Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Forensics :mag:, Recidivism:, Noradrenaline: Flight or fight and helps…
Forensics :mag:
Offender Profiling:
What is crime?
Organised v disorganised killer
Top-Down Approach:
What will top-down profilers look at?
Evaluation:
Bottom up approach:
Assumptions made in Investigative Psychology...
Evaluation:
Geographical profiling:
Evaluation:
Dealing with offending behaviour:
The aims of custodial sentencing (DRRC)
Psychological effects of custodial sentencing (FLODDA)
Research:
Evaluation:
Token Economy:
Research:
Evaluation:
Anger Management:
Three stage process (Novaco, 2011)
Research:
Evaluation:
Restorative Justice:
What is it?
Aims:
Research:
Evaluation:
Biological Explanations of offending behaviour:
Atavistic Form:
Research:
Evaluation:
Genetics and Offending behaviour
Twin Studies:
Family Studies:
Adoption Studies:
Evaluation:
Neural explanation:
Biochemistry:
Brain Physiology:
Research:
Evaluation
Psychological Explanations for offending behaviour:
Eysenck's theory:
The Bio basis for personality:
Research
Evaluation:
Cognitive explanations:
level of moral reasoning Kohlberg (1969)
The Levels...
Research:
Evaluation:
Cognitive Distortions
Hostile Attribution Bias:
Research:
Eval:
Minimalisation:
Research:
Eval:
Differential Association Theory - Sutherland (1939)
Research:
Evaluation:
Psychodynamic Explanation:
Three ways super-ego could explain criminal bhvr
Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis:
Defence Mechanisms:
Evaluation:
Recidivism:
The aim of prison is to punish and rehabilitate offenders in the hope that they will not re-offend.
Re-offending is known as recidivism.
Prison has a poor record for reducing reoffending –
57% of offenders
will reoffend within a year of release (2013).
Over two-thirds (67%) of under 18 year olds are reconvicted within a year of release offending by all recent ex-prisoners in 2007-08 cost the economy between £9.5 and £13 billion.
:red_cross: In order to reduce recidivism (i.e. re-offending) punishment needs to fit the individual as well as the crime and more research is needed into reducing the negative psychological effects of imprisonment. The aim should be for offenders to leave prison fully reformed and ready to take on the role of a productive and law-abiding citizen.
:red_cross: Alternatives to imprisonment – Given that we know prison doesn’t work we need alternatives. Some alternatives include probation and restorative justice. However, the government is reluctant to invest in prisoners, due to economic restraints and public opinion. But, this is a short-sighted approach, in order to cut crime and recidivism rates investment is needed (Economic implication).
:book:
Cartier et al (2006)
Researched link between drug abuse and recidivism rates. They found a clear relationship between substance abuse and reoffending rates, although this was not linked to violent offences
Suggests that a mental health issue e.g. addiction if not treated w/in the prison system can lead to reoffending
Noradrenaline:
Flight or fight and helps respond to threat, linked to violence and aggression
Serotonin:
Regulates mood and impulse control. Low levels implicated in criminal behaviour as there will be more impulsivity = impaired capacity to hold back
Dopamine:
Link to addiction and therefore substance abuse = crime more likely. Dopaminergic activity in the limbic system means the pleasure is experienced
Krakowski (2003)
Argued through research that while serotonin was implicated in lack of impulse control and violence, to make a causal link = difficult
Proposed it also depends on individual differences and the social context of the behaviour
E.g. if an event occurs in a crowd It could prompt a diff reaction from the individual that if he/she was alone
Higley et al (1996)
Found levels of testosterone = positively correlated w/ aggressiveness but not impulsivity, but levels of serotonin = negatively correlated with impulsive behaviour and extreme aggression but not general aggression
This work was done on male non-human primates and suggests how biochem levels may underpin offender behaviour
A behaviour that breaks the law whilst the person is responsible for their actions
Actus rea
= the act itself
Mens rea
= the intention
Measured using: victim surveys e.g. the British Crime Survey, Offender surveys e.g. self report studies, Official statistics e.g. police figures
Provide objective data but have gone through subjective pathways e.g. not reported, investigated, no evidence, charges dropped...
