Forensics Flashcards
(44 cards)
1
Q
briefly explain the top down approach to offender profiling
A
templates/ conceptual categories of organised/ disorganised are pre-existing in the mind of the profiler
Crime scene evidence and details on the crime/ victim/ context are used to fit into either of the pre-existing categories and determine the offender as one type or the other.
2
Q
describe the 6 steps to complete a top down offender profile
A
- profiling inputs - info on the crime context and background info on victims.
- decision process model- type of murder (e.g. serial, mass), time, location
- Crime assessment - organised (planned) vs disorganised (socially incompetent)
- Criminal profile - put together all background info on offender.
- Report writing - profiler creates report of crime profile and presents to police
- apprehension- review profile against suspect arrested, apprehend suspect, review accuracy of profile, suggest improvements.
3
Q
outline evaluation for the top down approach/ typological profiling
A
useful
- Ev - Copson Q’ed 184 US police officers, 82% said operationally useful, 90% would use again
- Ex - typological profiling effective, majority of police say useful in apprehending a suspect, valid. Allows investigators to investigate from a different perspective and can help narrow down suspects. Confirms what already believe to be true.
-
L - But Barnum effect (vague) and subjective -based on opinions.
Also, can mislead police into looking into eliminating potential suspects and allowing dangerous criminals to roam free/ falsely convicted, MOJ.
criticism - generalisability
- Ev - original data which organised/disorganised classification is based on may be flawed. Data came from interviews with 36 of most dangerous and sexually motivated murders including Ted Bundy and Charles Mason.
- Ex - For one, these criminals are highly manipulative so not best source of reliable info, and secondly they committed unique and rare crimes that are maybe quite different to more ‘typical crimes’. e.g. Fraud = most common crime, non violent.
- L - However, the apprehension stage of typological profiling allows for improvements to be constantly made, meaning in the future the reliability of this profiling technique could be increased and could be more useful.
but reductionist
- Ev - has been found the dichotomy between organised and disorganised is false.
- Ex - David Canter - analysed 39 aspects of serial killings in murders committed by 100 US serial killers, analysis revealed no clear division between organised and disorganised. Found they were all organised type crimes and little evidence of disorganised types.
- Additionally, offenders may start off disorganised and become more organised (increased forensic awareness) so by looking at 2 distinct categories, they may fail to link two crimes by the same criminal together.
4
Q
describe the bottom-up approach of investigative profiling
A
- interpersonal coherence - beh consistent across crimes and situations
- forensic awareness - beh changes as they develop knowledge of forensics. Adapt and improve. Evidence of hiding forensics can infer a previous convict.
- smallest space analysis - statistical analysis. Multiple correlations of forensic beh with type of offender. using patterns to distinguish type of offender- instrumental opportunistic, instrumental cognitive, expressive impulsive.
5
Q
outline evaluation for investigative profiling (bottom-up)
A
strength - usefulness
- Ev - 75% of 48 Uk police forces using investigative psychology claimed profilers advice was useful
- Ex - therefore, useful in helping aid police investigations and catching criminals, preventing further victims.
- L - However, only 3% of these said the advice actually helped identify the offender. Meaning it doesn’t help catch offenders 97% of the time. This shows that it’s not useful in catching criminals, but maybe helps police look from diff perspective/ confirm what’s already true.
lead to wrongful convictions
- Ev - One profile stuck too closely to in murder of Rachel Nickel. Forensic psychologist Paul Britton helped the police create a profile which led to id of Colin Stagg who spent 13 months in custody before they realised he wasn’t the killer.
- Ex - Leads to wrongful convictions, future victims, as only focus on profile, can ignore the real perpetrator. Harm to wrongful convicted.
- L - But this has led to improvements in behavioural analysis, profilers advise police only.
6
Q
describe geographical profiling (bottom-up)
A
- Circle theory - home based in centre of circle - looking at data on crime locations
- 2 types of offender: Marauder (local), Commuter (travels far)
- improvements through CGT (computerised geographical targeting) - 3D mapping, terrain, time and mode of transport
7
Q
outline evaluation for geographical profiling (bottom up)
A
strength- based on objective data of crime locations
- Ev - helped to catch a job Duffy (Railway Rapist)
- Ex - works better as not subjective interpretation like top down.
