Behaviour Modification in Custody (Forensic Psychology) Flashcards
Behaviour modification in custody
• behaviour modification programmes are one of the methods used in rehabilitation of prisoners
• behaviour modification adheres to the principles of behaviourism, specifically operant conditioning
• positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment are used to increase desired behaviours and decrease undesired behaviours
Token Economy
• based on operant conditioning, token economy involves reinforcing desirable behaviour with a token that can be exchanged for some kind of reward
• prisoners are given a token each time they perform a desirable behaviour. That behaviour is then associated with that reward (secondary reinforcer)
• it would also be emphasised that undesirable behaviour would result in loss of tokens or privileges
• these behaviours, rewards and punishments are made clear to prisoners before the programme begins
The Conjugal visit
could be a reward in the token economy
• a conjugal visit is a scheduled visit in which an inmate of a prison is permitted to spend several hours or days in private with a visitor, usually their legal spouse.
• the parties may engage in sexual activity
• is legal in 17 states in America, but illegal in the UK
Support for the conjugal visit
• may be useful in reducing sexual and physical violence in prisons (D’Alessio & Flexon, 2012)
• sexual gratification theory- significantly fewer sexual offences
Changing behaviour with a token economy requires
• clearly defining desired behaviour
• variety of rewards offered to encourage behaviour
• reasons must be clear
• worth must be established
• rate of behaviours must be established
(Evaluations of token economy) Individually tailored programmes
Field et al. (2004)
• Field found that, in a youth offender setting, prisoners responded more positively when rewards were more immediate, tailored to their needs and more frequent
• the rewards must be tailored to the individual offender
• however, these cost money
(Evaluations of token economy) Easy to implement
• no need for specialists/expertise
• cost effective and easy to follow method
However
• Bassett and Blanchard (1977): Benefits of the token economy system were lost when staff applied the rules inconsistently due to lack of training or high staff turnover
(Evaluations of token economy) Rehabilitative Value
Blackburn (1993)
• token economies, according to Blackburn, “have little rehabilitative value”- any positive changes may quickly be lost when offenders are released
• progress is unlikely to be assured upon release since law-abiding behaviour is not rewarded/reinforced on the outside
• rewards the offender receives from breaking the law (such as group status) may be more powerful than abiding by the token economy
(Evaluations of token economy) Ethical issues
• terms and conditions are regarded as manipulative and dehumanising
• Moya and Achtenburg (1974): offenders are not given the option over whether they participate in the token economy. Withdrawals of privileges such as exercise or phone calls to loved ones may also be ethically questionable
(Evaluation of token economy) Cohen and Flipczak
• compared a control group and token economy group within a prison. The token economy group showed more desirable behaviour than the control groups
• after 2 years, the token economy group were less likely to have reoffended
• however, after 3 years, rates of recidivism went back to reflecting national statistics
• these findings suggest that the effects of a token economy do not last beyond prison, they might not be generalisable to other crimes
Anger Management
• a therapeutic programme that involves identifying the signs the that trigger anger as well as learning techniques to calm down and deal with the situation in a positive way
• essentially, to recognise and manage anger
-Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
• Novaco (1975) suggests that cognitive factors trigger emotional arousal- leading to aggressive acts
• anger often appears in situations that are perceived to be anxiety-inducing or life-threatening
• becoming angry is
reinforced by a person’s feeling of control in that situation
Step 1 to anger management CBT
cognitive preparation
• offenders reflect on past experiences and consider the typical pattern of their anger
• they identify triggers and the way they interpreted the event at the time
• the therapist gets them to redefine the situation
Step 2 to anger management CBT
skill acquisition
• Cognitive: new coping skills and techniques learned, e.g. positive self-talk such as ’stop and think’ and counting to encourage calmness
• Physical: relaxation techniques learned
• Behavioural: assertiveness training can help deal with issues constructively, not violently
• Aim is to give them control over the situation
Step 3 to anger management CBT
• offenders practise their skills in a carefully monitored environment
• role-play a variety of scenarios to practise new skills to control anger
• done in controlled environment
• requires commitment from the offender- they must see each scenario as real
• the therapist must provide positive reinforcement
How and on whom is anger management CBT used
• used in prisons
• used on ex-offenders who are serving a probationary period
• conducted in small groups
• lasts around 10 sessions
(Evaluations of Anger Management) National Anger Management Package
Keen et al. (2000)
• developed by the England and Wales prison service for young offenders between 17-21
• devised in 1992 and updated in 1995
• eight 2 hour sessions - 7 over a three week period and the last one a month after
outcomes
• offenders reported increased awareness of their anger management difficulties
• an increased capacity to exercise self-control
(Evaluations of Anger Management) Ireland 2000-2004
• 50 prisoners completed two measures of anger before and after completion of an anger management programme (12 hours)
• Measures: self-report questionnaire and checklist of 29 problematic behaviours
• Control group prisoners (matched for offending behaviour profile)
• Results: 92% reduction in anger levels for the intervention group on at least one of the measures