Initiated by FBI in the 1970s, based on intuition, experience and crime scene analysis to suggest if organised/disorganised offender
:bookmark:
McCrary and Grant (1988)
Shawcross murders = concuted a profile and suggested try and find body before cut up, when one was found they didn't remove conducted a surveillance operation and caught Shawcross = accurate profile drawn up only aspect wrong was age but mental age was younger so technically correct
Shows accuracy level that can occur when typological (top-down) used but is a case study so cannot be used to prove profiling method correct universally
1. Murder type
Asks whether killing is an isolated incident e.g. serial killers chooses their victims based on characteristics and has an MO, spree killers will kill people in one time period in several locations
2. Primary Intent
Deliberate, pre-mediated, murder consequence of another crime?
3. Victim risk
Depends on vulnerability e.g. children, old people and prostitutes (where illegal) = low risk targets
4. Offender risk
How much risk taken in committing the crime e.g. killing in broad daylight
5. Escalation
Extent or potential for the crime to escalate from previous offences
6. Time Factors
The day of the crime gives info into daily routine of killer
7. Location Factors
Inform profiler about environment, transportation or even where they live
Organised:
- Victim targeted, aggressive, control convo, weapon absent, body hidden, crime scene orderly, high intelligence, socially and sexually competent
Disorganised:
- Victim selected at random, unplanned, avoid convo, weapon present, sexual activity after death, body left in view, average intelligence, socially immature, sexually incompetence
:check:
Research
:red_cross:
Top down profiling is reductionist
as the classification system (organised/disorganised) is too simple. Offenders are not simply either disorganised or organised. It may be that there are both organised and disorganised features to all their crimes. An offender may start off being disorganised and become more organised as they develop their modus operandi.
:red_cross:
There is a lack of theoretical foundation
to this approach making it appear as an inexact science thereby reduces its credibility as it lacks the background research to say why it works. Reliance on intuition is problematic as personal emotion and memories can sway intuition
:red_cross:
Restricted applicability
unlike the geographical approach which looks at pattern of crime rather than crime type making it more versatile. This approach can only be used in crimes of murder and rape
Scientific investigation, geographical profiling based on stats and patterns from previous and similar crimes
Investigative Psychology
is a more modern approach focuses on facts, stats and is more objective
:bookmark:
Canter (1982)
'Duffy the railway rapist'
= rape which escalated to murder, created a profile which included personal characteristics and geographical information based on where crimes were committed and managed to find the rapist/murderer
Canter's profile was very accurate + geographical info was particularly invaluable
Case study =. limited value in providing evidence that this method works universally
Interpersonal coherence
This means that there is an assumption that behaviour is consistent across situations e.g. aggressive person commits aggressive crime
Time and Place
Similar to top-down
Criminal characteristics
Placing characteristics into categories is useful exercise to help the police
Criminal career
How far into their criminal experience offenders are and how the crime may progress
Forensic awareness
Highlights that offenders who show an awareness of forensic investigation will probs have committed a crime before and been through criminal justice system
:check: The investigative psychology approach is based on heavily on research and statistical likelihood. This means that it is seen to be more scientific that top-down approach. The use of statistics and theory has removed intuition of the profiler from the process, which is argued to make it more reliable
:red_cross: The technique requires statistical info from previous crimes which is not always easy to gather. The problems of measuring crime show how imperfect the information might be in terms of courage and so this means the evidence base on which this method functions is incomplete and/or inaccurate
:red_cross: Profiles can be useful, but police must be careful not to be blinded to other possibilities by them. Occasionally criminals do not fit the profile. Over use could lead to miscarriages of justice. E.g. Paul Britton’s misleading profile in the hunt for the killer of Rachel Nickell.
Focuses on...
