Forensics - Cognitive Explanations for Offending Behaviour

Question 1

Supporting evidence for Level of Moral Reasoning

Answer 1

Palmer and Hollin

Compared moral reasoning, 332 non offenders and 126 offenders. Used Socio Moral Reflection measure (11 moral dilemma - related questions). Offender group shows less mature moral reasoning. Findings consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions.

Question 2

Moral reasoning is dependant upon type of offence

Answer 2

Thornton and Reid

People who commit crimes for financial gain more likely to display pre-conventional moral reasoning compared to those who commit impulsive crimes like assault. Crimes were people think they can evade punishment are associated with pre-conventional moral reasoning.

Question 3

Level of moral reasoning only considers the thoughts of an ‘offender’

Answer 3

Unmoral reasoning does not necessarily mean unmoral behaviour and vice versa

Question 4

Real world application of cognitive distortions

Answer 4

Applied during CBT. Aims to reduce irrational thoughts by making offenders ‘face’ their actions. Establish a less distorted view of their actions.

Harkins et al

Reduces denial and minimalization in therapy is associated with a reduced risk of reoffending. Accepting hat they have done can be rehabilitating. Practical value of cognitive distortions.

Question 5

Level of cognitive distortion is dependant on type of offence.

Answer 5

Howitt and Sheldon

Questionnaire’s for sex offenders. Non contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders. History of offending more likely to use distortions as a justification. All offenders do not use distortions similarly

Question 6

Cognitive tools can only help us learn about the thought process of offenders

Answer 6

Predicting future offending behaviour using cognitive explanations is not possible.