(Evaluations of Anger Management) Eclectic approach
• multidisciplinary approach
• Cognitive preparation, Behavioural perspective and Social approach
• Acknowledges that offending is a complex social and psychological activity
(Evaluations of Anger Management) Comparison with behaviour modification
• tackles one of the courses of offending
• attempts to address the thought processes that underline offending behaviour
• self-discover ways of managing themselves outside of prison
• permanent behavioural change and lower rates of recidivism
(Evaluation of Anger Management) Long-term effectiveness
Blackburn 1993
whilst anger management has a noticeable effect in the short term, there is little evidence it reduces recidivism in the long-term
• application is reliant upon artificial role-play
• low external validity
(Evaluation of Anger Management) Anger may not cause offending
• this approach assumes there is a causal relationship between anger and offending
Loza and Loza-Fanous (1999)
• 252 Canadian offenders
• looked at offences, recidivism and anger scores. No significant link between anger and violent/non-violent offences
• suggested anger management can be misguided in offering offenders justifications for their behaviour
• many crimes are not motivated by anger
(Evaluation of Anger Management) Expensive and Requires Commitment
• highly trained specialised who are used to dealing with violent offenders
• postcode lottery: different areas have different facilities and resources
• commitment may be difficult if prisoners are uncooperative and apathetic
Howells et al. 2005
• measured the success level of anger management with violent offenders
• the programme reduced anger but not to a statistically significant level
• offenders readiness to take part in the programme was a major factor in whether the programme was a success
Koons et al. (1997)
-examined the factors that seemed to contribute the most to anger management interventions with offenders
-they found that offenders and practitioners both suggested that an individualised programme was effective together with the way it was delivered by staff
-it seems the trainers needed to be selected carefully to give the programme every chance of success
(Evaluations of anger management) Measurement of success
-it is difficult to measure how successful an intervention has been
-levels of recidivism are one such measure, but there are many possible reasons why someone may reoffend, so any repeat of criminal behaviour may not be due to the failure of the anger management programme
-using recidivism as a measure is also problematic because it only measures when a person is re convicted, meaning failures of the programme might not be picked up§
Restorative Justice
a relatively new type of intervention with offenders. The aim is to make the offender realise the implications of their actions for the victims and to improve their relationships with the victims and community by repairing the harm they have caused. Also addresses some of the needs of the victim.
Aims of Restorative Justice
-rehabilitation of offenders
• victim explains impact of the crime from their perspective, the criminal is encouraged to take responsibility for the offence
-atonement for wrongdoing
• offenders offer concrete compensation for the crime (money or unpaid community work), offender has opportunity to show feelings of guilt and empathy
-victims perspective
• victim is no longer powerless but has a voice and can also listen to offender, reduces their sense of harm
The Process of Restorative Justice
• active rather than passive involvement of both parties
• Braithwaite (2004) “crime hurts, justice should heal”
• intended to restore the harm done by the crime
• focus on positive outcome for victims and offenders
• early models focused on victim- more recent focused on community
(Evaluation of restorative justice)
UK restorative justice council (2015)
• 85% satisfaction from victims in face to face meetings with offenders
• Avon and Somerset reported a 93% satisfaction rate with violent crimes
• 14% reduction in reoffending
restorative justice compared to custodial sentencing
• avoids people engaging with other offenders
• the restorative justice council- £8 is saved for every £1 spent on the restorative process (Shapland et al. 2007)
• Zeher (2002) the traditional system has not addressed the needs of victims or promoted offender accountability
Diversity of restorative justice programmes
• degree of flexibility- wide range of possible applications
• schemes can be adapted and tailored to the needs of the individual situation
• However, presents difficulties in terms of drawing general conclusions about the effectiveness of the approach
Miers et al. (2001)
-Miers et al. examined the extent to which victims felt happy with restorative justice programmes
-the majority of the victims were happy with the outcome, although some were cynical about the offenders’ sincerity and their motivation taking part
-some found it made uncomfortable feelings resurface and others found it intimidating
Latimer, Dowden and Muise
restorative justice compares favourably with other forms of punishment
reoffending rate is lower and both the victim and the offender report higher levels of satisfaction with the technique
Ethical and Practical Issues with restorative justice
ethical:
-victim could feel worse after
-victim can gang up on the offender
practical:
-the system will never be applicable to all offenders and victims
-based on victim and offender engaging, some may not want to
Restorative Justice relies on the offender showing remorse
success hinges upon the extent to which the offender feels remorse for their actions
danger that some offenders will sign up to avoid prison without genuine willingness
victim could seek revenge
Shapland et al. (2007)
due to emotions being involved, skilled and experienced mediators might be needed in restorative justice programmes
high drop out rates
not always cost effective
Restorative Justice as a soft option
-lacks public support
-political parties often want the electorate to see them as tough on crime
-Davies and Raymond (2000) custodial sentencing never achieves its goals to punish, deter, rehabilitate and incapacitate
