Forensic Psychology

= an investigative tool used by the police to help predict and profile characteristics of unknown criminals.

• Narrows the list of likely suspects
• Evidence is collected from the crime scene and witnesses to generate a hypothesis about the offender - e.g. age, background, occupation

TOP-DOWN APPROACH vs BOTTOM-UP APPROACH

• Started in 1970s by FBI behavioural science unit.
• Collected data from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers.
• This led to murderers and rapists being categorised as organised or disorganised offenders.
• Any evidence for a crime is now compared to this pre-existing database of information and classification.

ORGANISED 

• Show evidence of having planned the crime in advance
• Victim is deliberately targeted - killer or ****** has a 'type'
• Maintain a high degree of control during the crime
• Little evidence or clues left behind at the scene
• Tend to be above average intelligence 
• In a skilled, professional occupatio
• Socially and sexually competent
• Usually married and may even have children

DISORGANISED

• Show little evidence of planning - suggesting offence may be spontaneous
• Crime scene tends to reflect the impulsive nature of the attack - body is usually still at the scene & appears to be little ontrol from the offender
• Tend to have lower than average IQ
• Unskilled work or unemployed 
• Often have a history of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships
• Tend to live alone and often relatively close to where the offence took place

Data assimilation -> the profiler reviews the evidence (crime scene photographs, pathology reports, etc.).

Crime scene classification -> as either organised or disorganised.

Crime reconstruction -> hypotheses in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of the victim etc.

Profile generation -> hypotheses related to the likely offender, e.g. demographic background, physical characteristics, behaviour etc.

ONLY APPLIES TO CERTAIN TYPES OF CRIMES -> Crime scenes that reveal a lot about the offender tend to be related to ****, murder and arson -> Unfortunately a lot of lesser crimes, such as burglary, don't offer the same wealth of clues the help identify the offender. Therefore the top-down approach has limited usefulness.

EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE 'DISORGANISED OFFENDER' -> Canter et al. (2004) used smallest space analysis to analyse 100 murders in the USA. Details of each case were examined with 39 characteristics throught to be typical of organised & disorganised killers. Findings suggest evidence for a distinct organised type, but not disorganised -> Limitation as lack of findings undermines the classification system as a whole.

CLASSIFICATION IS TOO SIMPLISTIC -> behaviours used to organised & disorganised types are not mutually exclusive. Godwin (2002) asks how police would classify a killer with high intelligence & sexual competence who commits a spontaneous murder where the victim's body is left at the scene. This has prompted other researchers to propose more detailed models -> Limitattion as means top-down approach is subjective & based on individual differences & opinions. Undermine the validity.

• Is data driven - investigator scrutinises crime scene evidence to build a profile of the likely offender.
• It combines investigative psychology and geographical profiling.

Statistical analysis -> details of the crime scene are analysed to interpret their co-existence between scenes.

Interpersonal coherence -> offender behaviour at the crime scene reflects their behaviour in everyday life.

Significance of time and place -> incorporates geographical profiling.

Forensic awareness -> prior investigation by the police will impact an offender's behaviour.

Uses spatial details of crimes to narrow the geogrphical area of an offender's operational base.

Based on CANTER'S CIRCLE THEORY (1993):

• Maurauder -> around area that they live, will try to hide identity, commit crimes wider apart.
• Commuter -> commuted to an area that they live near, is similar to where they live and they are familiar with, don't try to hide identity as not local to that area, crimes are closer together, usually close to a transport link.

Criminals will display consistency with their crimes - same level & severity - criminal consistency hypothesis.

EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY -> Canter & Heritage (1990) conducted analysis of 66 sexual assualt cases using smallet space analysis, a computer program that identifies correlations across patterns of behaviour. Sexual characteristics were identified as common, such as the use of impersonal language. This can lead to an understanding of how an offender's behaviour may change over a series of offences, or for establihsing if offences were committed by the same person -> Supports usefulness of investigative psychology as shows how statistical techniques can be applied. Has practical application.

