Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Forensic > 1st > Flashcards

1st Flashcards

1
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
A

Offender profiling is used to identify the characteristics of a criminal and narrow the list of possible suspects.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    ( Top down approach?)
A
  • fits a criminal into predefined categories
  • the profiles used in the top down approach are: organized and disorganized
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    ( Douglas et al?)
A
  • describes the sequence of the FBI’s top-down approach to offender profiling:
  • Assimilation
  • Classification
  • Reconstruction
  • Profile generation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    ( Bottom Up Approach?)
A
  • It starts with the criminals characteristics and develops a profile based on that
  • statically analysis is used to identify common themes and patterns of behaviour across several crime scenes
  • geographical profiling is the use of stastical analysis to make inferences about the offenders geographical location.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    ( Canter 1994?)
A
  • The way a criminal behaves when they are committing a crime will be consistent with how they behave in everyday life. For example, a killer who commits aggressive murders is likely to be an aggressive person in general. So, if there is evidence of an aggressive murder, the profile of the suspect will include an aggressive personality.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    ( Gregg McCrary and Ed Grant?
A
  • Gregg McCrary and Ed Grant used the top-down approach to develop a profile of the man responsible for the murders of several prostitutes in the late 1980s.
  • This profile ended up being a close match for the offender, Arthur Shawcross, who was eventually found guilty. This suggests the top-down approach works.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    ( Evidence for organised and disorganised?)
A
  • The organised and disorganised offender profiles were developed by the FBI from interview and data from 36 US murderers, including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    ( Limited Application For Top Down?)
A
  • The top-down approach only works for some types of crime. For example, rapists and murderers typically have a particular modus operandi (i.e. way of committing the crime) that reveal information about their character and so for these crimes the top-down approach may be useful.
  • However, crimes such as burglary do not typically reveal any idiosyncratic details about the criminal and so bottom-up approaches (e.g. geographical profiling) are likely to be more useful.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    (Wide range of application for bottom up approach?)
A
  • Whereas the top-down approach only really works for crimes with a particular modus operandi, such as rape and murder, the bottom-up approach can be applied to a much wider range of crimes.
  • For example, most burglaries are similar in method and so a top-down approach won’t reveal much about the offender’s profile. However, geographical profiling only requires the locations of the crimes, and so this bottom-up approach can be applied to basically every type of crime.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    (Copson 1995?)
A
  • Copson (1995) surveyed 184 UK police officers (UK = bottom-up approach) on the use of offender profiles created by trained profilers.
  • Although 83% of the police surveyed said the profiles were ‘useful’, just 3% of profiles created by trained profilers resulted in identification of the offender. This suggests bottom-up profiles are not particularly useful in practice.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q
  1. Describe and evaluate offender profiling
    (Very Scientific for bottom up approach?)
A
  • The bottom-up approach relies on objective and measurable data (e.g. plotting geographic locations of crimes), uses mathematical tools (e.g. statistical analysis), and is often based on psychological theory (e.g. interpersonal coherence).
  • Because of this, Canter argues the bottom-up approach is more scientific than the top-down approach, which relies more on intuition and gut-feeling.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

3 biological explanations of offending behavior:

A
  • atavistic
  • Genetics
  • Neural
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ATAVSIM AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( Atavism)
A
  • 19th Century criminologist Cesare Lombroso proposed that criminals are biologically different from modern humans. He argued that criminals have more in common with our evolutionary ancestors than normal humans do.
  • ## atavistic form: The idea is that criminality represents the behaviours of earlier, more savage, pre-human species – like Neanderthals or homo habilis.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ATAVSIM AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( Atavism distinctive facial features?)
A
  • Heavy brow
  • Strong jaw
  • Extra fingers/toes/nipples
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
  1. . DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ATAVSIM AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    (Historical Influence?)
A
  • Lombroso’s atavistic form explanation is widely dismissed by modern-day scientists
  • Prior to Lombroso, explanations of criminal behaviour tended to be religious (e.g. bad spirits, Satan, etc.)
  • Lombroso’s approach shifted the discussion towards more scientific explanations. This paved the way for more scientific explanations of criminal behaviour, such as genetic factors.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q
  1. . DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ATAVSIM AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    (Ethical?)
A
  • Lombroso’s atatvistic form explanation is socially sensitive because it could lead to stereotyping and discrimination based on the way a person looks.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

4 . DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ATAVSIM AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
(Methodological Explanation?)

A
  • Lombroso’s approach was that he did not use a non-criminal control group to compare his measurements of criminals against.
  • Without comparing the features of criminals against the features of non-criminals, it is impossible to say whether criminals do actually have distinctive features that differentiate them from non-criminals as Lombroso claimed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

1 . DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE GENETICS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR

(LANGE 1931)

A
  • compared concordance rates for prison sentences among 13 identical twins and 17 non-identical twins.
  • 10 of the 13 pairs of identical twins (77%) had both spent time in prison, whereas only 2 of the 17 non-identical twins (12%) had both spent time in prison.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

2 . DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE GENETICS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
(LANGE 1931 CONCLUSION?)

A
  • These studies show the concordance rates for criminal behaviour are higher among identical twins (who share 100% of their genes) than non-identical twins (who only share 50% of their genes). This supports a role for genetics in explaining criminal behaviour.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

3 . DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE GENETICS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
(CANDIDATE GENES?)

A
  • Although there is no single ‘criminal gene’, several genes have been linked with criminal behaviour.
  • For example, the MAOA-L gene is linked with aggressive behaviour , which is in turn linked with criminal behaviour.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

4 . DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE GENETICS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
(CANDIDATE GENES EVIDENCE?)

A
  • Brunner et al (1993)
  • studied a family with a history of aggressive and criminal behaviour, and found that all the male members had the MAOA-L gene
  • This is an example of a gene that could (partly) explain criminal behaviour.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE GENETICS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( DETERMINISTIC?)
A
  • Genetic explanations are deterministic because they say that a person’s genes are what cause criminal behaviour, not free will.
  • However, this raises legal and moral issues: It is hard to hold someone morally responsible for criminal actions if they didn’t choose them, and so it may seem unfair to punish them.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE GENETICS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( OTHER FACTORS?)
A
  • If criminal behaviour was entirely determined by genetics, the concordance rate would be 100% among identical twins.
  • Lange (1931) found the concordance rates for criminal behaviour among identical twins to be less than 100%,
  • which demonstrates that other factors (e.g. different experiences and psychological factors) are needed for a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE NEURAL FACTORS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( RAINE ET AL?)
A
  • RAINE ET AL
  • compared brain scans conducted on 41 convicted murderers and with brain scans conducted on 41 control participants
  • The researchers observed that the murderers had reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, the superior parietal gyrus, left angular gyrus, and the corpus callosum compared to the control group.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE NEURAL FACTORS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( BRUNNER ET AL?)
A
  • Neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and dopamine, may also explain criminal behaviour
  • Brunner et al (1993)
  • described above demonstrates a link between genes responsible for processing neurotransmitters and violent behaviour
  • These effects on neurotransmitters may be why these genes increase violent behaviour, suggesting a link between abnormal neurotransmitter activity and criminality.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE NEURAL FACTORS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( DETERMINISTIC?)
A
  • Neural explanations are biologically deterministic because they say that neural factors are what cause criminal behaviour, not free will.
  • However, this raises legal and moral issues: If someone doesn’t choose their criminal actions, it may seem unfair to hold them morally or legally responsible for them.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE NEURAL FACTORS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( SMALL SAMPLE SIZES?)
A
  • Studies linking criminal behaviour with neural factors often use small sample sizes.
  • ne reason for this is that the population of serious criminals are hard to gain scientific access to
  • This effect is compounded by the high costs of brain-scanning tools, such as fMRI, which makes it even more difficult to carry out this research on large numbers of people.
  • Because of these small sample sizes, it may be invalid to generalise the findings from these studies to the wider population.G
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE NEURAL FACTORS AS AN EXPLANATION OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR
    ( ETHICAL?)
A
  • An implication of Raine’s research is that brain scans in childhood could be used to identify potentially violent criminals of the future.
  • This policy, if enacted, could potentially reduce crime but is socially sensitive because it could lead to discrimination against people with these brain structures.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ESEYNECKS THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR]
A

Eysenck’s theory of personality is a general theory of personality. According to Eysenck, a person’s biology (i.e. their genes) predispose them towards certain personality traits.

  • These 3 key personality traits exist on a spectrum and are described in Eysenck (1947) and Eysenck (1966):
  • extrovert
  • neurotic
  • psychotic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ESEYNECKS THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR]

( EXTROVERT VS INTROVERT?)

A

An extrovert is someone who is sociable, talkative, more impulsive and risk-taking.

In contrast, an introvert is someone who prefers to spend time alone and is less impulsive and less inclined to take risks.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ESEYNECKS THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR]
    ( NEUROTIC VS STABLE?)
A

A neurotic person is someone who is prone to strong negative emotions such as anxiety, worry, nervousness, and jealousy.

In contrast, a stable person is (as the name suggests) more emotionally stable and calm.

