Criminal Behaviour - Methods of Modifying Flashcards
What are the Methods of Modifying Criminal Behaviour?
- Anger Management
2. Restorative Justice
What is Anger Management?
- Form of CBT
- Aim is to reduce emotional response by reconcepualising them emotion using a range of cognitive behavioural skills
- Most common rehabilitation program
What did the Prison Reform Trust (2014) Find?
- 46% adults imprisoned are re-convicted after a year
- 67% under 18s imprisoned are re-convicted after a year
What is the Short-Term Aim of Anger Management?
Reduce anger + aggression within prisons - Navco = ‘Anger Factories’
What is the Long Term Aim of Anger Management?
Rehabilitation + reduction of recidivism especially in violent prisons
Describe Why There is Anger in Prisons
- Criminals tend to think irrationally - e.g. Hostile Attribution Bias
- Attribution = what we think when we observe someone’s actions + draw an influence about what it means
- Hostile Attribution Bias = when someone has a tendency to always think the worst - can cause anger + aggression
What is the Overall Aim of Anger Management?
To change the way a person handles anger + aggression - situation may not be changebale but person can change they way they think about it - therefore changes behaviour
What are Navaco’s 3 Aims?
- Cognitive Restructuring
- Regulation of Arousal
- Behavioural Strategies
Describe Cognitive Restructuring
Greater self-awareness + control over cognitive dimensions (thoughts) of anger
Describe Regulation of Arousal
Learning to control the physiological state
Describe Behavioural Strategies
Includes problem solving tasks/strategic withdrawal/assertiveness
What is Stress Inoculation Training Model?
What does it Consist Of?
- Aims to provide a vaccination against future ‘infections’
1. Conceptualising
2. Skills Acquisition + Rehearsal
3. Application + Follow Through
Describe the Conceptualising
(stage one) of Stress Inoculation Training?
- Clients learn about anger generally - both adaptive (helpful) + non-adaptive (not helpful)
- Analysis their own patterns of anger + identity situations which provokes anger
Describe the Skills Acquisition + Rehearsal (stage two) of Stress Inoculation Training?
- Clients taught various skills to help manage their anger (e.g. self regulation/cognitive flexibility/relaxation)
- Taught better communication skills therefore can resolve conflicts asserting without being angry
Describe the Application + Follow Through (stage three) of Stress Inoculation Training?
- Clients apply skills initially in controlled/non-threatening situations (e.g. role play)
- Clients receive extensive feedback from therapist/other members of group
- Clients later try skills in real world setting
Describe Ireland’s Research (2004)
- Assessed effectiveness of anger management of 87 young male prisoners
- Baseline measurement assessing per-intervention anger (questionnaire) + assessment by prison officers
- Experimental group = 50
- Control group = 37
- Treatment consisted of 12 one hour sessions over 3 days
- 8 weeks later - 92% = prisoners getting anger management improved at least one angry behaviour - 8% = deteriorated - control group = no change
Anger Management Evaluation
Effectiveness
Supportive Evidence
POSITIVE
- Anger management = effective + successful in reducing anger
- Taylor + Navaco (2006) = reported a 75% improvement rate
- Landenberger + Lipsey (2005) = analysed 58 studies using CBT - 20 looked at therapy with anger control key component - found having control element was significant related to amount of improvement
HOWEVER
- Howells (2005) = five meta-analysis - showed moderate benefits - only one person improved
Anger Management Evaluation
Effectiveness
Limitations of Anger Management Programmes
NEGATIVE
- Some offenders don’t like to reflect on their style of thinking - drop out of voluntary AMP
- Alternative to AM is use of drama-based courses -less relevant on verbal ability
- Assess to readiness to change before programme
- Better part of a wider therapeutic approach
Anger Management Evaluation
Effectiveness
Relationship Between Anger, Aggression + Crime
- Is anger + aggression linked?
- Loza + Loza-Fanous (1999) = research based in lab on students - link between anger + crime - in study of 300 male prisoners found no difference between violent + non-violent prisoners anger - violent individuals mask anger
- Loza + Loza-Fanous suggest one danger with AM is they can be harmful as offenders attribute violent behaviour to anger rather then taking responsibility
- Howells (2005) = “anger is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for aggression + violent crime” - violence can take place without anger acting as a antecedent
Anger Management Evaluation
Ethical Implications
Lack of Voluntary Consent
NEGATIVE
- Offenders are often required to take in an anger mangament (e.g. condition of problem)
- Against the ethical code of therapists - through Anger Management + Domestic Violence ethical code says ‘based on valid informed consent’
- Ethical issues are a balance between costs+benefits - cost = valid consent benefits for individual + society through anger reduction
Anger Management Evaluation
Ethical Implications
Therapist Conflict
NEGATIVE
- Intervention are intended to help the client
- Conflicts for therapist because they have a duty to the institution + the client
- Client may tell therapist info. that could threaten security of prison/confess details of crime
- Breaching any therapeutic confidence is only acceptable in serious situation - pose dilemma for the therapist + would damage clients trust in authority
Anger Management Evaluation
Social Implications
Benefits for Prisons Environments
POSITIVE
- Anger management have benefits for prison staff/other prisoners
- Potential to reduce violence + aggression if we accept anger + aggression are linked
- Without the link to aggression/violence/anger on its own creates hostile atmosphere
Anger Management Evaluation
Social Implications
Financial Implications
POSITIVE
- Cost to economy = £9.5 billion per a year
- Any method that may reduce offending must benefit society
- If offenders learn to control their anger better once they are released from prison - may prevent committing further crimes
- Reducing hostile attribution bias = negative emotion = less likely to escalate
What is Restorative Justice?
