Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
164 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the definition of crime? |
- an action that breaks the law and when convicted by the court warrants punishment e.g. prison time |
|
|
What are the cultural issues with defining crime? |
- A crime in one culture may not be a crime in another culture e.g. forced marriage |
|
|
What are the historical issues with defining crime? |
- Definitions of crime change over time e.g. Homosexuality in the UK up until 1967 |
|
|
What are the ways to measure crime? |
- official statistics - victim surveys - offender surveys |
|
|
What are official statistics? |
- quantitative data based on crime reported/recorded by police - used by govt. to inform crime prevention strategies |
|
|
What are the strengths and weaknesses of official statistics? |
- many crimes not reported; 25% offences in official stats = unreliable - police may decided crime is not worth reporting |
|
|
What are victim surveys? |
- questionnaire asks sample of people what crimes committed against them over period of time/if reported - e.g. annual Crime Survey for England and Wales |
|
|
What are the strengths and weaknesses of victim surveys? |
- includes unreported crime=greater accuracy than official stats - e.g. official stats show crime rate 2% down vs Crime survey shows 3% up - rely on victims accurate recall=distort figures |
|
|
What are offender surveys? |
- self-report where people record the number/types of crime they committed over specific period - target 'likely offenders' (prev. convictions/age range/social background) - insight to how many people responsible for certain offences |
|
|
What are the strengths and weaknesses of offender surveys? |
- hide more serious offences/exaggerate=unreliable - targeted=certain crimes overrepresented - middles class offences unlikely added |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of measurements of crime? |
- politics of measuring crime - multidisciplinary approach |
|
|
What is the politics of measuring crime evaluative point of measuring crime? |
- political party in opposition insist crime increasing/party in power=crime falling - crime stats compiled by independent body, validity still questioned |
|
|
What is the multidisciplinary approach evaluative point of measuring crime? |
- issues in reliability/validity of data methods produce - crime figures carefully scrutinised/interpreted - use all available methods=best insight to true extent of offending |
|
|
What is offender profiling? |
- behavioural/analytical tool intended to help investigators accurately predict/profile characteristics of unknown criminals |
|
|
What is the top-down approach? |
- US approach - profilers start with a pre-existing template and work down to put offenders in one of two categories based on witness accounts/crime scene evidence |
|
|
What are the categories in the top-down approach based on? |
- serious criminals have a signature crime=correlate to set of social/psychological characteristics |
|
|
What are the characteristics of an organised offender? |
- shows evidence of planning - targets victim - socially/sexually competent - above average IQ - usually married with children |
|
|
What are the characteristics of a disorganised offender? |
- little evidence of planning - leaves clues - socially/sexually incompetent - below average IQ - lives alone - close to offence |
|
|
What are the four stages to constructing an offender profile? |
- Data assimilation(review evidence) - crime scene classification(organised/disorganised) - crime scene reconstruction (hyptheses of sequence of events, victim behaviour etc.) - profile generation (hypotheses related to likely offender) |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the top-down approach? |
- only applies to particular crimes - based on outdated models of personality - evidence does not support the 'disorganised offender' - classifications too simplistic - original sample |
|
|
What is the only applies to particular crimes evaluative point of the top-down approach? |
- best suited to crime scenes that show key details about suspect - common offences=burglary can't be profiled=crime scene reveals little about offender - limited approach/can't be applied to all crime |
|
|
What is the based on outdated models of personality evaluative point of the top-down approach? |
- typology based on assumption offenders have consistent behaviour patterns - critics: approach naive/old fashioned=dispositional traits than external factors - poor validity in identifying suspects/predicting |
|
|
What is the evidence doesn't support the 'disorganised offender' evaluative point of the top-down approach? |
Canter: smallest space analysis;analysed 100 murder data in US;reference to 39 characteristics of (dis)organised offenders;distinct organised type, not disorganised - undermines classification system |
|
|
What is the classifications too simplistic evaluative point of the top-down approach? |
- behaviours of categories not mutually exclusive Godwin: how investigators class high IQ who kills randomly=prompted more detailed models Holmes: 4 types of serial killer:visionary/mission/hedonistic/power Keppel/Walter: different motives killers might have |
|
|
