Maletsky

Question 1

Aims

Answer 1

• to investigate whether MPA reduces sexual recidivism versus no treatment
• to investigate the measure for recommending MPA and evaluate those recommending it

Question 2

Sample

Answer 2

• 275 inmates after their release
• men from Oregon
• most offences sexual in nature
• all men serving a prison sentence during study- follow up conducted to measure levels of recidivism
• 134 of these were deems suitable for MPA
• of the 134, 79 (59%) received medication
• 55 (41%) did not receive medication (due to community not having enough resources, or parole office thinking not necessary)

Question 3

Procedure

Answer 3

• avg dose and timing of the injections unknown
• most men released to the Portland area
• some knowledge was known about the dose
• in general, it was between 200mg-400mg every other week
• questionnaires and conviction statistics were used to collect the outcome data
• the supervising officer also said whether they thought the offender was ‘doing well’ or not

Question 4

Describe the outcome data types

Answer 4

• whether a new offence had been committed since release
• a violation of parole
• rearrsted
• rearrest down to sexual problems
• whether the offender was employed

Question 5

Describe the results in those who received treatment

Answer 5

• 79 received treatment
• 4 had committed new offenders, only one was sexual in nature
• this was not bad enough to result in further prison sentence
• 70/79 said to be ‘doing well’
• therefore, ultimately treatment reduces recidivism and increased rehabilitation

Question 6

Describe the results for those who received no treatment but were recommended treatment

Answer 6

• 55 did not receive treatment
• 17 new offences
• 10 were sexual in nature
• 24/55 said to be ‘doing well’

Question 7

Overall results of the treatment group

Answer 7

• fewer new offences
• fewer parole violations
• no other new sexual offences compared to the other group
• did not return to prison
• were seen to be doing well more often than others
• chi-squared was carried out on the outcomes, which showed significant differences in those receiving the medication- supporting all the results.

Question 8

Describe the conclusions of maletsky

Answer 8

• those recommended to receive and receiving MPA were less likely to reoffend than those recommended but not receiving it
• about 31% of those recommended but not receiving the treatment committed a new offence (60% sexual), which compares to around 27% of those not recommended the rreatment and about 55% of these being sexual
• therefore, due to being very similar findings, this suggests that deciding who ‘needed’ the treatment is not a valid measure
• researchers found that most of the men in the study had been out of custody for 2 years so the findings had some significance.

Question 9

Generalisability

Answer 9

• sample consisted of 134 prisoners, all male and from the Oregon area, committing mostly sexual crimes
• therefore, as the study was conducted up the US, results may not be generalisable to offenders in other countries with different social, legal and healthcare systems
• such as the UK- where chemical castration must gain informed consent, whereas it is mandatory in 7 states in the US.

Question 10

Reliability

Answer 10

• lack of a standardised procedure- not much is known about the dosage or the timing of the dosage
• high reliability- research uses quantitative data on conviction statistics/recidivism rates to assess effectiveness, so objective and easy to compare
• reliable conclusions- longitudinal study- most of the men had been out of custody for two years, so findings have some significance, proving reliability

Question 11

Validity

Answer 11

• high ecological validity- ppts were not in a controlled environment, some knowledge about dose etc… so it shows that MPA is useful for treating offenders in a real world parole, when in the community
• high validity- quantitative data, chi squared, statistically analyses- objective, os results on the effectiveness of MPA as a treatment method are without researcher bias
• low validity- supervisors were asked if they thought that the offender was ‘doing well’, this may involve subjectivity as they interpret their wellbeing. This could be influenced by a number of factors, such as if they had known them for a long time, personal relationship, or if they had reoffended, therefore decreasing validity due to subjective, harder to find cause and effect. Also, not an operationalised concept

Question 12

Ethics/application

Answer 12

A strength of the study is that it could mean that they are safe/suitable for release without being a danger to society which will reduce overcrowding within prisons. HOWEVER, chemical castration doesn’t deal with the underlying cause of sex offending, it will not deal with the mental health issues that cause offences, just reduces their sex drives.