Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > Forensics > Flashcards

Forensics Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What is offender profiling?

A

A method of identifying the perpetrator of a crime based on analysis of the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is an offender profile?

A

Outlines the type of person likely to have committed a crime.
They are used to shorten the list of suspects.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is a dichotomy?

A

Two exclusive categories; organised or disorganised.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the organised characteristics of a crime?

A
  • Actions reflect planning and control
  • Uses weapons and restraints that are planned
  • Crime scene is in order, leaves few clues
  • Victim is a targeted stranger
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the likely characteristics of the offender in an organised crime?

A
  • In a skilled occupation
  • Above average intelligence
  • Married/co-habiting
  • Socially and sexually competent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the disorganised characteristics of a crime?

A
  • No pre-planning
  • Uses whatever weapons are available
  • Crime scene is chaotic, leaves blood, fingerprints and murder weapon behind - little attempt to hide evidence
  • Victim is random (convient)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the likely characteristics of an offender in a disorganised crime?

A
  • Unskilled occupation
  • Low levels of intelligence
  • Lives alone - near crime scene
  • Sexually and socially inadequate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the four stages in the construction of a top down profile?

A

1 - Data assimilation (profiler reviews evidence; crime scene, witness reports)
2 - Crime scene classification (either organised or disorganised)
3 - Crime reconstruction (hypothesis in terms of sequence of events)
4 - Profile generation (hypothesis related to the likely offender)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the limitations to top down profiling?

A
  • The original sample is based on interviews 36 sexually motivated killers; small sample.
  • Only applies to particular crimes such as serial crimes.
  • Based on outdated models of personality.
  • Classification is too simplistic; killers can be act-focused or process-focused, so there may be more categories.
  • Evidence does not support the dichotomy - Canter analysed 100 cases of serial killings and found that most crime scenes include elements of both organised and disorganised.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What hypothesis did Canter develop?

A
  • Criminal consistency hypothesis
  • States that an offender’s behaviour while committing a crime will be consistent with their behaviour in their everyday life.
  • Contains Interpersonal consistency and Spatial consistency
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is interpersonal consistency?

A

The theory that the behaviour of the offender at the time of the crime will be similar to everyday life.
For example, ‘overkill’ indicates a perpetrator of a violent, sexual crime is likely to be on record for domestic violence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is spatial consistency?

A

Locates the most probable location of the home of the offender from the distribution of the scenes of the crime.
It assumes criminal offences will occur in places the offender makes regular use of.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is distance decay?

A

The further from the home of the offender, the fewer crimes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is circle hypothesis?

A

The majority of offender’s homes can be located within a circle, with its diameter defined by the distance between the offender’s two furthermost crimes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the Marauder model?

A

The offender operates in close proximity to their home base.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the commuter model?

A

The offender travels from home base to a location, eg. workplace, partner’s home, and operates in a circle pattern there.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is dragnet?

A

A computer package, based on Canter’s empirical research into the spatial behaviour of offenders.
It uses a series of crime locations and determines the most likely area for the perpetrator’s home.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Who is John Duffy?

A
  • The ‘Railway Rapist’

- 24 sexual attacks and 3 murders in the 1980s, around railway stations across North London.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What from Canter’s profile turned out to be correct about John Duffy?

A
  • Canter suggested he lived in an area near to the area of his first crimes; Duffy did live in the area he suggested.
  • Canter said he had a knowledge of railways; Duffy worked for British Rail.
  • Canter said he had previous criminal record for violence; Duffy raped his wife at knifepoint.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What are the strengths of Bottom-Up Offender Profiling?

A
  • Case of John Duffy supports the method; led to the capture of Duffy.
  • Evidence supports geographical profiling as effective: analysis of 120 serial murder cases was conducted and found evidence for spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers. The offender’s base was inevitably located in the centre of the circle created by their crimes. However, this is only really useful for serial crimes.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is an atavistic form?

