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;
85 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
2 general branches of courts |
provincial/territorial and federal courts |
|
|
lower courts must abide by decisions made in ___ courts |
higher |
|
|
sentencing |
judicial determination of a legal sanction upon person convicted of an offence |
|
|
purposes of sentencing (6) |
1. specific deterrence 2. general deterrence 3. denunciation 4. incapacitation 5. reparation 6. rehabilitation |
|
|
specific deterrence |
reduce the probability of the specific offender reoffending in the future (e.g. speeding ticket) |
|
|
general deterrence |
deters society via law/sentence from offending in the future (e.g. mandatory minimum sentences) |
|
|
denunciation |
public condemnation that makes clear that a behaviour is illegal and wrong; appeals to conscience, morality |
|
|
incapacitation |
people refuse to follow rules of society, so they should be separated from society to protect it |
|
|
reparation |
making good on wrongful behaviour (e.g. restorative justice) |
|
|
rehabilitation |
promote responsibility, reintegration into society |
|
|
the fundamental principle of sentencing |
sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the sentence, and the degree of responsibility of the offender |
|
|
when sentencing, (4) is taken into account |
legal precedent, aggravating factors, mitigating factors, and pre-set laws |
|
|
courts, and especially youth courts, work hard to look at _________ in sentencing |
alternatives to prison |
|
|
to prevent sentencing from being unduly harsh, it should be ___ rather than ___. (2) |
concurrent; consecutive (e.g. if one is charged with 3 things, and given 6 mos, 3 mos, and 1 month for each, one should only serve 6 mos rather than ten) |
|
|
individuals charged with life - 25 are usually also considered ____. |
dangerous offenders |
|
|
judges don't want to deprive individuals of liberty (charter rights) if ____. |
other possibilities are available |
|
|
what's one big issue with administrative segregation? |
individuals on administrative segregation (locked up separate 23 hrs/day, only 1 hr out) put in difficult situation b/c can only call lawyer 1 hr/day. Civil liberties and John Howard Society taking this to court, b/c feel rights are violated; they're locking up the 1 person who may be violated rather than segregating the 25 people who would commit an offence (e.g. locking up a child molester while leaving out the others who want to beat him up) |
|
|
sentencing options in Canada (6) |
1. absolute or conditional discharge 2. probation (3 yr. max) 3. restitution 4. fines and community service 5. conditional sentence 6. imprisonment |
|
|
absolute or conditional discharge (3) |
absolute: judge usually gives lecture. Conditional: if you follow __ rules, you won't have a criminal record. Usually given to first time offenders, youth. |
|
|
how does probation differ from absolute or conditional discharge? |
it goes on your criminal record. |
|
|
what are some examples of probation confines |
'by & reside', curfew w/ curfew monitors, no drugs/alcohol, no contact orders, redzoning (can't go ___ b/c most offences in that area) |
|
|
how does redzoning override charter rights? |
it can be applied b/c the rights of many outweigh the rights of one |
|
|
restitution |
making good on harm caused (e.g. restorative justice) |
|
|
conditional sentence |
guilty, on criminal record, but if you follow conditions, then you can remain in the community; if not, you go to jail |
|
|
summary offences aka absolute jurisdiction offences (8) |
petty crimes, theft <$5000, possession of stolen property, etc. From fines up to $5000 &/or 6 mos in jail max. Held in provincial court w/ no option to be heard in supreme court. Police can arrest w/o a warrant; don't need to go to court b/c police observed you committing the offence; don't have to submit fingerprint; after 3 years, can apply for pardon; youth criminal record sealed after age of 18. |
|
|
indictable offences aka supreme court exclusive offences (4) |
include murder, piracy (on seas), treason, aggravated assault, sexual offences, espianage, terrorism, etc. Punishable by at least 2 years in federal penitentiary but grey areas in hybrid offences; may want to be tried as indictable b/c can apply to be released after 1/3 of sentence w/ parole; must serve full term |
|
|
who can a dangerous offender application be made for? (4) |
any offender convicted of serious personal injury offence (SPID) who constitutes a danger to others; have to commit multiple dangerous acts, develop a pattern of behaviour, and display uncontrollable behaviour to others (e.g. Robert Noise who was the principal at Cache Creek Elementary who sexually assaulted multiple kids) |
|
|
determination of dangerousness (6) |
needed to be deemed dangerous offender; offences must be punishable by imprisonment of 10+ yrs; does NOT include offences of murder or treason b/c you're in for life anyways; risk assessment (prediction of ongoing violence [possibility they'll commit SPIO again], prognosis of treatment to control offenders' behaviour), once out, must be on parole for life (like murderers), can/will result in a term of indefinite imprisonment, but if one works hard to change and appeal to NPB, can get out. |
|
|
criteria for dangerous offender classification (4) |
*Person must meet one of four criteria, and prove it to the judge.* 1. pattern of unrestrained behaviour (impulsive or premeditated actions) 2. indifferent to consequences of his aggressive behaviour (may show superficial remorse; past history comes into play, even behaviour in custody can be used as evidence [i.e. did they show empathy, aggression, etc.]) 3. ordinary standards of restraint (e.g. parole) likely to be unsuccessful 4. harm to others b/c of failure to control sex'l impulses |
|
|
when is a dangerous offender eligible for review by the National Review Board? |
7 years after being taken into custody and every 2 years afterward |
|
|
Long Term Offender (LTO) designation (4) |
1997; criteria (2+ years sentence (federal offence); risk of reoffending; possibility of eventual control of risk); individual receives sentence of 2+ years plus supervision of 10+ years with strict conditions (if parole officers even suspect anything, they will pick up offender); the fall-back position from DO. |
|
|
sentencing disparity |
variations in sentences handed down by different judges for same/similar offences and similar circumstances |
|
|
unwarranted sentencing disparity |
similar conditions influenced by legally irrelevant factors |
|
|
to reduce disparity, what are three different kinds of sentencing guidelines? |
advisory guidelines (informal; judges and lawyers talking amongst each other), presumptive sentencing guidelines (must follow certain rules unless mitigating factors), mandatory sentencing laws (all discretion taken from judge; cannot vary regardless of circumstances) |
|
|
parole in Canada involves (4) |
conditional release into community, rehabilitation, high degree of supervision, return to prison if conditions are breached |
|
|
when does a regular offender become eligible to apply for parole? |
after 1/3 of sentence, or first seven years of sentence, one can apply for parole to the National Parole Board of Canada |
|
|
what happens during a parole hearing? |
a formal hearing takes place between offender and the NPB and a formal risk assessment is conducted (psychologist provides NPB w/ testimony that speaks to person's risk to reoffend) |
|
|
when conducting a risk assessment, one would rather make a ____ error than a ____ error. |
false positive; false negative |
|
|
four different types of parole |
temporary absence (for something specific, like medical apt, etc.), day parole (community-based activities for the day, like work; often in a halfway house), full parole (also often in halfway house; full review board assessment necessary before granted), statutory release (by law, federal offenders must be released w/ supervision after 2/3rds of sentence, but not available to those in for life) |
|
|
what are conditions of parole? what are some examples? |
conditions must be met or the offender will go back to prison; abstain from drugs/alcohol, remain in Canada, obey law, keep peace, attend treatment, etc. |
|
|
is parole effective? explain (3) |
those out on parole less likely to breach conditions; even offenders let out on statutory release are unlikely to commit further crimes; lot more resources for federal offences |
|
|
what are some common myths surrounding parole? (5) |
reduces sentence imposed by court; automatically granted when one becomes eligible; granted to offenders who express remorse; those released on parole become convicted of new crimes; victims do not have a role in parole process |
|
|
are the goals of sentencing achieved? |
yes and no; yes because punishment, general deterrence, and reparation seem to be reduced, but no, because of the ongoing debate about specific deterrence and rehabilitation |
|
|
In regards to whether or not the goals of sentencing are achieved, Gendreau (2001) and found that (5) |
community based sanctions resulted in increased recidivism rates, while incarceration also resulted in increased recidivism rates; the longer incarceration, the higher the rate of recidivism, regardless of demographic group and whether or not they were first or second time offenders; therefore, CONCLUSION: putting people in jail shouldn't be used with expectation that it will reduce recidivism; excessive use of incarceration costs lots of $; need to identify who will benefit/be adversely affected by incarceration. |
|
|
what are some problems with Gendreau's study? |
it looked at cases from 1958 - 2006; treatment in prisons has changed dramatically over that time. More recent cases need to be looked at |
|
|
What are 7 problems with procedural justice? |
1. criminals do not have fear of being caught (most are impulsive & like fear of getting caught) 2. do not have fear of getting punished for wrongdoing (consider it an 'occupational hazard') 3. it increases the # of people in jail (results in mandatory minimums for violent offenders) 4. crime rates do not decrease 5. incarcerating people doesn't address the underlying causes of crime 6. prisons not set up to deliver (effective) treatment programs to reduce recidivism 7. incarceration is costly |
|
|
What are the three principles of effective correctional intervention, and who came up with them? |
Canadian researchers Andrews & Bonta, 2006; the risk principle, the need principle, and the responsivity principle |
|
|
the risk principle |
one of the principles of effective correctional intervention - prediction (who will be most likely to reoffend) and matching intervention to level of risk - static risk factors related to recidivism: some can be managed like mental health - dynamic risk factors can be changed to benefit (i.e. education, employment, social support, positive relationships, housing, etc.) |