What is the original sample evaluative point of the top-down approach? |
- typology developed using 36 interview with killers - too small/unrepresentative to base typology system Canter: not rely of self-report data with convicted killers when making class system |
|
|
What is the bottom-up approach? |
- profilers work up from crime scene evidence to develop hypotheses about likely characteristics, motivations and social background of the offender |
|
|
What are the two forms of the bottom-up approach? |
- investigative psychology - geographical profiling |
|
|
What is investigative psychology? |
- match crime scene details with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns - interpersonal coherence: how an offender behaves at the crime scene reflects their behaviour in everyday situations - time/place may indicate offender residence |
|
|
What is geographical profiling? |
- first used by Kim Rossmo - based on spatial consistency: offender's base/future offences revealed by prev crimes (crime mapping) - used with psych theory=hypotheses - serial offenders=familiar areas=centre of gravity/jeopardy surface |
|
|
What is Canter's circle theory of the bottom-up approach? |
- there are two models of offender behaviour: Marauder: operates close to home base Commuter: travel away from residence - offending forms circle around usual residence - more offences=more apparent - insight into offence nature and offenders age etc. |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the bottom-up approach? |
- evidence supports investigative psychology - evidence supports geographical profiling - scientific basis - wider application - mixed results for profiling |
|
|
What is the evidence supporting investigating psychology of the bottom-up approach? |
Canter/Heritage: content analysis 66 sexual assaults;smallest space analysis=correlates behaviour patterns;common characteristics identified - find offences by same criminal;behaviour changes across offences |
|
|
What is the evidence supporting geographical profiling of the bottom-up approach? |
Lundrigan/Canter: 120 serial killer murders (US);smallest space analysis=spatial consistency, creating centre of gravity;effect more noticeable for marauders - supports spatial info key to determining offender base |
|
|
What is the scientific basis evaluative point of the bottom-up approach? |
- Canter claims more objective/less speculative - advanced AI, manipulate geo/bio/psych data=results assist investigation - includes suspect interviewing/examination of court material=supports use in court |
|
|
What is the wider application of the bottom-up approach? |
- applied to wide range of offences - smallest space analysis/spatial consistency used in investigation of petty and serious offences |
|
|
What is the mixed results for profiling evaluative point of the bottom-up approach? |
- studies examining effect of offender profiling produced mixed results Copson: 48 police surveys=advice by profiler 83% useful;3% lead to accurate identification of offender Kocsis: chemistry students more accurate offender profile than experiences detectives |
|
|
What are the biological explanations of offending behaviour? |
- atavistic form - genetic and neural explanations |
|
|
What is atavistic form? |
Lombroso: offending due to individuals genetic throwbacks/primitive subspecies - can't conform to modern society - criminal have distinguishable facial/cranial features |
|
|
What are the atavistic characteristics? |
- narrow brow, strong jaw, high cheekbones,dark skin Murderers: bloodshot eyes, curly hair Sexual deviants: glinting eyes, swollen lips - other aspects e.g. pain insensitivity, criminal slang, tattoos etc. |
|
|
What was Lombroso's research into the atavistic form? |
- examined facial/cranial features of 383 dead/3839 living criminals - 40% criminal acts accounted for by atavistic characteristics |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the atavistic form? |
- contribution to criminology - scientific racism - contradictory evidence - poor control in Lombroso's research - causation is an issue |
|
|
What is the contribution to criminology evaluative point of the atavistic form? |
- shifted crime explanations from moralistic to scientific realm - categorising characteristics=beginning of offender profiling - major contribution to science of criminology |
|
|
What is the scientific racism evaluative point of the atavistic form? |
DeLisi: many atavistic features belong to people of African descent;described as 'uncivilised' - controversial;could lead to discrimination |
|
|
What is the contradictory evidence to the atavistic form? |
Goring: compared 3000 (non)criminals=no evidence for distinct offender characteristics - intelligence may be better indicator of criminality than atavistic form |
|
|
What is the poor control in Lombroso's research evaluative point of the atavistic form? |
- didn't have control group=significant differences may disappeared - many criminals had previous psychological disorders=could have caused physical characteristics=confounding variable |
|
|
What is the causation is an issue evaluative point of the atavistic form? |
- atavistic characteristics don't necessarily cause offending behaviour - may be influenced by poverty, poor diet than evolutionary throwback |
|
|