A

Proposed criminals are a sub-species of genetic throwbacks that cannot conform to the rules of modern society.
Distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What did Lombroso investigate?

A 
The facial and cranial characteristics of over 4,000 Italian convicts both living (90%) and dead (10%).
Measurements were taken of the skulls and features of criminals; this is empirical evidence.
'Markers'
- Facial asymetry
- Narrow, sloping forehead
- Strong, prominent jaw
- High cheekbones
- Dark skin
- Extra toes, nipples or fingers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What did Lombroso conclude?

A

That criminals are genetic throwbacks with identifiable atavistic features and that specific features are associated with specific crimes:

  • Bloodshot eyes/ curly hair/ long ears: murderers
  • Glinting eyes/ fleshy lips/ projecting ears: sexual deviants
  • Thin lips: fraudsters
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the strength of the theory of the atavistic form?

A
  • The contribution to criminology: it paved the way for empirical examination of criminals, and also for offender profiling.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What are the limitations of the theory of the atavistic form?

A
  • It can be accused of scientfic racism because some features that they identified as linked with criminality were more common in people of African descent.
  • There is contradictory evidence: Goring conducted a comparison between 3000 criminals and 3000 non-criminals and concluded there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual features.
  • There are confounding variables: physical injuries to head and disease in childhood can cause the physical differences.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

How is MAOA a genetic explanation for offending?

A

MAOA is an enzyme that breaks down neurotransmitters such as serotonin at the synapses of the brain. Some people have a variant of the MAOA gene which code for this enzyme. The variant means they produce less of the enzyme which means they end up with more serotonin left to be active in the synapses. This variant is associated with offending. This results in losing sensitivity to serotonin so that it no longer functions as it should in the brain.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What happened in Tiihonen’s study?

A
  • Almost 900 offenders underwent genetic analysis.
  • Cadherin 13 (CDH13) variation - codes for protein involved in neuron growth; linked to ADHD and substance abuse
  • Participants with both MAOA and CDH13 variations were 13 times more likely to have a history of violence.
  • This shows there is a genetic basis to offending and that offending is determined by interaction between two or more genes.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What are the strengths of genetic explanations for offending behaviour?

A

There is evidence to support it from Christiansen’s study, Mednick’s study and Caspi’s study.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What happened in Christiansen’s study?

A
  • Compared concordance rates for having served time in prison.
  • 87 MZ twins and 147 DZ twins
  • Concordance: 33% MZ and 12% DZ
  • Therefore this suggests a strong genetic influence on offending because the higher the percentage of shared genes, the higher concordance rate for being in prison
  • However, because concordance rate is not 100% for MZ, the findings show that the environment must also play an important role
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What happened in Mednick et al’s study?

A
  • 13,000 Danish adoptees
  • No parents with criminal conviction: 13.5% offending rate
  • Adoptive parent with criminal conviction: 14.7%
  • Biological parents with cc: 20%
  • Biological and adoptive parent with cc: 24.5% offending rate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What does Mednick et al’s study show?

A
  • Suggests an interactionist explanation if the effect is even stronger where the biological and adoptive parents have a conviction.
  • But there are confounding variables:
  • Some children are raised for years by biological parents before adoption
  • The prenatal environment impacts the child
  • Others maintain contact after separation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What happened in Caspi et al’s study?

A
  • Studied over 1000 participants from childhood to adulthood.
  • They carried out genetic analysis and gathered information from participants.
  • They found the MAOA variant on its own was not associated with antisocial behaviour. Maltreatment in childhood alone was.
  • 85% of males with low MAOA activity and who had been severely maltreated in childhood developed some form of antisocial behaviour.
  • An interaction between the variables was shown.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What are the neural explanations of offending behaviour?

A

Brain structure/pathology
Brain function
Neurotransmitters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

How is brain damage an explanation of offending behaviour?

A
  • 8.5% of Americans have had a brain injury
  • 60% of the prison population have had a brain injury
  • Example of nurture affecting nature
  • Brain damage can change structure and functioning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

How is brain function an explanation of offending behaviour?