Locatedness
location can say a lot about an offender
Systematic crime location choice
The principle says that locations are not random, familiarity to the offender is important with this choice and means the locations can add to the profile accuracy
Centrality
This principle states that there are two types of offenders,
commuters and marauders
, commuters travel to commit the crime while marauders commit crimes close to home
Comparative case analysis
This is the principle that other crimes should be considered as being committed by the same offender
:check: Geographical profiling helps locate offenders of many diff crimes. It can be used to locate the likely home of burglars given that they can concentrate their crimes in a familiar place, often not too far from where they live. This means the method can be widely applied across many diff types of crimes
Atavistic Form:
Offenders may represent a more primitive evolutionary stage of development than their contemporaries. This may be shown in a range of facial and physical features
'Atavistic'
means referring back to ancestry. Lombroso used Darwin's theory of evolution to suggest criminals are reverting back to earlier ape like species and possess certain physical characteristics
Argued that criminals were not to blame for their activities as their behaviour was determined by their physiology
This had implications for the criminal justice system as the assumption by the legal system, was that they chose to act the way they did, whereas, Lombroso suggested the opposite
:book:
Goring (1913)
Compared 2,348 London convicts w/ a control group
Goring failed to replicate Lombroso's finding and concluded that criminal behaviour isn't linked to physical appearance
:book:
Hooton (1939)
Compared 13,873 male prisoners w/ a control group of 3,023 men to investigate physical diff
Argued criminal behaviour was due to bio inferiority and 'degeneration'
Also argued that a variety of unattractive physical characteristics could be ascribed to criminals
:check: Lombroso's theory should be considered in its historical context to see how
influential
it has been. Prior to Lombroso's work criminality was often seen from a religious perspective and was attributed to bad spirits and devil influence. Lombroso's theory, although lacking the scientific rigour of today, was at least an attempt to bring explanations of criminality into the scientific realm
:red_cross: Lombroso has been accused of
scientific racism
; some of the characteristics he identified are more prevalent in certain racial groups. However, this is still an issue today Eberhardt found that stereotypically ‘black’ looking men were much more likely to get the death penalty in the USA than those who were less stereotypically black looking, even if they had committed very similar offences
:red_cross: Lombroso's
methodology criticised
because he merely measured the features of criminals and had no control group, therefore no comparison with non-criminal controls so it is difficult to draw conclusions and state that a feature is distinguishing. This was rectified by Goring and Hooton's work to some extent
The concordance rate of twins for criminal behaviour given an indication of the extent offending behaviour may be inheritable
Adrian Raine (1993)
Found 52% concordance rates between identical twins
Cloningeret et al (1978)
70%
Christiansen (1977)
35%
Farrington 1996
Monitored 411 males from around 400 fams
Conviction rates compared w/ convictions of their bio fathers, mothers and close relatives
64% of fams had at least one convicted person
6% of fams accounted for 50% of all convictions (con)
Con of older siblings = strongly related to cons of males
=
conclusion
offending = strongly conc in fams and is demonstrated from one gen to the next
Hyun Rhee and Waldman (2002)
Meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies conducted to estimate extent of environmental and possibly genetic influences on antisocial behaviour
Strength of fam influences decrease in parent-offspring adoption studies than in both twin studies and sibling adoption studies
=
overall
shared environmental influences seemed to equate to 16% and non-shared environmental influences = 43%
Shorter versions of gene MAOA:
A gene linked to X chromosome, men most vulnerable as only have one X chromosome.
MAOA removes the neurotransmitters serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline, this leads to lower levels of these neurotransmitters, which can then lead to behavioral problems.
Reduced levels of dopamine and noradrenaline cause problems with inappropriate violent and sexual behavior. Impaired metabolism of serotonin is also likely to be responsible for mental retardation and this could be linked to aggressive behavior.
Double Y chromosome:
In males could explain violent behaviour (this is currently not accepted as a feasible explanation)
:check:
Bio explanations provide strong support for the nature side of the nature nurture debate.
research into families and twins, suggests that there is some genetic basis for behaviour, which has implications for our understanding of offending behaviour. However, supporters of the nurture argument argue that to ignore the influence of external factors such as parenting, culture and social learning, misses crucial elements of explaining offending behaviour and it can therefore be considered reductionist. This is important to consider as while the evidence to support a biological basis for offending behaviour is strong, there are other elements to consider which reduce the effectiveness of the biological findings.