|
|
the need principle |
one of the principles of effective correctional intervention - looking @ an individual's criminogenic lifestyle (what's contributing to it?) - Focus on noncriminogenic needs (i.e. unlearning past ways of thinking, behaviours, and learning prosocial behaviours); TAKES LOTS OF TIME (10,000 hour rule)
|
|
|
the responsivity principle |
factors that facilitate or impede an individual's response to treatment - internal factors (mental functioning, self esteem, self motivation, attitudes) - external factors (program facilitator's characteristics, if they are supportive, get good boundaries, program content and carry through of it) |
|
|
What are two components of risk? Why is it difficult to give an accurate prediction? |
prediction & management; risk is viewed as a range, the probabilities of risk change over time, and it is difficult to give an accurate prediction because one must look at interactions among offender characteristics and the given situation |
|
|
in civil cases, what can risk evaluate? |
civil committment (whether one can take care of one's self), child protection (are parents abusive?), immigration (what are the chances of criminal immigrant continuing behaviour here?), school & labour relations (i.e. nannies being forced to work against will) |
|
|
What is the duty to warn? What ruling was crucial to the development of this? What case is also related? |
- if psychologist/therapist knows of a potential threat to another person that his/her client has made known, the limits of confidentiality can be broken and the potential victim and police must be notified if he/she believes his/her client may commit the offence - Tarasoff ruling (1976). Ex-bf told Dr. Moore he was gonna kill his ex-gf, so Moore asked for him to be put in psyc hospital. Police picked up ex-bf, questioned him, and he said he'd stay away from Tarasoff. Moore's supervisor asked for all the papers surrounding this to be destroyed, and then ex-bf killed Tarasoff. Problem: NOBODY WARNED HER - W. v. Edgell (1990; British law) Rights of the individual do not outweigh the rights of society |
|
|
What two cases were central to establishing the limits of confidentiality? |
W. v. Edgell (1990; British law). Edgell asked to do an assessment for a paranoid schizo accused of killing 5 via manslaughter so he could be moved to a less secure facility. Edgell said he was dangerous, so lawyer threw out report. Edgell submitted report to court, so lawyer & W sued Edgell on grounds of sanctity of communication. Edgell won b/c RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN RIGHTS OF SOCIETY. - Smith v. Jones (1990): Smith accused of aggravated assault of prostitutes. Jones (psychologist) told lawyer he's still dangerous; lawyer buried the report. Jones still sent it to court. Decision: PUBLIC SAFETY OVERRIDES RULES OF CONFIDENTIALITY |
|
|
Where is one kept pre-trial? What is the difference between section 17 status and segregation? |
Section 17 = locked unit, one hour out/day. Segregation has TV. |
|
|
Types of risk prediction outcomes; If you are to be wrong, which is best to make? |
True positive, true negative, false positive, false negative; false positive rather than false negative |
|
|
What are base rates? |
Represent the % of people w/in a given population who commit a certain type of crime (a criminal act, violence, etc.) |
|
|
What tends to happen with low base rates? What happens when they are too high/low? Is it easier to predict frequent/infrequent events? |
false positives more likely to be made; predictions are difficult to make based on inaccurate information; frequent |
|
|
Explain the history of the prediction of violence. What were some landmark cases and studies made in the 1960s? |
- Baxstrom v. Herold (1966) Had held 300 mentally ill people for indeterminant periods and then released upon ruling - Stedman & Cocozza (1974) followed these people from 1966 - 70 upon release. Found that only 20 of the 300 were arrested. Out of 20, only 7 went on to commit another violent offence. Determined base rate. - Dixon v. the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) - Thornberry & Jacoby (1979) found that out of 400 mentally ill patients, 60 were rearrested. BR of 15% |
|
|
What are the assumptions of risk assessment and measurement? What are 3 weaknesses in research? |
ideal evaluation vs. reality (i.e. can't just go around letting people out of locked cells). 1) limited # of risk factors found to be empirically predictive of behaviour. Can't use correlational re. to draw cause & effect. Need to look at person's background (static) & social situation (dynamic fs), etc. 2) How criterion variable is measured (what we are trying to predict, i.e. violence). Ex: relying on past criminal records problematic because people don't always get caught & crime isn't always reported 3) How criterion variable is defined (i.e. threatened violence, spousal violence, sexual violence, etc. Not just unidimensional violence; many nuances. Also, crimes that occur in prison don't go on crim. record). |
|
|
What are six judgment errors and biases that can affect how a judge may sentence someone? |
1) heuristics 2) illusionary correlation 3) ignorance of base rates 4) reliance on salient or unique cues 5) overconfidence in clinician's own judgments 6) gender |
|
|
Study related to overconfidence in clinician's own judgments |