A
  • From brain scan evidence (PET scan)
  • Radioactive isotope is attached to glucose molecules and injected into the blood
  • Glucose is used in the brain activity
  • More active area of the brain needs more glucose so more radioactive isotope present
  • So we can tell most active area of the brain during tasks
  • Adrian Raine’s research
36
Q

What happened in Adrian Raine’s brain research?

A
  • Compared PET scans of murderers who were pleading insanity and non-murderers
  • Murderers had less activity than controls in the prefrontal cortex (area linked to self-control) and differences in the amygdala (area dealing with emotion and motivation)
  • Indicates murderers do not have self-control
37
Q

How may the differences in both the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex work together to explain offending behaviour?

A
  • The amygdala is like the engine of a car, driving behaviour
  • The pre-frontal cortex is like the breaks of a car, controlling behaviour
  • Amygdala is overrevving and leads to desire to act aggressively
  • Pre-frontal cortex is not functioning and so doesn’t prevent behaviour
  • This leads to violent offending
38
Q

What is the strength of neural explanations for offending?

A

It uses scientific methods
- Post-mortem studies are used to investigate the structure of the brain. Objective + verifiable.
- Brain scans - PET scans + MRI
Standardised, scientific equipment, objective, reliable, replicable.
However, you still need a human to interpret the scans and so bias may still occur

39
Q

What are the limitations of neural explanations for offending?

A
  • Studies are unable to show that brain differences cause offending behaviours because the differences are only associated with offending, we haven’t manipulated an IV so can’t show cause and effect.
  • Much research looks at aggression in place of criminality. Most crimes do not involve violence against a victim; fraud, scamming, car theft. This research cannot be generalised to these non-violent crimes.
40
Q

What are the 4 psychological explanations for offending behaviour?

A
  • Eysenck’s criminal personality theory
  • Cognitive explanations: moral reasoning and cognitive distortions
  • Differential association theory
  • Psychodynamic explanations
41
Q

What is Eysenck’s general personality theory?

A

Behaviour could be represented along two dimensions: introversion/extraversion (E) and neuroticism/stability (N). They combine to form a variety of personality traits.

42
Q

What 3 features did Ersenck say together made up the criminal personality?

A

Neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism.

43
Q

What are the biological nervous systems of extraverts and neurotics?

A

Extraverts: Have an underactive nervous system, so constantly seek excitement, stimulation and are likely to engage in risk-taking behaviours and do not learn from their mistakes.
Neurotics: Tend to be nervous, jumpy and over-anxious and their general instability means their behaviour is often difficult to predict.

44
Q

What is the role of socialisation that Ersenck theorised?

A

The type of nervous system a person develops can make them hard to condition so they never become properly socialised.

45
Q

In what way is criminal behaviour immature?

A

Selfish and concerned with immediate gratification - impatient.
In the usual process of socialisation in a child, they are taught to be able to delay gratification and be more socially orientated.

46
Q

What scale tests somebody’s personality?

A

Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI)
‘E’ score measures how extravert you are
‘N’ score measures how neurotic you are
‘Lie’ score measures how socially desirable you are

47
Q

What are the strengths of Ersenck’s Criminal Personality Theory?

A
  • The methodology of the EPI questionnaire

- Research support for the explanation

48
Q

Why is the methodology of the EPI questionnaire a strength?

A
  • Lie scale reveals when a person is responding to with social desirability bias
  • Full, clear instructions so answers from participants are correct
  • Questions are mixed up so this reduces demand characteristics
  • Forced choice answer options give more useful data, no ‘I don’t knows’
  • Questions are in both directions so balances out acquiescence bias
    These mean that internal validity is high for the EPI and the theory
49
Q

What research supports Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Theory as an explanation of offending behaviour?

