Level of Moral Reasoning for Offending

• Kohlberg (1958) proposed a theory of moral development.
• Kohlberg proposed three levels of moral reasoning each level with two stages.
• Moral reasoning refers to the way a person thinks about right and wrong.
• Level 1 of Kohlberg’s theory was called ‘pre-conventional’ morality.
• In Kohlberg’s level 1 of moral reasoning the focus is on right or wrong depending on the outcome of the behaviour.
• The pre-conventional level suggests that children learn what is right or wrong based on the consequences of their actions – if they can get away with it. They also learn to conform to rules in order to gain rewards.
• The pre-conventional level is characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards and is associated with less mature moral reasoning.
• Level 2 of Kohlberg’s theory was called ‘conventional’ morality.
• In Kohlberg’s level 2 of moral reasoning, morality is internalised from others and society.
• The conventional level corresponds to an increased understanding of other peoples' intentions and how to win praise from them. Children learn to obey rules to gain praise and begin to realise the importance of authority.
• In Kohlberg’s level 3 of moral reasoning the focus is on individual abstract ideas of justice, which govern behaviour.
• The post-conventional level suggests that children understand the idea that moral actions are expressed by the majority and that rules enable a democratic state. It is also marked by the development of a set of self-defined ethical principles based on wider, universal concepts of right and wrong.
• Kohlberg (1968) was the first researcher to apply the concept of moral reasoning to offending behaviour.
• Kohlberg proposed that people's decisions and judgements on issues of right and wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral reasoning. This implies the higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning.
• Kohlberg based his theory on people's responses to a series of moral dilemmas, such as the Heinz dilemma.
• Kohlberg conducted extensive research using moral dilemmas. Some used the narrative which featured a person committing a crime, and asked participants to decide what was right and what was wrong.
• Many studies have suggested that offenders tend to show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-offenders.
• Kohlberg et al (1973) used his moral dilemmas and found a group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral reasoning than non-violent youths, even after controlling for social background.
• Palmer & Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning between delinquents and non-delinquents. Participants were given a series of moral dilemmas and asked what they would do in each scenario. The results showed that the delinquent group showed less mature moral reasoning.
• Offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level of Kohlberg’s stages, whereas non-offenders have generally progressed to the conventional level and beyond.
• Chandler (1973) suggests that offenders are often more egocentric and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non-offender peers.
• Individuals who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise more with the rights of others and exhibit more conventional behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence.
• Kohlberg's theory is useful in that it provides an insight into the mechanics of the criminal mind, by suggesting offenders maybe more childlike and egocentric when it comes to making moral judgments than the law abiding majority.
• Walker (1989) showed that moral development happens over time, supporting Kohlberg’s stages.
• Ashkar & Kenny (2007) found a sample of juvenile delinquents showed pre-conventional levels of morality when interviewed about their specific crime, but conventional levels when asked about crimes other than their own.
• Kohlberg’s theory has been criticised for being an artificial way to investigate moral reasoning, as there are no real consequences. Therefore this idea lacks ecological validity.
• Much of Kohlberg’s research was conducted on male participants making it androcentric.
• Moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour.
• Krebs & Denton (2005) proposed that moral reasoning as suggested by Kohlberg, is more likely to be used to justify behaviour after it has happened.
• Thornton & Reid (1982) found that people who committed crimes for financial gain (robbery) were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulse crimes (assault).
• Thornton & Reid (1982) suggest that levels of moral reasoning may depend on the offence, and Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime.