Forensic Psychology Flashcards
Offender profiling: The top-down approach - What is offender profiling?
-Profilers scrutinise crime scene, evidence & witness reports, and generate hypotheses about the probable characteristics of an offender (ie. age/background/job/ethnicity/personality).
-Characteristics of the offender can be deduced from the characteristics of the offence.
The American approach: FBI developed top-down
-FBI interviewed 36 sexually motivated serial killers (including Bundy & Manson) & concluded that data can be categorised into organised & disorganised.
-Profilers will match what’s known about the crime to a pre-existing template the FBI developed.
-They start with a pre-established typology & work down from this to assign offenders to either organised or disorganised.
The top-down approach: Organised & Disorganised offenders
Based on idea that offenders have signature ‘ways of working’ & correlate with social & psychological characteristics.
Organised: premeditated crime, usually have deliberate patterns, controlled & precise crime, little to no evidence left, above average IQ, in skilled professions, socially competent, usually married, charismatic, cunning, familiar with investigatory methods.
-Disorganised: spontaneous crime, impulsive nature, lots of evidence, lower IQ, unskilled & unemployed, deficient social skills, history of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships, often live alone & close to scene of crime.
The top-down approach: Constructing an FBI profile
- Data assimilation - the profiler reviews the evidence (crime scene photographs, pathology reports, witness reports, etc.)
- Crime scene classification - organised/disorganised.
- Crime reconstruction - hypotheses (sequence of events, behaviour of the victim etc).
- Profile generation - hypotheses related to the likely offender (demographic background, physical characteristics, behaviour, etc).
Key things about Top-down approach
-Qualitative approach to offender profiling due to looking at the overall picture & use of typologies.
-Based on police experience & case studies, rather than psychological theory.
-More suitable for extreme/unusual cases, such as murder, rape & ritualistic crimes.
Strength of Top-down approach: Research support (Canter et al)
-Analysed 100 US murders by different serial killers using smallest space analysis to examine 39 characteristics of serial killings (e.g., torture, concealment, weapon use).
-Found that many serial killings had features matching the FBI’s organised offender typology.
Suggests this component of FBI typology has some validity.
Counter: Issues with typology!!!
-Godwin argued that killers often show a mix of organised and disorganised traits, so not mutually exclusive.
-ie. An intelligent, sexually competent killer might still commit a spontaneous murder and leave the body at the scene.
-Tuvey suggests these categories are not dichotomous but are on a continuum and can overlap.
-Douglas suggests a mixed offender category but this would reduce usefulness as it may be considered a ‘bin’ for offenders who do not fit the norm.
Organised-disorganised typology is more on continuum.
Strength of Top-down approach: Wider application
-Meketa (2017) found that applying top-down profiling to burglary led to an 85% increase in solved cases in three US states.
-New categories were added:
-> Interpersonal: Offender knows the victim and steals something significant.
-> Opportunistic: Inexperienced, young offender.
Shows top-down profiling has broader application than previously thought.
Limitation of Top-down approach: Not scientific
-Based on opinions and intuition of profilers.
-Can even be compared to horoscopes whereby the descriptions are made to fit any situation for most people (Barnum effect).
-Too subjective and based on pre-existing dispositions and personal experience.
-Wrong profiling can result in wrongful convictions.
Limitation of Top-down approach: Personality
-Assumes offenders have a consistent way of working (modus operandi) across all crimes.
-Idea is that this consistency helps link crimes together and identify the offender.
-Mischel argued that behaviour is more influenced by the situation than by stable personality traits.
-Offender behaviour at a crime scene might not reflect their everyday personality or usual actions.
-If behaviour is situational, crime scene behaviour may be unreliable for profiling.
-Makes it harder to draw accurate conclusions about the offender’s characteristics.
Risks of misleading profiles, leading investigations in the wrong direction.
Offender profiling: The bottom-up approach (Canter)
-Developed in the UK & aims to generate an offender profile by looking at the available evidence.
-Aims to generate a picture of the offender (characteristics, routine behaviour, social background etc), through analysis of the crime scene.
-Doesn’t begin with fixed typologies & instead, profile is data-driven.
-Grounded in psychological theory.
Bottom-up approach: Investigative psychology
Investigative psychology: statistical analysis + psychological theory to analyse crime scenes.
-Aims to establish patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur across crime scenes.
-This leads to the creation of a statistical database to serve as a baseline for comparisons i.e. comparing different crimes.
-Specific details matched against database to determine details (family background/history) & used to determine if offences committed by same person.
Investigative psychology: Central to approach
-Interpersonal Coherence: how the offender interacts with the crime scene & victim may reflect their everyday behaviour.
-Significance of Time & Place: where the crime takes place may indicate where the offender lives (geographical profiling).
-Forensic Awareness: behaviour may be indicative of previous criminal experience (i.e. being more mindful on covering up the crime scene because you have already been interrogated by the police before).
Bottom-up approach: Geographical profiling
-Rossmo (1997) developed geographical profiling (crime mapping), which looks at linked crimes to work out the likely home location of the offender.
-Centre of gravity: Can combine with psychological theories to build hypotheses about: Offender’s thinking, their modus operandi (M.O.) & likely residence.
-Can also predict likely future offences (jeopardy surface)
Patterns:
-Offending usually forms a circle around the offender’s home.
-Crime locations reveal if offences were planned.
-Can indicate mode of transport, age, employment status, etc.
Geographical profiling: Mental maps & Canter’s circle theory
Mental maps:
-People build mental representations of areas they know.
-Offence distribution may reflect the offender’s mental map.
-Mental maps are shaped by personal experience and perspective, not always accurate.
Canter’s circle theory:
Marauder: Operates close to home/base.
Commuter: Travels away from home to commit crimes.
Bottom-up approach: Criminal consistency hypothesis
-Criminals show consistency & similarities within their crimes (ie. bank robbers will continue to rob banks).
-Commuter model: where the crimes tend to be closer together, in similar areas (architecture,ethnicities), there’s spatial consistency & similar features.
-Marauder model: where crimes are more spread out and there’s more familiarity and more attempt to distinguish identity.
Criminal consistency hypothesis: 2 subtypes
-Interpersonal consistency: criminals will have a level of social ……. to convince peope to come to where the crime will be committed, may act similar to personal lives.
-Spatial consistency: you’ll commit crime in an area you know well (ie. Adrian Bobb in Birmingham).
Strength of Bottom-up approach: Evidence for investigative psychology
-Canter and Heritage (1990) analysed 66 sexual assault cases.
-Used smallest space analysis to find common behaviours:
-> Use of impersonal language.
-> Lack of reaction to victim.
-Offenders showed consistent patterns of behaviour.
-Helps with case linkage - identifying if multiple offences were committed by the same person.
Supports investigative psychology’s key idea of behavioural consistency.
Counter: Circular argument
-Case linkage relies on existing databases of solved crimes.
-These cases might have been solved because they were easy to link in the first place (circular argument).
-Investigative psychology might not be useful for crimes with fewer obvious links that remain unsolved.
Strength of Bottom-up approach: Evidence for geographical profiling (Lundrigan & Canter)
-Analysed 120 US murder cases involving serial killers.
-Used smallest space analysis to examine spatial behaviour.
-Found spatial consistency in where killers disposed of bodies.
-Disposal sites formed a ‘centre of gravity’ around offender’s home base.
-Offenders often chose different directions, but overall pattern was circular around home.
-This pattern was stronger in marauders (offenders who stay close to home).
Supports geographical profiling - offender’s location can be identified from spatial patterns.
Limitation of Bottom-up approach: Geographical profiling insufficient
-Geographical profiling depends on quality of police data.
-Crime recording can be inaccurate and varies between forces.
-75% of crimes are not reported (‘dark figure of crime’).
-If data is flawed, profiling accuracy is reduced.
-Other factors (timing of offence, age and experience of offender - Ainsworth, 2001) are also important.
Suggests that geographical data alone is not enough for successful offender profiling.
Limitation of Bottom-up approach: Mixed results
Mixed views among police on usefulness of offender profiling.
-Copson (1995):
Surveyed 48 police departments.
Profiling advice was ‘useful’ in 83% of cases.
But only 3% of cases led to correct offender identification.
-Kocsis et al. (2002):
Chemistry students produced more accurate profiles than experienced detectives.
Suggests profiling is not consistently reliable and has variable effectiveness.
Biological explanation: Historical approach/Atavistic form (Lombroso 1876)
-Criminals are a genetic throwback.
-Cannot adjust to demands of society, so they turn to crime.
-Primitive sub-species, who are biologically different to non-criminals.
-Criminals can be clearly identified due to shared characteristics.
Atavistic approach: A biological approach
-Lombroso argued offenders lack evolutionary development.
-They have a ‘savage and untamed nature’, meaning they can’t adjust to civilised society and are ‘naturally’ criminal.
-Suggested criminal behaviour is innate and rooted in genetics.
-His ideas were revolutionary at the time as they challenged moral blame.
Atavistic approach: Atavistic form
-Offenders have identifiable physiological markers (‘atavistic’ features).
-Mainly facial and cranial features:
-> Narrow, sloping brow
-> Strong jaw
-> High cheekbones
-> Facial asymmetry
-> Dark skin
-> Extra toes, nipples, fingers
-Also: insensitivity to pain, use of slang, tattoos, unemployment.
Atavistic approach: Offender types
Lombroso linked specific features to specific crimes:
-Murderers: Bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears.
-Sexual deviants: Glinting eyes, swollen lips, projecting ears.
-Fraudsters: Thin, reedy lips.
Atavistic approach: Lombroso’s research
-Investigated the facial & cranial features of hundreds of Italian convicts (living and dead).
-Examined 3839 living criminals and 383 dead criminals.
-Found that 40% of crimes were committed by people with atavistic characteristics.
-Over his career, examined over 50,000 bodies.
-> 21% had 1 atavistic trait.
-> 43% had at least 5.
-Initially, Lombroso believed atavistic traits were the cause of criminality.
-Later recognised criminality was influenced by interaction between atavistic traits and negative environmental factors.
Strength of Atavistic form: Lombroso’s legacy
-Changed the study of crime and is hailed as the father of modern criminology.
-Coined the term criminology (Hollin, 1989).
-Shifted research focus from a moralistic view (offenders as wicked) to a scientific perspective (influences of evolutionary factors and genetics).
-Laid the groundwork for offender profiling, describing how certain people might commit specific types of crime.
Major contribution to the science of criminology.
Counter: Racist implications
-DeLisi point to racist undertones in Lombroso’s work.
-Features like curly hair and dark skin were seen as atavistic, implying a higher likelihood of offending in people of African descent, echoing 19th-century eugenic attitudes & can encourage genetic breeding.
Suggests racial prejudice influenced his theory rather than objective scientific analysis.
Limitation of Atavistic form: Poor control
-Did not compare offenders with a non-offender control group, making it harder to isolate variables that could explain higher crime rates.
-Important factors like poverty and poor education were not controlled, which could account for higher crime rates, especially unemployment.
Suggests Lombroso’s research did not meet modern scientific standards.
Counter: Scientific
-Carrabine et al. (2014) noted that Lombroso emphasised an evidence-based approach to studying criminal behaviour, moving away from personal opinion.
-His theory was based on empirical observations and detailed measurements of cranial features, which paved the way for more scientific and evidence-informed approaches to criminology.
Strength of Atavistic form: Challenged paradigms - Nature VS nurture
-Challenged the belief that crime was the result of free-will.
-He proposed that crime was influenced by biological factors and environmental conditions, introducing a new perspective that considered criminality as a product of nature and nurture.
This was revolutionary for its time, advocating for less harsh treatment of criminals, as their behaviour was seen as biologically influenced rather than solely a matter of choice.
Limitation of Atavistic form: Contradictory evidence
-Goring (1913) also studied physical differences in offenders.
-Compared 3000 offenders with 3000 non-offenders and found no evidence that offenders were physically distinct.
-Challenged the idea of a physical atavistic form.
Suggested that offenders might have lower-than-average intelligence but not a distinct physical type.
Biological explanations: Genetic explanation
-Suggests offenders inherit a gene or convo of genes that predispose them to commit crime.
-Importance of genes illustrated in twin & adoption studies.
Genetic explanation: Twin & Adoption studies - Lange & Crowe
Lange (1930):
-Studied 13 pairs of identical (MZ) and 17 pairs of non-identical (DZ) twins where one twin had served time in prison.
-Found that 10 of the MZ twins and 2 of the DZ twins had a co-twin who had also been in prison.
Suggests a genetic link to criminal behaviour.
Crowe (1972):
-Found that adopted children with a biological mother who had a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by age 18.
-Adopted children whose biological mother did not have a criminal record had only a 5% risk.
Suggests a genetic predisposition to crime passed through biological parents.
Twin & Adoption studies - Christiansen & Raine
Christiansen (1977):
-Studied over 3,500 pairs of twins where one twin was a known offender.
-Found that 35% of MZ twins (identical) had concordant criminal behaviour compared to 13% of DZ twins (non-identical).