32
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ESEYNECKS THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR]
    (PSYCHOTIC VS NON -PSYCHOTIC)
A

A psychotic person lacks empathy, does not feel guilt, and is aggressive and unconventional.

In contrast, the majority of people are non-psychotic – they have a conscience and feel empathy and guilt.

33
Q

A highly extroverted person is more likely to commit crime because….

A

they are more likely to take risks and act impulsively. Extroverts are also thrill-seekers, so the excitement of criminal behaviour is more likely to be appealing.

34
Q

A highly neurotic person is more likely to commit crime because….

A

They feel negative emotions more strongly, which increases the likelihood of them committing a criminal act in the heat of the moment.

35
Q

A highly psychotic person is more likely to commit crime because….

A

they are not put off by feelings of guilt or empathy for a potential victim. High psychoticism is also associated with increased aggression, increasing the likelihood of violent criminal behaviour

36
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ESEYNECKS THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR]
    (UNRELIABLE?)
A
  • Much of the research linking criminality with personality type determines personality type using self-report methods such as the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
  • However, self-report techniques are often unreliable as the answer the participant gives varies depending on their mood.
  • Self-report techniques are also often invalid as participants lie (e.g. to make themselves sound better).
37
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ESEYNECKS THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR]
    ( IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERNE TFACTORS?)
A
  • Although there is some evidence supporting a link between Eysenck’s 3 personality traits and criminal behaviour, the links are stronger for some personality traits more than others.
  • ## For example, the correlation between being highly psychotic and criminal behaviour is much stronger than the correlation between being highly neurotic and criminal behaviour.
38
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ESEYNECKS THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR]
    ( INDIVIDUAL FACTORS)
A
  • There are many people who score highly for neuroticism, extroversion, and even psychoticism who do not engage in criminal behaviour.
  • Conversely, there are many stable, introverted, and non-psychotic people who do engage in criminal behaviour.
  • This suggests that other factors (e.g. biology or learning approaches) are needed for a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.
39
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE EXPLANANTION AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR]
A
  • This explanation for offending suggests that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motivation for criminal behavior.
  • We often hear the phrase “Got in with a bad crowd”; our friendship groups can profoundly affect criminality, especially during adolescence.
  • Differential associations (number of contacts with criminals over non-criminals) may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
  • The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. (behaviorism: classical conditioning, operant conditioning, social learning theory).
40
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE EXPLANANTION AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( Differences in moral reasoning?)
A

-Differences in moral reasoning can explain why one person might commit a crime when another person may not
- A person who commits a crime does not have the belief that what they are doing is wrong, so this means they are free to do so.
- In contrast, if someone has a belief that a criminal action is morally wrong, this is likely to prevent them from doing it. These differences in moral reasoning explain their different actions.

41
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE EXPLANANTION AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( LIMTED APPLICATION?)
A
  • Level of moral reasoning is able to explain some types of criminal behaviour better than others.
  • For example, Thornton and Reid (1982) found criminals convicted of robbery were more likely to be at the pre-conventional morality stage than criminals convicted of assault.
42
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
A

Cognitive distortions are consistent deviations from rational thought that cause people to perceive things inaccurately. Examples of cognitive distortions that may explain criminal behaviour include hostile attribution bias and minimalisation.

43
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BAIS)
A

If someone has a hostile attribution bias, they will tend to misinterpret people’s actions as in some way hostile or negative.

For example, someone with a hostile attribution bias may interpret an innocent look from another person as aggressive, which may cause the person with hostile attribution bias to respond aggressively or violently.

44
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( MINIMILISATION)
A

Minimalisation is a cognitive distortion where a person downplays how bad their criminal behaviour really is. This may involve justifications that reduce the offender’s sense of guilt.

For example, a thief may tell himself that his victim was rich and he’s poor so it’s fair to steal from them. Or a violent offender may tell herself that an assault wasn’t that bad.

45
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( Schönenberg and Jusyte (2013)
A
  • showed pictures of ’emotionally ambiguous’ faces to 55 violent offenders and 55 matched control subjects.
  • The researchers found that the violent offenders were more likely to interpret these ambiguous stimuli as aggressive than the controls were, which supports the explanation that hostile attribution bias may explain (violent) criminal behaviour.
46
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( PRACTICAL APPLICATION?)
A
  • Understanding the cognitive distortions that cause criminality could yield effective ways to reduce criminal behaviour and prevent recidivism.
  • For example, cognitive behavioural therapy could reduce minimalisation by helping offenders understand how serious their actions are, or reduce hostile attribution bias by challenging the thought processes that lead offenders to misinterpret innocent actions as hostile.
47
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( OTHER FACTORS?)
A

There are examples of criminals who don’t exhibit either hostile attribution bias or minimalisation, which suggests that other factors (e.g. biology or learning approaches) are needed for a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.

