Dealing with offending behaviour Flashcards
Explanation 1 - behaviour modification in custody
Behaviour modification techniques are based on the behaviourist principles of operant conditioning. Both positive and negative reinforcement can be used to encourage people to use certain behaviours and punishment can be used to discourage them. One BMT is a token economy
What is a token economy and how does it work
A token economy is a student of exchange of goods (economy) based on tokens (something neutral that has no intrinsic value) They work well in a closed society such as prisons because rewards can be precisely manipulated. This creates behaviour shaping where the token is given for simple behaviour then increasingly more complex bevahoir to overall improve their behaviour as they work to gain tokens
Incentive scheme and examples
All prisoners enter on a standard level of the incentive scheme
basic - eg hygiene, eating, basic manners = 1 token
standard - eg chores, completing work = 5 tokens
enhanced - eg full week of no problems, engaging in group activities, no fights = 10 tokens
KEY STUDY - Hobbs and Holt - token economy system
Aim - to reduce inappropriate socks behaviour before and after dinner when lining up
Method - They observed a TES in use at Alabama Boys Industrial School, a state training school for 125 adolescent delinquent males (aged 12-15) who were living in 4 cottages.
Control group - cottage 1 where boys received no tokens
Experimental group - cottages 2-4 had a TES
Results - before the TES % of social behaviours was 66% 47% and 73% for the 3 experimental cottages
After the TES - 91% 81% and 94%. An increase of 27%
There was no increase in social behaviour in the control group
Conclusion - this suggests that TES are effective in dealing with offending behaviour
EVALUATION of behaviour modification in custody (token economies)
PEEL 1 - SUPPORT - there is evidence to support that token economies are effective - Hobbs and Holt introduced a TES with groups of young delinquents and social behaviours increased in those with a TES whilst the control group showed no increase - suggests behaviour modification is successful in reducing anti social, offending behaviour and is simple and easy to implement - however they must be consistently implemented and ensuring that behaviours needed for tokens is operationalised
PEEL 2 - CRITICISM - one criticism of that they are only effective inside of the prison system - various studies have found the effects of TES do not persist outside of the TES. Moyles et al suggested that token economy systems have little effect on reoffending rates and once the rewards cease to exist the good behaviour stops - therefore it is highly likely to have recidivism rates as there is little rehabilitative value as they do good behaviour for tokens rather than internalised reasons - however the use of TES has been proven success fail in other environments like schools dealing with children with autism therefore encouraging pro social behaviour
PEEL 3 - SUPPORT - on the other hand there is evidence to support that TES can reduce offending behaviour- Cohen and Filipczak found juvenile delinquents who had been trained with a TES were less likely to reoffend after one year - this suggests that TES can reduce offending behaviour outside of the TES and therefore reduce recidivism - however rice et al found 92 men in a Canadian maximum security psychiatric hospital and found that 50% of men treated in this way reoffended which shows differences in age and perhaps the TES is less effective with adult offenders
Explanation 2 - Anger management - general aims
The use of anger management in prisons has two key aims. First a short term aid of reducing anger and aggression in prisons where it is a serious issue. It aims to change how the person handles anger and stress ion rather than eliminating it completely through the cognitive approach.
Novaco 3 aims for anger management programmes
- Cognitive Restructuring - greater self awareness and control over cognitive dimensions of anger
- Regulation of arousal - learning to control the physiological state
- Behavioural strategies - such as problem solving skills strategic withdrawal and assertiveness
Stress Inoculation Model - AO1
This is a kind of vaccination (inoculation) from future infections (stress). This type of therapy tends to be conducted with a group of offenders either inside prison or outside, for example during a probation period. There are three key steps
Cognitive preparation- clients learn about anger generally, analyse their own anger and situations that provoke this anger
Skill acquisition- clients are taught various skills to help manage their anger such as self regulation, cognitive flexibility and relaxation
Application training - clients apply the skills initially on controlled and non threatening situations like role plays that previously made them angry and receive extensive feedback and later carry it out in the real world
EVALUATION - evaluate anger management as a way of dealing with offending behaviour
PEEL 1 - strength - CBT anger management programmes are effective at reducing recidivism - meta analysis of 6 studies - 75% improvement study found 20/58 had CBT with anger control had greatest improvement- however metal analysis may not be accurate due to different length programmes/level of expertise. also self report
PEEL 2 - limitation - however CBT has methodological issues with attrition (drop out) rates - Voluntsry anger management has high drop out rates as it involves high commitment to reflect and change thinking and attitudes to offending behaviour- furthermore these programmes often are short term and do not show long term effect passed on 1 year recidivism- however drama based AM has been proven more successful after 1 year CBS offered to boost long term effectiveness
PEEL 3 - criticism - we cannot say that anger causes violent behaviour/offending when there is little correlation between anger and aggression - study found that in 300 males there was no difference between violent offenders/non violent offenders in their levels of anger - therefore AM is not effective as it assumes anger leads to violence however this is not the case eg instrumental aggression psychopaths use violence to gain ie armed robbery = not anger - however AM could be effective by targeting violent behaviours rather than all types of offending
Explanation 3 - what is restorative justice , who is involved and how does it work
Restorative justice is repairing harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for a crime to communicate and come up with an appropriate outcome. It involves psychologists, probation officers, employers, educators, rehab service, offender+family, victim+family. It involves a meeting beteeen the victim and the offender and their families where they can discuss the impact of the crime and give closure to the victim/family
What are the 3 aims of Restorative Justice
Rehabilitation of offenders - allowing reintegration of the offender into the community
Atonement for wrongdoing - encourages offenders to take responsibility for their actions, express remorse and make amendments (eg apologising, compensating the victim, doing community service)
Victims perspective - provides a sense of closure and justice, helps victim to understand why the crime happened and allows the victim to express emotions and have their voices heard
Stats on type of prison/ restorative justice / justice system used and recidivism rates
Chile - community service, reparation of damage - recidivism rate of 39%
England - focus on punishment - recidivism rate of 59%
Sweden - victim offender mediation - recidivism rate of 43%
Norway - focus on rehabilitation, restorative and family groups conferencing - recidivism rate of 20%
EVALUATION - how good is restoritive justice at reducing reoffending and recidivism?
PEEL 1 - STRENGTH - effectiveness shown from victim satisfaction - UK restorative justice council (2015) report 85% satisfaction from victims in face to face meetings with their offenders and Avon and Somerset police force reported 92.5% victim satisfaction when they had been a victim of a violent crime - suggesting it is effective in providing closer and emotional relief - however drop out rates not included in stats so may be biased
PEEL 2 - STRENGTH - RJ reduces recidivism - Sherman and Strang reviewed 20 studies of face to face meetings in UK, US and Australia. All studies showed reduced reoffending - overall 14% reduction in recidivism - suggests RJ encourages offenders to take responsibility leading to them less likely to reoffend as they develop greater empathy and remorse - however in the Uk reduction in reoffending is low due to low tack on RJ
PEEL 3 - CRITICISM- not suitable for all offenders - Zehr found criticisms in that some types of crimes such as those involving children and sexual crimes is not suitable - suggests cannot be used effectively for all victims and offenders - furthermore victims may decline the offer and not want to take part in RJ
PEEL 4 - CRITICISM - further limitation is it could negatively impact the victim/offender - victims may feel worse/overwhelmed after, the offender facing their wrongdoings may be an abuse of power and victims can gang up on the offender which is not the intention - suggests Rj may not always be a safe and fair process and can lead to further emotional harm - however citimd and offender both must be calm and ready to take part in Rj which will
reduce chance of violent outbreaks or abuse
