crime - modifying: anger: overall

Question 1

effectiveness

Answer 1

P: Is effective as there’s supporting research demonstrating it’s success
E: Taylor and Novaco reported a 75% improvement rate based on 6 meta-analyses
T: Therefore anger management is effective as there’s supporting evidence that outlines its effectivness in helping offenders improve their management of anger and aggression
C: However, there’s contradictory evidence. Howell et al cited 5 meta-analyses and found anger management only had moderate benefits. If we cannot be confident that it has consistent success, we cannot confidently call it effective

Question 2

ethical

Answer 2

P: unethical issue of voluntary consent
E: individuals are often coerced into taking when AM is given as a part of their sentence. Refusal could lead to extended prison time, which undermines their free will to give genuine consent to participate
T: Therefore this is a weakness as without an informed and voluntary consent being given by participants, it violates their respect for autonomy which is therefore unethical.
COUNTER: that said, AM benefits both the individual and society by reducing aggressive behaviour and therefore reducing recidivism. Therefore the cost of compromising consent for the benefit of public safety and rehabilitation seems a necessary justification.

Question 3

cost

Answer 3

P: strength to society is that reduced recidivism rates will decrease overall costs associated with crime in UK
E: Recent report from Police Exchange Think Tank estimates crime costs the UK up to £250 billion annually
T: By addressing underlying issues of aggression and anger, AM programmes can help rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism, resulting in significant economic savings for society that would otherwise have been spent on law enforcement, legal proceedings and incarceration. Prisons already struggle to secure fundings to match their demands from prison populations, so reduced populations can reduce their burdens