What is the genetic explanation of offending behaviour? |
- offenders inherit gene(s) that predispose them to crime |
|
|
What was Lange's research into the genetic explanation of offending behaviour? |
13 MZ/17 DZ twins;one twin served prison time;10MZ/2DZ co-twin also served prison time - genetic factors play predominant part in offending behaviour |
|
|
What was Christiansen's research into the genetic explanation of offending behaviour? |
- 87 MZ/147 DZ pairs;concordance 33% MZs/12% DZs=supports view that offending has genetic component |
|
|
What was Tiihonen's research into the genetic explanation of offending behaviour? |
- genetic analysis 900 offenders;abnormality in two candidate genes related to violent crime MAOA: dopamine/serotonin CDH13: substance abuse/ADD - both genes=13x violent history;research not replicated |
|
|
What is the diathesis stress model for offending behaviour? |
- tendency to criminal behaviour is a combination of genetic and biological/psychological triggers |
|
|
What is the neural explanation of offending behaviour? |
- dysfunction of the brain/nervous system - evidence comes from those with APD=reduced emotions/lack empathy |
|
|
What was Raine's research into the neural explanation of offending behaviour? |
- studied APD brain - reduced activity in prefrontal cortex (regulates emotional behaviour) - 11% reduction in grey matter in prefrontal cortex vs control |
|
|
What was Keysers' research into the neural explanation of offending behaviour? |
- criminals asked to empathise, empathy reaction controlled by mirror neurons activated - swiched on/off |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the genetic and neural explanations of offending behaviour? |
- problems with twin studies - support for the diathesis stress model - problems with adoption studies - biological reductionism - biological determinism |
|
|
What are the problems with twin studies for the genetic and neural explanations of offending? |
- poorly controlled - MZ/DZ judged on appearance not DNA=lack validity - small/unusual sample=not representative - twins raised in same environmnet=confounding variable |
|
|
What is the support for the diathesis stress model for the genetic and neural explanations of offending? |
Mednick: 13,000 Danish adoptees;>1 court conviction;no parent convictions=13.5%;one parents=20%;both adoptive/biological parents=24.5% - environmental influence cannot be disregarded |
|
|
What are the problems with adoption studies for the genetic and neural explanations of offending? |
- presumed separation of genetic/environmental influence complicated - late adoption=infancy with biological parents/maintain contact - difficult to assess environmental impact of biological parents Mednick: petty offences, not apply to serious crime |
|
|
What is the biological reductionism evaluative point of the genetic and neural explanations of offending? |
- criminality complex;reducing to genetic/neural level oversimplifies - mental illness, social deprivation run in families=confounding variables - MZ concordance rates not 100% |
|
|
What is the biological determinism evaluative point of the genetic and neural explanations of offending? |
- criminal gene=legal dilemma - criminal claim they weren't acting on free will but genes were controlling actions - loop hole to escape jail time |
|
|
What are the psychological explanations of offending behaviour? |
- Eysenck's personality theory - cognitive explanations - differential association theory - psychodynamic explanation |
|
|
What is Eysenck's personality theory? |
- behaviour could be represented along two dimensions: - introversion/extraversion - neuroticism/stability - combine to various personality traits |
|
|
What is the biological basis of Eysenck's personality theory? |
- personality comes through type of nervous system we inherit Extraverts: underactive nervous system, seek excitement=engage in risky behaviour Neurotic: nervous, jumpy, general instability=behaviour difficult to predict |
|
|
What is the criminal personality according to Eysenck's theory? |
- neurotic-extravert=combination of respective characteristics - score highly on psychoticism=cold, unemotional and prone to aggression |
|
|
What is the role of socialisation in Eysenck's theory of personality? |
- criminal behaviour immature=immediate gratification - high E/N score=nervous systems hard to condition=act antisocially |
|
|
What is te Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)? |
- psychological test locates respondent on E/N scale and P to determine personality type |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of Eysenck's personality theory? |
- evidence supporting Eysenck's theory - the idea of a single criminal type - cultural bias - the (mis)measurement of personality - biological basis |
|
|
What is the evidence supporting Eysenck's theory? |
- 2070 male prisoner EPI scores with 2422 male controls - divided by age (16-69);prisoners across all ages higher scores than controls Farrington: offenders score high on P, not E and N; little EED difference between I/E - doubt physiological basis |
|
|
What is the idea of a single criminal type evaluative point of Eysenck's theory? |
Moffitt: several distinct adult male offender types=time of first offence/how long - all offending can't be explained by one personality type |
