Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

LS 272 > TEST 4 > Flashcards

TEST 4 Flashcards

1
Q

SENTANCING OPTIONS: RELEASE

A
  • Absolute discharge: offender sent back into the community w no restrictions
  • Conditional discharge: offender sent back into the community w restrictions, ex: not allowed to carry firearms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

SENTENCING OPTIONS: ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT

A
  • Suspended sentence/probation
    • Fines
    • Suspension of privilege
    • Community service order
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

SENTENCING OPTIONS: IMPRISONMENT
- Provincial corrections (sentence <2years)

A

A) community center
B) Open center
C) Secure center

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

SENTENCING OPTIONS: IMPRISONMENT
- federal corrections (sentence 2+ years)

A

A) Minimum security
B) Medium security
C) Max security

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

VARIATIONS IN SENTANCING (MITIGATING FACTORS)

A
  1. Offender characteristics
    • Prior experiences (if this is a pattern)
    • Ability to control actions (alc: no control over reaction time, but has control over whether they get in their car)
    • Understanding behavior (to what extent do they understand their own)
    • Denial/ defiance vs taking responsibility (if they don’t understand their behavior, more likely to do it again)
  2. Victim characteristics
    • Magnitude of the impact (the more hurt someone was, the harsher the sentence is going to be)
    • If offender was taunted/provoked (they did this for a specific reason)
  3. Contextual influences
    • Was someone close to them being threatened (did they do it in protection)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

CASTELLOW ET AL (1990)

A

male unattractive - female attractive: 83% (MOST COMMON)

male attractive- female unattractive: 41% (LEAST COMMON)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

VARIATIONS IN SENTENCING (GOALS)

A
  1. Eradication
  2. Incapacitation
  3. Retribution/ revenge
  4. Denunciation
  5. Deterrence
  6. Reparation
  7. Rehabilitation
  8. Restoration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q
  1. ERADICATION
A

(if my goal is to get rid of someone who would do something like this)

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

(we need to get you away from any context that would cause you to reoffend, until we are sure they are no longer a threat, could include ppl who commit because they’re mentally ill)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q
  1. RETRIBUTION/ REVENGE
A

(payback in a way, “you need to hurt in someway like you caused hurt”)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q
  1. DENUCIATION
A

(sending a message that this is not acceptable, “using someone as an example; this is how we treat ppl who do something like this)

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

(message to the people who are thinking of doing a similar crime “see what you’re going to get, think again”)

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

(idea of repairing, fixing what was broken, community service might be an example)

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

(we want them to be people who are contributing, net benefit instead of net cost, want them to change to be pro social)

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

(bringing somebody back into a restored relationship, so that they are now contributing to the well being of others, you “belong” again, “rehabilitation on steroids”)

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

sovereign vs offender

A

· Sovereign vs offender (each crime is a crime against the queen/ societal or social structures)

· Used to be a revenge based justice system (eye for an eye, BUT YOU STILL NEED TO BE PUNISHED!, it's never really just, it's always escalating)

· INSTEAD: we make it impersonal (it's a crime against everyone) 

· Designed to avoid self- or group-serving bias

· Primary means of punishment is payment to the state (ex: fines) and removal from society (jail)
17
Q

THE DOWN SIDES

A
  1. Undiscovered or unreported crime
    - If they are reported, may or may not result in conviction, and then may or may not result in incarceration
  2. Expensive trial process
  3. Questionable effectiveness
    (the results are mixed if it is effective)
    • TEMPORARY: only removed for some time (not forever)
    • Recidivism rates vary
    • Could be educational (okay, now im learning how to do it without getting caught)
    • Promotes a punitive culture
  4. Loses the positive as well as the negative aspects of “relationship”
    (victim is taken out of the equation)
    • More focused on the past? Who did it? What punishment?
  5. Does not encourage taking responsibility
    • Apologizing can incur greater punishment
    • Pleading innocence even if you are guilty can result in lesser charge
    • Building in the sense of “don’t take responsibility”
18
Q

PRIMARY PSYCHOPATHY

A

INHERITED SUBCORTICAL DEFICIT
· Can’t relate to others
· May be better to cognitively understand
· Inherited subcortical defect (emotion)
· “I can’t identify emotions in others because I don’t even identify it within myself”
· Interpersonal- selfish use of others
· Tend to demonstrate a grandiose sense of narcissism
· Pathological lying occurred
· Self serving use of others
· Affective component- lack of empathic concern
· Failure to accept responsibility
· Predatory motive (we all have it but most of us understand that we must adapt with it to fit others needs, evolutionism)
· Empathy may exist, but is stunted, inhibits the empathy system

19
Q

SECONDARY PSYCHOPATHY

A

PREFRONTAL CORTEX DEFICITS
· Genetic
· maladaptive environment (childhood mistreatment that causes a certain way of interacting with others)
· Reward system combined with impulsivity, etc suggests a deficient
· Anti-social behaviour- long term
· Early displays of problematic behaviour
· Lifestyle- disinhibited sensation seeking
· Overlaps with anti-social personality disorder
· Combination of genetic and maladaptive environmental factors
· Part showing: prefrontal cortex
· Difficulty forming emotional bonds with others
· High levels of anxiety
· Combined with alexifimia: you DO feel things, but you don’t know what you’re feeling (related to emotional processing) having difficulty describing or labeling your emotions
Instead of looking into WHY you’re feeling that way (tired BECAUSE of not enough sleep) will blame something or someone in their environment

20
Q

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (APD)

A
  • Failure to conform to social norms
    • Deceitfulness, lying
    • Impulsivity
    • Irritability
    • Reckless disregard
    • Irresponsibility
    • Lack of remorse
    • DOESN’T INCLUDE “lack of affective empathy”
    • Overlaps with secondary psychopathy
21
Q

AFFECTIVE EMPATHY

A
  • Distinguished from cognitive empathy
    • We can resonate with the experience with others
    • Dominating and being superior to, and taking advantage of others
22
Q

PSYCHOPATHY: ETIOLOGY

A
  • Genetic component
    • Environmental influences
    • Dysfunc vs func psychopaths
      · DYS: criminal, don’t follow rules, more likely to become offenders, buth psychopathy cog dys and anti social personality disorders
      · FUNC: non-criminal, learned the rules, doesn’t get why people follow the rules/show emotion but learned that they should show them, may not be great people, but not criminals
    • Prosocial psychopaths
      · In the first 2-3 years of our life, we develop a worldview
      · Helps us navigate our world
      · These years will determine whether you are normal, pro social , dysfunc or func psychopath
23
Q

PSYCHOPATHY: TREATMENT

A
  • Recidivism rates: 77%
    • Response treatment varies:
    • Cognitive behaviour therapies (sometimes helps manipulate others more)
    • Try to subliminally trick PP individuals to show empathy
    • Hopefully when younger, the older we get the harder it is to see change
24
Q

CLINICAL JUDGEMENTS OF RISK
4 CRITERIAS:

A
  1. Agree amongst themselves (reliability)
    1. Accurate (validity)
    2. Make use of specialized procedures
    3. Differ from non-professionals
      Non-pro’s should not be able to do this
25
Q

Compared to high school teachers, clinicians:

A

· Had low levels of agreement amongst themselves (compared to teachers)
· Weighted info similarly amongst themselves (comparable to teachers)
· Affected more by offense descriptions and offender history (what they did and how graphic it was) than by assessment data (same as teachers)

26
Q

ACTURIAL PREDICTION

A

Uses predictors statistically related to violent recidivism (let’s look at things that past offenders were associated with)
- Clinicians expected dangerousness to be related to:
· A homicide offense
· A high institutionalized assault frequency
· An involuntary admission
· Low IQ

Actual factors related to dangerousness
- An economic or sexual offense
- Remand (not involuntary) admission status
- Young age
- Number of times in corrections
- Higher IQ

27
Q

STATIC PREDICTORS

A
  • Can’t be changed (for ex: being young)
    • Useful for prediction
28
Q

DYNAMIC PREDICTORS

A
  • Vary overtime (ex: attitudes towards sexuality)
    • Focus on treatment

TWO TYPES WITHIN THEM:
- Stable dynamic predictors
- Clinical factors
- You have a certain condition (BPD)

- Acute dynamic predictors 
- Treatment factors (things you can most likely change)
29
Q

SYNTHESIS

A
  • Actuarial methods to determine risk category (1,2,3)
    • Clinical judgements modify assessment based on changes in dynamic predictors (maybe they can change categories based on behaviour)
    • Measuring deviancy, pro-offending, attitudes, and other dynamic factors increases predictive accuracy
    • Assessments can be modified based on changes in dynamic predictors
30
Q

SYNTHESIS 9 KINDS

A
  1. outpatients:
    (30%)
    • don’t present much actuarial threat
    • John who blacked out and could not remember the murder and sexual mutilation of his female friend
    • Dissociative state
    • Suicide attempts when young
    • Displayed good sense of humour
    • Now gets excited for consensual sex (shows people can learn from treatment)
    • Only 41% of outpatients get out
  2. Typical psychiatric patient
    (17%)
    • Severely psychotic
    • Heavy episodes
    • Not aware of what’s going on
  3. Non- dangerous problem patient
    (6%)
    • Don’t pose a big risk but
    • Symptoms are very clear
    • Not reacting well to medication
  4. Social isolates
    (9%)
    • Moderate actuarial risk
    • More clinical problems
    • Showing high levels of problems
  5. High needs patient
    (7%)
    • More dangerous
    • High risk
  6. Dangerous model patient:
    (16%)
    • Require high levels of supervision
    • Nearly half were in the community at the time of survey
    • Actuarily more dangerous
    • Ed: found not guilty of murder/ sexual assault of female friend
    • Help for ed date back to age 3
    • Sought help but was not admitted
    • Poised, personable, confident
    • Pleasant in groups
    • Ed is a psychopath
  7. Dangerous patient
    (11%)
  8. Dangerous troublemakers
    (4%)
    • Glen: never knew his parents
    • Convicted of 2 brutal assaults
    • Violent towards staff and others
    • Reoffended again

LS 272 (4 decks)

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