Indicates a stronger genetic influence in criminality for identical twins.
Raine (1993):
-Reviewed studies on criminal twins and found a 52% concordance rate for MZ twins committing crimes compared to 21% for DZ twins.
Supports the idea of a genetic contribution to criminal behaviour.
Genetic explanation: Candidate genes (Tilhonen et al)
-Conducted a genetic analysis of almost 800 Finnish offenders.
-Found that the MAOA and CDH13 genes may be associated with violent crime.
-The MAOA gene regulates serotonin and has been linked to aggressive behaviour, while the CDH13 gene is associated with substance abuse and ADHD.
-Individuals with abnormalities in both genes were 13 times more likely to have a history of violent behaviour.
-Estimated that 5-10% of all severe violent crime in Finland is attributable to these gene abnormalities.
Genetic explanation: Diathesis-stress model
-Suggests that genetic predispositions to crime might be triggered by environmental factors, such as being raised in a dysfunctional environment or having criminal role models.
-Highlights the interplay between genetics and environmental influences in determining criminal behaviour.
Limitation of Genetic explanation: Issues with twin evidence
-A limitation of twin studies is the assumption of equal environments.
-It is assumed that MZ (identical) and DZ (non-identical) twins share similar environments, but MZ twins may be treated more similarly by parents and others due to their identical appearance.
This could explain the higher concordance rates for MZ twins in twin studies, rather than being solely due to genetics.
Strength of Genetic explanation: Support for diathesis-stress model
-Mednick et al who studied 13,000 Danish adoptees found that when neither the biological nor adoptive parents had convictions, 13.5% of adoptees had a criminal record.
-This figure increased to 20% when one parent had a conviction and 24.5% when both parents had convictions, supporting the diathesis-stress model that crime results from both genetic and environmental factors.
Evaluation of Genetic explanation: Nature VS nurture
-Adoption studies are often seen as useful for separating nature and nurture.
-However, many adopted children spend time with their biological parents before being adopted, meaning the biological parents still exert environmental influence, complicating the distinction between genetics and environment.
Limitation of Genetic explanation: Methodological issues
-Twin studies generally have small sample sizes and focus on an unusual sample (twins), which limits the generalisability of findings.
-Additionally, confounding variables such as shared environments make it difficult to determine whether criminal behaviour is due to genetics or environmental factors.
Biological explanations: Neural explanation
-Consider how brain structures may be different in criminals as well as differnece in neurotransmitter levels.
-Investigated criminals with anti-social personality disorder (APD).
-Associated with reduced emotional responses & lack of empathy & is a condition that characterises many criminals.
Neural explanation: Prefrontal cortex
-Reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex is linked to Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD).
-Raine (2000) found an 11% reduction in grey matter in the prefrontal cortex of individuals with APD.
-This area is involved in emotional regulation, and reduced activity may lead to impulsivity and loss of control.
Neural explanation: Mirror neurons
-Keysers (2011) found that individuals with APD experience empathy, but it is sporadic and only activated when asked to empathise.
-Mirror neurons may not function as consistently in offenders, suggesting a neural switch for empathy that can be turned on or off.
Neural explanation: Amygala
-Raine et al. (1997) studied murderers who were found not guilty by reason of insanity and compared them to matched controls.
-They found asymmetries in the amygdala, with reduced activity on the left and increased activity on the right.
-The amygdala is involved in emotion processing, fear response, and threat detection.
-Abnormalities in this area may contribute to impaired emotional processing, difficulty in controlling aggression, and heightened emotional reactions, potentially leading to violent criminal behavior.
Neural explanation: Neurotransmitters - Seratonin (Seo et al)
-Low levels of serotonin are linked to impulsive aggression.
-Serotonin helps regulate mood and emotional behavior, and low levels of serotonin reduce inhibition in the prefrontal cortex, leading to less control over aggressive impulses.
-Inhibition refers to the ability to suppress or control impulses or behaviors that are socially inappropriate or harmful. In the case of aggression, it means controlling the urge to act out violently.
Neural explanations: Noradrenaline (Wright et al)
-High levels of noradrenaline are associated with aggression, violence, and criminality.
-Noradrenaline is a neurotransmitter that plays a key role in the activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SyNS).
-The SyNS is responsible for the “fight or flight” response, which prepares the body for action in response to stress or danger. High levels of noradrenaline increase arousal, aggression, and heightened emotional responses, potentially contributing to violent behavior.
Strength of Neural explanation: Brain evidence
-Kandel and Freed (1989) reviewed evidence linking frontal lobe damage (including the prefrontal cortex) to antisocial behavior.
-People with frontal lobe damage tend to display impulsive behavior, emotional instability, and difficulty learning from mistakes.
-The frontal lobe is associated with planning and regulating behavior, suggesting that damage to this area may be a causal factor in offending behavior.
Limitation of Neural explanation: Complex link between neural differences & APD
-Farrington et al. (2006) found that high psychopathy (APD) scores in individuals were linked to early childhood risk factors, such as having a convicted parent and physical neglect.
-These early experiences could contribute to both the development of APD and the neural differences associated with it.
Suggests that the link between neural differences and offending behavior may involve other intervening variables, such as trauma.
Limitation of Neural explanation: Biologically determinist
-Biological determinism suggests that offending behavior is determined by genetic and neural factors beyond an individual’s control.
-This challenges the principle of personal responsibility in the justice system, where individuals are expected to be responsible for their actions unless proven otherwise (e.g., in cases of mental disorder).
The identification of biological precursors to crime complicates the notion of personal responsibility for criminal behavior.
Strength of Neural explanation: Real-world application
-Researxh on neural abnormalities can lead to treatments.
-Research found low seratonin increases aggressiveness.
-Anti-depressants can be prescribed to increase serotonin levels, or people could be instructed to change their diets, such as removing artificial sweeteners.
Suggests it has wider application such as drugs/changes in diet which can be used to help prevent offending.
Psychological explanations: Eyesenck’s theory of the criminal personality (1947)
Eyesenck suggested that behaviour could be represented along 2 dimensions.
1. Introversion-extra version (E)
2. Neuroticism-stability (N)
He later added a 3rd dimension:
3. Psychoticsm (P)
-Low E - people who need little external stimulation.
-Low N - people with stable emotions.
-High N - people with highly changeable emotions (prone to anxiety/depression).
-High E - people who need lots of external stimulation.
People’s personality varies on the stimulation (E) they need & their emotional instability (N).
Eyesenck’s theory: The criminal persoanlity
-Combo of neuroticism, extraversion & psychoticism.
-Extraversion: outgoing, positive emotions, may get bored easily & thrill-seeking.