48
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY AS AN EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
A
  • Sutherland (1939) describes differential association theory: a learning approach that explains criminal behaviour as learned from environmental influences.
  • According to differential association theory, criminal behaviour is learned by associating with people who commit crimes
  • A person is more likely to engage in criminal activity the more of these differential associations with criminals a person has, the closer the relationships to these criminals are (e.g. parents and siblings), and the longer the duration of time spent interacting with them is.
    -Sutherland argued these factors – frequency, duration, intensity, etc. of differential associations – can be used to mathematically predict how likely a person is to be a criminal.
49
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY AS AN EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
A

Through associations with criminals, a person learns both specific methods of crime (e.g. how to source and supply drugs or how to break into houses without setting off alarms) as well as certain attitudes towards crime (e.g. that being a successful thief drug dealer is worthy of respect and that police are the bad guys). Again, the more exposure to these attitudes a person encounters, the more likely they are to engage in criminal behaviour themself.

50
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY AS AN EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( EXCEPTIONS?)
A
  • There are many examples of people raised around criminals (i.e. people with favourable differential associations for crime) who do not go on to commit a crime.
  • imilarly, there are examples of people raised in environments with very limited or no exposure to criminals who go on to commit crimes.
  • These examples weaken support for the theory and suggest that other factors (e.g. biological factors) are also needed for a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.
51
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY AS AN EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( LIMITED APPLICATION?)
A
  • Although differential association may explain certain types of crime (e.g. burglary or drug dealing), there are many criminal acts that are individualistic in nature and so don’t fit with the theory.
  • For example, serial killers are not typically raised in environments among other serial killers, so differential association theory is not able to explain such criminal behaviour.
52
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY AS AN EXPLANATION OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
    ( EXPLANATORY POWER?)(
A
  • Differential association theory is able to explain why rates of recidivism (reoffending after prison) are so high: People who are sent to prison will be surrounded by people who have positive attitudes towards crime and who will have knowledge of the methods involved in crime.
  • These differential associations will further teach and encourage criminal behaviour, making a person sent to prison highly likely to reoffend.
53
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
    ( AIMS)
A

Retribution: This is about justice and fairness. If an offender has committed a crime that has cause suffering to another person or society, there is a sense in which the offender should be punished and suffer themselves in order to balance things out
.
Rehabilitation: This is about helping offenders so that they are less likely to commit crimes in the future. For example, if a thief stole because he had no job and no money, rehabilitation could teach skills that help him get a job when he leaves so that he doesn’t have to steal.

Deterrence: Prison is an negative consequence of criminal behaviour so (assuming operant conditioning) the offender is less likely to commit crimes in the future. Seeing that criminal behaviour results in prison time also deters the general public too as they will want to avoid going to prison.

Protection: Imprisoning an offender also protects the public from them committing further crimes. For example, a serial killer will be unable to kill any more people while locked up in prison.

54
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
    ( RECIDIVISM AFTER CUSTODIAL SENTENCING)
A
  • According to the UK Ministry of Justice proven reoffending statistics, around 25% of adult offenders reoffend within 1 year of being convicted of a crime. This overall rate varies slightly from year-to-year:
55
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
    ( POSTIVE OUTCOME ON RELEASE )
A

-Rehabilitation schemes in prison may result in the offender improving themselves and changing their life for the better. For example, an offender who used crime to support themselves financially may learn skills that enable them to make an honest living upon release. This results in a more positive contribution to society and gives the offender a second chance.

56
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
    ( COMPLEMEMENS OTHER APPROACHES)
A

-Time in prison can be combined with other ways of dealing with criminal behaviour, such as behaviour modification or anger management, to improve the outcomes of custodial sentencing.

For example, violent offenders can undergo anger management programs while in prison, which may accelerate their rehabilitation.

57
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
    ( NEGATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS )
A
  • The many negative psychological effects of custodial sentencing (see above) can be said to go beyond retribution. For example, Fazel et al (2011) found that rates of suicide in prison were roughly 3 times higher than in the general population.
58
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION
A

Behaviour modification uses the behaviourist principles of operant conditioning – positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment – to encourage good behaviour and discourage criminal behaviour while in prison.

59
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION
    ( TOKEN ECONOMY )
A

In a prison token economy, offenders earn tokens for good behaviour (e.g. following the rules, participating in rehabilitation programs, etc.) and these tokens can be used to buy things (e.g. food and cigarettes).

This positively reinforces good behaviour. Token economies may also work by negatively reinforcing bad behaviour. For example, prison guards may take tokens away for bad behaviour.

60
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION
    ( Milan and McKee (1976)
A
  • Some studies suggest that token economies can successfully change offenders’ behaviour.
  • For example, Milan and McKee (1976) found that token economies were more effective at improving prisoner behaviour (defined and operationalised by measures such as getting out of bed on time, keeping a clean cell, partaking in educational activities, and completing tasks) compared to other methods, such as direct orders or praise for good behaviour.
61
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION
    ( LOW COST)
A
  • Token economies are easy to implement and do not require specialist psychological training (unlike e.g. anger management).
62
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION
    (Kirigin et al (1982)
A
  • , Kirigin et al (1982)
  • found that although token economies improved behaviour compared to controls during the program, this effect disappeared after the program ended. This suggests that token economies are not effective tools for long-term rehabilitation.
63
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ANGER MANAGEMENT
A

Anger management therapies are based on the principle of the cognitive approach that cognitions (i.e. thoughts and beliefs) cause emotions, such as anger.

It is often used for offenders whose crimes are the result of uncontrolled anger (e.g. assault).

64
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ANGER MANAGEMENT
    ( CBT)
A

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) teaches offenders to recognise the thoughts that make them angry. The specific anger management CBT therapy used for offenders has 3 stages:

65
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ANGER MANAGEMENT
    ( CBT STAGES)
A
  • Cognitive preparation:
  • Skill acquisition:
  • Application practice
66
Q

Cognitive preparation

A

The therapist will help the offender reflect back on times when they have been angry in the past and identify potential triggers that make them angry.

67
Q

Skill acquisition

A

The therapist teaches the offender skills to help manage anger in anger-inducing situations.

For example, the offender may be taught relaxation techniques (e.g. breathing, meditation) and/or social skills (e.g. how to communicate more clearly and avoid misunderstandings).

68
Q

Application practice:

A

The therapist and the offender practice using the newly-learned skills in situations that may require them.

For example, if the offender punched their boss in anger, the therapist and offender may re-enact that scenario and the offender will use the skills they have been taught to stay calm.

69
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ANGER MANAGEMENT
    ( Howells et al (2005)
A
  • Howells et al (2005)
  • tudied anger levels in Australian offenders before and after an anger management program. Although the offenders receiving anger management therapy demonstrated reduced anger levels after therapy
70
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ANGER MANAGEMENT
    Not effective long-term: Blackburn (1993)
A
  • Blackburn (1993)
  • argues that, although anger management therapy demonstrates benefits in the short-term, there is little evidence to suggest anger management reduces recidivism in the long-term.
71
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE ANGER MANAGEMENT

(Ireland 2004)

A
  • Ireland (2004)
  • compared anger levels (as measured and operationalised by a self-report anger questionnaire and assessments by prison officers) of 50 prisoners who underwent anger management therapy with 37 prisoners in a control group who did not undergo anger management therapy.
  • n the anger management group, mean anger ratings (as measured by the questionnaire) fell from 42.7 before therapy to 27.3 after therapy.
  • In the control group mean anger ratings did not change significantly (39.7 to 36.6). This study suggests that anger management is an effective way to reduce anger.
72
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
A

Restorative justice programs are about getting the offender to recognise the consequences of their actions and make amends to their victim(s).

73
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
A

Both the offender and the victim must consent to a restorative justice program. The offender must acknowledge responsibility for their crime and be willing to voluntarily take steps to repair the damage they have caused. The victim must also be willing to take part in the program, and it should not cause them further trauma.

In the case of something like vandalism, restorative justice might require the vandal to spend time fixing the property they damaged. With something like assault, it’s not like the offender can un-punch the victim, so restorative justice may involve communication between the offender and victim – for example, via in-person meeting or correspondence by letter – where the victim can express how they were affected and the offender can express their remorse and apologise.

74
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
    (Latimer et al (2005)
A
  • found restorative justice programs resulted in greater victim satisfaction, greater offender satisfaction, and lower rates of recidivism compared to traditional criminal justice responses such as custodial sentencing and probation.
75
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
    (Lower costs)
A

Restorative justice is typically much less expensive than alternative methods of dealing with criminal behaviour, such as custodial sentencing or anger management.

76
Q
  1. DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
    (Limited applications)
A

The voluntary nature of restorative justice programs also means their applications are limited.

For example, restorative justice can’t work if either the offender or the victim doesn’t consent to take part.

Similarly, if the offender doesn’t take responsibility for their actions, restorative justice isn’t an option. This limits the potential applications of restorative justice.

Forensic (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions