Lecture 8: Sentencing and Offender Treatment Flashcards
denunciation
One of the objectives of sentencing in Canada. Here, the goal is to inform the Canadian public that we as a society view a particular act as wrong.
fundamental principle of sentencing
The fundamental principle of sentencing is supposed to guide judicial decision making when handing down sentences. It states that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the responsibility of the offender.
general deterrence
One of the objectives of sentencing in Canada. Here, the goal is to show Canadians what will happen to them if they commit a crime in the hope that this will decrease the likelihood that potential offenders in the community will offend in the future.
parole
Allowing the offender to leave prison before the end of their prison term. Parole can either be on a temporary or full basis. Typically, there are a range of conditions attached to the parole (e.g., the offender must not leave the country). If the offender breaches any of these conditions they can be sent back to prison.
reparation
One of the objectives of sentencing in Canada. Here, the goal is to repay society for what was lost during the commission of the crime (e.g., the offender will be made to pay back the value of what was stolen).
sentencing
the imposition of a legal sanction on persons convicted of an offence
sentencing disparity
Sentencing disparity refers to variation in sentencing patterns due to the influence of factors that are not legally relevant to the case (i.e. extra-legal factors such as the judge’s personality, philosophy, mood, etc.).
sentencing guidelines
Sentencing guidelines refer to guidelines that are supposed to limit the degree of discretion that a judge has when deciding on appropriate sentences. In Canada, these often take the form of mandatory minimum sentences (e.g., in Canada, first degree murder has a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment).
specific deterrence
One of the objectives of sentencing in Canada. Here, the goal is to show offenders what happens to them if they commit a crime in the hope that this will decrease the likelihood that they will offend in the future.
effect size
The effect size can range from +1.00 to -1.00 and indicates how effective a treatment program is. As an example, you may want to evaluate a new treatment program that is supposed to prevent re-offending. You compare the re-offending rate for kids who do not take part in the program (60%) to kids who do take part in the program (40%) and get an effect size equal to +0.20 (indicating that the program is somewhat effective at reducing re-offending rates).
general responsivity principle
A principle that states: Intervention should match the ability and learning style of the individual offender.
human services principle
A principle that states: Use effective human service over sanctioning whenever possible when intervening with offenders.
need principle
A principle that states: Intervention strategies should target individual criminogenic needs (e.g., antisocial attitudes, antisocial associates, antisocial personality, antisocial history).
risk principle
A principle that states: The offender’s level of risk should match the level of intervention (e.g., high risk offenders = intensive intervention, low risk offenders = little or no intervention).
specific responsivity principle
A principle that states: Intervention should match specific features of the individual offender (e.g., age, ethnicity, gender, anxiety, motivational level, etc.).
goals of sentencing
- Denunciation
- Specific deterrent
- General deterrent
- Incapacitation
- Rehabilitation
- Reparation
- Promote responsibility
principles of sentencing
- A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence
- A sentence must be proportionate to the responsibility of the offender
- A sentence should not deprive the offender of liberty if at all possible
sentencing options
- Absolute discharge
- Reparation
- Fines
- Community service
- Conditional sentences
- Imprisonment
is sentencing effective?
Punishment-based strategies generally result in higher rates of recidivism
death penalty in Canada
DP was abolished in 1976/1999
death penalty in the U.S.
- 38 states permit the DP
- 600 executions since reinstatement
- 3,500 inmates on death row
arguments against the DP
- The DP does not act as a deterrent (crime rate doesn’t change when it is abolished)
- The DP is expensive (appeal process)
- The DP is biased (especially towards Black people)
- The DP is handed down to the innocent
sentencing disparity
Variation in sentencing patterns due to the influence of factors that are not legally relevant to the case
classifications of sentencing disparity
sentencing disparity -> warranted sentencing disparity & unwarranted sentencing disparity -> systematic & unsystematic disparity
studying sentencing disparity
Simulations
Sentencing statistics
what punishments are most effective?
