crime psych 2

Question 1

Less serious crimes/lack of criminal history

Answer 1

Receive bail and await trial in community under conditions/court sanctions

e.g., promise to appear, police reporting, keeping the peace, not using illicit substances, and non- association requirements

Question 2

More serious crimes/criminal history

Answer 2

Remanded in custody/jail to await release, trial, or plea bargain

Jail placement after assessment by corrections and healthcare staff

Estimated 90% of cases are resolved through plea bargain

Within a month, transferred to reception prison, then reassessed

Risk assessment for custody classification: minimum, medium, or maximum prison based on how the offender will adjust, the risk of escape, public safety

Correctional plan: criminogenic needs and program requirements are assessed

e.g., substance abuse, mental health status, antisocial attitudes, education, and employment

Regular contact with parole officer

Question 3

Medium or maximum security prison sentence

Answer 3

After 1 year, parole officer reassesses suitability for lower security (e.g., for a 3-year sentence)

Parole officer continues to monitor progress on correctional plan

Offender may apply for parole
* e.g., day parole (supervised) spent in halfway house for 3 – 6 months before release
* avoid criminal peers and illicit drugs
* seek and maintain employment
* complete maintenance programming to maintain gains
* 10 – 38% either commit a technical violation or a new crime

Question 4

Punishment or rehabilitation?

Answer 4

Purpose of punishment/sentencing is
* Social retribution
* Deterrence
* Incapacitation
* To maintain respect for the law
* To maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society

Little evidence of effectiveness
* ‘eye for an eye’ is more principle than practical
* Punishment lacks immediacy, consistency, and intensity
* Vast majority of criminals re-enter society
* Programs focused on rehabilitation are more humanizing and seem more effective

Question 5

Does punishment as deterrence work?

Answer 5

Metanalysis of 222 studies on 336,052 cases (Gendreau et al., 1999)
* Those who served an average of 30 months had 2 – 3% increase in recidivism versus those who served an average of 17 months
* 10.5 month sentences had 7% increase in recidivism compared to community sanctions
* No difference in recidivism between receiving a fine vs. a short jail sentence for drinking and driving

No difference in jail time vs. no jail time on ‘white collar’ (i.e., economic) crimes

Study on 71 countries found that the death penalty has no effect on deterrence

Question 6

Why doesn’t punishment as a deterrence work?

Answer 6

People committing crimes are not operating within a rational choice model
* They don’t carefully weight the risks and costs of their crimes
* Crime is associated with impulsive, ‘here and now’ thinking

Punishment isn’t severe, certain, and immediate

People who commit crimes perceive prison as less difficult than community-based sentences like probation

Prison is a crime-causing or criminogenic environment and removes people from prosocial support systems

Question 7

Restorative justice

Answer 7

Provides reparation to survivors of crime and promotes a sense of responsibility among those who commit crime

Crime represents a violation of relationships between people and with society in general

Addresses harm done by crime by…
* providing meaningful accountability and…
* …meeting the needs of those involved through…
* …safe and voluntary dialogue

Restores sense of power, agency, and identity for victims/survivors and communities

Provides opportunity for the person who commits crime to empathize, address triggers, and to be humanized

Emphasizes healing wounds of survivors/victims and communities impacted by crime, and those who committed crime

Offender is required to
* recognize the harm they have caused
* accept responsibility for their actions
* be actively involved in healing the situation

Question 8

Types of restorative justice

Answer 8

Survivor-perpetrator mediation/conferencing AKA ‘Circles’

Survivor assistance
* e.g., providing information about participation in sentencing decision-making

Assistance for formerly sentenced people
* e.g., Elizabeth Fry Society
* e.g., John Howard Society

Restitution: offender financially compensates the survivor/victim

Community service

Question 9

Does restorative justice work?

Answer 9

Has to be voluntary
* Selection bias; e.g., motivated and less severe offenders are more likely to participate

Would pre-trial restorative justice have lasting effects once offender is released after sentence?
* Should it be ongoing? Is that realistic?

Latimer et al. (2005)
* Particularly good for restitution compliance
* RJ may be an effective alternative to incarceration and could complement correctional programming

Fulham (2018)
* RJ processes could reduce the odds of general recidivism by 17%
* Effects had considerable variability
* Larger effects for young, lower-risk, and White samples
* Moderate impacts on satisfaction of both survivors an offenders

Impact on violent recidivism is inconclusive

The limited research suggests that it is effective for improving offender behaviour and reducing recidivism

Question 10

Rehabilitation

Answer 10

Now, para-professionals (parole program staff with a B.A degree and specialized training) are the most likely to provide direct counselling and other related services
* e.g., role-playing for skills development
* Treatment targets have evolved from psychological symptoms to factors related to crime

Effective programs help offenders understand high-risk situations and improve their prosocial skills

Risk, Need, and Responsivity Model: shown to reduce recidivism by an average of 28% and up to 35%

Question 11

Risk, Need, and Responsivity Model

Answer 11

Type of rehabilitation

Shown to reduce recidivism by an average of 28% and up to 35%

Risk principle: Higher program dosage (frequency, length) for higher risk offenders
* Risk moderates the relationship between program dosage and recidivism
* e.g., lower risk offenders become more antisocial after associating with higher risk offenders in programs
* e.g., lower motivation, denial, rationalization, antisocial views
* 200 hours of programming had greater impact on recidivism
* Relationship between dosage and recidivism is not linear
* e.g., a small group of very high-risk offenders may not fully benefit from programming
* e.g., serial killers and murderers

Need principle: ‘crime-causing’/criminogenic
needs/dynamic risk factors
* …rather than just psychological symptoms
* Mental health is a relatively minor risk factor
* Psychologists should work together with social workers, parole officers, and other correctional staff
* Targeting criminogenic needs leads to 19% reduction on recidivism versus targeting non-criminogenic needs can increase recidivism (e.g., by 1%)

Responsivity principle: Program should match offenders’
learning style and ability
* General responsivity: offenders respond best to cognitive- behavioural and skills-based programs
* Target antisocial attitudes/cognitions and related problem-solving skills, provide practical skills
* Specific responsivity: offenders vary in their motivation and readiness for programs
* *Program should be adapted to meet individual factors related to intelligence, age, gender, ethnicity/race, and language to maximize benefits
* Programs that follow the responsivity principle are substantially more likely to reduce recidivism
* e.g., compared to programs focused on insight- oriented psychotherapy

Program type may be less important than therapeutic relationship

Question 12

campus design prisons

Answer 12

• “The sentence is taking away the freedom. Every day life shouldn’t be a sentence”
• The architecture of traditional prisons (e.g., in Canada) render prisoners “disconnected from time and space”, nature, the passing of seasons
• Concrete, linoleum, and steel floors and walls block light and reflect noise
• The Norwegian prison hides the surrounding walls with trees and gives an “anti-authoritarian” feel
• Glass, cork, and wood materials let in and reflect light, absorb noise
• Correctional staff interact with prisoners face-to-face, prisoners are incentivized to enter common
  areas
• Campus design ranks highest in inmate-staff relationships, reduces violent incidents

Question 13

Effective Correctional Programming

Answer 13

Correctional programs are very specific activities clearly outlined and described in standardized manuals

Delivered by high trained staff

Designed to
* Help offenders understand that they are accountable for their criminal behaviour
* Target risk factors
* e.g., lack of employment, substance use
* Teach skills for managing risk factors
* e.g., employment skills, healthy coping mechanisms
* Help change criminal attitudes
* Reduce risk that offenders present when they return to society