-Neuroticism: negative emotional states such as anger, anxiety, depression.
-Psychoticism: egocentric, aggressive, impulsive impersonal, lacks empathy.
The criminal personality: Biological basis
Extraversion:
-Have an underactive NS so they seek excitement and stimulation, and they are more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors.
-Extraverts do not condition easily and tend not to learn from their mistakes, making them prone to criminal behavior.
Neuroticism:
-High reactivity in the sympathetic nervous system.
-They respond quickly to threats (e.g., fight or flight), making them nervous, jumpy, and overanxious.
-This instability leads to unpredictable behavior, contributing to criminality.
Psychoticism:
-Higher levels of testosterone, leading them to be unemotional and prone to aggression.
-This combination of traits may make them more likely to engage in criminal activity.
The criminal personality: Environmental basis/Socialisation
-Criminal behaviour is developmentally immature, selfish & concerned with immediate gratification.
-Through socialisation/conditioning, children are taught delayed gratification & self-control.
-Criminals might not have been taught this because E & N are difficult to condition & children who have high E & N are difficult to socialise.
Measuring the criminal personality - EPQ
-Measure personality along three dimensions: Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N), and Psychoticism (P).
-The EPQ helps locate respondents on these dimensions to determine their personality type.
-The ability to measure personality was central to Eysenck’s theory because it allowed him to link personality traits to other behaviors, including criminality.
-The test serves as a tool for understanding the relationship between personality dimensions and tendencies toward criminal behavior.
Strength of Criminal personality: Research support
-Eysenck & Eyesenck compared 2070 prisoners’ scores on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) with 2422 controls.
-Prisoners scored higher on measures of Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism.
This supports the theory that offenders have higher scores on these dimensions.
Counter: Contradictory evidence
-Farrington et al: conducted a meta-analysis and found offenders scored high on psychoticism, but not on extraversion or neuroticism.
-Kussner found inconsistent evidence of differences in EEG measures between extraverts and introverts.
This challenges the physiological basis of Eysenck’s theory and questions the central assumptions about the criminal personality.
Limitation of Criminal personality: Too simplistic
-Moffitt argued that personality traits alone cannot explain offending behavior.
-Distinguished between adolescence-limited offending and life-course-persistent offending.
Personality traits interact with environmental factors, creating a more complex understanding of offending behavior.
Limitation of Criminal personality: Cultural factors (Bartol & Holanchock)
-Studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a New York prison.
-Found that offenders in the group were less extraverted than a non-offender control group, contrary to Eysenck’s expectations.
This suggests that the criminal personality may vary across cultures and may not be universally applicable.
Limitation of Criminal personality: Measuring personality
-Critics argue that personality is too complex and dynamic to be accurately captured by a single score or test like the EPQ.
-Mischell argues personality is not stable so it’s difficult to measure - we ‘play’ different parts in different social contexts.
This challenges the usefulness of the EPQ in fully understanding personality and criminal behavior.
Psychological explanations: Cognitive explanation - Kohlberg’s level of moral reasoning - Moral development
-Kohlberg applied moral reasoning to explain criminal behaviour (ie. people’s judgements on what’s right & wrong).
-He based his theory on peoples respinses to a series of moral dilemmas, such as Heinz dilemma.
-Found that a group of violent youths were significantly lower in their moral development than non-violent youth even after controlling for social background.
Moral reasoning: Kohlberg’s level of moral reasoning
Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality
-Stage 1 (punishment orientation) at infancy, where rules are obeyed to avoid punishment.
-Stage 2 (instrumental orientation or personal gain) preschool age, where rules are obeyed for personal gain.
Level 2 - Conventional morality
-Stage 3 (Good boy/girl orientation) school age, where rules obeyed for approval from others.
-Stage 3 (maintenance of social order) school age, rules obeyed to maintain social order.
Level 3 - Post-conventional morality
-Stage 5 (morality of contract & individual rights) teens, rules obeyed if they’re fair, democratic rules challenged if they infringe on rights of others.
-Stage 6 (morality of conscience) adulthood, individual established own set of rules according to their ethical principles.
The criminal personality: Link with criminality
-More likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level.
-Level is characterised by the need to avoid punishment and gain rewards.
-Associated with less mature and childlike reasoning.
-At the pre-conventional level, adults may commit crimes if they believe they can get away with it or gain rewards (e.g., money, respect).
Non-Criminals progress to the conventional level and beyond, where they tend to:
_Sympathise more with the rights of others.
-Exhibit more conventional behaviors such as honesty, generosity, and non-violence.
Strength of Criminal personality: Research support (Palmer & Hollin)
-They compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 offenders using the Socio Moral Reflection Measure Short Form (SRM-SF), which presents moral dilemmas related to issues like honesty and keeping promises.
-The offender group showed significantly less mature moral reasoning than the non-offender group.
-This finding supports Kohlberg’s theory that criminals tend to operate at the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning, where decisions are based on avoiding punishment and seeking rewards.
This is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions that offenders show more egocentric, childlike reasoning in moral decision-making.
Limitation of Criminal personality: Type of offence (Thornton & Reid)
-They found that the level of moral reasoning in offenders could be affected by the type of offence committed.
-Offenders who committed financially-motivated crimes (e.g., robbery) were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning, where they rationalise their actions based on self-interest and the belief they can evade punishment.
-In contrast, offenders who committed impulsive crimes (e.g., assault) did not necessarily show pre-conventional reasoning,
This suggests Kohlberg’s theory might be more applicable to certain types of crime but may not fully explain all criminal behavior, particularly impulsive crimes.
Limitation of Criminal personality: Thinking VS Behaviour (Krebs & Denton)
-Argued that moral reasoning might not cause criminal behavior, but rather be used to justify it after the fact.
-This means that an offender might rationalise their actions (e.g., stealing or harming others) after the crime by using reasoning from the pre-conventional level to defend their behavior.
This distinction between moral reasoning and actual behavior highlights a limitation of Kohlberg’s theory, as it focuses on how people think about moral issues, but doesn’t necessarily explain how these thoughts translate into actions or predict future behavior.
Limitation of Criminal personality: Culture bias
-Kohlberg’s post-conventional level, focused on individual rights, may be biased toward individualistic cultures and doesn’t apply to collectivist cultures that emphasise social harmony.
-Gibbs proposed two levels: Mature (justice and concern for others) and Immature (egocentric, focused on avoiding punishment or gaining rewards). -This model is more universal and flexible than Kohlberg’s stage-based theory.
Gibbs challenges Kohlberg’s theory by offering a simpler and more culturally inclusive model of moral reasoning.
Psychological explanations: Cognitive distortions
-Errors or biases in peoples info processing system characterised by faulty thinking.
-Research shows that criminals have cognitive distortion in the way they interpret other people’s behaviour & use this to justify their own actions.
Cognitive distortions - Hostile attribution bias
-Offenders often misinterpret ambiguous social cues as aggressive or confrontational (even if they’re not).
-Leads to disproportionate and often violent responses.
Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014):
-Studied 55 violent offenders shown images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions.
-Offenders significantly more likely than non-violent controls to perceive these faces as angry and hostile.
Dodge and Frame (1982):
-Showed children a video of ambiguous provocation (unclear if action was accidental or hostile).
-Aggressive and rejected children more likely to interpret the situation as hostile than non-aggressive and accepted peers.
-Suggests hostile attribution bias can develop early in life.
Cognitive distortions - Minimalisation
-Offenders deny or downplay the seriousness of their crimes to avoid feelings of guilt.
-Sometimes referred to as applying a ‘euphemistic label’(Bandura, 1973).
-ie: burglars saying they were ‘just doing a job’ or ‘supporting my family’.
Barbaree (1991):
-Studied 26 incarcerated rapists.
-54% denied committing an offence at all.
-40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim.
-Particularly common among sex offenders as a way of reducing guilt and responsibility.
Strength of Cognitive distortions: Real-world application
-Cognitive distortions can be targeted in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT).
-Therapy encourages offenders to confront and accept their crimes, reducing distorted thinking.
-Harkins et al found reduction in denial/minimalisation is linked to lower risk of reoffending.
-Heller et al worked with disadvantaged young men and used CBT to reduce judgement & devision-making errors)
-44% reduction in arrests.
Shows cognitive distortions theory has practical value in rehabilitation.
Limitation of Cognitive distortions: Type of offence
-Howitt and Sheldon did a questionnaire study on sexual offenders.
-Found non-contact sex offenders (online offences) used more cognitive distortions than contact offenders (physical abuse).
-Prior offending history also increased use of distortions.
Suggests cognitive distortions aren’t universal across offenders - depends on offence type and history.
Evaluation of Cognitive distortions: Descriptive or Explanatory?
:) Helps describe criminal thinking and informs treatment (e.g. CBT).
:( Doesn’t predict who will offend — distorted thinking alone doesn’t mean someone will become an offender.
Good for treatment, less useful for prevention.
Psychological explanations: Differential association theory (DAT)
-SLT explanation from the sociologist.
-Deviated from the theories at the time that said that crininal behaviour was due to genes or character weakness.
-Argued criminals are socialised/conditioned into a life of crime.
-Through interaction ugh others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques & motives for criminal behaviour.
Differential association theory: Scientific principle
‘The conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present & absent when crime is absent’.
-Theory discriminated between individuals who become offenders & those who don’t, whatever their background.
-Sutherland said there’s a mathematical formula to predict how likely an individual is to commit a crime (frequency, intensity & duration of exposure to deviant & non-deviant values).
-If you’re exposed to more pro-criminal attitudes than anti-criminal attitudes, you’re likely to become a criminal.
Offending as a learned behaviour: Learning attitudes
-Offending behaviour is learned through socialisation into groups.
-Exposure to pro-crime and anti-crime values.
-If pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime, person is likely to offend.
-Process of learning crime is the same as learning conformity.
Offending as a learned behaviour: Learning techniques
-Offenders learn specific criminal techniques (e.g., breaking into houses, disabling alarms).
-Explains how offenders become more skilled over time.
Differential association theory: Socialisation in prison
-Prison can reinforce criminal learning.
-Inmates learn techniques and attitudes from more experienced offenders.
-Learning via observation, imitation, or direct tuition.
-Helps explain high rates of recidivism (reoffending after prison).
Differential association theory: Who is it learned from?
-Families, peers, neighbourhood communities.
-Community attitudes explain crime rate differences between areas.
-Influences come from people who may not be criminals, but who still hold or tolerate pro-criminal values.
Differential association theory: How is it learned?
-Frequency, length, and personal meaning of associations determine influence.
-Operant conditioning: e.g., praise for deviant behaviour.
-Social Learning Theory: role models, observation, imitation.
-Vicarious reinforcement: seeing others rewarded for crime.
Strength of Differential association theory: Shift of focus
-Moved focus away from biological theories (e.g., Lombroso) and explanations based on individual weakness or immorality.
-Highlights the role of social environment and circumstances in offending.
Offers a more realistic solution than eugenics or simple punishment.
Counterpoint: Risks stereotyping people from crime-ridden backgrounds as inevitably criminal.
Ignores individual choice — not everyone exposed to pro-crime attitudes offends.
Strength of Differential association theory: Wide reach
-Can explain offending across all social classes.
-Includes white-collar crime (corporate, middle-class offences).
-Sutherland recognised crime is not limited to lower classes — all groups share deviant norms and values.
Theory applies to a wide range of offences.
Limitation of Differential association theory: Difficulty testing
-Hard to scientifically test theory’s predictions.
-Concepts like “number of pro-crime attitudes” are not operationalisable.
-Unclear at what point pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime ones.
Lacks scientific credibility due to lack of testable, measurable variables.
Evaluation of Differential association theory: Nature VS Nurture
-Sutherland emphasises family influence in shaping pro-criminal attitudes.
-Farrington et al. study supports intergenerational transmission of criminal values.
-However, family patterns of offending could also support biological theories - inherited genes or neural abnormalities may predispose to crime.
Psychological explanations: Psychodynamic - Inadequate superego (Blackburn)
-Superego punishes the Ego with feelings of guilt for fault or wrong-doing, & rewards it with feelings of pride & satisfaction for good, moral behaviours.
-In criminals, the Superego is weak or deficient which gives the Id free rein to do whatever it wants.
-The Superego works on the morality principle & exerts its influence by punishing Ego through guilt.
Inadequate superego: The weak superego
-Caused by absent same-sex parent during the phallic stage (Oedipus or Electra complex).
-Superego develops through identification with same-sex parent; without them, the superego doesn’t form properly.
-Result: Little control over antisocial behavior, more likely to act on ID impulses.
Inadequate superego: The deviant superego
-Caused by internalising immoral superego from deviant parents.
-Child adopts the parent’s deviant attitudes if they are criminal or immoral.
-Result: Child develops similar antisocial behaviors.
Inadequate superego: Harsh/overdeveloped
-Caused by internalising a harsh parent’s values.
-Strong identification with a strict parent leads to an overly harsh superego.
-Result: Overwhelming anxiety and guilt; may commit crimes subconsciously to be caught and punished.
