6. EFFECTS OF IMPRISONMENT Flashcards
Examples of punishments for offenders
Imprisonment (incarceration, rehabilitation, deterrent + punishment)
Electronic tagging
Restorative justice (offender meets victim)
Community service
What is recidivism
Repeat offending
What is the recidivism rate
Rate at which offenders commit other crime
Measured by arrest or conviction
Walker + Farrington
Aim
Investigate effectiveness of different punishments on recidivism rates
Walker + Farrington
Procedure
Follow over 2069. male offenders after they were released
Types of sentences studies= prison/probation/fine
Walker + Farringotn
Results
No previous convictions= prison most effective (puts them off)
1-4 convictions= probation
5+= no punishment to reduce recidivism rates
Walker + Farrington
What does this research suggest?
Number of previous convictions only variable to influence which punishments might be more effective
Walker + Farrington
Pros
Population validity- large sample (2069)
Useful applications
Ecological validity
Walker + Farrington
Cons
Androcentric
Reductionist conclusions
Lack of control
What is Azjen’s theory of planned behaviour
Offender commits crime due to:
1. attitude towards their behaviour
2. their perceived control in life (job? etc)
An offenders new training for job for example has:
1. more attitude towards, their behaviour
2. increased control (£, new relationships, etc)
What does Azjen’s theory suggest
Need to change the way offenders perceive themselves + their lives
Gillis + Nafekh
Aim
Investigate the effect on recidivism rates of a community based on employment schemes
Gillis + Nafekh
Method
Analysed data from Canada’s offender management system:
- 23,000 individuals released (1998-2005)
- longitudinal
Gillis + Nafekh
Two groups of offenders
Mostly fraud/drug crime
1. experimental- completed employment programme + secured jobs prior to release (CHOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY- BIASED)
2. control- no training
Matched pairs design- gender, risk-level, release year, sentence length
Gillis + Nafekh
Results
Experimental= less likely to reoffend (70% stayed out, 55% of control)
Median return time= longer for experimental group (37 months compared to 11)
What does research by Gillis + Nafekh’s result suggest
Employment programs reduce likelihood of reoffending
Gillis + Nafekh
Pros
Population validity- large sample (23,000)
Useful applications (employment programmes)
Quantitative data
Matched pairs (reduces confounding variables)
Gillis + Nafekh
Cons
Bias as experimental group chose to participate (confounding variables)
Lacks qualitative data
Ethnocentric (Canada)
Lack of data validity (1. may commit crime + not get caught, 2. may offend after study // extending study= expensive)
Prison situation + roles
Zimbardo + Haney
Aim
Investigate psychological effects of being assigned the role of either prison guard oe prisoner in stimulated prison situation
Zimbardo + Haney
Sample
Volunteer- newspaper advertisement
15$ per day
24 men selected (most physically + mentally stable- identified through psychoanalysis- control)
15 guards (only rule= no physical violence), 9 prisoners
Prison built in basement of Stanford uni
Zimbardo
Uniform
Guard- khaki shirt + trousers, whistle, wooden pattern (power), reflecting sun glasses (no eye contact)
Prisoner- loose fitting muslin smock with identification number, no underwear, rubber sandals, hat + light chain around ankle (deinindivuate)
Zimbardo
Arrest procedure
Unexpectedly arrested at their homes, charged with suspicion of burglary/armed robbery. Told rights, handcuffed, taken to prison
At prison- fingerprints taken, blind folder
-stripped
-sprayed with delousing prep
-stood alone naked in ‘yard’
-given uniform + mug shot
-referred to only by ID number- depersonalise
-3 meals a day, 2 hours of privilege (e.g. reading)
Zimbardo
Results
Ps seemed to believe their allocated role
Pathological prisoner- loss of identity due to depersonalisation + extreme emotional depression
Arbitrary control- punished for anything (e.g. laughing at joke= punishable, not laughing also punishable), abused power
Pathology of power- increased verbal + physical aggression
Zimbardo
Conclusion
Study demonstrates powerful effects of prison situation
People alter behaviour to suit role
Zimbardo
Pros
Useful applications- train guards to moderate behaviour
High levels of control- psychometric testing before choosing Ps
Standardised
Zimbardo
Cons
Androcentric
Unethical (protection, right to withdraw)
Low ecological validity- duration only 14 days. uniform unrealistic
Reduced temporal validity- 1973
Demand characteristics
Restorative justice
Victim (or victims family) meet offender with impartial facilitator
Should increase victim empathy + get offender to accept responsibility
Reduces recidivism
Types of restorative justice
- victim- offender mediation
2. group conferencing
Sherman + Strang aim
Test effectiveness of restorative justice
Sherman + Strang method
Reviewed 36 case studies that have looked at RJP + recidivism- using experimental + control groups
Sherman + Strang results
Significant reduction in reoffending for violence + property crime
Can reduce post-traumatic shock for victim
Alternative to sole imprisonment for certain types of crime
Pros of restorative justice
Closure for victim (reduce post-traumatic shock)
Reduce recidivism
Less expensive than imprisonment + employment schemes
Tested with high levels of control
Cons of restorative justice
Only effective of violence + property crimes
Might advertise crime as ‘soft’ punishment
Mediator needs to be trained to guarantee success
Social desirability bias