HAS A SCIENTIFIC BASIS -> Canter's argument is that bottom-up profiling is more objective & scientific than top-down as it is more grounded in evidence & psychological theory. With the aid of advanced artificial intelligence, investigator's are able to manipulate geographical, biographical & psychological data quickly to provide insights & results that assist investigation -> Strength as a scientific basis helps to add scientific credibility to the approach, making it more widely accepted in society.

MIXED RESULTS FOR PROFILING -> Has been some significant failures with the bottom-up approach. For example, Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police forces & found that the advice provided by the profiler was judged to be 'useful' in 83% of cases, but only in 3% did it lead to accurate identification of the offender -> Limitation as profiling can be time-wasting which will result in the case lasting longer, causing more psychological harm to the family & friends of the victims.

Personality -> Eysenck

Cognitive -> Kohlberg

Psychodynamic -> Freud

Differential association theory -> Sutherland

Eysenck (1947) proposed that behaviour could be represented along 2 dimensions: introversion/extroversion (E) and neuroticism/stability (N). 

The two dimensions combine to form a variety of personality charactersitics or traits.

Eysenck later added a third dimension - psychoticism (P).

According to Eysenck our personality traits are biological in origin & come about through the type of nervous syetm we inherit - all persoanlity types have an innate, biological basis.

Extraverts -> have an underactive nervous system which means they constantly seek excitement, stimulation & are likely to engage in risk-taking behaviours. Also tend not to condition easily & not learn from their mistakes.

Neurotics -> tend to be nervous, jumpy & over-anxious. Their general instability means their behaviour is often difficult to predict.

Psychotisms -> reckless, poor common sense, inappropriate emotional expression.

The criminal personality type is a neurotic-extravert -> a combination of all the characteristics for neuroticism & extraversion & will score high on measures of psychoticism.

MEASURING CRIMINAL PERSONALITY

Eysenck depeloved the 'Eysenck Personality Inventory' (EPI) -> a form of psychological tests which locates respondents along the E & N dimensions to determine their personality type. A later scale was introduced that is used to measure psychoticism.

In Eysenck's theory personality is linked to criminal behaviour via socialisation processes.

He saw criminal behaviour as developmentally immature in that it is selfish & concerned with immediate gratification.

The process of socialisation is one in which children are taught to become more able to delay gratification & more socially oreintated.

Eysenck believed that people with high E & N scores had nervous systems that made them difficult to condition. As a result, they would not learn to respond to antisocial impulses with anxiety.

Consequently, they would be more likely to act antisocially in situations where the opportunity presented itself.

SUPPORTING RESEARCH -> Eysenck & Eysenck (1977) compared 2070 male prisoners' scores on the EPI with 2422 controls. Groups were subdivided into age groups. On measures of psychoticism, extraversion & neuroticism, across all age groups, prisoners recorded higher scores than controls -> Strength as these results correspond with the predictions of the theory - the theory has increased reliability.

MEASURING PERSONALITY -> Critics have suggested that personality type may not be reducible to a 'score' in this way. There is not such thing as peronality in the sense of a 'stable entity'. On a daily basis our personality will change depending on who we are with & the situation we are involved in. There may be no 'true self' directing our behaviour, criminal or otherwise -> Limitation as it shows how the theory has weak validity, making it difficult to accurately measure personality.

CULTURAL BIAS -> Bartol & Holanchock (1979) studied hispnaic & african-american offenders in a maximum security prison in New York & divided these into 6 groups based on their criminal history & the nature of their offence. It was found that all 6 groups were found to be less extravert than a non-criminal control -> Limitation as it questions the generalisability of the criminal personality, making it harder to apply the theory beyond the research setting.

= faulty, irrational ways of thinking which can cause individuals to perceive themselves, others or the world inaccurately, and usualy negatively.

E.g. "My partner hasn't text me in the last few hours, he must be angry with me, he's about to break up with me... well I'll get there first".