- For punishment to be effective, it must be immediate, consistent, and severe
- This is not in place in the criminal justice system
the big 4 risk factors for crime
- antisocial personality
- antisocial cognitions
- interactions with antisocial peers
- a history of antisocial behaviour
warranted sentencing disparity
Variations in sentencing practices that should occur
unwarranted sentencing disparity
Variations in sentencing practices due to extra-legal factors
systematic disparity
variations in sentencing practices that happens across different judges due to extra-legal factors
unsystematic disparity
variations in sentencing practices within the same judge over time
example of systematic disparity
the judge’s philosophy about first-time offenders
example of unsystematic disparity
conflict of interest
measuring attitudes toward sentencing
- Public opinion polls
- Focus groups
- Experimental research
major findings from opinion polls
- People generally feel that offenders are treated too leniently in terms of sentencing
- However, most Canadians underestimate the length of sentences that judges hand out
- They generally do not have a lot of confidence in our criminal justice system
- They generally support a range of alternative sentencing practices
historical background of offender treatment
- Extensive debate over “what works” in offender rehabilitation
- Early literature reviews by Bailey (1966) and Logan (1972) did not present favourable conclusions regarding the effectiveness of correctional interventions
- Martinson (1974) presented the “nothing works” conclusion in his paper that evaluated 231 primary research studies
meta-analysis
the statistical aggregation of the results derived from many independent studies in order to integrate the findings
effect size
- the degree to which the comparison and treatment groups differ on a particular measure
- the primary unit of analysis
development of meta-analyses
- The first meta-analysis in this area was conducted by Garrett (1985). Found cognitive-behavioural/family treatment was the best
- Whitehead and Lab (1989) conducted a meta-analysis but did not find promising evidence
- Andrews and colleagues decided to conduct their own meta-analysis on a broad sample of offender treatment studies
- Found support for their principles of effective correctional treatment (ECT), which were human service, risk, need, and responsivity
risk principle
- Criminal risk can be predicted
- Higher levels of service should be provided to higher-risk cases
need principle
Interventions should target criminogenic needs (dynamic attributes that, when changed, are associated with changes in the probability of recidivism) rather than non-criminogenic needs (also dynamic and changeable, but these changes are not necessarily associated with the probability of recidivism)
examples of criminogenic needs
- Changing Antisocial Attitudes
- Changing Antisocial Feelings
- Reducing Antisocial Peer Associations
- Promoting Identification with Prosocial Role Models
- Promoting Familial Affection/Communication
- Promoting Familial Monitoring and Supervision
- Increasing Self-Control, Self-Management and Problem-Solving
- Substance Abuse
- Academic and Vocational Deficits
- Recognition of Risky Situations (Relapse Prevention)
examples of non-criminogenic needs
- Increasing Self-Esteem (Without Reductions in Antisocial Thinking, Feeling and Peers)
- Focusing on Vague Emotional/Personal Problems
- Increasing Cohesiveness of Antisocial Peer Groups
- Neighborhood-Wide Improvements Without Touching the Needs of Higher-Risk Individuals
- Increasing Conventional Ambition (Work/School) Without Concrete Assistance to Achieve Them Changing Antisocial Feelings
- Fear of Official Punishment (i.e. “Scared Straight”)
- Physical Training Programs
calculating effect size
- Positive effect size = the treatment worked
- Negative effect size = the treatment had the opposite effect that was desired
- Ask yourself whether the control group or the treatment will have more reoffenders given the sign of the effect size sign
- Divide the effect size by 2
- Add (for larger) or subtract (for smaller) ½ of the effect size to 0.50
- This will give you the percentages of reoffenders in each group
responsivity principle
Refers to delivering treatment programs in a style and mode that is matched to the ability and learning style of the offender
matching service to (responsivity principle):
- What we know generally about offenders (general responsivity)
- Individual differences of offenders (specific responsivity)
Carleton University meta-analysis method
- 374 comparison (ex. Police cautioning vs. additional processing, probation vs. custody)
- Also coded for the principles of risk, need, and responsivity
- Create an appropriate treatment variable (range 0-3) based on principles of ECT
- Explored their utility with specific populations as well
- Also explored the impact of staff characteristics on program effectiveness
Carleton University meta-analysis findings
- Only 2 of the comparisons produced a positive effect size of .20 or greater
- The mean effect size was a minimal -.03
- More processing associated with slightly increased recidivism rates
- If any effect of recidivism, less is better than more
general conclusion of the Carleton meta-analysis
the less criminal justice processing we can do, the better
empirical evidence for risk, need, and responsivity principles
- Programs that integrate the risk, need, and responsivity principle have a higher effect size than those that do not
- The more of the principles you use, the better
the importance of setting and the risk, need, and responsivity principles
Delivering programs in the community provides greater benefits
personal criminogenic targets
include antisocial cognitions and self-control deficits
interpersonal criminogenic targets
include family process, antisocial associates, matched individual need, and substance abuse
the importance of criminogenic needs
Interventions that targeted criminogenic needs provided greater benefits
Personal non-criminogenic targets
include fear of official punishment, personal distress, physical activity, and conventional ambition
Interpersonal non-criminogenic targets
include family
the importance of non-criminogenic needs
Programs that target non-criminogenic needs increase reoffending
women offenders and the risk, need, and responsivity principles
The same results we get with men apply to women
age and the risk, need, and responsivity principles
- Age doesn’t seem to matter
- If anything, these principles work better for young offenders