|
|
What is the cultural bias evaluative point of Eysenck's theory? |
Batrol/Holanchock: Hispanic/African American offenders in NY max-security prison - divided to 6 groups (crime nature/history) - less extravert than control - questions generalisability of Eysenck's theory |
|
|
What is the (mis)measurement of personality evaluative point of Eysenck's theory? |
- assumed you can measure personality through psychological test - some argue no one personality, changes depending on who we're with |
|
|
What is the biological basis evaluative point of Eysenck's theory? |
- recognises genetic basis of personality - research into APD=same limitations as genetic and neural explanations |
|
|
Are the cognitive explanations of offending behaviour? |
- level of moral reasoning - cognitive distortions |
|
|
What was Kohlberg's cognitive explanationof the level of moral reasoning? |
- people's right/wrong judgements summarised in stages - based on responses to moral dilemma - moral development of violent youth less than non-violent |
|
|
What was Kohlberg's model of criminality? |
- criminals=pre-conventional level - non-criminals=conventional level and beyond - pre-conventional: avoid punishment, gain reward=childlike reasoning - commit crime if they can get away with it/earn money - higher reasoning=sympathise/show honesty |
|
|
What are cognitive distortions? |
- faulty, irrational ways of thinking which make us see ourselves, others and the world negatively |
|
|
What are the two types of cognitive distortion? |
- hostile attribution bias - minimalisation |
|
|
What is hostile attribution bias? |
- violence related to misinterpreting others actions to be confronting |
|
|
What was Schonenberg and Justye's research into hostile attribution bias? |
- showed 55 violent offenders emotionally ambiguous faces - compared to control, more likely to see as hostile |
|
|
What was Dodge and Frame's research into hostile attribution bias? |
- children shown 'ambiguous provocation' video - aggressive children interpret as hostile compared to non-violent interpret at 'acceptable' = behaviour rooted in childhood |
|
|
What is minimalisation? |
- attempt to deny/downplay seriousness of offence to deal with guilt - burglars describe themselves as 'supporting my family' |
|
|
What was Barbaree's research into minimalisation? |
- 26 incarcerated rapists - 54% denied the offence - 40% minimised harm to victim |
|
|
What was Pollock and Hashmall's research into minimalisation? |
- 35% child molestors argued crime was non-sexual - 36% stated that the victim consented |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the cognitive explanations of offending? |
- level of moral reasoning evidence - alternative theories of moral reasoning - application of research - individual differences - descriptive not explanatory |
|
|
What is the level of moral reasoning evidence for the cognitive explanations of offending? |
Palmer/Hollin: moral reasoning of 210 female/122 male non and 126 offenders using Socio-Moral Reflection Measure-Short Form - 11 moral dilemmas - delinquent less moral than non Blackburn: due to lack of roleplay in childhood |
|
|
What is the alternative theories of moral reasoning evaluative point of the cognitive explanations of offending? |
Gibbs: two levels: (im)mature; mature=avoid punishment;immature=own conscience - post-conventional abandoned=culturally biased Piaget: childlike reasoning egocentric=empathy as we get older |
|
|
What is the application of research of cognitive explanation of offending? |
- treating criminal behaviour;sex offenders=cognitive behaviour therapy=establish less distorted view - reduce denial/minimalisation highly correlated to reduce reoffending |
|
|
What is the individual differences of evaluative point of the cognitive explanations of offending? |
- level of moral reasoning may depend on offence type Thornton/Reid: financial crimes pre-conventional vs impulsive crimes=evade punishment Langdon: intelligence better indicator of criminality |
|
|
What is the descriptive not explanatory evaluative point of the cognitive explanations of offending? |
- describes the criminal mind but doesn't explain it - useful to predict reoffending, no insight into why crime committed in first place |
|
|
What is the differential association theory of offending behaviour? |
- individuals learn the values/attitudes of criminal behaviour by interacting with different people |
|
|
What is the scientific basis of the differential association theory of offending? |
Sutherland: developed scientific principles to explain offending - present when crime is present and absent when crime is absent |
|
|
According to the differential association theory, how is crime learned? |
- behaviour acquired through process of learning=interactions with family/peer group - criminality arises from: learned attitudes to crime;learning specific criminal acts |
|
|
According to the differential association theory, how are pro-crime attitudes learned? |
- socialised into group=exposed to values to law (pro/anti) Sutherland: pro-crime>anti-crime=offending - could mathematically predict offender if we knew freq/intensity/duration exposed to anti/pro-crime attitudes |
|
|
