Ways of dealing with offending behaviour

• Define recidivism.


  Recidivism refers to the rate of re-offending. High recidivism rates therefore refer to when offenders are likely to re-offend.
• Identify four ways of dealing with offending behaviour

  Custodial sentencing

  Behaviour modification in custody.

  Anger management.

  Restorative justice programmes.
• Outline custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offending behaviour

  Custodial sentencing typically involves sending an offender to prison for their crime.

  It could also involve sending a person under the age of 18 to a young offender’s institution or an offender with mental health difficulties to a high-security psychiatric hospital.
• Outline custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

  Custodial sentencing aims to reduce recidivism through deterrence.

  This is because, by punishing the offender through a custodial sentence, they should be less likely to carry out a crime again.
• Outline custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

  Custodial sentencing also aims to reduce recidivism through the rehabilitation of offenders.

  This is because educational programmes are offered to help increase their likelihood that offenders will gain employment upon their release, in turn, decreasing their need to turn to crime.
• Evaluate custodial sentencing: not considered effective. 


  This is because custodial sentencing can lead to institutionalisation whereby prisoners become too accustomed to prison life that they feel unable to function in the outside world. This can result in feelings of distress and so they reoffend to be sent back to prison.
• Evaluate custodial sentencing: lead to brutalisation 


  Prisoners can reinforce each other’s pro-crime attitudes and share techniques on how to commit crimes. This can result in offenders being eager to put these into practice when released. Indeed, research has found that placing low-risk offenders (in terms of recidivism) with high risk offenders makes it more likely that the low-risk offenders will reoffend. This is a limitation because it suggests that custodial sentencing increases recidivism rather than reduces it.
• Evaluate custodial sentencing: difficult to implement. 


  This is because prisons tend to be under- funded and over-crowded with a high staff turnover. This is a limitation because it makes it difficult to manage behaviour in prisons which, given that prisons are full of criminals, can lead to higher rates of violent criminal behaviour inside. This is a limitation because it suggests that, in practice, prisons can be difficult to implement effectively in order to reduce the risk of recidivism.
• Evaluate custodial sentencing: not considered cost-effective. 


  This is because prisons are expensive to run and maintain in that they require building, maintenance and staffing costs in addition to the costs of food, electricity, heating etc. This is a limitation because, given that prisons are not found to reduce recidivism rates in a large amount of offenders, the cost of running them seems to outweigh the benefits. Indeed, many argue that the main aim of prisons is to provide victims and their family with some form of retribution rather than to actually reduce recidivism rates.
• Outline behaviour modification.


  Behaviour modification is used within custody in an attempt to make offenders’ behaviour more desirable.

  It is based on the principles of operant conditioning whereby it focuses on the use of reinforcement.

  This is because it involves prison staff providing offenders with tokens (the secondary reinforcer) when they carry out a desirable behaviour.
• Outline behaviour modification.


  Examples of desirable behaviour could include following prison rules and keeping their cell tidy. They are, however, typically tailored to the behavioural issues of each offender.

  These tokens can then be exchanged for a primary reinforcer (e.g. extra TV time, extra time in the yard).

  It therefore aims to reduce recidivism by reducing the likelihood they will display undesirable behaviour that could get them arrested again upon their release.
• Evaluate behaviour modification: effective in prison settings. 


  This is because the programme is tailored to the prisoner’s specific behavioural issues and the prisoners can choose rewards that they personally find motivating. This is a strength because it has resulted in prisoners engaging with the programme and displaying more desirable behaviours. As a result, they may be less likely to display undesirable behaviours i.e. reoffend
• Evaluate behaviour modification: not effective. 


  This is because some offenders can play along with the system in order to access the rewards without changing their overall character. This is a limitation because it means that when they no longer receive the rewards, they may revert back to their criminal behaviour. This is a limitation because it further suggests that the effects of behaviour modification may not extend beyond prison settings
• Evaluate behaviour modification: not always easy to implement.


  This is because its effectiveness relies on the programme being consistently used but factors such as understaffing, high staff turnover or lack of appropriate training has meant they are not always consistently implemented. This is a limitation because it results in frustration in offenders and, in turn, them being less likely to engage in the programme. If they do not engage in the programme, it is unlikely to reduce their risk of reoffending.
• Evaluate behaviour modification: cost-effective. 


  This is because it can be implemented widely across the prison rather than on a 1-1 basis and it can also be carried out by existing prison staff so there is no need for expensive trained therapists in comparison to other ways of dealing with offending behaviour such as anger management programmes. This means that under-funded prisons may be more likely to be able to afford and implement behaviour modification in an attempt to reduce recidivism in mass groups of offenders.
• Outline anger management 


  Anger management aims to teach offenders how to recognise their anger and manage it.

  It is based on the assumption that cognitive factors can trigger emotions of anger that can, in turn, lead to aggressive criminal acts.
• Outline anger management.


  The first step involves cognitive preparation whereby offenders are taught to recognise their feelings of anger and what triggers it.

  The next step involves skills acquisition whereby offenders learn strategies to control their anger e.g. deep breathing exercises and counting to 10.
• Outline anger management.


  The final step involves application practice whereby offenders practice their newly acquired skills in a role play of an anger-provoking situation.

  Anger management therefore aims to reduce recidivism by helping offenders to manage their anger so they do not have more aggressive, criminal outbursts.
• Evaluate anger management: considered effective. 


  This is because it involves a skills acquisition stage whereby offenders acquire new skills for managing their anger e.g. deep breathing techniques. This is a strength because it provides offenders with long-term strategies for managing their anger outside of the custodial setting. In turn, offenders are less likely to reoffend upon their release from prison.
• Evaluate anger management: not effective. 


  This is because practicing skills in role- play situations may be very different to real life when the intensity of emotions are likely to be greater. This is a limitation because it suggests that the effects of anger management may not apply in cases outside of the therapeutic environment so offenders may still go on to reoffend. In addition, not all offending behaviour is caused by anger.
• Evaluate anger management: difficult to implement. 


  This is because it is typically carried out with one prisoner or with a small group of prisoners at a time. This is a limitation because it means it is difficult to carry out in practice to reduce offending behaviour in large groups of prisoners. In contrast, behaviour modification can be used across the prison with every offender so is likely to have a wider impact.
• Evaluate anger management: cost-effective. 


  This is because, although it is relatively costly in that it requires a trained therapist, anger management has been shown to have more rehabilitative value than other methods such as behaviour modification. This is a strength as it

  suggests the long-term benefits of reducing reoffending may outweigh the costs.
• Outline restorative justice programmes. 


  Restorative justice programmes are sometimes used as an alternative to custodial sentencing, especially if the crime is minor and the offender is young.

  It involves a trained mediator organising a meeting between the offender and their victim.
• Outline restorative justice programmes.

  This meeting can involve direct contact (face to face meeting) or indirect contact by passing on messages through the mediator.

  In doing so, restorative justice aims to provide the victim and the offender with an opportunity to share their experience of what happened.
• Outline restorative justice programmes. 


  It also enables the victim to explain the consequences of the offender’s behaviour and how they can help to repair the harm they have caused.

  Restorative justice programmes therefore aim to reduce recidivism by encouraging the offender to understand the harm they have caused so they are less likely to offend again.
• Evaluate restorative justice programmes: effective in reducing reoffending. 


  This is because, when used as an alternative to custodial sentencing, it helps to avoid effects such as instutionalisation and brutalisation that can make prisoners more likely to offend once released. This is a strength because, by avoiding such effects, offenders will be less likely to reoffend in an attempt to be sent back to prison (which they are used to) or because they are keen to put the techniques they have learned into practice.
• Evaluate restorative justice programmes: not effective at reducing reoffending in all offenders. 


  This is because there is a danger that offenders may sign up for the restorative justice programmes to avoid prison or for a reduced sentence rather than a genuine desire to make amends to the victim. This is a limitation because it means that restorative justice programmes may not reduce reoffending in offenders who feel no genuine remorse.
• Evaluate restorative justice programmes: difficult to implement.


  This is because the meeting between the offender and victim can be very emotional and anxiety-inducing. This is a limitation as it means that restorative justice programmes can suffer from high dropout rates i.e. the victim may back out at the last minute. In this case, the restorative justice will not reduce reoffending as the offender will not be given the opportunity to understand the harm they have caused
• Evaluate restorative justice programmes: not considered cost effective. 


  This is because the meeting between the offender and the victim requires a trained mediator who is likely to be expensive and in high demand. This is a limitation because, given the problems of high drop-out rates and offenders faking remorse, it may suggest that it is not a worthwhile way of trying to reduce recidivism. Instead, other solutions may be more appropriate i.e. a custodial sentence.