- L - however, it cant distinguish between multiple offenders in the same area. And if offender is aware of circle theory it can be used against the police to confuse them.
lack of usefulness of circle theory
- Ev - Similar to pins on a map. Police already do this. Not adding anything extra to police knowledge.
- Ex - Additionally if a persons home base isn’t actually in the centre of the circle, police may look in the wrong place. Representing ranges in terms of circles is over-simplistic.
- L - However, CGT has improved the accuracy and information on circle theory. However this is only as good as the human that did computer programme.
8
Q
describe the atavistic forms theory (Lombroso) - early bio explanations
A
- offenders are primitive - ‘atavistic’ (genetic throwbacks)
- lower evolutionary development
- atavistic traits - large jaw, large ears, insensitivity to pain, hairiness.
- sex offenders - thick lips, protruding ears
- murderers - bloodshot eyes, curly hair
- sample = 383 Italian criminal skulls, 4500 live criminals.
- 21% had one atavistic trait
- 45% had 5 or more atavistic traits.
9
Q
outline evaluation for early biological explanation of offending (atavistic, Lombroso)
A
strength: objectivity and scientificness
- Ev - measuring almost 400 criminal skulls almost 4000 live criminals, objective data, correlational.
- Ex - Valid and reliable, not due to self-reports (social desirability)
- L - Using live criminals, measuring insensitivity to pain and hairiness = subjective. Not all on objective skull measurements. only italian criminals, not generalisable.
Criticism: lack of control group of non-criminals to compare
- Ev - Goring had a control group and found no differences between criminals and non criminals in number of atavistic traits.
- Ex - Atavistic traits are in general population and not a cause of offending
- L - appearance of offenders could be env rather than genetics, e.g. stigmata (piercings and tattoos). Additionally, if individuals experience persistently poor interactions with others (due to how they look) they will develop lower self esteem, and increased frustration with other making them more likely to commit criminal beh.
Criticism: social sensitivity - racist
- Ev - describes Black African/ Caribbean ethnicity, e.g. curly hair, dark skin, large brow.
- Ex - increased prejudice to black community being criminal. Still evidence today. Could highlight racism in CJS - white upper class males convicting more young, black males, hence more skulls and live criminals crim that community in his sample (hence biased)
- L - However, theory developed during historical period of slavery (lack validity, more of a reflection of attitudes at the time (1870)
10
Q
describe the genetic explanation of offending
A
- XYY syndrome (Jacob’s) - high levels of testosterone, more masculine features (taller, more muscular), higher aggression, instability, emotional immaturity, poor socialisation
- MAOA gene - ‘warrior gene’, low serotonin, linked to impulsivity (lack of decision making as low levels in PFC), high dopamine, linked to rewarding aggression.
- CDH-13 gene - 13x more likely to have a history of violence, linked to substance abuse and attention deficit disorder.
11
Q
outline evaluation for the genetic explanation of offending
A
XYY
- Ev - evidence of a higher correlation in prison pop (1.5%) compared to a normal pop (0.1%)
- Ex - suggests males are more aggressive due to higher testosterone levels. This is true to the crime statistics that show a significant difference in violent crimes committed by men and women.
- L - But 98.5% don’t have XYY, doesn’t explain maj of offenders.
Twin studies
- Ev - Lange investigated 13 Mz, 17 Dz twins who had spent time in prison.
Mz = 10/13, Dz= 2/17 also in prison.
- Ex - Mz = 100% genetics shared, higher concordance rate than Dz (50%), therefore genetic.
- L - but could still be due to env. Mz reared more similarly than Dz as look identical. Also not 13/13
Adoption studies
- Ev - Mednick et al conducted study of 13,000 Danish adoptees. neither bio/ adoptive parents had crim record - 13.5% criminal record.
figure rose to 20% when bio parents had. 24.5% when both bio and adoptive had.
- Ex - so higher for biological than for none. so genetic
- L - but for both, higher, hence diathesis-stress model (childhood trauma and genetic predisposition) and when with non is still high, env.