According to the differential association theory, how are criminal acts learned? |
- learn techniques for committing crime e.g. break into a house - shows how crime spreads in social groups - explains reoffending=learn from experienced criminals locked up |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the differential association theory? |
- explanatory power - shift of focus - difficulty of testing - alternative explanations - individual differences |
|
|
What is the explanatory power of the differential association theory? |
- accounts for crime in all sectors of society - Sutherland recognised burglary concentrated in working class communities - interested in middle-class 'white-collar' crime |
|
|
What is the shift of focus evaluative point of the differential association theory? |
- emphasis from biological/moralistic explanations to dysfunctional circumstances - more realistic solution to crime |
|
|
What is the difficulty of testing evaluative point of the differential association theory? |
- hard to see no. pro-crime attitudes person exposed to - assumes offending occurs when pro-crime outweighs anti-crime |
|
|
What is the alternative explanations evaluative point of the differential association theory? |
Sutherland: family crucial in determining offending=influence value system;supported by offending running in families - also supported genetic explanations |
|
|
What is the individual differences evaluative point of the differential association theory? |
- not everyone exposed to pro-crime offends=stereotype bad background as 'unavoidably criminal' - people can choose not to offend |
|
|
What is the psychodynamic explanation of offending behaviour? |
Freud: unconscious conflicts originating in childhood/determined by parent interaction control future criminal behaviourW |
|
|
What is the id, ego and superego? |
Id: immediate gratification Ego: social acceptance Superego: balance=moral values - develops during phallic stage=children develop Oedipus Complex - punishes ego: guilt=wrongdoing;pride=moral |
|
|
What does Blackburn say about the superego? |
- inadequate superego=criminal behaviour=id not controlled - 3 types: - weak superego - deviant superego - overharsh superego |
|
|
What is the weak superego? |
- same sex parent absent in phallic stage - can't internalise full superego=no identification - criminal behaviour more likely |
|
|
What is the overharsh superego? |
- individual crippled by guilt - unconsciously drive individual to crime to satisfy need for punishment |
|
|
What is the deviant superego? |
- child internalises deviant superego values through criminal parents=offending behaviour |
|
|
What is Bowlby's material deprivation theory? |
- superior maternal bond - failure to establish=damaging consequences - affectionless psychopathy=lack of guilt=offending - can't develop relationships |
|
|
What was Bowlby's 44 thieves study? |
- 44 interviews with thieves/families - 14 showed affectionless psychopathy - 12 of 14=prolong separation from mothers - non-criminal control=2 early separation=causes delinquent behaviour |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of the psychodynamic explanation? |
- gender bias - contradictory evidence - unconscious concepts - methodological issues with Bowlby's research - correlation not causation |
|
|
What is the gender bias evaluative point of the psychodynamic explanation? |
- assumed superego girls - not supported by stats (M:F inmates) Hoffman: resist temptation;girls moral>boys |
|
|
What is the contradictory evidence to the psychodynamic explanation? |
- little evidence that no same-sex parent=criminal behaviour - being raised by criminal parent=genetics/socialisation (not deviant superego) - great lengths to avoid punishment=contradicts overharsh superego |
|
|
What is the unconscious concepts evaluative point of the psychodynamic explanation? |
- lacks falsifiability=applications to crime can't be empirically tested - only judged on face value=pseudoscientific |
|
|
What are the methodological issues with Bowlby's research for the psychodynamic explanation? |
- researcher bias=preconceptions influenced interviewee responses - no distinction between privation and deprivation |
|
|
What is the correlation not causation evaluative point of the psychodynamic explanation? |
Lewis: 500 young people interview data;maternal deprivation poor predictor of offending;link doesn't mean cause |
|
|
What is custodial sentencing? |
- sentence determined by the court - offender punished by prison time/psych hospital |
|
|
What are the aims of custodial sentencing? |
- deterrence - incapacitation - retribution - rehabilitation |
|
|
What is the deterrence aim of custodial sentencing? |
- unpleasant experience=put off offending - general: message to society - individual: prevent individual repeating crime - behaviourist idea=conditioning through punishment |
|
|
What is the incapacitation aim of custodial sentencing? |
- offender taken out of society=protect public - depends on severity of crime |
|
|
What is the retribution aim of custodial sentencing? |
- revenge by society=offender suffers proportionate to the crime committed |
|
|
What is the rehabilitation aim of custodial sentencing? |
- prisoners leave adjusted for society - chances for drug treatment |
|
|