A
  • Eysenck and Eysenck
  • Studied over 2000 male prisoners and over 2000 male controls
  • They measured them on E, N and P
  • Found that criminals were higher on all 3
  • This suggests the theory is valid
  • However, Farrington reviewed several studies and found criminals were higher on only P
50
Q

What are the limitations of Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Theory?

A
  • The inventory is based on the assumptions that ‘personality’ is stable and measurable
  • The explanation may be oversimplified
51
Q

Why is the fact that the EPI is based on the assumptions that ‘personality’ is stable and measurable a limitation?

A
  • Mischel argues ‘personality’ does not exist - we change the way we behave according to the situation and from day to day.
  • By self-report, bias will affect accuracy (lie scale will detect this but then that data isn’t useful). Also, the scores are ordinal level data as the points on the scale are not mathematically related.
52
Q

Why is the fact that the EPI is based on the assumptions that ‘personality’ is stable and measurable a limitation?

A
  • Mischel argues ‘personality’ does not exist - we change the way we behave according to the situation and from day to day.
  • By self-report, bias will affect accuracy (lie scale will detect this but then that data isn’t useful). Also, the scores are ordinal level data as the points on the scale are not mathematically related.
53
Q

Why may the explanation of Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Theory for offending behaviour be oversimplified?

A

Digman says there are at least 5 personality factors including extraversion and neuroticism, as well as agreeableness (altruism, nurturing), conscientiousness and openness to new ideas.
So high E and N alone will not necessarily result in offending.

54
Q

What is level of moral reasoning?

A

Idea that offenders may be different to non-offenders in terms of their moral development.

55
Q

Explain Kohlberg’s study on level of moral reasoning.

A
  • 72 Chicago boys (7-16) were interviewed, some were followed up to 3-yearly intervals for 20 years
  • Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the 10 dilemmas
  • Kohlberg was mainly interested in the reasons for the decisions, and the reasons tended to change as the children got older
  • The theory is that people can only pass through these levels in the order listed at a biologically appropriate time. Kohlberg believed not everyone would achieve all the stages
  • Kohlberg found that criminals usually do no progress beyond pre-conventional morality. This explains why someone would offend because they will be motivated to offend for selfish reasons and with no thought for how others might be affected
56
Q

What are the 3 levels of moral development?

A

Level 1 - pre-conventional morality
Level 2 - Conventional morality
Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

57
Q

What is pre-conventional morality?

A
  • Most 9-year-olds and younger
  • Don’t have personal code of morality
  • Moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and consequences of following or breaking rules
  • Obedience and punishment: the child is good in order to avoid being punished
  • Personal gain: children do what is right for personal reward
58
Q

What is conventional morality?

A
  • Most adolescents and adults
  • We internalise moral standards of valued adult role models
  • Authority is internalised but not questioned and reasoning is based on norms of the group
  • Interpersonal relationships: the individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others
  • Maintaining the Social Order: the individual becomes aware of wider rules of society so judgements concern obeying rules in order to uphold the law and avoid guilt
59
Q

What is post-conventional morality?

A
  • Only 10-15% of people are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for this level
  • Social rules vs personal rights: the individual becomes aware that while rules might exist for the good of society, there are times when they will work against the interest of the individual
  • Universal ethical principles: people at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law eg. human rights, justice and equality
60
Q

What are the strengths of levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending?

A
  • Colby and Kohlberg found the sequence of stages to be universal in a review of 45 studies in 27 countries: this supports generalising
  • Palmer and Hollin used the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure based on Kohlberg’s work, but using a scale rather than dilemmas, they compared offenders and non-offenders and offender group scored lower on moral reasoning: this supports Kohlberg’s theory that the moral reasoning of offenders is lower than non-offenders
  • Offending Motivation Questionnaire with offenders, 38% stated they did not consider the consequences of their actions, 36% were confident they would not be caught, this shows pre-conventional morality
61
Q

What is the limitation of levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending?

A

American feminist psychologist suggested the theory focuses on a male perspective of morality - one of justice rather than caring, meaning the research is androcentric. It is subjective that there is more to moral reasoning than an idea of law and justice.

