Maletzky (2006)

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

Evaluate how effective MPA had been on the recidivism rates for offenders who had been assessed for the treatment in comparison with those who didn’t take the programme even though it was judged to be effective for them and those thought not to need MPA.

Question 2

Procedure

Answer 2

• Retrospective review because it looked back over this history of the inmates after release to look at recidivism rates.
• Data collected via self-report data.
• 134 deemed suitable didn’t all receive it due to lack of recourses in areas.
• Given by injection every 2 weeks
• Average doses and timings were never recorded.
• In general for the majority of men it was between 200-400mg every other week.
• Questionnaires and conviction statistics were used to collect outcome data to find out things like new offences committed, violation of parole conditions, employment, re-arrests down to sexual problems etc.
• Supervising officer said if they were “doing well” or not.

Question 3

Sample

Answer 3

-275 inmates
- Men
- Oregon
- Sexual convicts
-134 deemed suitable for MPA
-79 received treatment, 55 didn’t.

Question 4

Results

Answer 4

• Convicts were more likely to re-offend of they hadn’t received treatment.
• Officers were more likely to say they were “doing well” if treatment was taken. (88.6% compared to 6%)
• 0% of those who had the treatment ended back in prison, as 20% who didn’t have treatment did.
• Chi squared tests were carried out and showed significant differences in those receiving the medication.

Question 5

Conclusion

Answer 5

Those recommended to and receiving MPA were less likely to re-offend than those recommended it but not receiving it. The ‘not taking MPA’ group had similar findings whether it was recommended for them or not. Suggesting that deciding who would ‘need’ it or not is not a valid measure.

Question 6

Strengths

Answer 6

• Can help to reduce recidivism.
• Help criminals to become employed again by showing how the treatment works.
• Conviction statistics are objective.
• Triangulation of data
• Good generalisability because they used bio treatments and bio measures,
• Standardised procedure: every two weeks, 200-400mg and were all inmates who had been arrested for crimes which were sexual in nature.

Question 7

Weaknesses

Answer 7

• Can’t have measured testosterone levels before a crime was committed so has issues with cause and effect.
• Only focuses on sexual crimes which is not representative of the whole prison population
• Only male participants which is not representative of the whole population so results could be because of testosterone or other third factors.
• Questionnaires are self-report data which can lead to social desirability.
• No baseline measure.
• No consent as parole wouldn’t look good if they had refused the treatment.
• 141 weren’t taking part due to availability.