient work if any critical incident happens. So, super­ vision in forensic settings seems to be more broadly based than it may be in other therapeutic settings and this also mirrors the differences between forensic psychotherapy and general psychotherapy.