Criminal behaviour- Methods of modifying Flashcards
What are the 2 ways of modifying criminal behaviour?
1) Anger management
2) Restorative justice
What is the first method of modifying criminal behaviour?
Anger management
What is anger management?
A therapeutic programme that involves identifying the signs that trigger anger alongside learning techniques to self-regulate and deal with the situation positively
What is the aim of anger managent?
Not to prevent anger, but to recognise and manage it effectively. This can be used in prison to encourage self-awareness and facilitate rehabilitation of the offender
Key points of anger management
Cognitive behaviour treatment
Novaco- 3 aims
Stages of anger management- stress inoculation model
Cognitive behaviour treatment
- Novaco
Cognitive factors trigger the emotional arousal, anger is often quick to surface in situations that are perceived to be anxiety-inducing or threatening
CBT
What cognitive distortion could this link to?
Hostile attribution bias
CBT and AM
AM courses are a form of CBT- recognise when they are losing control and develop techniques that bring about conflict resolution
Recognise thought-Reduce emotion- Change behaviour
CBT
What are the short term goals of AM?
Reduce anger and aggression in prisons
CBT
What are the long term goals of AM?
Reduced re-offending rate and promotes rehabilitation
What are Novaco’s 3 aims for any AM programme?
1) Cognitive restructuring
- cognitive triggers
2) Regulation of arousal
- red face, sweaty palms, fight or flight
3) Problem solving skills
- strategic, withdrawal, assertiveness
What are the 3 concepts of the stages of AM stress inoculation model?
1) conceptualisation
2) skill acquisition
3) application practise
1) conceptualisation
- offender reflects in past experiences and typical patterns of their anger
- learn their triggers
- learn of their interpretations are irrational through therapist input
- therapist attempts to break the automatic response the offender has
2) Skill acquisition
Introduced to a range of techniques and skills to help them deal with anger provoking situation more effectively and rationally
- ‘stop and think’
- cognitive flexibility (alternative interpretations)
- learning relaxation techniques (counting)
- learning communication skills to enable them to deal with conflict assertively and constructively rather than angrily
3) Application practise
Given the opportunity to role play and practise their skills
- must be committed and see the role play scenario as real for AM to be effective
successful role play- positive reinforcement from therapist
Evaluation effectiveness: Anger Management
Multidisciplinary approach
It acknowledged that offending is a complex social and psychological activity, takes into account many elements
Cognitive- stage1 conceptualisation, learn triggers
Behavioural- stage2 skill acquisition, notice physical changes
Social- stage3 application, practise skill, recognise situations
This makes the methos more holistic
- more effective at reducing criminal behaviour and recidivism rates
Evaluation effectiveness: Anger Management
Research support
Taylor and Novaco
- suggest AM programmes are successful in reducing anger, report 75% improvement rates, based on 6vmeta-analysis
Landenberger n Lipsey
- anger control element was significantly related to amount of improvement
X not all R has been positive HOWELLS
x 5 meta-analysis, only moderate benefits of AMP and Law found in his study only 1 person improved
Therefore, cannot draw a definite conclusion as research is contradictory
Evaluation effectiveness: Anger Management
X Attrition rates
People may drop out of this treatment because some offenders don’t like to reflect in their style of thinking
HOWELLS AND DAY overcame attrition rates
- assess ‘readiness for change’ before the start of AM rather tan waste time with individuals who won’t benefit from it
- scales to measure anger readiness to change was questionnaire
- AMPs are best as part of a wider therapeutic approach
Evaluation effectiveness: Anger Management
X Anger may not cause offending
Causal relationship between anger and offending may be false
LOZA AND LOZA-FANOUS
X R has linked crime and anger based on lab experiments using students, 300 males in prison, not differences between violent and non-violent offenders in terms of anger
- do violent individuals mask their anger?
X AM can be harmful, offenders attribute their violent behaviour to anger rather than taking personal responsibility
X much violence can take place without anger acting as a prominent antecedent
Evaluation ethics: Anger management
X Voluntary consent
Offenders are required to take part on the condition of probation
- against the ethical code of therapists ‘based when appropriate on valid consent’
- balance between costs and benefits, cost of valid consent, weighed against benefits for individuals and society through anger reduction
Evaluation ethics: Anger management
X Protection from harm
Therapeutic interventions are intended to help the client, when interventions are used in prisons, there are conflicts for a therapist
- have a duty to the institution and their client
- may tell a therapist security threats or details of their crime
- breaching confidence of serious situations
- pose dilemma for therapist, damage clients trust in authority
Evaluation social: Anger Management
X Financial factors
Expensive as it requires the services of highly trained professionals
X prisons may not have the resources to fund AMPs- ‘postcode lottery’
- the cost of recidivism in the UK for the economy is approximately 9.5billion a year
- if offenders learn to control their anger better, once they are released from prison, this may prevent them from committing further crimes
- reducing HAB would mean negative emotions are less likely to escalate- less recidivism = reduce cost
Conclusion for anger management
Overall, the evidence presented offers some support to suggest that AMPs reduce the violent behaviour f some offenders. However, as not all crime is violent and not all violence is hostile, AMPs cannot be used in isolation as a method of modifying criminal behaviour
What is the 2nd method of modifying criminal behaviour?