-Alternatively, anxiety is repressed by defense mechanisms, leading to unresolved conflicts and extreme criminal behavior.
-Caused by internalising a harsh parent’s values.
-Strong identification with a strict parent leads to an overly harsh superego.
-Result: Overwhelming anxiety and guilt; may commit crimes subconsciously to be caught and punished.
-Alternatively, anxiety is repressed by defense mechanisms, leading to unresolved conflicts and extreme criminal behavior.
Strength of Inadequate superego: Support from Megargee
-Violent acts by individuals who were typically passive and harmless, such as an 11-year-old boy who stabbed his brother 34 times.
-These individuals may have an inability to express anger in normal ways, leading to an explosive release of aggression in response to minor triggers.
-Can be linked to an underdeveloped superego, as these individuals lack the proper internal regulation to control and express emotions like anger appropriately.
This supports the idea that an inadequate superego can lead to the inability to control emotions, resulting in sudden and extreme violent behaviour.
Strength of Inadequate superego: Research support (Goreta)
-Analysed 10 offenders referred for psychiatric treatment and found unconscious feelings of guilt and self-punishment in all of them, suggesting an over-harsh Superego.
-This supports the idea that an over-harsh Superego can lead to the need for self-punishment, manifesting as a desire to commit offenses.
Supports the psychodynamic view that psychic conflicts and a disturbed Superego can be linked to offending.
Counter: Inconsistent evidence
-Kochanska et al found that harsh discipline in parents tends to raise children who are rebellious and rarely experience guilt, contradicting the idea that harsh parenting leads to excessive guilt or anxiety.
Challenges the idea that an overly punitive Superego would result in excessive guilt and the propensity for offending.
Limitation of Inadequate superego: Gender bias
-Assumes that girls develop a weaker Superego than boys due to less intense identification with their mothers.
-According to Freud, women should be more prone to offending behavior than men, but in reality, men are significantly more likely to be imprisoned than women.
-Hoffman found little evidence of gender differences in moral behaviour, with girls often showing more moral behaviour than boys.
The gender bias in Freud’s theory undermines its validity as an explanation for offending behavior.
Psychodynamic explanations: Maternal deprivation
-Bowlby proposed that the ability to form meaningful social relationships in adulthood was dependant on a close, warm & continuous relationship with mother in first few years.
-Since this relationship acts as the prototype for all future relationships (IWM), the disruption would input the person’s ability to relate to others.
-Could result in affection-less psychopathy (lack of normal affection, shame, sense of responsibility & empathy).
MD causes criminality (Bowlby)
Maternal deprivation: Bowlby’s 44 thieves study
-Investigated 44 juvenile thieves and their families.
-Found that 14 of the thieves showed characteristics of affectionless psychopathy.
-12/14 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers during infancy (especially the first two years).
-In the non-offender group, only two had similar early separations.
Bowlby concluded that maternal deprivation caused affectionless and delinquent behavior among the juvenile thieves.
Limitation of Maternal deprivation: Other factors
-Bowlby’s theory is based on an association between maternal deprivation and offending.
-Lewis analysed data from interviews with 500 young people.
-Found that maternal deprivation was a poor predictor of future offending and the ability to form close relationships in adolescence.
-Suggests that even if there is a link between maternal separation and later offending, it does not imply a causal relationship.
-Other factors, such as growing up in poverty, might explain the link between maternal deprivation and offending.
Maternal deprivation may contribute to later offending, but it is not the sole factor.
Evaluation of Maternal deprivation: Contribution
:) Psychodynamic explanations were among the first to link childhood experiences with moral behavior and offending, a concept now accepted in contemporary criminology.
-They highlighted the emotional basis of offending, which is often overlooked by other explanations, like cognitive theories.
:( The unconscious concepts within psychodynamic theory, such as the inadequate superego, are not empirically testable.
-Not scientific.
Dealing with offending behaviour: Custodial sentencing
Involves a convicted offender spending time in prison or another closed institution such as a young offender’s institute of psychiatric hospital.
Aims of Custodial sentencing: Deterrence
-Unpleasant prison experience is designed to put people off from engaging in offending behaviour.
-General deterrence is a broad message to members of society that crime will not be tolerated.
-Individual deterrence is preventing an individual from reoffending in light of their experience.
-Based on behaviourist idea of conditioning through vicarious punishment.
Aims of Custodial sentencing: Incapacitation
-Individual is removed from society to prevent reoffending to protect the public.
-This explains why serious & violent crime are more likely to result in custodial sentencing.
Aims of Custodial sentencing: Retribution
-Society enacting revenge for offence by making offender suffer & their suffering is proportionate to seriousness of crime.
-Alternatives to prison often seen a ‘soft’.
Aims of Custodial sentencing: Rehabilitation
-People may see main objective as to reform and prepare for life outside prison.
-This includes providing them opportunities to develop skills & training, reflect on their crime & receive addiction treatment.
Psychological effects of custodial sentencing: Stress & depression
-Suicide rates higher in prison a well as self harm & psychosis.
-Prison Reform Trust found 25% of males & 15% females reported symptoms of psychosis in prison.
-Would prevent rehabilitation S their perception of reality is distorted & they cannot engage in rehab techniques.
Psychological effects of prison: Institutionalisation
-Having adapted to norms & routines of prison life, inmates may become accustomed & no longer able to function on the outside.
-This may lead to reoffending.
Psychological effects of prison: Prisonisation
-Prisoners can be socialised into adopting an ‘inmate code’ & behaviours that would be unacceptable outside, may be encouraged & rewarded inside (DAT).
Psychological effects of prison: Labelling
-May lead to marginalisation and self-fulfilling prophecy.
-More barriers in place and less re-integration into society & less jobs available for them.
-More reoffending.
Limitation of Custodial sentencing: Psychological effects
-Custodial sentencing can have devastating psychological impacts.
-Bartol (1995): imprisonment is brutal and demeaning.
-Ministry of Justice (2016): record 119 suicides in prisons (one every 3 days) - suicide rate nearly 9x higher than general population.
-Prison Reform Trust (2014): 25% of women and 15% of men in prison reported psychotic symptoms.
Prison regimes may worsen mental health and harm rehabilitation.
Counter: Unclear link
-Prisoners may have pre-existing psychological issues (e.g. psychosis) before prison.
Importation model: prisoners bring psychological problems with them - not just caused by prison.
Confounding variables - unclear if effects are due to prison itself or prior issues.
Strength of Custodial sentencing: Training & treatment
-Prisons offer education and training, helping rehabilitation.
-Vera Institute of Justice (Shirley 2019): offenders in college programmes 43% less likely to reoffend.