Family Studies
- Ev - Farrington conducted a longitudinal study following 411
boys aged 4-48. 161 has convictions
- Ex - found several common characteristics: poverty, poor parenting, poor education, impulsiveness.
- L - however, there was a positive correlation between fathers and sons being criminal, so genetics but could be SLT.
12
Q
describe neurochemical explanations of offending
A
-
Serotonin - low levels in PFC - lack of decision making, LT consequences. More impulsive (e.g. only considering ST consequences)
Inhibitory, and slows down brain activity - Dopamine - high levels in limbic system (reward neurotransmitter, excitatory). reinforcing the aggression.
-
Noradrenaline - high levels, overactive SAM system.
Fight/ Flight - stool in fight behaviour, perceiving threats in their environment which aren’t.
Excitatory
13
Q
outline evaluation for neurochemical explanations of offending
A
research support
- Ev - Meta-analysis – 29 pieces of research on anti-social adults and children. Low levels of serotonin in all offenders.
- Ex - Low serotonin levels lead to impulsivity hence why they are more anti-social e.g. varying offending behaviour. This implies offending is biological – e.g. mutation in MAOA-L producing low serotonin leads to impulsivity – leads to offending.
-
L - However, low levels of serotonin causing depression,
poverty, offending behaviour e.g. convictions – leads to lack of employment and depression or childhood trauma. Environmental, low levels due to environmental stressors, rather than serotonin being the cause.
Diathesis-Stress Model
-
Ev - Both nature and nurture. Genetic predisposition to having low serotonin and high dopamine or noradrenaline.
Stressors (e.g. childhood trauma or poverty) to bring out the offending behaviour. -
Ex -If someone had a good upbringing, no violence at home, in
fact they are not likely to offend even if have lower serotonin and higher dopamine levels. -
L - However, env – stress in childhood changes the genetics (epigenetics) by switching off MAOA and switching on CDH-13, creating the change in neurotransmitter levels, leads to offend, creates more stress and poverty and continues to change the neurophysiology,
neurochemistry in the brain (e.g. plasticity). This would explain how delinquents continue to offend in adulthood.
14
Q
describe neurophysiological explanations of offending
A
- limbic system - emotional regulation and regulation of hormones. reinforcing use of aggression
- amygdala (in limbic system) - fear response, recognising fear in others. high level of dopamine (confuses fear for aggression)
-prefrontal cortex - involved in consequential thinking, less activity in this area, involved in high impulsivity.
15
Q
describe Raine et al’s study on neurophysiological explanations
A
- 41 murderers who pleaded NGRI (not
guilty by reason of insanity). - Control group of 41 non-
murders (matched then on gender, schizophrenia). - Only 2 females.
- PET scan to study the brain areas.
- Results – asymmetrical activity in the amygdala (lower in one hemisphere than the other), lack of activity in the
thalamus and other areas of the limbic system. Lack of activity in the PFC (impulsivity)
16
Q
outline evaluation for neurophysiological explanations of offending
A
Research support
- Ev - Raine at al – 41 murderers who pleaded NGRI (not
guilty by reason of insanity). Control group of 41 non- murders (matched then on gender, schizophrenia).
Only 2 females. PET scan to study the brain areas.
Results – asymmetrical activity in the amygdala (lower in one hemisphere than the other), lack of activity in the
thalamus and other areas of the limbic system. Lack of activity in the PFC.
- Ex - This supports the role of limbic system & PFC in offending – fear recognition issues (amygdala). More impulsivity = PFC (consequential thinking).
- L - However, this only accounts for aggressive beh, can’t be generalised to all types of crime so must be other factors to consider when looking at expl of crim.
biology or environment?
- Ev - Research is only highlighting a correlation between brain abnormalities and criminalities. There may be other factors.
-
Ex - Poor parenting, childhood trauma or poverty & stress that has changed neurophysiology. Childhood env = brain underdevelopment. Both nature and nurture that is responsible for creating offending
behaviour. -
L - Biology implications = eugenics, fixed, born evil… death penalty or lifetime imprisonment. Overcrowding issues, school of crime.
Neurophysiology as an explanation is not helpful in helping to prevent and ‘cure’ crime.