Restorative justice
What is restorative justice?
Emerged over the last 25 years
- developed as an alternative to traditional methods of punishment
- used as a substitute for traditional punishments e.g. custodial sentencing
- or as part or alongside
What are the key components of restorative justice?
- the offender communicates with their victim
- focus on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with the victims involving active rather than passive involvement of all parties to repair the relationship
- offender can see the impact of the crime and acceptance of responsibility
- empowers the victim by giving them a voice
- not restricted to court rooms
- focus on positive outcomes for survivors and offenders
What are the 3 sections on restorative justice?
1- RJ fulfils 2 key aims of custodial sentencing
2- Who is involved?
3- RJ is flexible and not always face to face interaction
1- What are the 2 key aims that RJ fulfills?
1) Rehabilitation of offenders
2) Atonement for wrongdoing (retribution)
How does RJ rehabilitate the offenders?
- encourages them to take responsibility for their actions
- when they fully understand how their actions have negatively impacted and affected their victim they can develop empathy and the ability to take the perspective of the victim
- means they are less likely to offend again in future reducing recidvism
Atonement for wrongdoing RJ (retribution)
Psychological- offender showing feelings of guilt and remorse which may bring the victim peace
Physical- compensation, money, community work etc
2- What do Watchel and McCold say about who is involved in RJ?
- the starting point should be about relationships rather than punishment
- crime harms people and justice requires harm to be healed
- early models focus in offender an victim only
- recent ideas suggest that there are 3 stakeholders
- victim, offender, community
What is a peace circle in RJ?
- facilitate ‘talking piece’
- hold object, opportunity to discuss perspectives
- help rebuild the relationship
- ask questions and respond
What are the 3 parts of the model in RJ?
- victim reparation
- communities of care and reconciliation
- offender responsibility
3- What do different variations of interactions between victim and offender include?
Letter or phone calls
RJ is flexible key points
- financial restitutions to victim may reflect psychological harm done or physical damage
- offender may repair damaged property themselves
- can work as an alternative to custodial sentencing, add on to community service or incentive t have a reduced custodial sentence
- victims choice- empowerment
Effectiveness- Evaluation: Restorative justice
Victim perspective
Victim gains voice and a sense of empowerment
SHERMAN AND STRANG
- less likely to develop PTSD or desire revenge, higher rate of victim satisfaction, RJC- 85% satisfaction from face to face
X MIERS ET AL
x skeptical of offenders motives e.g. reduced sentence, direct contact unsettling and intimidating
Effectiveness- Evaluation: Restorative justice
Recidivism
SHERMAN N STRANG
- adult RJ is more effective than prison sentence for reducing crime
- equally effective for young offenders
X RJC overall recidivism rate after was 37%
x if its as effective for YO, get rid of prisons
x invest public spending into other resources
Effectiveness- Evaluation: Restorative justice
X not applicable to all offenders, victim and crimes
- useful in low level crime
X offender and victim may know each other
X serious crime such as sexual offences may cause more distress
X must be handled by senior practitioners with the relevant skills and experience
Ethics- Evaluation: Restorative justice
X Psychological harm
Offender
X high risk of mental illness, suicide, self harm
X shamed, abuses of power= mutual benefits
Victim
X lower self esteem if they are not taken seriously or do not feel as though the offender is showing any empathy
Professionals
X not experts in MI
X limited follow up for v and o
X harm unrecorded and untreated, long term negative effect
Ethics-Evaluation: Restorative justice
X Free will
Offender
X key principles is that it needs to be voluntary
X may feel forced if they are offered a reduced sentence in return for their cooperation
Victim
X if they know the person
X may feel pressured into taking part if the offender had initiated it
Social implications of RJ
- Wider approach to the community
- harms victims family, their social circle
- offender’s social group and family
RJ can help heal these harms and benefit the community at large not just the victim and offender
Social implications of RJ
- Wider approach to the community
Peace circles
Victim, offender, community
- environment of respect and mutual understanding
Pranis- ‘keeper’, task to maintain atmosphere of respect and articulate constructive solutions
Wilson- ‘circles of support’, give community support to offenders, prevent re-offedning by not excluding them
Social implications of RJ
- financial
Shapland- every £1 spent on RJ would save the CJS £8 through reduced levels of recidivism
- can be paid for using the fines paid by criminals
X unskilled and experienced individual needed to act as a mediator, may have practicality issues
X high attrition rates, is it the most cost-effective solution