-Prisons with education programmes have fewer violent incidents.
Prison can be positive if offenders access these opportunities.
Limitation of Custodial sentencing: School for crime
-Prisoners may learn criminal skills from experienced offenders (“tricks of the trade”).
-Risk of making criminal contacts inside prison.
Undermines rehabilitation, potentially increases reoffending.
Evaluation: The purpose of prison
OnePoll (2015):
-47% of public see prison’s main purpose as punishment.
-40% see it as reform/rehabilitation.
-Barriers to rehabilitation: overcrowding and lack of funding.
Public opinion is divided; effective rehabilitation may depend on resources.
Dealing with offending behaviour: Behaviour modification in custody - Behaviourist principles
-Operant conditioning based on assumption behaviours are learned through consequence.
-Behaviours that are rewarded through receiving a reward (positive reinforcement) or removing something unpleasant (negative reinforcement) results in an increase in that behaviour.
-Behaviours punished by receiving something undesirable (positive punishment) or removing something pleasant (negative punishment) results in a decrease of that behaviour.
Behaviour modification in custody = applying behaviourist principles to manage offenders
-Behavuourist therapy based on operant conditioning principles.
-As all human behaviour is learned, then it should be possible to encourage the unlearning of behaviour.
-Aims to reinforce obedient/good behaviour in offenders whilst punishing disobedience, in hope that disobedience/negative behaviour becomes extinct.
-Made possible in prisons because of token economy system which can be managed by prison staff.
Behaviour modification: Token economy
-When subjects are given “tokens” based on a desired behaviour that was chosen by the head of the token economy.
-The head of the token economy (head of the prison) has to design a list of desirable behaviour i.e. working well with others, engaging with the prison therapist etc.
-The value of tokens must be defined, so that people understand how many tokens they need to earn to redeem rewards of their choice
-Prisoners can exchange these for rewards, such as, smoke breaks, free time, and even better living conditions (primary reinforcers).
-Token Economies utilise operant conditioning to direct behaviour. -This is done by rewarding good behaviour with tokens (secondary reinforcers), or by punishing bad behaviour by taking away tokens or withholding privileges.
Miltenberger (2008) - 7 components to behavioural modification
- Target behaviours are identified
- Types of tokens are decided
- Primary reinforcers are identified
- Reinforcement schedule is decided
- Exchange criterion
- Time/place for exchange is decided
- Penalty or fine for engaging in undesirable behaviours
Designing & using a token economy: Operationalise target behaviours
-Break behaviour into component parts (e.g., polite speech, no physical contact).
-Behaviours should be objective, measurable, and agreed upon by staff and inmates.
Designing & using a token economy: Scoring system
-Clear system: behaviours have different token values (hierarchical system).
-E.g. working co-operatively earns more tokens than not swearing.
-Some systems use points converted into tokens.
-Reinforcements should outnumber punishments (4:1 ratio) (Genreau et al. 2011).
Designing & using a token economy: Train staff
-Staff need full training (may take hours/weeks).
-Aim: standardisation - all staff reward the same behaviours consistently.
-Staff must record tokens given to monitor prisoners’ progress.
Changing behaviour (behavioural shaping)
-Complex behaviours taught progressively (shaping).
-Start with simple tasks (e.g. making the bed), then increase difficulty (e.g. polite interactions).
-Staff follow same selective reinforcement regimen.
-Progress is monitored regularly, comparing behaviour to baseline.
Behavioural shaping: Selective reinfovement
-Reinforce desired behaviours with rewards.
-Ignore undesirable behaviours to extinguish them.
-Reinforcement is selective, focusing only on target behaviours.
Strength of Behavioural modification: Research support
-Hobbs & Holt: Token economy with young offenders - significant improvement in positive behaviour vs. control group.
-Field et al: Effective with young people with behavioural issues, though some didn’t respond - improvements seen when rewards were more immediate and frequent.
Supports effectiveness of token economies in encouraging desirable behaviours.
Counter: Inconsistent approach
-Bassett & Blanchard: Success depends on consistent staff application.
-Inconsistent techniques due to poor training or high staff turnover led to loss of benefits.
Behaviour modification needs full and consistent staff participation to work.
Strength of Behavioural modification: Easy to implement
-Behaviour modification (e.g. token economies) is straightforward to set up.
-No need for specialist professionals (unlike anger management).
-Cost-effective, easy to run once reinforcement methods are established.
Practical and accessible for most prison settings.
Limitation of Behavioural modification: Little rehabilitative value
-Blackburn (1993): Token economies have limited long-term effectiveness.
-Positive behaviours may not persist post-release.
-Offenders may ‘play along’ for rewards without internal change.
-Short-term effectiveness & no rewards when leaving so no incentive to perform good behaviours.
Token economies might not promote genuine rehabilitation or reduce recidivism outside prison.
Evaluation of Behavioural modification: Ethical issues
:) Can reduce conflict in prison, helping manage prison populations and reduce staff stress.
:( Criticised as manipulative and dehumanising (Moya & Achtenberg 1974).
Participation is obligatory, and withdrawal of privileges (exercise, contact with loved ones) seen as potentially unethical.
Dealing with offending behaviour: Anger management (Novaco)
-Therapeutic programme offered in prison to identify triggers & allow offenders to deal with the situation in a positive & calm manner.
-Anger will not be eradicated but it will reach the individual to recognise it & deal with it.
-Cogntive factors trigger the emotional arousal which generally preceded aggressive acts.
-Becoming angry is reinforced by an individual’s feeling of control within that situation.
-Anger management is a form of CBT (offenders recognise triggers and implement & cognitive techniques that deal peacefully with the situation whilst avoiding anger).
Anger management: How is it used?
-Is a CBT that seeks to tackle the physiological (increase in heart rate/temp) behavioural (shouting/aggression) & cognitive (impulsive/hyper-fixation/selective attention) responses to anger.
-> used in prisons
-> used on ex-offenders who are serving a probationary period
-> conducted in small groups/individuals
-> lasts around 10 sessions
3 stages of anger management: Cognitive preparation
-The therapist attempts to break autonomic thoughts.
-Offenders identify situations that provoke anger so they can recognise when an aggressive outburst might occur.
-Thought patterns are challenged, eg, if someone becomes angry when laughed at, they will conclude (after training) that it is the behaviour being mocked, not them.
-Consider negative consequences of anger on others.
3 stages of anger management: Skills acquisition
New coping skills are learned (ie. stop & think) & counting to help develop cognitive responses to anger.
-Cognitive: positive self-talk to encourage calmness (ie. count to ten).