17
Q
what are the psychological explanations of offending?
A
- Eyesencks criminal personality theory
- cognitive explanations
- differential association theory
- psychodynamic explanations
18
Q
describe Eysenck’s criminal personality theory
A
- innate - biological
- Extraversion - under active nervous system - thrill seekers as lack stimulation.
-
Neuroticism - overactive nervous system - fight/flight response. Offender perceives threats and fights when beh = non-threatening.
overreacts (ANS responds quick)
-Psychoticism - high levels of testosterone in males, lack of empathy, impulsivity, aggressiveness.
19
Q
outline evaluation for Eysenck’s criminal personality theory.
A
Research support biological
- Ev - MZ 0.52 correlation for neuroticism and 0.51 for extraversion.
Dz 0.24 neuroticism, 0.12 extraversion.
- Ex - 100% Mz, 50% Dz. Correlation for Mz higher, suggests personality has a genetic component and people are born with the genetic predisposition to become offenders.
- L - However, it’s not a perfect 1.0 correlation, so can’t be purely genetic. Difference could be cuz MZ twins treated similarly in their env. Could mean criminality env caused rather than innate.
personality test lacks validity
- Ev - Self report EPQ. Pps responses may not reflect their real personality. Restricts to Yes/No. when ‘sometimes’ may be more appropriate.
- Ex - More social desirability than accurate measure. Assumes critical awareness of personality traits.
- L - but there is a lie scale to account for any social desirability. Correlational, no cause and effect, cannot say personality trait causes criminality.
personality is not consistent across situations
- Ev - people may be consistent in similar situations but not across situations. e.g. more relaxed at home but neurotic at work. This situational theory was supported by research where family, friends and strangers were asked to rate 63 students in a variety of situations. They found almost no correlation between people’s ratings of the traits.
- Ex - Personality is not innate Is personality even a concept? so the theory that a criminal personality causes offending is flawed as there is no such thing as ‘one’ personality.
- L -Useful RLA, can identify possible criminals before offending and provide pro-social treatment, e.g. change upbringing, using conditioning with those in high E and N.
20
Q
what are the two cognitive explanations of offending?
A
cognitive distortions
moral reasoning
21
Q
describe cognitive distortions
A
Hostile attribution bias (HAB)
- perceiving beh as a threat when the behaviour was innocent
- acting to defend themselves (flight/fight)
minimalisation
- downplaying responsibility for offence
- reduce feelings of guilty for own actions.
- putting blame onto victim.
22
Q
outline evaluation for cognitive distortions
A
Research to support for HAB causing offending
- Ev -55 violent offenders, matched control to normal pps– happy, angry & fearful facial expressions – offenders saw all facial expressions as aggression.
- Ex - Offenders see non-existent threat – Offenders have cognitive bias that causes them to interpret innocent social situations as hostile and threatening due to thinking errors.
- L - HAB could be biological (noradrenaline & overactive flight & fight; EPQ)
Research support for minimalisation causing offending
- Ev - Sex offenders downplayed behaviour, e.g. suggesting the victims beh contributed in some way to crime/ 1/3 deny a crime has been committed. 1/4 believed victim benefitted in some way from abuse.
- Ex - This shows self-deception, where they don’t accept full reality, attempt to rationalise acts to help remove any guilt. Minimalisation allows sex offending to occur as justifies reason to offend.
- L - Is it the cause of offending or just excuse to justify reason for offending? May be reason for reoffending but not initial offence.
23
Q
what are the three stages of Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning?
A
Pre-conventional
conventional
post-conventional
24
Q
name and describe the two stages within the pre-conventional level
A
punishment stage - get caught
reward stage - eye for eye (personal gain from situation)
25
name and describe the two stages within the conventional level
good boy-good girl stage - morality based on what other people think.
law and order stage - how effects others
26
name and describe the two stages within the post-conventional level
social contract stage - how society is effected
ethical principle stage - how society needs to change
27
outline evaluation for moral reasoning
**_Strength: support for pre-conventional moral reasoning causing offending_**
- **_Ev_** - 128 male juvenile offenders, 38% did not consider the consequences of their actions & 38% confident would not get caught
- **_Ex_** - Moral reasoning surrounded punishment, getting caught or the consequences to
themselves, lack of perspective taking (criminals stuck in pre-conventional stage of moral reasoning)
- **_L_** - However, low %, 62% possibly in a higher stage of moral reasoning. Not sole reason for
offending. Correlational… cause & effect.