- Involves communication with the victim
- Can be over video conference/face-to-face meeting
- Sometimes an alternative to a prison sentence
What are the Aims of Restorative Justice?
- Rehabilitation of offenders
2. Atonement for wrongdoing
Describe the Rehabilitation of Offenders
- Victim has opportunity to explain the real impact of crime
- Enables offender to understand effects on victim
- Offenders is encouraged to take perspective of others - reduces possibility of reoffending
- Offender encouraged to take responsibility for crime - effects on future behaviour
- Punishment is passive process whereas rehabilitative justice required criminal active participation - change their attitudes towards crime + behaviour
What is Atonement (Compensation) for Wrongdoing?
- Offender may offer concrete compensation for crime
- Atonement = psychologically simply showing feeling of guilt
- Offender can show understanding of effects of actions
- Victim has opportunity to express distress + provides offender with chance to develop empathy by taking perspective of victim
What is the Victim Perspective?
- Restorative justice reduces the victim’s sense of victimisation - no longer feels powerless
- Victim may develop a greater understanding of offenders by listening to their account - reduces victim’s of being harmed
Who Proposed Restorative Justice?
Wachtel + McCold (2003)
Describe the Restorative Relationship Triangle
- Crime harms people/relationships and justice requires that harm to be healed
- Ear;y models only focused on victim + offender but recent ideas recognised the effect on community - involvement of 3 stakeholders is necessary
- Victim seeks reparation (compensation) the offender takes responsibility + the community aims to achieve reconciliation to maintain a healthy society
Restorative Justice Evaluation
Effectiveness
Effectiveness from the Victim’s Perspective
POSITIVE
- Victim who have taken part in restorative justice found it beneficial
- UK Restorative Justice Council (2015) reported 85% satisfaction from victims’ face to face meetings - covered range of different crimes from theft to violent crimes
- Avon + Somerset - 92.5% victim satisfaction (violent crimes)
- Victims claim a greater sense of satisfaction than mainstream courts
Restorative Justice Evaluation
Effectiveness
Effectiveness in Terms of Reduced Offending
- Restorative Justice seeks to reduce rates of reoffending + thus reduce crime rates
- Sherman + Strang (2007) = reviewed 20 studies of face-to-face meetings between victim + offender in US,UK+Australia - all studies showed a reduced reoffending + 0 linked to higher reoffending - lower reoffending rates (11%) as compared to a match control group who served s short sentence (37%)
Restorative Justice Evaluation
Effectiveness
Selecting Which Offenders and Which Victims
- Never applies to all offenders + all victims
- Offender needs to have admitted to crime
- Zehr (2002) = restorative justice can take place without offender present
- Victim may decline offer
- Restorative justice cannot be a global solution
Restorative Justice Evaluation
Ethical Issues
From Victims’ Perspective
NEGATIVE
- Can lead to victim feeling worse - psychological harm
- Victim may feel that criminal showed no empathy - loss of self-essteam
- Victim may feel taken advantage of as restorative justice is offered instraed of sentence - criminal doesn’t take it seriously
- May feel embaressed
Restorative Justice Evaluation
Ethical Issues
From the Offenders’ Perspective
- Can lead to victim abusing power (e.g. ganging up on offender) especially if offender is a child
- Victims may try to shame offender - not intention of process - important that offenders feel understood
- Need to be balanced + benefit both victims and offender
Restorative Justice Evaluation
Social Implication
Financial Implications
- UK = large prison population - Restorative Justice needs to reduce prison population by reducing reoffending
- Zehr (2002) = Traditional penal system did not address the needs of the victim nor did it promote offender accountability
- UK Restorative Justice Council claims that reduced reoffending means that £8 is saved for every £1 spent
- Sometimes funded by fines paid by the offender - substantial financial benefits for community
Restorative Justice Evaluation
Social Implication
Wider Approach in the Community
- Restorative justice goes beyond offender + victims to wider community
- Peace Circles - developed in communities where crime + violence is high
- Aims to foster an environment of respect - community offers support to victim + welcomes offenders to enable a mutual understanding
- Talking Piece passed around so that person can speak uninterrupted
- Keeper = maintain atmosphere of respect
