Anger management

Created by: Skyfisher
Created on: 17-04-23 21:12


	anger management
	Advantages Taylor and Novaco 2006 Examined results of 6-meta analysis and reported an overall improvement rate of 75%. They found that having an anger control element was significantly related to the amount of improvement comparison to punishments - can be argued that RJ and AM treat causes of criminality more than traditional punishments (eg. prison, community service) as they give the offender a chance to work through anger that may stem from social factors (starts a discussion that may lead to solving these issues) Weakness whether anger and aggression are related is the possible limitations of laboratory studies that have linked anger and crime. For example, the study by Wagdy Loza and Amel Loza-Fanous (1999) found no differences between violent and non-violent offenders in terms of anger. However, the sample consisted of almost 300 males in prison, and it is possible that violent individuals may have masked their anger. Therefore, this raises questions about the generalizability of laboratory findings to real-world situations. Additionally, Loza and Loza-Fanous suggest that anger management programs may be harmful because offenders may attribute their violent behavior to anger rather than taking personal responsibility. This highlights the importance of considering the potential unintended consequences of interventions aimed at reducing aggression.	Disadvantages However, not all studies have shown such improvements. Howells et al refer to 5 meta-analysis which showed only moderate improvement for offenders (in one study only one improved). Therefore AM does bring bring some benefits but the extent is debatable. Also, anger management cansometimes have the reverse effect on offenders, making them more, rather than less aggressive. Rice (1997) found that psychopaths given anger management were more likely to offend afterwards, possibly because the skills they acquired raised their self-esteem and allowed them to manipulate others more effectively. It is also possible that by teaching offenders how to better control their anger, they are actually learning how to be better criminals; they will now have the self-control to wait for an opportune moment to commit a violent act, rather than acting on impulse. However, others have argued that anger management may not be appropriate for all offenders. The therapy requires effort from the offender, as well as a willingness to want to change. There is a risk of attrition in anger management programmes, where those offenders who are unwilling to change will drop out of the programme before completion. This is an issue when trying to assess how effective the therapy is: those who remain in thetreatment programme until the end are those who are more committed to change, or perhaps they are the offenders with the least severe anger problems. It may be therefore that these offenders were less likely to reoffend anyway.
	Evaluation One strength of anger management is that is can bring about improvements to the lives of offenders, their potential victims and their families. If an individual is better able to control their anger, they are less likely to reoffend and more likely to be able to contribute to society.However, there are some ethical issues surrounding the use of anger management. One of the big issues is that of free will. For many offenders, participation in an anger management course may be a requirement of their parole, or probation or a mandatory part of their incarceration where refusal may mean a longer prison sentence. While this may present an issue with regards to the effectiveness of the therapy (an offender forced into an anger management programme may not be willing to engage fully with the therapy) it also raises serious issues of the rights of offenders to have free will and make their own choices.Anger management can also be a stressful experience for offenders. It forces offenders to reflect upon their behaviour and this may cause them psychological harm, particularly if the offender has caused serious injury or death to victims. Additionally, prisoners are more likely than the general population to suffer a variety of mental illnesses and so forcing them to confront the harm that they have caused to others may trigger depression, self-harm or even suicide. This is a particular issue with the CALM programme, which is often delivered by non-specialist staff who may be ill equipped to deal with such problems.A government report from 2012 calculated that violent crime costs the economy £124 billion a year. This amounts to 7.7% of the UK’s GDP, equivalent to £4,700 for every household. Murder alone accounts for £1.3 billion. These costs are calculated by looking at the costs to the police, the legal system and the prison system, as well as the costs of lost productivity. If anger management could reduce the levels of violent crime, even by a single percent, the benefits to the economy would be huge. The NHS would also benefit from lower levels of violent crime. The costs of treating victims of violence would be reduced, freeing up much needed funds for other patients.Another social issue with the use of anger management is that it is only treating the symptoms rather than the cause of anger. For some offenders, anger may be a legitimate response to a deprived upbringing, unemployment, social inequality or poor health. By just focusing on anger management, we are ignoring the root causes of anger, and the disadvantaged are taught instead to control their (possibly) legitimate anger. This also means that the blame for crime can be places inside the criminal, rather than seeing crime as a larger social issue