:red_cross: Results from research seem to indicate that there are effects on offending behaviour influenced by fam. Although these results merely illustrate that offending behaviour runs in families and this does not automatically mean it is due to
genetic transmission
= These studies cannot show how the results occurred, it could equally be social learning or other environmental influences
One way around this is to use adoption studies, which enable psychologists to rule out the effects of the environment since the adoptees are being raised in a different environment from the biological parent concerned. This helps us to see if there is any genetic link, in spite of the shared environment.
:red_cross:
The stress of adoption
could account for offending behaviour in adopted children and it is, therefore, difficult to say whether there is genetic transmission or not. Stress prior to birth can affect the development of the foetus so even if the child is adopted very early, environmental issues pre-birth cannot be controlled for
Limbic system:
Central part of brain and regarded as primitive area where emotions are modulated = may lack remorse and are more self-serving if problems
Brain development:
Centred around individuals w/ anti-social personality disorder. Research by
Adrian Raine (2000)
has suggested that the frontal lobe volume of ppl with anti-social personality disorder is less than those without
This reduced activity is argued to be why people with anti-social personality disorder do not feel guilt or appear to have a conscience
:book:
Kent et al (2001)
Used fMRI scanning to ascertain any abnormalities in psychopathic brain activity during an emotion-based task. When compared, criminal psychopaths showed much less activity in limbic system
=psychopaths used their frontal lobe to a greater degree, suggesting an element of planning and control
:book:
Raine et al (1997)
Investigates diff btwn brain activity of murderes and non-murderers. Sample taken from 41 violent murderes claiming to be not guilty by reason of insanity = found some diff in brain activity in areas linked to aggression e.g. prefrontal cortex and areas of limbic system
Must know people = Lombroso, Canter, Raine, Kohlberg, Freud and Bowlby!!!
Brain physiology
:check:
Research Evidence
:check:
Treatement
If medical reason then treatment
:red_cross:
Issue with cause and effect
It is argued that a key link between abnormal processing and crime may not be appropriate. The functioning could be due to a brain trauma. Not everyone who receives a head injury commits crime, even when the damage is comparable to the changed physiology in research. Cause and effect is therefore not clear as it does not affect people with brain physiology issues in the same way
:red_cross:
Research sample sizes are small
the target pop of psychopaths and criminals is hard to access and using scanning is time consuming and expensive. This has an effect on the extent to which results can be generalised
:red_cross:
Biological explanations are determinist
, suggesting that criminals do not have free will over their behaviour. This has implications for criminal responsibility, as a genetic factor could be used as a defence in cases of crime. This raises ethical questions as to how far responsibility should be given to offenders, and therefore if/how they should be punished. The biological explanation could be argued to be overly deterministic in its explanation.
Neurochemical
:check:
Research Evidence
:check:
Treatment:
If medical reason then treatment
:check:: It can be argued that the biochem explanations are more relevant to everyday behaviour and that they may lead to offending behaviour in some circumstances. They may also underpin a mental illness and it is that which increases the likelihood of crimes being committed in some circumstances rather than the level of the chemical = suggests the relationship is indirect
:red_cross: Much of the research into NTs has been conducted on animals =
issues of validity.