**_Criticism: Gender bias_**
- **_Ev_** - Kohlbergs research only based on males, androcentric bias. surrounds knowledge of law & order; housewives lacked knowledge of law and politics, knew about compassion and care (hence max Stage 3).
- **_Ex_** - Gilligan changed working to be about caring for family and community (then reached stage 5).
- **_L_** - However, temporal validity; women have greater knowledge now… Kohlberg now
applies. Also if moral reasoning is applies after, it cannot be an explanation for initial offending, but could help with the understanding of reoffending.
28
describ Sutherlands differential association theory.
- Criminal behaviour is learnt through **association** or **role models* rather than inherited.
- Techniques and attitudes/motivations are learnt from association with intimate personal groups
- If the number of favourable attitudes outweigh unfavourable ones, then a person becomes an offender.
- General ‘need’ (e.g. for money, poverty, class) is not sufficient explanation for crime because not everyone with those needs turned to crime.
- Differential associations may vary in **priority**, **frequency** (more contact with antisocial peers), **duration** (longer relationship lasts, more learning) and **intensity** (higher status of people offender associate with, more learning takes place)
29
Outline evaluation for Differential association explanation
**_Strength: changed views on offenders, e.g. societal not individual ‘evil’_**
- **_Ev_** - Societal factors to blame, e.g. family upbringing, peers etc instead of ind factors (bio, personality traits).
- **_Ex_** - Therefore, can explain all crimes, not just violent (as seen with previous theories) such as white collar crime (fraud, forgery, bribery)
- **_L_** - Ignores biological components, e.g. personality traits leasds to associate with similar people (pro-crime). e.g. XYY, MAOA gene.
**_Strength: research support for DAT_**
- **_Ev_** - 40% sons criminal by 18 when father was; 13% criminal when father was not.
- **_Ex_** - Role models in env (DAT) reason for offending. Father role model
- **_L_** - Could support biological/genetic theories as father share 50% genes with sons.
**_Criticism: only partial explanation for offending_**
- **_Ev_** - Only explains smaller crimes, than serious violent crimes,
e.g. murder or rape.
- **_Ex_** - Unlikely to associate with murderers or rapists (particularly when young) as rare crimes. So cannot explain sexual murderers.
- **_L_** -Smaller crimes are majority (Eng + Wales 2014 - 500 homocides, 400,000 burglaries) hence better explanation (prevents the most victims) Also, explains how prison can increase reoffending rates (school of crime).
30
describe the psychodynamic theory of offending: Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation.
Bowlby interviewed 44 juvenile thieves compared to a control group of non thieves.
found 14/44 thieves had affectionless psychopathy
12/14 affectionless psychopaths had MD (mother responsible for emotional development)
3/44 non-criminals had MD.
31
outline evaluation for Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study (psychodynamic)
**_Strength: research support_**
- **_Ev_** - 44 thieves study = MD causes psychopathy & serious violent offending.
- **_Ex_** - Due to lack of empathy; mothers responsible for developing
emotional intelligence & empathy. Implications for working mothers,
role of father, putting mothers in prison and removing children of
abuse or neglect into foster
adoption system.
- **_L_** - Correlational – no cause and effect. Retrospective = looked at
psychopaths to see if MD, not if MD caused psychopathy. Could be many with MD who are not psychopaths.
**_Criticism: Correlational: many other variables to explain relationship between MD and psychopathy_**
- **_Ev_** - Education, poverty, family criminality all responsible for Psychopathy & criminality (but may have had MD)
- **_Ex_** - Implication is blaming mothers for criminality (e.g. means that mothers cannot have equal work rights as males)
- **_L_** - However, Sweden provides equal rights for parental leave to either fathers or mothers and no impact on crime. Hence Bowbly is affected by cultural attitudes towards women's roles in society (sexism).
