maletzsky

Question 1

aims

Answer 1

• to see how effective MPA is at reducing rates of recidivism in offenders who were assessed for appropriateness of MPA and were administered the programme before release, offenders who were offered it but did not take it and offenders who did not need MPA

Question 2

sample

Answer 2

• 275 inmates
• 134 of which were deemed suitable for MPA

Question 3

procedure

Answer 3

1. retrospective review of 275 inmates after their release, and looked at those took MPA and those who did not
2. 134 inmates were deemed as suitable for MPA
3. Their parole officers were contacted to see if they were given it
4. 59% of the 134 did not receive the medication as their community did not have the drug or their parole officer did not deem it necessary
5. a dose of MPA was given by injection every 2 weeks
6. most men were released into the portland area
7. questionnaires were used to collect outcome data that showed if any new offences had been committed since the release, whether they had any parole convictions, whether the offender was re-arrested, whether the re-arrest was due to sexual problems and whether the offender was employed.
8. supervising officer also said if they though the offender was “doing well” or not

Question 4

results

Answer 4

1. those who received MPA had few reoffences, and 0% were sexual in nature
2. although it was found that when recommending treatment to the offenders the supervisors made sure that 70% of the homosexual pedos recevied treatment compared to 46% heteosexual, showing discriminatory treatment

Question 5

conclusions

Answer 5

MPA reduces recidivism

Question 6

strengths

Answer 6

high val, large sample size of 275 inmates

high validity due to triangulation of data, for example data of success in treatment came from supervisors and the offenders themselves in various forms, e.g questionnaires so you can infer cause and effect of MPA on reducing recidivism

high application for society for example, those who received

Question 7

weaknesses

Answer 7

low val, self report data, e.g. data may have not been well documented leading to inconsistencies within results of levels of recidivism as the researcher did not collect the data so it may be deemed untrustworthy and an extraneous variable. offenders may have show social desirability bias and lied and wrote what they thought the researcher wanted to hear. cannot infer cause and effect of mpa and reduced recidivism.

low reliability as the average dosages and timings of the MPA injection were not known or standardised, although it was estimated to be around 200 to 400 mg every other week, cannot test for consistency of findings