Observing increased aggression in mice w/ higher levels of a NT does not automatically extrapolate to humans committing a violent crime
:red_cross:
Reductionist
and therefore can be seen to simplify criminal behaviour. It is likely that the issue is far more complex than the level of a biochem in an individuals brain
Known as trait theory
Some aspects of personality are biologically determined
Certain personality lend themselves to certain behaviours
Development of conscience = significant = over/under developed
Most likely personality type to commit crime = neurotic/extrovert
Worked at UCL under supervision of Cyril Burt
Criminal personality = neurotic-extraverted type
Introvert v extrovert
Reticular activating system
This system is a collection of neurons at the base of the brain = controls amount of input to the brain
The more stimulation occurring in the brain, the less is needed from outside
Extroverts have less internal activity therefore seek activity from outside to reach optimum functioning
Neurotic v stable
May be down to a highly functioning fight/flight system
Psychotic
Too much testosterone
:book:
Heaven (1996)
Longitudinal study monitoring 282 14-year-olds over 2 yrs. Findings showed psychoticism = best predictor of later delinquency
:book:
Furnham (1984)
210 UK non-delinquents tested for personality, anomie (lvl of moral guidance) and social skills
Best predictor of self-reported delinquency = psychoticism then neuroticism then anomie, then extroversion and social skills
:book:
Farrington (1992)
However, official offenders = high in neuroticism and low in extraversion
When a self-report method used for criminal activity, those who report criminal behaviour are actually low in neuroticism and high in extraversion
:check: Evidence to support this theory comes from
Eysenck’s
study of 2,070 male prisoners and 2,422 male controls. The prisoners scored higher on extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism than the non-criminal controls.However,
Farrington
reviewed several studies and only found evidence of prisoners scoring higher on measures of psychoticism.
:red_cross: Research findings don't clearly support Eysenck's theory. Most studies suggest high psychoticism and neuroticism score and mixed extraversion = may be due to kind of crime measured = certain personalities drawn to certain crimes e.g.
extraverts = more likely to be drawn to crimes that raise adrenaline
levels and if not part of the measure, criminal tendencies will be missed
:red_cross:
Eysenck's sample size criticised
= didn't cover on adequate range of people and therefore specific personality types will have emerged as dominant
:red_cross: Argument that personality is inherited and therefore an individual is born with a predisposition to crime has
far-reaching implications.
Legal system is based on the idea that a person is in charge of their own actions and if their personality is fixed at birth this does not fit = calls into q whether someone is actually culpable of a crime they commit
"The ability to make moral decisions is dependent on the maturity of the person"
Interviewed boys and men about scenarios they had been involved in and also reasons behind moral decisions they might make
:one:
Pre-morality:
Stage one: Punishment and obedience orientation
Doing what is right due to fear of punishment
Stage two: Hedonistic orientation
Doing what is right for personal gain (e.g. reward)
:two:
Conventional Morality
Stage three: Interpersonal concordance orientation
Doing what's right according to the majority to be a good boy/girl
Stage four: law and order orientation
Doing what's right as it is your duty and helps society
:three:
Post-conventional morality
Stage five: Social contract or legalistic orientation
Doing what's right even if its against the law as law is too restrictive
Stage six: Universal ethical principles orientation
Doing what is right as our inner conscious which has absorbed the principles of justice and equality and sacredness of life
Stage Theory:
Suggests ppl move through the stages as they develop in maturity and encounter situations that enable them to see anothers point of view
Kohlberg suggested most reach conventional stage and 10% get to post-conventional
Criminals are likely to be pre-conventional
:book:
Hollin et al (2002)
Suggested offenders were in a less mature stage of moral development that non-offenders
:book:
Palmer (2003)
Looked at association btwn moral development and offending behaviour and suggested that it is specific moral values associated w/ offending + there is a relationship between the 2
Implication = intervention programmes should incorporate training to increase offenders level of reasoning
:book:
Ashkar and Kenny (2007)
Compared the moral reasoning lvl of juvenile sex and non-sex offenders to see the diff in maturity of reasoning
When asked bout reasoning in contexts similar to their crimes, both groups = lvl 1
But they showed high conventional lvls when contesxt unrelated to crimes
= Suggests moral reasoning varies by context and offenders = lower lvl of moral reasoning specific to their offending types
:check: Moral reasoning can account to some extent for the individual differences in offending behaviour. Can explain why one person would commit a crime but someone else would not
:red_cross:
Low predictive reliability:
Theory was developed using a dilemma scenario therefore the way a participant responds on a questionnaire and what they say they would do in certain situations may differ greatly from what would happen in reality
:red_cross:
Gender Bias:
Kohlbergs theory was based on data from boys only.