McNeil, Sanberg, & Binder (1998): Rated likelihood of patient committing violent act w/in one week of prison, and clinician's confidence. Conclusion: they were overconfident and often wrong |
|
|
study related to gender in changing the way clinicians saw offenders |
Elbogen et. al (2001): female clinicians rated male offenders as more dangerous, while male clinicians did not |
|
|
Risk factor |
measurable features of an individual that predict the behaviour of interest |
|
|
static risk factors |
cannot change, but are useful in predicting future offences (i.e. age of first offence: <14 heightens risk. Gender: males higher risk to commit) |
|
|
Dynamic risk factors |
can change, but are useful in predicting future offences - acute: mood, etc. Changes frequently - stable: attitudes, etc. Doesn't change frequently, but changeable with work |
|
|
unstructured clinical judgement |
- subjective (info passed down; "If you see __, then good predictor of ___", like the triad of risk factors: bedwetting, setting fires, and torturing animals) - no specific risk factors; left to clinician's judgment - Risk decision rules unclear (e.g. Dr. James Grigson: "Dr. Death; hanging shrink." Forensic psychiatrist in Dallas. Suggested death penalty frequently. Finally expelled b/c he claimed 100% accuracy in predicting violence, but reality: NOT VERY ACCURATE |
|
|
Actuarial prediction method |
- relies on info from interviews, testing, etc., and is put together in algorithym - uses stats to predict future behaviour (e.g. VRAG) |
|
|
Advantages of the actuarial prediction method (3) |
- Relies on static variables commonly related to behaviour of interest (i.e. violence, gender, etc.). - Each behaviour has different algorithym - Good because once high interrater reliability and good @ predicting, it works & decision clearly met |
|
|
Disadvantages of the actuarial prediction method (1.5) |
- doesn't include dynamic variables (i.e. if you get evaluated a 22 out of 40, you'll always be a 22 out of 40); with treatment, you can't change static variables, but you can change dynamic variables |
|
|
What does VRAG stand for? |
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide |
|
|
What constitutes a low/high VRAG score? |
< 22 = category 1; low rate of recidivism 21 - 27 = category 8; very likely > 28 = category 9; will absolutely be violent again |
|
|
structured professional judgment |
- doesn't rely on statistically selected items & decision algorithms - instead, clinicians make final risk ratings of low, medium, high risk for violence that are explicitly tied to anticipated levels of intervention efforts and a consideration of risk factors that have support within the scientific and professional literature |
|
|
What does HCR-20 stand for? |
Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (Webster et. al, 2001) |
|
|
What does PCL-R stand for? |
the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised |
|
|
the HCR-20 (Webster et. al, 2001) measures ____. What does it do for the evaluator? |
- historical (static) variables i.e. previous violence, age of first offence, psychopathy, etc. [10 total] - clinical (dynamic) variables i.e. insight, attitude, treatability, etc. [5 total] - risk (protective factors) variables, i.e. a feasible plan post-jail, support, supervision, compliance w/ parole conditions [5 total] - all rated between 0 - 2, so 40 = total - "the score means nothing:" simply meant to GUIDE researcher to make judgment of low-med-high |
|
|
How can one attain higher reliability with the HCR-20? |
use the VRAG, HCR-20, & PCL-R in unison |
|
|
Who made the Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R)? What does it measure? |
Andrews & Bonta, 1994. - mostly static variables - now includes protective factors - used as both a directive in treatment and by parole to monitor activities |
|
|
Anamnestic prediction |
- identification of factors relating to WHY an individual offended - lacks empirical research |
|
|
examples of dispositional risk factors (2) |
demographics - age, male/female personality characteristics - impulsivity (dynamic) - psychopathy (static) |
|
|
historical factors (5) |
- unchangeable; static - past antisocial behaviour - age of onset (whether its first offence, first drug use, etc.) - childhood history of maltreatment - past supervision failure, escape, institutional maladjustment |
|
|
clinical risk factors (3) |
- dynamic - substance abuse - mental disorder - diagnoses of schizophrenia or affective disorders (not necessarily precursor, but is in conjunction w/ other factors) - "threat/override" psychotic symptoms (paranoid; only able to contain it for so long) |
|
|
contextual risk factors |
- situational; dynamic - lack of social support - access to weapons - access to potential victims |
|
|
two examples of assessment tests to predict specific types of violence |
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA, 1999); Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism (RRASOR, 1997) |
|
|
Bonta's offender risk assessment guidelines (8) |
1) Assessment of offender risk should be based on actuarial measures of risk 2) should demonstrate PREDICTIVE VALIDITY 3) Use assessment instruments that are directly related to CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR 4) Select instruments derived from RELEVANT THEORY 5) Sample multiple domains 6) Assess criminogenic NEED factors 7) Limit general personality and cognitive tests to the assessment of responsivity to treatment, not risk assessment 8) use different methods to access different needs
|
