Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Methods of Modifying Criminal Behaviour (Anger Management (How It Works…
Methods of Modifying Criminal Behaviour
Anger Management
Aims
Teach client strategies to challenge irrational thoughts that lead to anger and aggression
Form of CBT
Raymond Novaco 3 key aims:
Increase awareness of thoughts that lead to anger (eg. hostile attribution bias)
Regulation of arousal helps the offender learn how to control the physical signs of anger
Behavioural strategies - such as problem solving skills, assertiveness training and strategic withdrawal (when to walk away)
How It Works
Based on form of CBT called stress inoculation therapy (SIT) - works through 3 stages to vaccinate the person against anger - can be conducted inside/outside prison
Conceptualisation - 1st stage, client learns about concept of anger, analyse their own patterns of anger and situations which provoke anger in them
Skills acquisition - client taught skills to help manage their anger such as self-regulation, ways of thinking differently and comms skills to help them resolve conflicts without resorting to anger
Application - final stage, client applies skills by role playing situations which would have previously made them angry - then ready to apply these skills in real life to reduce anger/aggression
How It Modifies CB
Offender learns to control their thoughts that lead to anger and alt ways of dealing with situations - means they can respond in ways other than anger/aggression
Benefits for prisons in reducing institutional aggressive and for society in reducing recidivism
Evaluating Effectiveness of AM
STRENGTHS
Research Ev
Ev - Taylor and Novaco = looked at 6 meta analyses of AM report 75% improvement rates
Ev- Landberger and Lipsey = reviewed 58 studies of CBT with offenders. 20 of the studies used AM techniques - element of anger control sig related to an improvement in offenders behaviour
Ex - suggests AM = successful in reducing anger and aggression = benefits for individual and society in reducing recidivism
WEAKNESSES
Contradictory Research Ev
Ev - Howells et al cite 5 meta analyses & found only moderate improvements in 1 where only 1 person improves
Ex - suggests AM = unreliable method of modifying CB, inconsistency in outcomes for offenders, questions whether should be applied to all violent and aggressive offenders
Not Effective For Everyone
Ev - some offenders do not like to reflect on their way of thinking, may drop out of AM
Ev - if offenders criminality is due to biological issues, AM = ineffective (violent and impulsive behaviour due to low levels of serotonin, SSRIs better)
Ex - suggests AM is not magic cure for all aggressive CB, perhaps only suitable for those with cog distortions that are able to engage in programme
Anger Doesn't = Aggression
Relationship between anger, aggression and crime can be questioned
Ev - Loza and Loza Fanous = in a sample of 300+ males in prison, no difference in levels of anger of violent and non-violent prisoners
Ev - researchers argue AM programmes = offenders blame crimes on anger, removes personal responsibility for their actions
Ex - if anger doesn’t lead to aggression, AM = irrelevant method
Social/Ethical Implications of AM
STRENGTHS
Social - Reduces Aggression in Prisons
Ev - AM programmes benefit prison staff & other prisoners when used in prison environments - potential to reduce aggression and violence
Ev - benefits prisoners themselves in relation to feeling safe within prison setting, prison officers can reduce violence
Ex - particularly relevant as prisons face cuts to their funding & staff shortages, any reduction in aggression and hostility will have sig benefits
Social - Reduces Recidivism Costs
Ev - Cost of recidivism is at least £9.5bn/year - AM can help offenders to learn to control their anger (eg. reducing hostile attribution bias ) - may prevent them from reoffending
Ex - suggests AM will offer economic benefits to society in reducing rates of reoffending - reducing costs associated with dealing with it
Ex - if offenders can control their anger it can help them live, function and contribute to society (gain employment, contribute in taxes) - AM offers wider social benefits than just reducing recidivism
WEAKNESSES
Ethical - Voluntary Consent
Ev - in many cases offenders are required to participate in AM as a condition to their probation - forced participation would be against the ethical code of therapists
Ex - could be argued to be unethical
C - however, the Anger Management and Domestic Violence Professionals Ethical Code: ‘when appropriate on valid informed consent’ - ethically a cost benefit trade off whereby the cost of lack of valid consent could be weighed against the benefits for the individual and society through anger reduction
Psych Harm
Anecdotal evidence (Guardian article) that women may be psychologically harmed by AM
Ev - some reports of female offenders suffering depression and anxiety after AM
Ex - could be deemed AM is an inappropriate way of modifying the behaviour of female offenders
C - based on empirical evidence, should be treated with caution - could however form basis of future research into gender differences in modifying CB
Restorative Justice
Aims
Rehabilitation of offenders so they do not reoffend
Atonement for wrongdoing
How It Works
Can take different forms
Community service
Compensation paid to victim from offender
Writing a letter to victim
Face to face comms
During RJ the V has the opportunity to explain the effect the wrongdoing had on them - enables offender to understand impact of their actions - encourages responsibility to be taken
Can result in sig psych change in offender (change in attitude etc) = rehabilitate the offender, reduce reoffending
Fully Restorative
Wachtel & McCold (2003) = theoretical framework for RJ
Starting point for effective RJ = rebuilding of relationships that have been broken due to the crime
3 stakeholders (key parties) must be involved - victim, offender and wider community
One stakeholder involved (eg compensation) = Rj is partially restorative
Two stakeholders involved = RJ mostly restorative
Three stakeholders involved (peace circles, involve all 3) = fully restorative
Evaluating Effectiveness of RJ
STRENGTHS
Research Ev
Compelling support due to research involving 20 studies over different countries
Ev - Sherman and Strang reviewed 20 studies of face-to-face RJ in UK, USA and Aus:
all studies showed reduced reoffending
one study reoffending rates as low as 11% compared to 37% in matched control group
RJ especially effective with violent and property crimes
Ex - demonstrates Rj = effectively reduce recidivism which is a key aim
WEAKNESSES
Not Effective in All Situations
Ev - offender must admit guilt (unsuitable for offenders with psychopathic traits) to be effective
Ev - may be some crimes RJ would be unsuitable for and vics may not want to take part
Ev - not all vics are suited to RJ - some may not want any engagement with their offender/feel able to engage with the process
Ex - therefore RJ cannot be a universal solution for dealing with CB as Wachtel and McCold would argue that if a stakeholder is missing from the process, RJ = only partially effective
Social/Ethical Implications of RJ
STRENGTHS
Peace Circles
Ethical ways of delivering RJ
Ev - crime = wide imps for communities and for RJ to be fully functioning it should involve the wider community
Ev - peace circles = an example of a community programme implemented in area where violence and crime is high - aim to create an environment of respect where members of comm offer support to victims of crime and offenders (idea = support over exclusion)
Ex - benefit of RJ for society compared to custodial sentences suggesting RJ can be highly ethical
WEAKNESSES
Victim Ethical Issues
Ethical impact = how the process impacts upon victims, may possibly feel worse afterwards
Ev - if offender did not show remorse/empathy this may cause psycho harm to vic and create more distress meaning they feel ‘injured’ for a 2nd time - may be particularly damaging if offender had been offered RJ as an alt to prison
Ex - RJ arguably unethical