Question 14

Recidivism factors

Answer 14

Static factors: historical, generally unchanging
* Young age
* Single marital status
* Being male
* Being a person of colour inconsistently predicts recidivism
* Effect of low SES is negligible
* *Tend to be enduring unless directly targeted (e.g., through rehabilitation)

Dynamic factors: Potentially changeable social and psychological variables
Strongest predictors:
* Procriminal attitudes
* Antisocial peers
* Antisocial
personality/pattern
* Education/employment
* Substance use

Consistently small but significant predictors:
* Family/marital problems
* Financial problems
* Accommodations
* Most clinical variables had weak or inconsistent associations with general recidivism
* Low intellectual ability
* Personal distress
* Psychosis

Question 15

Protective Factors

Answer 15

Linked to positive, healthy, noncriminal outcomes

The inverse of risk factors?

Structured Assessment of Protective Factors
(SAPROF) in the Netherlands

Assesses personal, motivational, and external factors

Scores from Netherlands and Canada show that it does predict general recidivism

E.g., coping, medication, motivation for treatment, intelligence, etc.

Question 16

Risk Assessment

Answer 16

Gathering and integrating data from multiple sources to estimate a person’s potential for future reoffending

To drive decisions around which services to provide the offender

To reduce and maintain public safety and promote offender’s own welfare
* e.g., surveys or questionnaires used to assess risk and protective factors
* e.g., clinical interviews to determine ASPD or psychopathy diagnosis

Question 17

History of youth justice in Canada

Answer 17

Most young offenders are 16 or 17
* Children under 12 do not get charged
* Youth between 12 and 18 are developmentally different from adults

1908: Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA) for 7 – 16 (or 17 or 18) year olds
* Juveniles were charged but considered ’delinquent’ rather than ‘criminal’
* Separate court with informal court process, involvement of parents
* Could be transferred to adult court if crime is serious and/or violent
* Fines, probation, foster care, mandatory attendance at an industrial school
*Lack of rights; e.g., to legal representation and to appeal, charged from things that adults don’t get charged for (e.g., truancy (skipping school))
* Open-ended sentences

1984: Young Offenders Act (YOA) for 12 – 18 year olds
* Child and Family Services for children under 12
* Youth court with possible transfer to adult court for 14+ year olds
* Diversion: decision no to prosecute; educational or community service program
* Must plead guilty
* e.g., sentences include absolute discharge, fine, compensation, prohibition order (e.g.,
no weapons), community service, or custody (open or secure)
* For murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault: adult court for 16 and 17 year olds (unless application to avoid transfer is approved)
* First degree murder: max 10 years with max 6 years spent in prison
* Second degree: max 7 years with max 4 years in prison

2003: Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA)
* Goal to keep young people out of court and custody
* Canada has the highest youth incarceration rate in Western world
* Police consider extrajudicial measures: warning or community options (e.g. referral to mental health treatment) and other alternatives to charges/youth court to encourage intervention and re-integration
* If charged, cannot be transferred to adult court, but can be given adult sentence if at least
14 years old
* Expanded sentencing options: e.g., reprimand (e.g., lecture) by judge, rehabilitative and supervised order (e.g., mental health institution), program attendance order (e.g., for DUI).

Question 18

Youth Sentences

Answer 18

Three possible outcomes in youth court

(1) Probation: 60% of guilty verdicts
* Served in community while meeting conditions like not associating with certain peers and/or reporting to a probation officer

(2) Community service order: 20% of guilty verdicts (e.g., drug possession or trafficking)
* Unpaid work

(3) Custody disposition: <3% of guilty verdicts in 2019- 2020 compared to 24% of cases in 1991 (e.g., attempted murder, homicide)
* 55% of sentences 3 months or less
* Correctional facility/youth justice centre
* Youth who have been incarcerated in a youth facility are at highest risk of adult offending (Copeland et al., 2022)

Question 19

Adolescent offending

Answer 19

The age-crime curve: there is a steep rise in antisocial behaviour in adolescence and gradual decline
during adulthood