-Behavioural: assertiveness training in how to communicate more effectively which will become an automatic response if practised regularly.
-Physiological: deal with the physical reaction to anger such as using relaxation training or meditation. The aim is to control one’s emotions rather than being controlled by them.
3 stages of anger management: Application practice
-Role-play a variety of scenarios to practice new skills to control anger.
-Done in controlled environment.
-Successful negotiation of the role-play would lead to positive reinforcement from the therapist.
Anger management: Positive outcome with young offenders (Keen et al)
-Studied 17–21-year-old offenders on a National Anger Management Programme.
-8 sessions - initial issues with engagement but final outcomes positive.
-Offenders reported greater awareness of anger difficulties and improved self-control.
Evaluation of Anger management
-Ireland (strength): Male young offenders - checklist of 29 behaviours and self-report - 92% improved on at least one measure.
-Law (limitation): Found only one participant showed long-term benefit - suggests limited long-term effectiveness.
-Rice (limitation): In psychopaths, offending behaviours worsened after anger management.
Strength of Anger management; Better than behaviour modification
-Anger management addresses cognitive processes triggering anger and offending.
-Unlike behaviour modification (which targets surface behaviour), anger management encourages internal change and self-discovery.
Suggests anger management is more likely to produce permanent behavioural change.
Counterpoint: Not long-term
Blackburn (1993): Short-term improvements, but little evidence of long-term impact on recidivism.
-Role play may not prepare offenders for real-life triggers, e.g., real-world social settings.
Suggests limited real-world effectiveness in reducing reoffending.
Limitation of Anger management: Individual differences
-Howells et al - Australian study - little overall impact unless offenders were highly angry and motivated (‘treatment readiness’).
-Progress better in offenders who were open to change and had intense anger initially.
Suggests effectiveness depends on offender profile.
Limitation of Anger management: Expensive
-Requires highly-trained specialists - costly.
-Many prisons cannot afford to fund the programme.
-Success depends on offender commitment, which may be lacking.
-Change takes time - adds to cost and resource demands.
Suggests anger management may not be practical for most prisons.
Limitation of Anger management: Anger & offending
-Assumes direct causal link between anger and crime.
-Loza & Loza-Fanous (1999): Found no difference in anger levels between violent and non-violent offenders.
-Argued anger management may provide offenders with an excuse for behaviour.
Suggests anger may not be the root cause of offending.
Dealing with offending behaviour: Restorative justice
-System of dealing with criminal behaviour by focussing on rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims. -Offender sees impact of their crime & the process empowers victims by giving them a ‘voice’.
Restorative justices: The process & aims (Braithwaite 2004)
Restorative justice has to be voluntary for all parties & seeks a positive outcome & is respectful and not degrading for offender or victim.
“Crime hurts, justice should heal.”
-Gives the victim the opportunity to explain the impact of the crime (impact statements).
-Gives the victim a chance to ask questions.
-The offender acknowledges the harm caused.
-The offender accepts responsibility.
Active involvement of both parties.
Aims of Restorative justice
- Rehabilitation of offenders: Victim has the opportunity to explain the real impact of the crime and this enables the offender to understand the effects on the victim.
-
Atonement for wrongdoing:
Offenders may offer compensation for the crime (money etc.) - this is psychological by simply showing signs of guilt. -
Victim’s perspective:
This can reduce their sense of victimisation because they are no longer powerless and have a voice. Sometimes they want to be called survivors rather than victims. Can also develop a greater understanding of the offender.
Theory of Restorative Justice: Wachtel & McCold (2003)
-Focus on relationships rather than punishment; aim is to heal harm.
Three stakeholders involved:
-> Victim - seeks reparation.
-> Offender - must take responsibility.
-> Community - works towards reconciliation and maintaining a healthy society.
-Full restoration involves all three stakeholders - e.g. peace circles (used in high-crime areas).
Key features of Restorative justice programme
-Trained mediator supervises.
-Takes place in non-courtroom settings.
-Offenders voluntarily meet with victims (face-to-face or remotely).
-Victims explain impact of the crime to help offenders understand emotional/psychological effects.
-Active participation of all parties is encouraged (victim, offender, community members).
-Focus on positive outcomes for both survivor and offender.
-Other community members (e.g. family, friends) can also contribute by explaining the wider impact.
Restorative justice programme: Sentencing & restitution
-Can happen pre-trial, alongside prison, as an alternative to prison, or to reduce sentence length.
Restitution:
-Often involves financial payments (e.g. compensation for damage or psychological harm).
-Can also include practical restitution (e.g. repairing property).
-Includes emotional restitution - rebuilding victim’s confidence or self-esteem.
Restorative Justice Council (RJC)
-Independent body that sets standards and supports professionals.
-Promotes use of restorative practice beyond criminal justice (e.g. in schools, workplaces, hospitals, communities).
-Helps prevent and manage conflict more widely.
Strength of Restorative justice: Positive outcomes of needs of survivor
-Shapland et al - 7-year research project:
-> 85% of survivors satisfied with meeting the offender.
-> 78% would recommend it to others.
-> 60% felt it helped them feel better about the incident and move on.
-> Only 2% said it made them feel worse.
Suggests restorative justice achieves aims of helping survivors cope and achieve closure.
Counter: Not always survivor-focussed
-Wood & Suzuki argue the process can become distorted - sometimes focuses more on rehabilitating the offender than genuinely helping the survivor.
-Survivors may be used as a tool for offender rehabilitation.
Suggests survivor needs might be seen as secondary.
Strength of Restorative justice: Reduction in recidivism
-Strang et al’s meta-analysis found offenders in restorative justice schemes less likely to reoffend than those given custodial sentences.
-Greater effect for violent crimes than property crimes.
-Bain’s review of 24 studies found lower recidivism rates, especially in one-to-one contact formats.
Suggests restorative justice helps reduce reoffending, especially for some crimes and specific approaches.
Limitation of Restorative justice: Abusing the system
-Gijseghem found offenders might participate for the wrong reasons:
-> avoid harsher punishment
-> play down their faults
-> take pride in contact with the victim
If offender motivations are not genuine, effectiveness drops, and they may reoffend.
Evaluation of Restorative justice: Zehr (2002)
Supports the idea that restorative justice is more ethical and survivor-focused.
-Zehr highlighted the importance of offenders taking personal responsibility, which can lead to genuine remorse and reduce reoffending.
-Involving the community helps repair social relationships and supports reintegration, which traditional justice processes often neglect.
-Recognised that confronting the offender might be distressing for some victims.
-Works best for crimes with clear personal harm - it is less effective or inappropriate for certain types of crime (e.g. organised crime or impersonal offences).