32
describe the psychodynamic theory of offending: Freud, superego
**Weak/Underdeveloped superego:** absent same-sex parent (cannot resolve fear of castration; by taking on same-sex morals/attitudes; weak morals = offending)
**Harsh/Overdeveloped superego:** strict same-sex parent (excessive guilt; use offending as a
deserved punishment)
** Deviant superego:** criminal same-sex parent (superego similar to ID; deviant morals and attitudes- pro-crime.
33
outline evaluation for The psychodynamic explanation: Freud
**_Strength: real life application_**
- **_Ev_** - Psychoanalysis used in prison to uncover repression and denial; work through excessive guilt.
- **_Ex_** - Proves that superego is responsible for offending & impact of guilt and deviant morals from parents to cause offending.
- **_L_** - but no evidence that same sex or single parents households have higher % of criminality in children.
**_Criticism: No evidence of superego causing offending_**
- **_Ev_** - Lack of falsifiability as cannot see unconscious and superego. Offenders unaware of their ID and superego.
- **_Ex_** - Cannot prove or disprove that superego and ID is responsible. More like a religion (believe it or don’t).
- **_L_** - However, theory is robust and used extensively to explain all human behaviour, including offending. Socially sensitive towards women (inferior morals to men as less fear (castration worse than rejection).
Hence supports the need for women to be controlled by men. Not supported by prison statistics on female v male offender
34
what are the ways of dealing with offending behaviour?
- custodial sentencing: recidivism rates
- behaviour modification: token economies
- anger management
- restorative justice
35
define recidivism
convictions for an offence 2 years after release
36
outline evaluation for custodial sentencing
**_Deterrence: Larger CS prevent offending behaviour_**
- **_Ev_** - 15% of offenders are first time offenders; 58.9% of adults
reoffended in less than 12 months &
19.8/100,000 (in 2021) people
murdered in Texas (with the death
penalty).
- **_Ex_** - If deterrence Texas = 0%
murders. The 1st time reoffending
rate would be higher, and less
adults would reoffend.
Offenders = impulsive, no
consideration of long-term
consequences. Deterrence does
not work.
- **_L_** - However, recidivism is lower for juveniles (34.3%). Works more on younger people? Recidivism lower when includes rehab…
**_Retribution: Better aim is to achieve societal/victim justice or revenge._**
- **_Ev_** -Society considers justice to equate to longer sentences, harsh
custodial conditions.
- **_Ex_** -Judgements are based off an ‘eye for an eye’ principle. This is a ‘vote winner’ for politicians (in
UK/USA).
- **_L_** - Not reducing but increasing reoffending due to psychological effects of CS, e.g., homelessness, education, drugs & low self-esteem are made worse.
Victims don’t feel retribution has
been achieved. Victims have little
voice in sentencing.
**_Incapacitation: CS should aim to protect the public_**
- **_Ev_** - Crimes are prevented whilst the offender is in prison, hence protecting the public. This is a
cost of £44,500 per person each
year.
- **_Ex_** - Impossible aim – leads to overcrowding, Increases violence (riots) and suicide risk.
Crimes still happen within prison,
e.g., drugs (school of crime)
- **_L_** - Effective if room & government can afford the increased costs. At some point the prison population would need to be reduced = death penalty? Community sentences? Rehabilitation?
**_Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation can reduce recidivism & solve incapacitations overcrowding issues_**
-**_E_** - 47.2% recidivism rate between 1997-2005 on cognitive skills training programmes.
-**_Ex_** - Aiming to deal with offending issues, e.g. drugs, poverty,
homelessness, low educational
attainment & cognitive deficits (e.g.
impulsivity, lack of perspective
taking) works. Prevents future
offending (unlike other aims).
-**_L_** - However, rehab more effective for violent or sexual offenders, than smaller offences.
Should we aim to achieve all 4?
Norway – more rehab &
incapacitation than retribution &
deterrence. Community and victim
involvement in sentencing. Risk of
offender and offender/victims needs at the center of decision making.
37
outline evaluation for recidivism rates
The recidivism rates only include 2 years after release from prison. Any offending after 2 yrs is not included.