Life course persistent offenders:
* Behavioural problems begin in daycare and preschool
* As babies, difficult to soothe, have difficult temperaments
* Aggression towards other children
* Many have ADHD, learning disabilities, academic difficulties…
* …weak bonds to family and psychopathic traits
* Linked to more serious and persistent future antisocial behaviour
* Trajectory seen in 3-10% of general population
* But responsible for 50 – 70% of offending

Adolescent-onset offenders:
* Problems begin in teen years but desist in early adulthood
* e.g., truancy, theft, vandalism
* Seen in 70% of general population; antisocial acts are less severe and frequent

Low-level chronics (7% of sample): persistent but low levels of antisocial behaviour
* As adults, high anxiety, depression, social isolation, work problems

Abstainers (5%): no antisocial acts across the lifespan; well-adjusted, successful

Question 20

Biological theories of adolescent offending

Answer 20

Family, twin, and adoption studies suggest genetic basis for adolescent offending
* e.g., children with antisocial biological father tend to be more antisocial, even if raised apart
* e.g., genetics seem more influential than environment the link between substance use and delinquency in males

Less frontal lobe inhibition; necessary for flexible adaptation to environment
* Linked to impulsivity

Lower heart rate
* Lower fear, need for sensation seeking

Question 21

Cognitive theories of adolescent offending

Answer 21

Social-information-processing model: adolescents with conduct problems demonstrate cognitive deficits and distortions when problem-solving
* Attend to fewer social and emotional cues
* Limited problem-solving skills, resort to aggression
* Hostile attribution bias

• Reactive aggression: responding aggressively to perceived threat/frustration
• e.g., hostile attribution early in cognitive process
• Proactive aggression: aggression directed at
  achieving a goal/positive reinforcer
• e.g., trouble choosing alternative response to aggression

Question 22

Social theories of adolescent offending

Answer 22

Social learning theory
* Children are more likely to imitate behaviour that receives positive
reinforcement
* Highly aggressive and antisocial children have often witnessed parents, siblings, or grandparents engaging in similar behaviour

Patterson’s coercive family process model: aggressive behaviour among youth develops from a combination of:
* Imitation of parents
* Reinforcement
* e.g., parent stops nagging when child is aggressive
* Inconsistent discipline, inadequate parental supervision
* Interparental violence

Interparental violence: when observed by children, significant increase in likelihood of aggression towards friends and romantic partners

Observing extreme violence on TV that is rewarded is linked to aggression

Reinforcement for violence in video games
* Inconsistently linked to aggression
* Desensitization to real-world violence
* Increased aggressive behaviour, cognition, affect, decreased empathy and prosocial behaviour

Question 23

Risk factors for adolescents

Answer 23

Variables that pose an increased likelihood of delinquency/antisocial behaviour

Almost always, risk factors need to interact

Presence of multiple risk factors does not necessarily lead to criminal behaviour
* e.g., a 10-year-old exposed to 6 or more risk factors (versus 1) is 10x more likely to commit a violent act by age 18 (Herrenkohl et al., 2000)

Individual factors linked to later offending
* Prenatal complications linked to behavioural problems, including delinquency
* e.g., drugs, alcohol, nicotine exposure, mother’s severe malnourishment
* Birth complications, e.g., lack of oxygen
* When combined with poor bonding to caregiver in first year, 3X more likely to become violent criminals (Raine et al., 1994)

Low verbal intelligence and late language development

Temperament in infancy (i.e., emotion regulation)
* e.g., difficult to soothe, hyperactive, attention problems, impulsivity linked to later adolescent offending

Substance use (especially before teen years) significantly linked to adolescent offending

Familial factors linked to later antisocial behaviour
* Poor parental supervision
* Low parental involvement
* Parental conflict
* Parental aggression
* Child abuse, neglect, and maltreatment linked to behavioural
difficulties
* 38% more likely to be arrested for a violent offence
* Low socioeconomic status, large family size, and parental mental health problems are also risk factors of delinquency