• Violent behaviour is caused by the perception that other people's acts are agressive.
• People may be perceived as being confrontational when they are not.
• This behaviour is thought to be developed during childhood.

SCHONENBERG AND JUSTYE (2014)

• 55 violent offenders were presented with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions.
• When compared with a control group, offenders were more likely than non-violent ppts to perceive the images as angry/hostile.

DODGE AND FRAME (1982)

• Children were shown an 'ambiguous provocation' where the intention was neither clearly hostile nor accidental.
• Prior to the study, children who had been judged as aggressive were more likely to perceive the situation as hostile.

• Downplaying the seriousness of an offence
• A.K.A 'euphemistic label' for behaviour (Bandura 1973)
• E.g. a burglar claiming to be 'supporting his family' or 'doing a job'

BARBAREE (1991)

• Amongst 26 convicted rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and 40% minimalised the harm they had caused the victim.

POLLOCK AND HASHMALL (1991)

• 35% of a sample of child molesters said that the crime they committed was non-sexual. 36% said that the victims has consented.

• People develop morals throughout life
• We use morals to help make decisons and then justify our behaviour
• Children have basic moral reasoning - black vs white
• Adults have more sophisticated moral reasoning

CRIMINAL MORTALITY

• Criminals tend to have pre-conventional mortality
• Commit crimes only if they can get away with it and gain rewards
• Non-criminals reason at higher levels and sympathise with the rights of others
• Chandler (1973) - supports concept as criminals are more egocentric and have poor theory of mind

PRECONVENTIONAL MORALITY (3-7 YRS)

• Punishment orientation -> decisons revolve around avoiding punishment
• Instrumental orientation -> decisions revolve around personal gain

CONVENTIONAL MORALITY (8-13 YRS)

• 'Good child' orientation -> decisons made for approval from others
• Social order -> decisons made to maintain law and order

POSTCONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• Social contract -> decisons made based on combinatio of social order and impact on individual rights
• Universal ethical principles -> decisons made based on personal ethical principles

APPLICATION OF RESEARCH TO CBT -> CBT is used in the rehabilitation of sex offenders which encourages offenders to 'face up' to what they have done & establish a less distorted view of their actions. Studies suggest thatt rediced incidence of denial & minimalisation in therapy is highly correlated with a reduced risk of reoffending -> Strength as it shows how the theories have real-life application & have proven to have positive effects in treatment, increasing credibility.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES -> Reid (1982) found that individuals who committed crimes for financial gain, such as robbery, were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes, such as assault, where reasoning of any kind tended not to be evident -> Weakness as it demonstrates how it cannot be generalised to every individual as everyone will react differently & having different motivations & reasongs - reducing validity.

DESCRIPTIVE NOT EXPLANATORY -> Good at explaining the criminal mind but not successful at explaning it. Cognitive explanations are 'after the fact' theories. They may be useful when predicting reoffending, but they tend to not give us much insight into why the offender committed crime in the first place -> Limitation as it means that they are limited explanations as they do not provide enough detail to explain the criminal mind accurately.

Sutherland (1939) developed a set of scientific principles which could explain all types of offending. Offending behaviour is believed to be learned through interactions that a person has with others, such as peer group or family members. Diffential association theory proposes that through interactions with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques & motives for criminal behaviour.

When a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to certain values about the law. Some of these will be pro-crime & some will be anti-crime. If the number of pro-criminal attitudes the person acquires outweighs the number of anti-crime values, they will become criminal.

Criminal behaviour is not exclusive to people who are deprived or uneducated. If a person from a M/C family is exposed to behaviours seen as acceptable, such as insurance fraud, they will be more likely to commit these crimes than if they had not been exposed to such behaviours.

If you have knowledge of the frequency, intensity & duration that a person is exposed to deviant & non-deviant norms & values then it will be possible to mathematically predict the likelihood that a person will commit a crime.