Recidivism tends to include those who have complete offending behaviour programmes and other rehabilitation, hence are misleading if supporting custodial sentencing.
Recidivism data does not distinguish the type of offence, e.g. violent, sexual or non-violent.
Recidivism data does not distinguish the length of the sentence served.
38
describe behaviour modification
- getting offenders to unlearn criminal behaviours, by reinforcing
pro-social behaviour and punishing anti-social behaviour (**operant conditioning**)
- Prisoners are given **tokens** (secondary reinforcer)** for showing positive behaviours and these can be exchanged for **rewards (primary reinforcer)**. This can include sweets, drinks, recreational activities.
- Offenders learn to associate the tokens with the primary reinforcers, e.g. food, products, visits (classical conditioning).
- **Behaviour Shaping:** Tokens are given for increasingly more complex pro-social behaviour, e.g. politeness, then helping others within the prison.
- **3 tiers** to token economy system:
**enhanced:** Can have more responsibility at the workplace to earn more tokens, have longer visits
and luxury products.
**standard:** Come into the prison with standard number of tokens, to get a standard level of phone calls, visits and products from the prison shop.
**basic:** Lower number of tokens, reduced visits & phone calls, time in isolation, basic products (e.g., toiletries). To attend Basic programme to go up the incentive scheme.
39
outline evaluation for behaviour modification
**_Strength – research support that token economy systems (TES) increase pro-social behaviour_**
- **_Ev_** - 125 Boys (12-15 yrs) in cottages given TES to those without TES. Use tokens for sweets, toys, cigarettes or save for baseball games or visits home. Pro-social behaviour increased from an average of 62% pre TES to 89% post TES (increase of 27%).
- **_Ex_** - Therefore, behaviour modification is successful in reducing anti-social behaviour =
offending behaviour. This is simple and easy to implement.
- **_L_** - However, it needs to be consistently implemented otherwise it does not work effectively. The behaviours needed to earn tokens needs to be operationalised.
**_Criticism – it is a short-term method of dealing with offending behaviour_**
- **_Ev_** - Studies have found that the effects of the TES do not persist once out of the TES.
- **_Ex_** - Therefore, it is likely to have high recidivism rates. TES teaches to extrinsically comply
with an institutions rules for tokens rather than internalise reasons for changing their behaviour. Therefore, there is little rehabilitative value.
-**_L_** - However, implications - TES being useful within education, e.g., school dealing with Autism. Therefore, prevents offending by encouraging pro-social behaviour. However, socially sensitive – labelling autism as like offending.
**_Strength – research support to show it does work long term_**
- **_Ev_** - A study comparing TES to no TES with juvenile delinquents found they were less likely to offend after 1 year.
- **_Ex_** - Suggests TES can reduce offending behaviour outside of the TES.
- **_L_** - However, seems less effective with adult offenders (50% of 92 men in a Canadian max secure hospital reoffended). Hence it is not better than chance. Furthermore, there are ethical issues, as TES can be seen to remove offenders' basic human rights, e.g., right to socialisation, right to food. Could lead to psychological effects within prison.
40
what are the key aims of anger management?
- ** Cognitive restructuring**: Awareness and challenging irrational thoughts.
- ** Regulation of arousal**: learn to control physiological state (awareness of the bodily reaction to stress)
- ** Behavioural strategies:** problem solving skills, strategic withdrawal from stressful situation & social skills.
41
Describe the Stress Inoculation Model of anger management
**Cognitive preparation:** Learn about anger, e.g., how it can be adaptive/non-adaptive and how to recognise and challenge their irrational thinking (should &
musts)
**Skill acquisition:** Taught self regulation & relaxation techniques. They are taught communication skills e.g. (assertiveness - using ‘I’ language, and problem-solving skills)
**Application training:**
Roleplay stressful situations (given extensive feedback throughout roleplay), then practise in real life setting and write a diary, to
review in treatment sessions.
42
outline evaluation for anger management
**_CBT anger management programmes effective at reducing recidivism_**
- **_Ev_** - Meta-analysis of 6 studies – 75% improvement – study found 20/58 had CBT with anger control had greatest improvement.