anger management

Advantages

Taylor and Novaco 2006 Examined results of 6-meta analysis and reported an overall improvement rate of 75%. They found that having an anger control element was significantly related to the amount of improvement
comparison to punishments - can be argued that RJ and AM treat causes of criminality more than traditional punishments (eg. prison, community service) as they give the offender a chance to work through anger that may stem from social factors (starts a discussion that may lead to solving these issues)
Weakness
whether anger and aggression are related is the possible limitations of laboratory studies that have linked anger and crime. For example, the study by Wagdy Loza and Amel Loza-Fanous (1999) found no differences between violent and non-violent offenders in terms of anger. However, the sample consisted of almost 300 males in prison, and it is possible that violent individuals may have masked their anger. Therefore, this raises questions about the generalizability of laboratory findings to real-world situations. Additionally, Loza and Loza-Fanous suggest that anger management programs may be harmful because offenders may attribute their violent behavior to anger rather than taking personal responsibility. This highlights the importance of considering the potential unintended consequences of interventions aimed at reducing aggression.

Disadvantages

However, not all studies have shown such improvements. Howells et al refer to 5 meta-analysis which showed only moderate improvement for offenders (in one study only one improved). Therefore AM does bring bring some benefits but the extent is debatable.
Also, anger management cansometimes have the reverse effect on offenders, making them more, rather than less aggressive. Rice (1997) found that psychopaths given anger management were more likely to offend afterwards, possibly because the skills they acquired raised their self-esteem and allowed them to manipulate others more effectively. It is also possible that by teaching offenders how to better control their anger, they are actually learning how to be better criminals; they will now have the self-control to wait for an opportune moment to commit a violent act, rather than acting on impulse.
However, others have argued that anger management may not be appropriate for all offenders. The therapy requires effort from the offender, as well as a willingness to want to change. There is a risk of attrition in anger management programmes, where those offenders who are unwilling to change will drop out of the programme before completion. This is an issue when trying to assess how effective the therapy is: those who remain in thetreatment programme until the end are those who are more committed to change, or perhaps they are the offenders with the least severe anger problems. It may be therefore that these offenders were less likely to reoffend anyway.

Evaluation

One strength of anger management is that is can bring about improvements to the lives of offenders, their potential victims and their families. If an individual is better able to control their anger, they are less likely to reoffend and more likely to be able to contribute to society.However, there are some ethical issues surrounding the use of anger management. One of the big issues is that of free will. For many offenders, participation in an anger management course may be a requirement of their parole, or probation or a mandatory part of their incarceration where refusal may mean a longer prison sentence. While this may present an issue with regards to the effectiveness of the therapy (an offender forced into an anger management programme may not be willing to engage fully with the therapy) it also raises serious issues of the rights of offenders to have free will and make their own choices.Anger management can also be a stressful experience for offenders. It forces offenders to reflect upon their behaviour and this may cause them psychological harm, particularly if the offender has caused serious injury or death to victims. Additionally, prisoners are more likely than the general population to suffer a variety of mental illnesses and so forcing them to confront the harm that they have caused to others may trigger depression, self-harm or even suicide. This is a particular issue with the CALM programme, which is often delivered by non-specialist staff who may be ill equipped to deal with such problems.A government report from 2012 calculated that violent crime costs the economy £124 billion a year. This amounts to 7.7% of the UK’s GDP, equivalent to £4,700 for every household. Murder alone accounts for £1.3 billion. These costs are calculated by looking at the costs to the police, the legal system and the prison system, as well as the costs of lost productivity. If anger management could reduce the levels of violent crime, even by a single percent, the benefits to the economy would be huge. The NHS would also benefit from lower levels of violent crime. The costs of treating victims of violence would be reduced, freeing up much needed funds for other patients.Another social issue with the use of anger management is that it is only treating the symptoms rather than the cause of anger. For some offenders, anger may be a legitimate response to a deprived upbringing, unemployment, social inequality or poor health. By just focusing on anger management, we are ignoring the root causes of anger, and the disadvantaged are taught instead to control their (possibly) legitimate anger. This also means that the blame for crime can be places inside the criminal, rather than seeing crime as a larger social issue

Get Revising

Anger management