School factors
* i.e., social control theory
* e.g., attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief in educational system
* Poor performance, commitment, and educational aspirations
* Truancy, especially between ages of 12 and 14 is linked to adult offending

Peer factors
* Most important risk factors in adolescence
* Consistent link between associating with delinquent peers and delinquent behaviour
* Even young children who play with aggressive peers are at risk of behavioural problems
* e.g., peer approval and pressure around delinquency, allegiance to delinquent peers, hanging around delinquent peers linked to adolescent antisocial behaviour
* Compounded by problematic/uninvolved parents * Especially gang involvement
* Adolescents may be drawn to the socialization in gangs
* e.g., protection, means to acquire material goods, status, excitement, substances, sense of belonging
* Inequalities (e.g., neglect) trigger lack of bonds (e.g., bullying) and desire for recognition + belonging

Community factors
* Living in a low-income neighbourhood
* e.g., assault during robbery/theft more common among adolescents
* Witnessing violence linked to adolescent offending
* More access to weapons
* More likely to learn delinquent behaviour, associate with delinquent peers, and have delinquent behaviours reinforced

Question 24

Protective factors in adolescents

Answer 24

Variables that decrease the likelihood of delinquent/antisocial behaviour or increase the likelihood of positive outcomes
*Resilience: the ability to overcome stress and adversity

Individual factors
* Intelligence and commitment to education (Carson & Butcher, 1992)
* Exceptional social skills, child competencies, confident perceptions, values, attitudes, and
beliefs (Vance, 2001)
* e.g., ‘likeable’ children respond positively to good role models, promoting social support
* Positive temperament, ability to self-reflect, think critically/problem solve, resolve conflict, manage anger, and seek support

Familial factors
* Supportive relationship with an adult(s)
* High parental supervision and secure parent-child attachment
* Clear and consistent discipline and normalization of prosocial behaviour
* Positive parental messages and family function are not effective at preventing aggression if child is high risk

School factors
* Commitment to school and academic achievement
* Extracurricular activities
* Sports participation not linked to to less juvenile delinquency

Peer factors
* Associating with peers who disapprove of antisocial
behaviours

Community factors
* Organized activities
* Neighbourhood cohesion protect children children 11+ who experience parent-child physical aggression

Question 25

Assessment Approaches

Answer 25

Children under 12
* Behavioural problems usually identified at school
* Arguing, fighting, bullying, excessive talking, poor school performance
* Internalizing problems: emotional difficulties like anxiety and depression
* Externalizing problems: delinquency, fighting, bullying, lying, destructive behaviour

Common psychiatric diagnoses:
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
* Inattention and impulsivity

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)
* A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behaviour
* 40% develop CD

Conduct disorder (CD)
* Repetitive and persistent behaviour whereby the rights of others or basic social rules are violated
* 50% develop antisocial personality disorder
* Specifier for children with callous-unemotional traits/limited prosocial emotions (e.g., lack of empathy)

Question 26

Reactive violence

Answer 26

Impulsive reaction to a real or perceived provocation or threat

e.g., assault due to rage

Question 27

Instrumental violence

Answer 27

Premeditated and aimed at achieving secondary goal

e.g., assault in order to rob someone

Question 28

Homicide

Answer 28

First-degree murder: planned and deliberate
* When victim is a peace officer or when death is caused by a terrorist activity
* Life sentence with no eligibility for parole until a minimum of 25 years
* …with option for consecutive minimum 25-year sentences for multiple murders

Second-degree murder: murder that is not first-degree
* Life sentence without eligibility of parole until a minimum of 10 years served

Infanticide: mother causes death of newly-born child when not fully recovered/mind if
disturbed from effects of childbirth
* Max 5-year sentence