- **_Ex_** - AM are effective & do reduce recidivism, particularly the skills acquisition element.
- **_L_** - However, met-analysis may not be accurate, as different length programmes or levels of expertise (psychologist or prison officer) in delivering the AM. Furthermore, based of self report from prison staff (bias).
**_Methodological issues with attrition rate_**
- **_Ev_** - Voluntary AM has a high drop out rate. Involves high commitment to reflect and change thinking and attitudes to offending behaviour.
- **_Ex_** - Furthermore, this programmes often are short term and do not show a long- term effect passed on 1 year recidivism_**
- **_L_** - However, drama-based AM has been proven more successful & after 1-year, Cognitive Skills Booster Sessions (CBS)
are offered to eliminate the lack of long- term effectiveness.
**_Cannot say that anger causes violent offending, as there is little correlation between anger and aggression_**
- **_Ev_** - Study found in 300 males there was no difference between violent offenders/non-violent offenders in their levels of anger.
- **_Ex_** - Therefore, AM is not effective, it assumes anger leads to violence however not the case. E.g., instrumental aggression from psychopaths (lack of affect), use violence to gain, i.e., armed robbery = not anger
- **_L_** -However, AM could be effective by targeting violent offenders with anger issues, rather than all violent offenders.
Ensure drama-based activities in the
skills acquisition phase & offer booster after a year. Enhances effectiveness of AM.
43
describe restorative justice
- victim/victim’s family and the offender have a chance to put forward their views, with a trained mediator, probation, prison staff included. This can be a face-to-face meeting, through facetime, email, letters.
- aim is for victim to have opportunity for their voice to be heard by the offender e.g., explain the impact the crime. Secondly, for the offender to face up to consequences of their actions as part of rehabilitation process.
- voluntary process, where all parties have the right to withdraw. Respectful process, and the psychologist will have worked extensively with all parties before the actual mediation takes place.
- requires the offender to take active
participant in the process. This could be considered harder for the offender to do (than custodial) They need to listen to the impact of their crimes on the victim, taking full responsibility for their actions. This should lead to a reduction in recidivism.
- Offenders may offer concrete compensation (money or unpaid work) or atone by showing genuine feelings of guilt and remorse.
- restores power to the victim. Their voice is heard in legal process, feelings taken into account. Many have said it reduced their feeling of being a ‘victim’ and helped them feel safe again.
44
Outline evaluation for restorative justice
**_Support effectiveness of RJ_**
- **_Ev_** - 85% satisfaction from victim face- to-face meetings, 92.5% victim satisfaction when a victim of violent crime. Victims stated more satisfaction when through mainstream court.
- **_Ex_** - This is strength because the victims feel they have retribution for the harm done by the offender, compared to the custodial
sentencing (as limited involvement
in CJS).
- **_L_** - However, based of self-report, victims may be socially desirable – more likely to say it is good after being through the long process.
**_Support in RJ reducing recidivism_**
- **_Ev_** - 20 studies of face-to-face meetings showed a 14% reduction in reoffending.
- **_Ex_** - This suggests that rather than just basing effectiveness of victim's self report satisfaction, that RJ reduces reoffending, prevent future victims to have to go through the CJS and Rj process. Thereby more important in effectiveness.
- **_L_** - However, only 14%, 86% are still reoffending. Therefore, RJ is not on its own effective at reducing
reoffending. Maybe needs to be a
multi pronged approach, e.g., CS
and RJ together, using AM programmes and drug rehabilitation
as well as RJ.
**_Criticism as RJ not effective
with all offenders_**
- **_Ev_** - Zehr claimed RJ can be done without offender present as some types of crimes may not be suitable. Such as letters, emails etc.
- **_Ex_** - This tends to be the case for crimes with an unclear specific victim, or psychopathic offenders who lack of empathy (may enjoy the suffering to the victim).
- **_L_** - However, RJ cannot be used with all victims or offenders. E.g., the victim or offender may decline to take part. It would not work with offenders or victims with learning disabilities (e.g., low IQ), or
offenders who claim they are not
guilty of the offence.
Furthermore, RJ could lead to
emotional harm for victim and high
risk of self-harm/suicide to the
offende