Gilligan (1982)
developed a theory that proposed gender differences following her work looking at moral development of women and argued women focus on how an action affects other ppl and that men consider fairness and justice. Kohlberg didn't take into account that given the varying rates of crime btwn men and women it may be moral development in genders is diff
A cognitive style which makes the assumption other ppls actions are in some way a neg reaction to the self
Blaming actions on other ppl
Cues from our behaviour misinterpreted = leads to a hostile response and perhaps an aggressive act
Impulsive aggression = characterised by reactive outbursts in situations shows a link to HAB
:book:
Crick and Dodge (1994)
Found evidence to support a relationship between HAB and aggression in children and adolescents. This was in hypothetical situations, but also found relationship in actual situations = theoretic explanation applies to everyday behaviour too
:book:
Holtzworth-Munroe and Hutchinson (1993)
Found link between HAB and domestic violence
Showed men vignettes of diff marital sit and asked them to rate the womens behaviour in each case
Men who had been violent towards their wives = more likely to this woman was being hostile + negative = demonstrate a con. style that might underpin their violent and aggressive acts
:book:
Epps and Kendall (1995)
College students who had high scores for aggression and anger demonstrated a high lvl of anger and hostility when tested for HAB, even when the sit. they were tested on was benign
Serves to downplay criminal behaviour by the offender
Can be described as self deception, where the offender does not accept the full reality of the situation and will attempt to rationalise what they have done
:book:
Alvaro and Gibbs (1996)
When they measured for cognitive distortions in anti-social young adults there was a strong relationship between the level of antisocial behaviour and minimalisation w/ negative behaviours
A theory that explains how ppl learn to become criminals from their environment
Dominant message = crime is learned
Occurs by learning the motivations, attitudes and drives of those engaging in criminal behaviour around them
It is the contact w/ lots of favourable messages called
'favourable differentiations
:book:
Matsueda (1988)
Following a review of the lit on DAT that there needed to be much more research conducted to improve the theory's ability to predict offending behaviour
Also said concepts too vague
Said making the theory easy to test would have implications for public policy
:check:
There is research support
to demonstrate link between HAB and offending behaviour. For this reason it is regarded as one of the precursors of aggressive behaviour in children, adolescents and adults. This can then lead to criminal bhvr (give example of research!)
:red_cross:
Lack predictive validity
the use of hypothetical sit. in the measures for HAB = means the answer given may not be the response that would actually occur if the sit. actually happened
Therefore, those that score low on the scale for HAB may actually interpret a situation as more hostile than recorded (or the reverse)
:red_cross:
Cannot be used to explain all offending behaviour
It does seem to be linked to impulsive aggression but cannot explain planned aggression well at all. Therefore, can be argued to be a factor in offending bhvr but by no means is it a full explanation
:check:
Supported by data
Research has shown that there is a relationship between the amount of minimalisation used and lvl of offending behaviour in criminal pop
:red_cross: There is more evidence for the use of it in some criminal pops than others = it's influence on crime may depend on the type of crime e.g. strong relationship btwn it and sex offences
:check:
Can explain prevalence of crime in certain areas
High crime rates are evident for certain areas, usually urban, and this theory explains how crime becomes endemic in such areas
:red_cross:
Too general
Has similarities with SLT but has none of the detail of the cog processes that may underpin criminal behaviour
It is a sociological theory tho, so Sutherland did not feel that a cog lvl of explanation was necessary
:red_cross:
Cannot explain all crimes
e.g. embezzlement which are individualistic and seemingly not influenced by others. One-off crimes are also not well explained using this theory
Deviant:
Identifying w/ same-sex parent that is deviant
Over-developed:
Feeling guilty all the time, craving punishment which crime will provide
Under-developed:
Person is controlled by Id impulses w/ no regulation
A period of prolonged separation of deprivation of care during early years could lead to delinquency later on.