62
Q

What are the two cognitive distortions to explain offending behaviour?

A
  • Hostile attribution bias

- Minimalisation

63
Q

What is hostile attribution bias?

A
  • A tendency to perceive other people’s neutral or ambiguous behaviours as being due to hostile intent
  • They will assume that another person has an intention to harm them because normal behaviours are perceived as hostile and aggressive
  • Hostile attribution bias may be associated with offending behaviour because they may behave aggressively in retaliation
64
Q

What is minimalisation?

A
  • Perceiving something as less than it is - in importance, impact, ect
  • Minimalising the impact of their crime may in turn reduce guilt
  • This will make offenders more likely to keep committing crimes
65
Q

What are the strengths of hostile attribution bias as an explanation for offending behaviour?

A
  • Schonenburg and Justyle studied 55 violent offenders matched with non-violent controls. They showed them a series of faces with ambiguous facial expressions. The violent offenders were significantly more likely than controls to perceive the images as angry and hostile. This supports the idea that offenders are more likely to show HAB.
  • Other studies show that this bias starts in childhood: one study showed children video clips of ‘ambiguous provocation’ where the intent was neither clearly hostile nor accidental. Those children who had been identified as aggressive interpreted the intention as more hostile than controls. It shows an association between being aggressive and hostile attribution bias.
66
Q

What are the strengths of minimalisation as an explanation for offending behaviour?

A
  • Barbaree found that minimalisation was used particularly by sexual offenders; 54% denied offence, 40% minimised the harm they had done to the victim.
  • CBT can be used to challenge the distorted thinking of offenders; Heller et al found 13 hours of CBT given to sex offenders reduced re-arrest by 44%.
67
Q

What is Differential Association Theory?

A
  • Theory that offending is learnt like any other behaviour
  • Sutherland: Through interactions with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviours
68
Q

How is criminal learning learnt in intimate personal groups?

A
  • Learning attitudes towards crime; person acquires a set of pro and anti-crime attitudes
  • If their pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime attitudes they will commit crime
  • Learning techniques for committing crime, such as picking locks, disable car alarms or shoplift without being detected
69
Q

What are the strengths of differential association as an explanation for offending?

A
  • Explanatory power: offenders learn from fellow inmates in prisons, explains re-offending
  • Supporting evidence: compared sons of convicted criminal and non-criminal fathers, 40% of sons of criminals had committed a crime by age 18 compared to 13% of sons of non-criminals (however, may be genetics)
  • Supporting evidence: studied 411 boys from South London from age 8 to 50, 41% of participants were convicted of at least one crime and one of the biggest risk factors was family criminality (however, could be genetics or maltreatment)
  • Supporting evidence: investigated underage drinking and marijuana use in teenagers, differential peer association was the single most important variable
70
Q

What are the limitations of differential association as an explanation for offending?

A
  • Theory doesn’t account for all types of crime; more violent and impulsive crimes such as rape and murder may be less well explained by the theory. These crimes are extreme, committed alone and in secret so others are much less likely to have an influence
  • Theory takes no account of biological factors; we inherit our genes from our parents and also learn from them, this can’t be separated and to ignore biology means the explanation lacks validity
71
Q

What are the two psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour?

A
  • Freud’s theory of inadequate superego

- Maternal deprivation

72
Q

What are the 3 inadequate superegos?

A
  • Weak superego: a child who does not identify with their same sex parent at the resolution of the Oedipus complex won’t internalise their morals and so will have a weak superego
  • Deviant superego: Identification with a deviant (criminal) parent leads tp deviant attitudes on the part of the child
  • Over-harsh superego: Over-identification with a strict parent would lead to an over-harsh superego. An individual would commit a crime so he would be caught and give the punishment the superego craves
73
Q

Why did Freud believe that women would develop a weaker superego than men?