What are the psychological effects of custodial sentencing? |
Stress/Depression: suicide rates up vs general;stress=up risk of psychological disturbance after release Institutionalisation: Adapted to prison life, no longer able to function outside Prisonisation: socialised into 'inmate code'=unacceptable in outside world |
|
|
What is recidivism? |
- tendency to relapse into reoffending repeatedly |
|
|
What is the problem with recidivism? |
Ministry of Justice (2013): 57% UK offenders reoffend within a year of release - UK=highest rate of recidivism in the world Norway: lowest reoffending rates in Europe;greater emphasis on rehabilitation |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of custodial sentencing? |
- evidence supports psychological effects - individual differences - opportunities for training and treatment - universities for crime - alternatives to custodial sentencing |
|
|
What is the evidence supports psychological effects evaluative points of custodial sentencing? |
Bartol: 20 years, suicide rates 15x higher;most at risk=young single men in first 24 hrs Prison Reform Trust: 25% women;15% men=psychosis symptoms - not effective in rehabilitating psychologically vulnerable |
|
|
What are the individual differences evaluative point of custodial sentencing? |
- can't assume all offenders react same way;different prison/regime=experience varies - many convicted have pre-existing psych difficulties when convicted - difficult to generalise conclusions to all prisoners |
|
|
What is the opportunities for training and treatment evaluative point of custodial sentencing? |
- access to education=increase employment prospects after release - anger management schemes=reduce recidivism - prison experience worthwhile if access to resources |
|
|
What is the universities for crime evaluative point of custodial sentencing? |
- interaction with hard criminals=younger inmates learn 'tricks of trade' - undermine attempts to rehabilitate - reoffending more likely |
|
|
What is the alternatives to custodial sentencing evaluative point of custodial sentencing? |
Davies/Raymond: reviewed custodial sentencing;govt. exaggerate prison benefits=appear tough;does little to deter/rehabilitate - alternatives=community service;maintain employment/family contact |
|
|
What is behaviour modification? |
- behaviourist approach (learned behaviour) - reinforce good behaviour; punish bad - through token economy;managed by staff;all inmates required |
|
|
What behaviourist principle is the token economy based on? |
operant conditioning: reinforce good behaviour=token exchanged for reward (avoid conflict=more call time |
|
|
How is the token a secondary reinforcer? |
- the value of the token is from its link to the reward |
|
|
How is the token economy implemented? |
- behaviours/rewards clear before start program - disobedience=tokens/privileges withheld/removed (punishment) |
|
|
How does behaviour modification set out to change the behaviour of offenders? |
- good behaviour=increments;baseline made - reinforce behaviours chosen;same selective reinforcement from everyone offender interacts with - overseen=monitor effectiveness/individual behaviour |
|
|
What research has been done into the effectiveness of a token economy on dealing with offending behaviour? |
Hobbs/Holt: token economy with young offenders in 3 behavioural units (4th=control);sign. diff. in + behaviour vs non-token economy Allyon: similar effect with offenders in adult prison |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of behaviour modification? |
- easy of implement - little rehabilitative value - ethical issues - passive token learning - individually tailored=most effective |
|
|
What is the 'easy to implement' evaluative point of behaviour modification? |
- no specialists needed (anger management) - cost-effective;easy to follow However: depends on consistency from prison staff Bassett/Blanchard: benefits lost when techniques inconsistent |
|
|
What is the 'little rehabilitative value' evaluative point of behaviour modification? |
Blackburn: + changes of behaviour lost on release - token economy not extend beyond prison - good behaviour not always reinforced - reward from breaking law=more powerful |
|
|
What is the 'ethical issues' evaluative point of behaviour modification? |
- manipulative/dehumanising;participation obligatory - withdraw privileges ethically questionable - no informed consent/right to withdraw |
|
|
What is the 'passive token learning' evaluative point of behaviour modification? |
- corrects surface behaviour(passive learning) - do for rewards - anger management more active (reflect=greater responsibility) - offenders quickly return to offending behaviour |
|
|
What is the 'individually tailors=most effective' evaluative point of behaviour modification? |
Field: token economy with young people with behaviour problems;generally effective;few didn't respond;same group=special program=rewards instant/freq.=more + results - max effect=tailor to person=difficult in prison |
|
|
What does Novaco say about dealing with offending behaviour through anger management? |
- cognitive factors cause emotional arousal=aggression - anger quick to surface in threatening situations |
|
|
How does anger management through cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) work? |
- person through to recognise start of anger/develop techniques to resolve anger before violence |
|
|
What are the three stages to anger management through CBT? |
- cognitive preparation - skill acquisition - application practice |
|
|
What is the cognitive preparation stage of anger management (CBT)? |
- offender reflects/thinks of anger patterns - identify triggers(someone looking)=irrational - automatic response broken by therapists |
|
|
What is the skill scquisition stage of anger management (CBT)? |
- offenders introduced to techniques to deal with triggers rationally cognitive: + self-talk=calm behavioural: effective communication psychological: meditation |
|
|
What is the application practice stage of anger management (CBT)? |
- offenders practice skills in controlled roleplay - offender/therapist act past anger trigger - required bravery/commitment - successful=positive reinforcement |
|
|
What research has been done into the effectiveness of anger management on offending behaviour? |
Keen: progress of young offenders (17-21) in national anger management prog;8 4hr sessions, 1st 7=3 weeks, last after month;initial issues (not serious);final outcomes generally positive - increased awareness of anger difficulties/increased self-control |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of anger management as a method of dealing with offending behaviour? |
- eclectic approach - comparison with behaviour modification - limited long-term effectiveness - anger may not cause offending - expensive and requires commitment |
|
|
What is the 'eclectic approach' evaluative point of anger management? |
- cognitive preparation=anger trigger (phase 1)/behavioural techniques (phase 2)/social approach=roleplay (phase 3) - multidisciplinary=offending complex=address with different elements |
|
|
What is the 'comparison with behaviour modification' evaluative point of anger management? |
- attempts to tackle offending cause;thought not superficial behaviour - give offenders insight to criminality cause=self-discover management techniques outside prison setting |
|
|
What is the 'limited long-term effectiveness' evaluative point of anger management? |
Blackburn: follow up study;noticeable short-term effect;no evidence decrease recidivism -role play artificial=not reflect all real triggers - not a permanent solution for offending |
|
|
What is the 'anger may not cause offending' evaluative point of anger management? |
Loza/Loza-Fanous: psychometric measures=no difference in levels of anger in violent vs non violent offenders - programmes misguided=justify offender behaviour - crimes not motivated by anger (financial) |
|
|
What is the 'expensive and requires commitment' evaluative point of anger management? |
- need specialists;prisons don't have resources=not all prisoners have access - success based on participant commitment - prisoners may be uncooperative |
|
|
What is restorative justice as a method of dealing with offending behaviour? |
- A system focusing on rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims - offenders see crime impact - gives victim a voice |
|
|
How did restorative justice change the focus of offending behaviour? |
- past=crime against state - restorative justice=emphasis to individual victim - victims active in process;offenders take responsibility for actions |
|
|
What are the key features of the restorative justice process? |
- focus on accepting responsibility from offender;less emphasis on punishment - not restricted=victim and offender may voluntarily meet in different setting - active involvement of all parties - focus on positive comes for victim/offender |
|
|
What are the variations of the restorative justice process? |
- not all programmes need face-to-face - financial restitution from offender for psych/physical damage - flexible: can be alternative/addition/reduce sentence |
|
|
What is the restorative justice council? |
- independent body=set clear standards for use - support victims/specialist professionals - advocates restorative justice in preventing conflict in school/workplaces/hospitals |
|
|
What are the evaluation points of restorative justice as dealing with offending behaviour? |
- diversity of programmes - relies on offender showing remorse - expensive - feminist critique - soft option |
|
|
What is the 'diversity of programmes' evaluative point of restorative justice? |
- programmes flexible=cover range of applications vs custodial sentencing=adapt to individual However: difficult to draw general conclusions of approach effectiveness |
|
|
What is the 'relies on offender showing remorse' point of restorative justice? |
- some offenders do scheme=avoid prison/reduce sentence (not genuine) - victim may have ulterior motives=revenge - no good intent=no positive outcomes |
|
|
What is the 'expensive' evaluative point of restorative justice? |
Shapland: £1 on restorative justice saves £8 through reduced reoffending - offender/victim meeting emotionally charged=skilled mediator=expensive/few - up drop out rates=offender/victim 'lose their nerve'=not cost-effective |
|
|
What is the 'soft option' evaluative point of restorative justice? |
- doesn't receive public support=soft option - echoed by politicians trying to convince the public they are 'though on crime' |