44 thieves study Bowlby (1944)
Interviewed 44 juvenile delinquents who had been caught stealing and interviewed children and mother separately
Concluded, if child has experienced early separation from primary care-giver for more than 6 months chance they will become delinquent = greater
If a child has experienced early separation for more than 6 months = more likely to be affectionless psychopaths
Displacement:
Transferring to another subject
Sublimation:
Socially undesirable urge dealt in more acceptable way
Rationalisation:
Giving a reason to justify crime
:check: **Psychodynamic researchers have pointed to the importance of
childhood experiences** and parent-child relationships as an influence on offending (Blackburn, 1993) and have identified many important variables relating to delinquent behaviour in adolescence (Hollin,1989). So whilst its theoretical explanations have fallen out of favour, the psychodynamic tradition should be credited with pointing in some useful directions for later researchers to follow.
:red_cross:
Empirical data lacking:
Therefore, ideas are not well supported. The concepts upon which they are based = also not empirically supported = means theoretical grounding on which the explanations are based is flawed
:red_cross:
Over-simplistic:
Many examples of individuals who have experienced problems in their early childhood and haven't become criminals. This suggests that even if they are correct, they are incomplete
:red_cross:
Untestable:
Many of the theoretical concepts such as defence mechanisms are believed to generate from the unconscious mind and this means they are unfalsifiable
According to Freud,
electra complex
= weaker than oedipus therefore women have less developed conscience as
1) No penis to admire/envy in females
2) Why identify w/ the more insignificant gender?
This suggests women would commit more crime than men as less developed conscience (super ego) but this isn't supported in reality
Deterrence
Prevents criminals from re-offending
Works on behaviourist principle will learn crime is punished so not commit
Retribution
Focuses on feelings of the victim(s)
Paying for actions e.g. prison = losing freedom
Rehabilitation
Counselling and offender programmes offered in prison
Offers chance to learn skills and sort problems
Better position to live crime free life once released
Fam issues
Labelling
Overcrowding, lack of privacy
Deindividuation
Depression, self harm and mental illness: Suicide rates are higher in prison than in the general population, as are cases of self-harm. If a prisoner suffers with mental health issues before their sentence, this is likely to worsen in prison.
(positives = food, education, rehabilitation)
:book:
Snow (2006)
Compared suicidal prisoners w/ those who self-harmed
Offenders who self harmed are qualitatively diff to those commit or attempt suicide where self harmers = high lvls of anger, stress and suicidal = withdraw and show signs of depression
Both display psychological effects of being in prison and a decline in mental health
:book:
Cheeseman (2003)
Found aggressive incidents in prison occurred due to the need to reduce stress
Suggests aggressive incidents in prison could be due to the surroundings being highly stressful to the aggression is an effect of the circumstance
:book:
Malott and Fromader (2010)
Survey w/ 102 Australian males asking how they felt about release from prison. Offenders felt unsupported upon release and greater support would reduce recidivism = supports that offenders feel institutionalised and reoffend to re-enter a supportive environment
:red_cross:
High reoffending rates
aims of detterence and rehab are not fulfilled by custodial sentencing
:red_cross:
Individual diff
Not all prisoners react in the same way to incarceration, some argue the punishments should fit the individual not the crime
:red_cross:
Lack of autonomy:
Prisoners are regimented and ppl have to conform to strict rules and regulations. The longer they stay the more accustomed to the prison way of life - cannot adapt to life outside
:red_cross:
Bartol (1995)
suicide rates 15x higher than in society in general esp in young single men in the first 24hrs of incarceration. 25% of females and 15% of males have symptoms of psychosis
:red_cross:
Differential Association Theory:
Putting young, inexperienced criminals into a prison environment w/ older more experienced criminals = learning about crime and changing perception because of peers
When good behaviour occurs prisoners can earn tokens which can be exchanged for desirable goods e.g. cigarettes and food
Uses positive reinforcement to encourage and incentivise good behaviour and prevents bad
Can also take back tokens = negative reinforcement
:book:
Hobbs and Tyllon (1976)
Intro of a behaviour modification programme 3 young offenders' institutions reduced the amount of undesirable behaviour w/in the institution when compared with institutions that didn't have
= Demonstrates short term benefits bhvr modification can have