Manslaughter: committed during heat of passion of sudden provocation that overwhelms self-control, or due to criminal negligence
* Life sentence but no minimum term required before eligibility for parole

Question 29

Multiple murder

Answer 29

Killing 3 or more victims
* Mass murder: single location with no ‘cooling-off period’
* e.g., Mark Lepine killed 14 women at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique (1989)
* e.g., Valery Fabrikant killed four fellow professors at Concordia (1992)
* Spree murder: two or more locations with no cooling-off period
* e.g., Justin Bourque killed 3 RCMP officers in Moncton (2014)

Serial murder: cooling-off period between murders usually occurring at
different locations
* e.g., Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka killed 3 teenage girls in St. Catherine’s Ontario (1990s)
* e.g., Robert Pickton confessed to killing 49 women in BC (1990s)

Question 30

Assault and Robbery

Answer 30

Assault: physical aggression
* Common assault/level-1: pushing, slapping, punching, face-to-face verbal threats
* Assault with a weapon/level-2: actual or threatened use of a weapon
* Assault causing bodily harm/level-2
* Aggravated assault/level-3: maiming, disfiguring, or endangering the life of the victim

Robbery: actual or threatened use of violence when stealing

Question 31

Terrorism

Answer 31

Committed for a political, religious, or ideological purpose
* …with intention to intimidate the public’s security, including economic security
* …or to compel a person, a government, or organization to do or refrain from doing an act
* e.g., Nathaniel Veltman (a ‘White Nationalist’) ran over and killed 4 and injured 1; a Muslim Pakistani Canadian family (Islamaphobia)
* e.g., 17-year-old boy stabbed and killed a spa receptionist; he was found with a note “long live the incel rebellion” (misogyny)

Question 32

Hate crime

Answer 32

Motivated by hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, etc.

No formal definition (less ideologically/polically motivated than terrorism)

Question 33

Social learning theory

Answer 33

Expected outcomes influence likelihood and extent of aggression

Operant conditioning
* e.g., child pushes another child and steals their toy (positive reinforcement)
* e.g., if child is reprimanded and scolded by a parent, they don’t get the toy, feel bad, and avoid future aggression (positive punishment)
* e.g., child is bullied and punches bully to silence them (negative reinforcement)
* e.g., teacher reprimands child for punching bully and excludes them from a field trip (negative punishment)

Can operate vicariously through observational learning

Self-reinforcement
* e.g., aggression may make someone feel powerful, assertive rather than guilty and remorseful
* e.g., which they may learn through lack of discipline, observing the glorification of aggression in the media

Mediated by cognition; attention, perception, memory
* e.g., hostile attribution bias

Question 34

Biosocial model of violence

Answer 34

Emphasizes interactions between biological and social forces
* Genetic vulnerabilities interact with environmental forces to give rise to biological and social risks
* e.g., bad temperament and/or low autonomic nervous system arousal combined with lack of discipline

If an adopted child’s biological AND adoptive parents have history of antisocial behaviour: 4X more likely to become antisocial compared to if only one type of parent were antisocial
* 8X higher than if neither type of parent were antisocial

Biological correlates of antisocial behaviour (must interact with social factors)
* Low resting heart rate (fearlessness theory and stimulation seeking theory)
* Combined with being part of large family with a poor relationship with at least one parent
* Teachers rate boys as aggressive if they have low SES background, if mother was pregnant as a teen
* Low skin conductance
* Nicotine and alcohol exposure in utero
* Lack of oxygen at birth

Question 35

Two-path model of criminal violence

Answer 35

Model showing genetic/biological interactions with social factors
* Tested on 868 men with history of violence (either incarcerated or hospitalized)

Path 1: neurodevelopmental insults like brain trauma combined with antisocial parenting

Path 2: psychopathy and other related diagnoses interact with antisocial parenting
* Model doesn’t account for the combined heritable and social factors that lead to psychopathy

The two paths aren’t mutually-exclusive