Everyone's associations are different, therefore everyone has different values & norms.

If the benefits of engaging in criminal behaviour outweigh the benefits of not then a person will commit crime. This could be benefits in the form of respect & approval of the people with whom the person associates.

Offenders may also learn techniques for committing crimes & this may involve learning certain rationalisations (e.g. it being accpetable to steal from a high street shop because they overcharge & make loads of profit so no one will suffer from the shoplifting).

This theory can explain why people who are released from prison reoffend because while they are in prison they learn pro-crime attitudes & specific techniques offending from others who are more experienced - supporting the idea that prisons may be schools of crime rather than a place of rehabilitation.

SUPPORTING RESEARCH -> Farrington et al. (2006) conducted a longitudinal study of the development of offending & anti-social behaviour in 411 males who were studies from 8-50. They were all living in a deprived W/C area of London. Was found that 41% of the males had been convicted of at least 1 offence between the ages of 10 & 50. A small proportion of the participants (7%) were defined as chronic offenders as they committed 1/2 of the recorded offences in the whole study -> Strength as it increases the credibility. Supports Sutherland's theory because the socialisation of males through inappropriate role models & dysfunctional systems of reward & punishment led to criminal behaviour.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES -> Sutherland's theory states that everyone's associations are different, therefore everyone has different values & norms -> Weakness as it decreases the validity as you cannot accurately measure how individuals interpret behaviour & then turn this into crime.

DIFFICULT TO TEST -> E.g. hard to see how the number of pro-criminal attitudes a person has, or has been exposed to, could be measured. The theory is built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro-criminal values outweigh anti-criminal ones -> Limitation as without being able to measure these it is difficult to know at what point the urge to offend is realised & criminal career triggered. Theory does not provide satisfactory solutions to this issue, endermining its scientific credibility.

MATERNAL DEPRIVATION

Bowlby (1944) argued that the ability to form meaningful relationships in adulthood was dependent upon the child forming a warm, continuous realtionship with a mother-figure - vital to a child's well being & development. Failure to establish such bond during the first few years of life means the child will experience a number of damaging & irreversible consequences in later life.

One of these is the development of a personality type known as affectionless psychopathy, characterised by a lack of guilt, empathy & feelings for others. These individuals are likely to enage in acts of delinquency & cannot develop close relationships with others.

His 44 thieves study supported his claim. He found through interviews with theives & their families that 14 of the sample he studies showed personality & behavioural characteristics that could be calssified as 'affectionless psychopathy'. Of this, 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers during infancy. 

Superego works on the morality principle & punishes ego through guilt for wrongdoing, whilst rewarding moral behaviour with pride. If superego is deficient then criminal behaviour is inevitable as id is not controlled.

THE WEAK SUPEREGO -> There is an absence of the same-sex parent in the phallic stage. This means that the child cannot identify with the same-sex parent. This means that the superego is not fully formed & the child has a lack of understanding of the difference between right & wrong. The superego does not punish the child through feelings of guilt. This means that the child will show criminal or immoral behaviour as the superego does not hold them back.

THE DEVIANT SUPEREGO -> When the child identifies with their same-sex parent, the parent they identify with is immoral or has immoral standards of behaviours. This leads the child to internalise morals that are not acceptable. This means that they do not see criminal behaviours in the same way as others & won't associate guilt with showing criminal behaviours.

THE OVER-HARSH SUPEREGO -> A healthy superego is firm & has rules of what behaviours are and aren't acceptable. If these rules are broken, the superego will be forgiving. The over-harsh superego will not be forgiving, which increases guilt for wrongdoing & will lead the child to unconsciously seek opportunities where they will be reprimanded to reduce their sense of guilt. This leads to criminal behaviour to satisfy the superego's need for punishment.

HOW THE THEORY WAS DEVELOPED IS FLAWED -> Case studies were used by Freud to create the origins of his theory - e.g. Little Hans. Case studies are not the best as they focus on the individual & then apply these findings to everyone else. This is flawed as these results may not be the case for everyone else, meaning the research is subjective -> Limitation as the development of the theory was completed in a subjective manner, meaning they cannot be generalised accurately.

RESEACRHER BIAS IN BOWLBYS 44 THIEVES -> Bowlby is the one who proposed the theory & carried out the study. This means he could have influenced the study in a way that matched his original expectations in order for the theory to gain credibility. Means that the study is flawed & may not be entirely accurate -> As there are flaws with this research study, it cannot be used reliably to support the psychodynamic explanation of offending behaviour.

UNTESTIFIABLE CONCEPTS -> The concept of personality in the tripartite personality is an abstract concept as it is something that is internalised, meaning we cannot physically see it -> Limitation as there will be problems of reliability & validity as we don't know what we are actually measuring.

HISTORCIAL APPROACH

• Atavistic form

GENETIC & NEURAL EXPLANATIONS

• Genetics -> candidate genes, diathesis-stress model, twin studies
• Brain structure -> prefrontal cortex, mirror neurons

= a biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive sub-species, ill-suited to conforming to the rules of modern society. Such individuals are distinguishable by particular facial & cranial characteristics.

Lombroso (1876) examined the facial & cranial features of hundreds of italian convicts, both living & dead & proposed that the atavistic form was associated with a number of physical abnormalities which were key indicators of criminality - 40% of criminal acts could be linked to atavistic characteristics.

• A 'criminal' -> narrow sloping brow, a strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones, facial asymmetry, extra toes, ******* or fingers.
• A murderer -> bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears.
• A sexual deviant -> glinting eyes, swollen fleshy lips, projecting ears.
• ALL -> dark skin.

CONTRIBUTION TO CRIMINOLOGY -> Lombroso is seen as the 'father of modern criminology'. He moved crime research away from moralistic discourse (offenders are wicked & weak minded) & begain to link it to eveolutionary & genetic explanations which are more scientifically credible -> Strength as he made a major contribution to the science of criminology & heralded the beginning of criminal profiling.

SCIENTIFIC RACISM -> DeLisi (2012) has drawn attention to the distinct racial undertones within Lombroso's work. Many of the features he identifies are most likely to be found among people of African descent -> Limitation as even if this was intentional or not, it is a controversial & uncomfortable aspect of his legacy that continues to overshadow criminology.

PROBLEMS INDICATING CAUSATION -> Even if criminals do have some of the elements in appearnce that Lombroso suggested, this does not mean it is the cause of their offending. Facial & cranial issues may be influenced by other factors such as poverty or poor diet -> Weakness as it means that the theory is limited as it does not consider other psychological & environmental factors.

Lange (1930) investigated 13 identical (MZ) & 17 non-identical (DZ) twins where one of the twins in each pair had served time in prison. 

It was found that 10 of the MZ twins had a co-twin who was also in prison.

Lange concluded that genetic factors must play a predominant part in offending behaviour.

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TWIN STUDIES -> Lange's research was poorly controlled & judgements related to whether twin pairs were MZ or DZ were based on appearance, rather than DNA testing. Twin studies also typically involve small samples & therefore may not represent the whole population. Finally, the fact that most twins are reared in the same environent is a confounding variable as concordance rates may be due to shared learning experiences rather than genetics -> Limitation as they will lack validity & face further issues of generalisability.

A genetic analysis of almost 900 offenders by Tiihonen et al. (2014) revealed that abnormalities on 2 genes that may be associated with violent crime.

• MAOA -> controls dopamine & serotonin in the brain - linked to aggressive behaviour.
• CDH13 -> linked to substance abuse & attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Within the Finnish sample, individuals with high risk combinations were 13x more likely to have a history of violent behaviour.

Genetics seem like they are partly moderated by the effects of the environment.

A tendency towards criminal behaviour may come about through the combination of genetic predisposition & biological or psychological trigger.

For example, being raised in a dysfunctional environment or having criminal role models.

Raine has conducted many studies of the APD brain, reporting there are several dozen brain imaging studies demonstrating that individuals with antisocial personalities have reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex (regulates emotional behaviour).

Raine et al. (2000) found an 11% reduction in the volume of grey matter in the prefrontal cortex of people with APD, compared to controls.

STUDIES USE SCIENTIFIC METHODS WHICH ARE OBJECTIVE -> E.g. Raine et al. (2000) used MRI scans to investigate the volume of prefrontal grey & white matter in brains of people with APD -> Strength as it adds increased reliability & validity to the study, making participant & researcher bias harder to impact the results. Therefore adds scientific credibility.

= distributed in several areas of the brain. Unique because they fire both in response to personal action & in response to action on the part of others. These special neurons may be involved in social cognition, allowing us to interpret intention & emotion in others.

Research suggests that criminals with APD can experience empathy, but they do so more sporodically than the rest of us.

Keysers et al. (2011) found that only when criminals were asked to empathise (with a person on film experiencing pain) did their empathy reaction (controlled by mirror neurons in the brain) activate.

This suggests that APD individuals are not totally without empathy, but may have a neural 'switch' that can be turned on & off, unlike the 'normal' brain which has the empathy switch permanently on.

BIOLOGICALLY REDUCTIONIST -> Criminality is complex, so explanations that reduce offending behaviour to a genetic or neural level may be inappropriate. Crime does run in families, but so do factors such as mental illness & emotional instability (Katz et al. 2007) -> Limitation as it is too difficult to disentangle the effects of genes & neural influences from other possible factors - limited as it does not take into account any other psychological influences.

BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINISTIC -> The notion of the 'criminal gene' presents a dilemma. Our legal system is based on the premise that criminals have personal & moral responsibility for their crimes. Only in cases such as diagnosis of mental illness can someone claim they are not acting under their own free will -> Limitation as it raises ethical questions about what society does with people who are suspected of carrying criminal genes. We cannot base someone's actions purely on one factor, especially a biological one that cannot be seen. Criminal behaviour is too complex to be deterministic.

CUSTODIAL SENTENCING 

BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION

ANGER MANAGEMENT

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

= a judical sentence determined by a court where an offender spends time in a closed institution.

E.g. prison, psychiatric ward, young offenders institution.

Deterrence -> designed to put off the individual & society from engaging in offending behaviour. General deterrence = broad message to society that crime will not be tolerated. Individual deterrence = prevent individuals from committing same crime. E.g. a murderer being placed in solitary confinement.

Incapacitation -> offender taken out of society to prevent reoffending & protect the public. The need for incapacitation is likely to depend upon severity of offence & nature of offender. E.g. a speed violator being placed in a open, minimum security prison as a first time offender.

Retribution -> revenge for the crime by making the offender suffer. Level of suffering should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. An 'eye for an eye'. E.g. a serial ****** being put on death row.

Rehabilitation -> main objective of prison is not to punish but to reform. Upon release offenders should leave prison better adjusted to society. Prison should provide opportunities to develop skills & training or access to treatment programmes. E.g. twelve-step programmes to help drug addicts.

• Stress & Depression -> suicide rates are considerably higher in prison than in the general population, as are incidents of self-mutilation & self-harm. The stress of the prison experience also increases the risk of psychological disturbance following release.
• Institutionalisation -> having adapted to the norms & routines of prison life, inmates may become so accustomed to these that they are no longer able to function on the outside.
• Prisonisation -> refers to the way in which prisoners are socialised into adopting an 'inmate code'. Behaviour that may be considered unacceptable in the outside world may be encouraged & rewarded inside the walls of the institution.
• Recidivism -> statistics produced by the Ministry of Justice in 2013 suggest that 57% of UK offenders will reoffend within a year of release. The UK and US has some of the highest rates of recidivism in the world. This is a stark contrast to Norway which has the lowest reoffending rates & they have a very different prison system.

CUSTODIAL SENTENCING AS A DETERRENT -> Deterrence is designed to 'put off' the individual & society to prevent reoffending & protect the public. Criminals being institutionalised where they are being punished for what they have done will make others less likely to want to experience the same thing, so will not commit crime -> Strength as deterrence in the long run will help to create a more conforming society - shows the positive implications of custodial sentencing.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS -> Whilst in prison more than half of inmates are diagnosed with a mental health disorder & prison itself can exacerbate pre-existing mental health issues or create new mental challenges among those who had never experienced them. This is due to the lack of treatment available, as well as the high-stress environment that prison creates -> Disadvantage as it shows how there are ethical issues with custodial sentencing. Prisoners' health is not taken seriously enough, which only leads to further problems such as high rates of recidivism as offenders are not able to adjust to society when released. Therefore, it can be argued that it is nurture that has more of an impact, not nature.

MAIN OBJECTIVE IS TO REFORM -> Prison should act as a place of rehabilitation. Upon release offenders should leave prison better adjusted to society. This means that prisons should provide opportunities to develop skills & have access to treatment programmes. For example, there are twelve-step programmes to help drug addicts -> Advantage as it demonstrates how prisons can allow for offenders to receive treatment which helps for them to overcome their problems & become a better person, allowing for them to better adjust to society - less recidivism.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES -> Custodial sentencing is not the same globally, all countries & cultures have different methods that they use to tackle crime. E.g. prisons in Norway take the complete opposite approach to prisons in the UK, focusing more on rehabilitation & giving prisoners more privileges -> Limitation as it shows how there is no global standardisation for custodial sentencing. Individuals who commit the same crime will be treated completely differently depending on where they live. This shows how the system is unfair.

= aimed at replacing undesirable behaviours with more desirable behaviours through selective use of positive and/or negative reinforcement.

Behaviourist Principles

• Behaviour is learned through interaction with out environment
• Behaviour can be encouraged through rewards & discouraged through punishment

• Based on operant conditioning
• Desirable behaviours are reinforced with a token that can be exchanged for a reward
• Token derive their value from association with a reward -> secondary reinforcers
• Tokens can equally be used as punishment by removing them & witholding privileges

Desirable behaviours -> no violence, respect guards, tidy room, work tasks, cleanliness

Rewards -> family phonecall, ciagrettes, family visiting bonus, sweets

1) Desirable behaviour is identified

2) Desirable behaviour is broken down into increments (small steps)

3) Baseline measure is established

4) Reinforced behaviours are decided

5) Selective reinforcement is used - all those who interact with an offender reinforce a particular behaviour consistently

6) Behaviour is monitored & compared to baseline measure to gauge its effectiveness

EASILY ADMINISTERED -> There is no need for expertise or specialist professionals, they can be implemented by virtually anyone in any institution. They are also cost-effective & easy to follow once workable methods of reinforcement have been established -> Strength of behaviour modification as the easy access means that everyone has it available to them. As it has positive results, this means that everyone is advantaged.

ONLY EFFECTIVE SHORT-TERM -> Cohen & Filipczak (1971): Token economy groups showed more desirable behaviour than control groups. After 2 years, the token economy groups were less likely to have reoffended. However, after 3 years, rates of recidivism went back to relecting national statistics -> Limitation as it shows how even though token economies are better than doing nothing, they are limited in their effectiveness as they only work in the short-term & when actually spending time in prison.

ETHICAL ISSUES -> Moya & Achtenburg (1974): Offenders are not given the option over whether they participate in the token ecomony. Withdrawal of privileges such as exercise or phonecalls to loved ones may also be ethically questionable -> Limitation as it raises ethical issues of consent and psychological harm. Offenders are being forced to participate and the loss of such privilages could lead to depression as they are not given a break from the stressful environment of prison.

= a form of cognitive behavioural therapy - treatment that challenges our thought patterns to impact upon behaviour. It is a means of recognising loss of emotional control & then developing techniques to bring about resolutions without violence.

• Cognitive processes trigger our emotional arousal (normally anger) & this leads to aggressove acts.
• Anger is reinforced as it makes an individual feel in control of a situation. This therefore makes behaviour more likely in future.

Cognitive Preparation -> requires the offender to reflect on past experience & consider the typical pattern of their anger. Offender learns to identify those situations which act as triggers to anger & if the way in which the offender interprets the event is irrational, the therapist's role is to make this clear. The therapist will attempt to break the automatic response.

Skill Aquisition -> offenders are introduced to a range of techniques & skills to help them deal with anger-provoking situations more rationally & effectively. Techniques may be cognitive: positive self-talk to encourage calmness, behavioural: assertiveness training in how to communicate more effectively, & psychological: methods of relaxation and/or meditation. Promotes the idea that the offender can be in control of their emotions rather than ruled by them.

Application Practice -> offenders are given the opportunity to practice their skills in a monitored environment. Role play is likely to involve the offender & therapist re-enacting scenarios that may have escalated feelings of anger & acts of violence in the past. This required commitment from the offender & a certain amount of bravery from the therapist. Successful negotiation of the role play would be met with positive reinforcement from the therapist.

A VARIED APPROACH -> It involves a cognitive focus in phase 1, a behavioural focus in phase 2 & a social focus in phase 3 -> Indicates that the treatment offers a multidisciplinary solution by recognising that offending is a complex & psychological behaviour -> By being more holistic in its approach, anger management could be argued as being so effective as it has broad theoretical basis that can be applied to a variety of situations.

EXPENSIVE & REQUIRE COMMITMENT -> Require the services of highly trained professionals who are used to dealing with violent behaviours. Many prisons may not have the resource to fund such programmes so not everyone will have access to it. Success of anger management is also based on commitment of those who participate which could be a problem -> Limitation as not everyone will have equal access to the treatment, making it unfair. This then raises ethical questions as it is not fair to be selective.

LIMITED LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS -> Blackburn (1993) points out that whilst anger management may have a noticeable effect on the offender in the short-term, there is little evidence that it reduces recidivism in the long-term. This may be because the application portion of treatment still relies heavily on artificial role play which may not reflect all the possible triggers of a real-life situation -> Weakness as shows how anger management is limited & have limited effectiveness in the long-term, which reduces its overall validity.

= a system of dealing with criminal behaviour which focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconcilliation with victims.

AIMS

• It must be a voluntary process & seek positive outcomes for all parties
• It is respectful & not degrading to either the offender or victim
• All must take an active rather than passive role in proceedings
• Provides an opportunity to share the impact of the crim - give an impact statement
• Provides acknowledgement of the harm caused
• Gives those involved a chance to ask questions
• Allows individuals to accpet responsibility for their actions

EXPENSIVE -> A 7-year govenment funded research project conducted by Shapland et al. (2007) concluded that every £1 spent on restorative justice would save the CJS £8. However, the input of a skilled & experienced individual to act as a mediator may be neccessary, these are likely to be expensive. There are also high drop-out rates -> Limitation as it shows how in practice restorative justice may not always be the best & most cost-effective solution.

'SOFT OPTION' -> Alternatives to custodial sentencing tend to not receive much public support. They are often seen as 'soft options', which is echoed by politicians who are keen ro convince the electorate they are 'tough on crime' (Davies & Raymond 2000) -> Weakness as this view suggets it is not the most beneficial method as it does not focus on punishment enough. The offender may feel as though they are being 'let off' & could be more likely to reoffend.

PROVEN EFFECTIVENESS -> Sherman & Strang (2007) compared 36 studies of restorative justice with conventional justice such as prison. There was a reduction in reoffending found for violent & property crimes particuarly. For victims, PTSD was significantly reduced & all parties expressed greater satisfaction with the process -> Strength as it provides supporting evidence, showing how it has positive impact for all involved, increasing the reliability.