A
  • Less anxiety during the phallic stage so less pressure to identify with same sex parent
  • Little reason for anyone to want to identify with their mother, a low status woman
74
Q

Why is maternal deprivation an explanation of offending behaviour?

A

Maternal deprivation is a disruption of the attachment bond and loss of the emotional care usually provided by the primary caregiver.
Bowlby suggested affectionless pyschopathy, delinquency and low IQ would result.
Bowlby theorised that disrupted relationship in infancy could lead to unconscious reasons for behaviour and poor outcomes (offending) in adult life.

75
Q

Why is the fact that the superego explanation lacks supporting evidence a limitation?

A

Lack of evidence that children raised without a same sex parent fail to develop a conscience.
Deviant parents may influence their children’s offending by genetics of social learning instead.
Most offenders go to great lengths to avoid detection and punishment, suggesting the desire for punishment is an implausible idea.
This lack of support suggests the theory may not be valid.

76
Q

Why is the fact that the superego explanation has gender bias a limitation?

A

Freud believed that women would develop a weaker superego than men. This means more women than men should be criminals.
But evidence shows that women are not more likely to be criminals than men. This suggests the explanation lacks validity.

77
Q

Why is the fact that Bowlby’s maternal deprivation research could lead to interventions a strength?

A

Eg. mother and baby units in prisons, parental rooms in hospitals which can prevent maternal deprivation and therefore affectionless psychopathy and delinquency.
This will have an effect on reducing crime, so is a useful application.

78
Q

How are there methodological limitations to Bowlby’s study?

A

The data was gathered retrospectively; participants were handpicked by him; the study was not blinded.
Bias may have affected the results of the 44 thieves study. As the theory is based on this study the explanation itself may lack validity.

79
Q

Why is the fact that there is a lack of supporting evidence for the maternal deprivation explanation a limitation?

A

Lewis - interviewed 500 young people
Found no evidence of a link between maternal deprivation and offending.
The lack of support indicates the theory may lack validity.

80
Q

What are the 4 responses of offending?

A
  • Custodial sentencing
  • Behaviour management
  • Anger management
  • Restorative justice
81
Q

What is custodial sentence?

A
  • Custodial refers to being held by the state in a prison or young offenders’ instituation
  • A sentence is a punishment set by a court of law
82
Q

What are the 4 aims of custodial sentencing?

A
  • Deterrence: prison should be unpleasant to out people off offending
  • Incapacitation: by removing the offender, further crime is prevented thus protecting the public
  • Retribution: society enacts revenge for the crime by making the offender suffer
  • Rehabilitation: reforming prisoners so that on release they are less likely to re-offend
83
Q

What are the 3 psychological effects of custodial sentencing?

A
  • Stress and depression: self-harming and suicide rates are higher in prison than the general population
  • Institutionalisation: adapting to the routines of prison life leads to lack of autonomy, conformity to roles and a dependency culture which may make an ex-offender unable to function outside
  • Prisonisation: adoption of prison code of behaviour by inmates which is unacceptable outside of the prison which may be encouraged within it. Prison acts as a school for crime
84
Q

What is recidivism?

A
  • Re-offending
  • Ministry of Justice found that 57% of UK offenders reoffend within a year of release
  • Norwegian prisons have a recidivism rate of 20%
85
Q

What is a strength of custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offender behaviour?

A

Prison may enable inmates to receive training, education and therapy which will all improve their life chances when released

86
Q

What are the limitations of custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offender behaviour?

A

Evidence supports psychological effects
- Suicide rates among offenders are 15 times higher
- Prison Reform Trust found 25% of women and 15% of men in prison reported symptoms indicative of psychosis
- Seems that oppressive prison regimes may trigger psychological disorders in those that are vulnerable
- However, it cannot be assumed all offenders will react in the same way, different prisons have different regimes
Prisons are universities for crime
- Incarceration with hardened criminals may give younger inmates the opportunity to learn tricks from more experienced offenders
- This may undermine attempts to rehabilitate prisoners, making reoffending more likely

Psychology (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions