Criminal Behaviour - Methods of Modifying

Question 1

What are the Methods of Modifying Criminal Behaviour?

Answer 1

1. Anger Management

2. Restorative Justice

Question 2

What is Anger Management?

Answer 2

• Form of CBT
• Aim is to reduce emotional response by reconcepualising them emotion using a range of cognitive behavioural skills
• Most common rehabilitation program

Question 3

What did the Prison Reform Trust (2014) Find?

Answer 3

• 46% adults imprisoned are re-convicted after a year

- 67% under 18s imprisoned are re-convicted after a year

Question 4

What is the Short-Term Aim of Anger Management?

Answer 4

Reduce anger + aggression within prisons - Navco = ‘Anger Factories’

Question 5

What is the Long Term Aim of Anger Management?

Answer 5

Rehabilitation + reduction of recidivism especially in violent prisons

Question 6

Describe Why There is Anger in Prisons

Answer 6

• Criminals tend to think irrationally - e.g. Hostile Attribution Bias
• Attribution = what we think when we observe someone’s actions + draw an influence about what it means
• Hostile Attribution Bias = when someone has a tendency to always think the worst - can cause anger + aggression

Question 7

What is the Overall Aim of Anger Management?

Answer 7

To change the way a person handles anger + aggression - situation may not be changebale but person can change they way they think about it - therefore changes behaviour

Question 8

What are Navaco’s 3 Aims?

Answer 8

1. Cognitive Restructuring
2. Regulation of Arousal
3. Behavioural Strategies

Question 9

Describe Cognitive Restructuring

Answer 9

Greater self-awareness + control over cognitive dimensions (thoughts) of anger

Question 10

Describe Regulation of Arousal

Answer 10

Learning to control the physiological state

Question 11

Describe Behavioural Strategies

Answer 11

Includes problem solving tasks/strategic withdrawal/assertiveness

Question 12

What is Stress Inoculation Training Model?

What does it Consist Of?

Answer 12

• Aims to provide a vaccination against future ‘infections’
  1. Conceptualising
  2. Skills Acquisition + Rehearsal
  3. Application + Follow Through

Question 13

Describe the Conceptualising

(stage one) of Stress Inoculation Training?

Answer 13

• Clients learn about anger generally - both adaptive (helpful) + non-adaptive (not helpful)
• Analysis their own patterns of anger + identity situations which provokes anger

Question 14

Describe the Skills Acquisition + Rehearsal (stage two) of Stress Inoculation Training?

Answer 14

• Clients taught various skills to help manage their anger (e.g. self regulation/cognitive flexibility/relaxation)
• Taught better communication skills therefore can resolve conflicts asserting without being angry

Question 15

Describe the Application + Follow Through (stage three) of Stress Inoculation Training?

Answer 15

• Clients apply skills initially in controlled/non-threatening situations (e.g. role play)
• Clients receive extensive feedback from therapist/other members of group
• Clients later try skills in real world setting

Question 16

Describe Ireland’s Research (2004)

Answer 16

• Assessed effectiveness of anger management of 87 young male prisoners
• Baseline measurement assessing per-intervention anger (questionnaire) + assessment by prison officers
• Experimental group = 50
• Control group = 37
• Treatment consisted of 12 one hour sessions over 3 days
• 8 weeks later - 92% = prisoners getting anger management improved at least one angry behaviour - 8% = deteriorated - control group = no change

Question 17

Anger Management Evaluation
Effectiveness
Supportive Evidence

Answer 17

POSITIVE
- Anger management = effective + successful in reducing anger
- Taylor + Navaco (2006) = reported a 75% improvement rate
- Landenberger + Lipsey (2005) = analysed 58 studies using CBT - 20 looked at therapy with anger control key component - found having control element was significant related to amount of improvement
HOWEVER
- Howells (2005) = five meta-analysis - showed moderate benefits - only one person improved

Question 18

Anger Management Evaluation
Effectiveness
Limitations of Anger Management Programmes

Answer 18

NEGATIVE

• Some offenders don’t like to reflect on their style of thinking - drop out of voluntary AMP
• Alternative to AM is use of drama-based courses -less relevant on verbal ability
• Assess to readiness to change before programme
• Better part of a wider therapeutic approach

Question 19

Anger Management Evaluation
Effectiveness
Relationship Between Anger, Aggression + Crime

Answer 19

• Is anger + aggression linked?
• Loza + Loza-Fanous (1999) = research based in lab on students - link between anger + crime - in study of 300 male prisoners found no difference between violent + non-violent prisoners anger - violent individuals mask anger
• Loza + Loza-Fanous suggest one danger with AM is they can be harmful as offenders attribute violent behaviour to anger rather then taking responsibility
• Howells (2005) = “anger is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for aggression + violent crime” - violence can take place without anger acting as a antecedent

Question 20

Anger Management Evaluation
Ethical Implications
Lack of Voluntary Consent

Answer 20

NEGATIVE

• Offenders are often required to take in an anger mangament (e.g. condition of problem)
• Against the ethical code of therapists - through Anger Management + Domestic Violence ethical code says ‘based on valid informed consent’
• Ethical issues are a balance between costs+benefits - cost = valid consent benefits for individual + society through anger reduction

Question 21

Anger Management Evaluation
Ethical Implications
Therapist Conflict

Answer 21

NEGATIVE

• Intervention are intended to help the client
• Conflicts for therapist because they have a duty to the institution + the client
• Client may tell therapist info. that could threaten security of prison/confess details of crime
• Breaching any therapeutic confidence is only acceptable in serious situation - pose dilemma for the therapist + would damage clients trust in authority

Question 22

Anger Management Evaluation
Social Implications
Benefits for Prisons Environments

Answer 22

POSITIVE

• Anger management have benefits for prison staff/other prisoners
• Potential to reduce violence + aggression if we accept anger + aggression are linked
• Without the link to aggression/violence/anger on its own creates hostile atmosphere

Question 23

Anger Management Evaluation
Social Implications
Financial Implications

Answer 23

POSITIVE

• Cost to economy = £9.5 billion per a year
• Any method that may reduce offending must benefit society
• If offenders learn to control their anger better once they are released from prison - may prevent committing further crimes
• Reducing hostile attribution bias = negative emotion = less likely to escalate

Question 24

What is Restorative Justice?

Answer 24

• Involves communication with the victim
• Can be over video conference/face-to-face meeting
• Sometimes an alternative to a prison sentence

Question 25

What are the Aims of Restorative Justice?

Answer 25

1. Rehabilitation of offenders | 2. Atonement for wrongdoing

Question 26

Describe the Rehabilitation of Offenders

Answer 26

- Victim has opportunity to explain the real impact of crime - Enables offender to understand effects on victim - Offenders is encouraged to take perspective of others - reduces possibility of reoffending - Offender encouraged to take responsibility for crime - effects on future behaviour - Punishment is passive process whereas rehabilitative justice required criminal active participation - change their attitudes towards crime + behaviour

Question 27

What is Atonement (Compensation) for Wrongdoing?

Answer 27

- Offender may offer concrete compensation for crime - Atonement = psychologically simply showing feeling of guilt - Offender can show understanding of effects of actions - Victim has opportunity to express distress + provides offender with chance to develop empathy by taking perspective of victim

Question 28

What is the Victim Perspective?

Answer 28

- Restorative justice reduces the victim's sense of victimisation - no longer feels powerless - Victim may develop a greater understanding of offenders by listening to their account - reduces victim's of being harmed

Question 29

Who Proposed Restorative Justice?

Answer 29

Wachtel + McCold (2003)

Question 30

Describe the Restorative Relationship Triangle

Answer 30

- Crime harms people/relationships and justice requires that harm to be healed - Ear;y models only focused on victim + offender but recent ideas recognised the effect on community - involvement of 3 stakeholders is necessary - Victim seeks reparation (compensation) the offender takes responsibility + the community aims to achieve reconciliation to maintain a healthy society

Question 31

Restorative Justice Evaluation Effectiveness Effectiveness from the Victim's Perspective

Answer 31

POSITIVE - Victim who have taken part in restorative justice found it beneficial - UK Restorative Justice Council (2015) reported 85% satisfaction from victims' face to face meetings - covered range of different crimes from theft to violent crimes - Avon + Somerset - 92.5% victim satisfaction (violent crimes) - Victims claim a greater sense of satisfaction than mainstream courts

Question 32

Restorative Justice Evaluation Effectiveness Effectiveness in Terms of Reduced Offending

Answer 32

- Restorative Justice seeks to reduce rates of reoffending + thus reduce crime rates - Sherman + Strang (2007) = reviewed 20 studies of face-to-face meetings between victim + offender in US,UK+Australia - all studies showed a reduced reoffending + 0 linked to higher reoffending - lower reoffending rates (11%) as compared to a match control group who served s short sentence (37%)

Question 33

Restorative Justice Evaluation Effectiveness Selecting Which Offenders and Which Victims

Answer 33

- Never applies to all offenders + all victims - Offender needs to have admitted to crime - Zehr (2002) = restorative justice can take place without offender present - Victim may decline offer - Restorative justice cannot be a global solution

Question 34

Restorative Justice Evaluation Ethical Issues From Victims' Perspective

Answer 34

NEGATIVE - Can lead to victim feeling worse - psychological harm - Victim may feel that criminal showed no empathy - loss of self-essteam - Victim may feel taken advantage of as restorative justice is offered instraed of sentence - criminal doesn't take it seriously - May feel embaressed

Question 35

Restorative Justice Evaluation Ethical Issues From the Offenders' Perspective

Answer 35

- Can lead to victim abusing power (e.g. ganging up on offender) especially if offender is a child - Victims may try to shame offender - not intention of process - important that offenders feel understood - Need to be balanced + benefit both victims and offender

Question 36

Restorative Justice Evaluation Social Implication Financial Implications

Answer 36

- UK = large prison population - Restorative Justice needs to reduce prison population by reducing reoffending - Zehr (2002) = Traditional penal system did not address the needs of the victim nor did it promote offender accountability - UK Restorative Justice Council claims that reduced reoffending means that £8 is saved for every £1 spent - Sometimes funded by fines paid by the offender - substantial financial benefits for community

Question 37

Restorative Justice Evaluation Social Implication Wider Approach in the Community

Answer 37

- Restorative justice goes beyond offender + victims to wider community - Peace Circles - developed in communities where crime + violence is high - Aims to foster an environment of respect - community offers support to victim + welcomes offenders to enable a mutual understanding - Talking Piece passed around so that person can speak uninterrupted - Keeper = maintain atmosphere of respect