Forensic Psyc Criminal Offenders Flashcards
Sentencing:
the imposition of a penalty
upon a person convicted of a crime.
• Our beliefs about the causes of crime
influence our sentencing rationale
History of Crime and Sentencing
The mentality of centuries ago held that
crime was due to sin, and the suffering was
the culprit’s due.
• Judges were therefore expected to be harsh
and they would often sentence criminals to
capital punishment, torture, and other
painful physical penalties
Late 18th-early 19th centuries:
Enlightenment philosophers put an emphasis
on deterrence through rational punishment.
Severity of punishment became less
important than quick, certain penalties
Early 20th century:
Focus on rehabilitation,
based largely on Positivist philosophies
Recent thinking has emphasized the need to
limit offenders’ potential for future harm by
separating them from society
Modern sentencing practices are
influenced by five goals:
- Retribution
- Incapacitation
- Deterrence
- Rehabilitation
- Restoration
- Retribution
• The act of taking revenge upon the criminal perpetrator. • Predicated upon a felt need for vengeance • Goal: Satisfaction
Retribution: Then
• In early societies death and exile were
commonly imposed for relatively minor
offences
• “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”,
often cited as justification for retribution
was actually intended to reduce the
severity of punishment for minor
crimes.
Retribution: Now
• “Just desserts” model of retribution: Criminals deserve the punishments they receive at the hands of the law, and that punishment should be appropriate to the type and severity of the crime
- Incapacitation
• The use of imprisonment or other means to reduce the likelihood that an offender will be capable of committing future offences. • This rationale seeks to protect innocent members of society from offenders who might do them harm if they were not prevented in some way. • Goal: Protect innocent
Incapacitation: Then
In ancient times mutilation and
amputation of the extremities to
prevent offenders from repeating
crimes
Incapacitation: Now
• Lock ‘em up approach • Goal: restraint, not punishment • Electronic confinement • Biomedical intervention (e.g., chemical castration)
Deterrence
• A goal of criminal sentencing which seeks
to prevent people from committing crimes
similar to the one for which an offender is
being sentenced.
• Goal: Crime prevention
Specific deterrence
seeks to prevent a
particular offender from recidivism (repeat
offences).
• General deterrence
seeks to prevent others from committing crimes similar to the one for which a particular offender is being sentenced by making an example of the person sentenced.
Rehabilitation
The attempt to reform a criminal offender. Rehabilitation seeks to bring about fundamental changes in offenders and their behaviour. • Goal: reduce future crime
Rehabilitation: History
• 1930s: Therapists such a Freud entered popular culture. Psychology introduced the possibility of a structured approach to rehabilitation through therapeutic intervention • 1970s: ‘Nothing works’ philosophy. Studies on recidivism showed that rehabilitation didn’t work
Rehabilitation: Now
• More recent studies are more methodologically sound and also slightly more optimistic • Focus now is on “What works?” • Evidence has begun to suggest that effective treatment does exist • However effect sizes are not massive
• Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) One of the most successful and widely employed forms of psychotherapy. Used to treat a variety of disorders Often used with groups rather than individuals
Rehabilitation: Now
• Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT)
Our thoughts, feelings and behaviour all interact. Our thoughts influence our feelings and behaviour – so if we can change our thinking we can change problematic behaviour patterns Results in cycles of thoughts, feelings and behaviours which are self perpetuating
Rehabilitation: Now
• Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT)
ABC technique:
Activating events lead to Beliefs which lead to Consequences – the client works to understand this relationship then reframes the situation to re-interpret the situation in a more realistic way.
Restoration
• Attempts to make the victim “whole again.” • Sentencing options that seek to restore the victim have focused primarily on restitution payments that offenders are ordered to make • More on restoration later...
Beyond Sentencing…
Continued detention orders
(allow
some offenders to be detained after the
end of their sentence if they are
regarded as a serious risk).
Prediction
• Can predict different things:
Risk of offending or risk of offending in
a particular way: Predicting likelihood of
occurrence
Dangerousness: Predicting likely
consequences of offending – how “serious”
the offence.
• Can predict high risk, but low dangerousness
etc.
Risk Assessments: Criminal Settings
• Risk assessments conducted at
major decision points:
Pretrial
Sentencing
Release
Types of Prediction Outcomes
We want to maximise True Positives and True Negatives, but minimise False Negatives and False Positives. • Two types of errors are dependent on each other Each outcome has different consequences for offender or society
There are 3 types of risk and
dangerousness assessment
- Unstructured clinical judgment
- Statistical or Actuarial assessment
- Structured professional judgment
- Unstructured Clinical Judgment
• Decisions characterised by professional discretion and lack of guidelines • Subjective • No specific risk factors • No rules about how risk decisions should be made
• Many studies show clinical assessments of risk to be poor • Clark (1999) reviewed studies and concluded that clinical risk assessment is weak at best, at worst totally ineffective. • Even experienced clinicians fail to predict future violence in cases with clear indicators, such as previous recidivism
- Actuarial Prediction
• Decisions based on risk factors that are selected and combined based on empirical or statistical evidence • Calculates risk by comparing characteristics of the individual to those of individuals for whom we know behavior • Evidence favours actuarial assessments over unstructured clinical judgment
- Structured Professional Judgment
• Provision of guidelines to help structure clinical decision-making can improve performance (Blackburn,2000) • Decisions guided by predetermined list of risk factors derived from research literature • Judgement of risk level is based on professional judgement • E.g., Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist Revised
Types of Predictors
• Risk Factor:
– measurable feature of an individual that predicts the behaviour of interest (e.g., violence or psychopathology)
• Static Risk Factors
Historical
Factors that cannot be changed
• Dynamic Risk Factors
Fluctuate over time
Factors that can be changed
Acute vs. stable dynamic risk
factors
Types of Predictors
• Many predictive factors are static. This creates some problems – does it mean we cannot change dangerousness? • Also, what about personality factors, are they static or dynamic?
Important Risk Factors
- Dispositional
- Historical
- Clinical
- Contextual
- Dispositional Risk Factors
• Demographics Age Gender • Personality characteristics Impulsivity Psychopathy
- Historical Risk Factors
• Past antisocial behaviour • Age of onset of antisocial behaviour • Childhood history of maltreatment • Past supervision failure, escape, or institution maladjustment
- Clinical Risk Factors
• Substance use • Mental disorder Diagnosis of schizophrenia or affective disorders “Threat/control override” symptoms: psychotic symptoms overriding a person’s self-control or threatening a person's safety
- Contextual Risk Factors
• Lack of social support to help
individual in his or her day-to-day life
• Easy access to weapons
• Easy access to victims
What about protective factors?
• Protective factors
Factors that reduce or mitigate the likelihood of violence Can help explain why some individuals with many risk factors do not become violent.
Protective factors
• Research done on children/youths:
– Prosocial involvement
– Strong social support
– Positive social orientation (school, work)
– Strong attachment (except with antisocial
other)
– Intelligence
Protective factors In adults:
– Employment stability (for high-risk)
– Strong family connections (for low-risk
males)