:check:
Takes little training
or expense to use within an institution. This makes it one of the cheaper options available and it is also easier to introduce as there is less issue with staff being skilled to administer it rather than anger management
:red_cross:
Not long term solution
work well in the short term but not well when offender leaves institution, = limited rehabilitative effect which undermines aim of programme. Could be due to the prison being a very controlled environment + reward/punishment need to be administered immediately which is not possible out of prison
:red_cross:
Contravening human rights
there is no issue with administering positive reinforcements but with withholding such things e.g. relatives visits which are seen as rights for prisoners and therefore withholding them = not a reasonable action within a civilised society
1. Cognitive preparation
Understands what makes them angry and identifying triggers liable to make them react w/ anger and mediate the anger prevent from escalating
2. Skill acquisition/regulation of arousal
Dependent on the individuals response to the first. Involves recognising and learning to control physiology, techniques taught
3. Behavioural strategies skills/application training
Opp for offenders to practice skills. Can be done using role play in realistic/imaginary situations. Prepared for future situations which will now no longer lead to criminal acts
= Novaco's method is based on stress inoculation training - A CBT method
:book:
Howells et al (2005)
Measured success lvl of anger management, found the programme reduced anger but not statistically significant level and level of anger prior = indicator of success as was offenders readiness to partake
:book:
Koons et al (1997)
Found offenders and practitioners both suggested that an individualised programme was effective together with the way it was delivered by staff = trainers selected carefully for success
:book:
Ireland (2000)
Very successful = conducted self report questionnaire, 50 prisoners completed 2 measures of anger before and after completion of anger management programme, control group of 37, qnaire = checklist of 29 problematic behaviours
Results from groups compared and 92% reduction in anger levels for the intervention group on at least one of the measures
Can be used instead/alongside of custodial sentencing
Face-to-face meetings, mediation or indirect mediation set up so victim and offender can communicate in a controlled setting
Rehabilitation of offenders:
Requires offender to be an active participant in the process = tough for the offender to listen to the impacts of their crime = reduces likelihood of reoffending
Atonement of wrongdoing:
Offenders may offer concrete compensation or atone by showing genuine feelings of guilt and remorse
Victims perspective:
Restores power to victim and takes their feelings into account
:book:
Miers et al (2001)
Examined the extent victims felt happy. The majority of victims were happy but some were cynical about offenders' sincerity and their motivation for taking part i.e. reducing sentences
Some also found that it made uncomfy feelings resurface and some found intimidating
:check:
First time offenders –
Restorative justice is most effective with young, first time offenders. It provides a short, sharp shock and forces them to face up to the consequences of their actions.
:red_cross:
Cost –
Shapland (2007) concluded that every £1 spent on restorative justice would save the government £8 through reduced reoffending. However, there are costs involved in training mediators and high dropout rates from offenders unable to face their victims, so it may not always be cost effective
:red_cross:
Limited applicability:
There's a problem with satisfaction expressed by the victims and offenders, and self-selection bias in that both parties need to be willing to enter the programme. It may be that the programme works well for some individuals but cannot be used for everyone
:check:
Improves quality of life for offender
Give insight into how they think and can help them gain an understanding of problems in their thinking which have led them to offending behaviour in the past. Can therefore make them function better in everyday life due to the insight gained from the intervention
:red_cross:
Use of role-play
in practicing skills can be seen as too different from real life. The level of intensity and emotion/anger in a real-life situation will be much higher so the offender may find ability to apply the skills hindered and revert to former behaviour
:red_cross:
Difficult to measure how successful
an intervention has been. Levels of reidivism in the offender may not be due to the failure of anger management programme and using recidivism = problematic as it only measures when someone is reconvicted therefore the intervention may not be working on a day-to-day basis and this failure has not been picked up
Most Psychologists Vote On Eating The Losers
In The Cases Crimes Fail
Losers Still Can't Cry