Methods of Modifying

• ANGER MANAGEMENT - key terms

  Anger Management = form of CBT specific to changing the way a person manages their anger
• ANGER MANAGEMENT - key terms

  CBT = an approach to the treatment of mental disorders combining C+B approaches
• ANGER MANAGEMENT - key terms

  Stress Inoculation Therapy = type of CBT which trains people to cope with anxiety and stressful situations more effectively by learning skills to 'inoculate' themselves against the damaging effects of future stressors
• ANGER MANAGEMENT - key terms

  Conceptualisation = the building of a mental picture / construction of an idea/theory
• ANGER MANAGEMENT - key terms

  Skills Acquisition = acquiring, developing and improving specific skills/abilities through learning and practice
• ANGER MANAGEMENT - key terms

  Application - action of putting something into operation
• ANGER MANAGEMENT - key terms

  Recidivism - where a person reoffends, even after some form of punishment
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Effectiveness

  [Research Evidence]

  P-supporting RE for AM to modify CB

  E- Taylor+Novaco - looked at 6 meta analysis of AM, reported 75% improvement rates

  - Landberger+Lipsey - reviewed 58 CBT studies with offenders, 2- used AM techniques and elements of anger control related to improvement in offender's behaviour

  E- suggested - AM successful in reducing anger and aggression, benefits for the individual and society in reducing recidivism
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Effectiveness

  [Research Evidence]

  P- RE challenges use of AM

  E- Howells et al cite - 5 meta analysis, found moderate improvements with one study (only 1 person improved)

  E- suggests - AM - not reliable method

  - inconsistency in outcomes for offenders, questions whether AM should be applied to all violent offenders
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Effectiveness

  P-[AM-note effective for everyone]

  E- some offenders don't like to reflect on their way of thinking, so may drop out

  -if cause of offender's criminality is biological, AM is ineffective

  -e.g. due to low levels of serotonin, SSRIs would be more effective

  E- suggests AM not magic cure for all aggressive criminal behaviours, and perhaps is only suitable for those with cognitive distortions who're able to engage in the programme
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Effectiveness

  [AM doesn't modify all criminal behaviours]

  P- only deals with specific crimes

  E- e.g. violent and aggressive crimes

  - criminal behaviours are vast, and many crimes don't involve any aggression or violence

  E- therefore AM is restricted in how far it can modify all CB
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Effectiveness

  [EXT- what if anger doesn't equal aggression]

  P- issue with relationship between anger, aggression and crime can be questioned

  E- Loza+Loza-Fanous = sample of 300+ males in prison > no difference in levels of anger of violent and non-violent prisoners

  -argue, AM programmes can result in offenders blaming crimes on anger > removes personal responsibility for actions

  E- if anger doesn't lead to aggression, AM may be irrelevant method of modifying CB
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Social

  [Reduces aggression in prison]

  P- benefits for prison environment

  E- AM - benefits for prisoners and staff > potential to reduce aggression and violence within prison setting

  -benefits to prisoners = feel safe, and officers = reduce violence

  E- relevant > prisons face cuts to funding and staff shortages, therefore any decrease in aggression has significant benefits
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Social

  [Reduces costs of recidivism]

  P- AM-financial implications for society

  E- cost of recidivism - at least £9.5 billion per year

  - AM- help offenders learn to control anger and may prevent from committing further crimes

  E- AM-economic benefits to society in reducing recidivism rates and therefore reducing costs associated with dealing with it

  - if offenders can control A > help them live, function and contribute to society, therefore AM offers wider social benefits
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Ethical

  P-[Lack voluntary consent]

  E- offender are often required to take part in AM programmes as a condition of probation - aka implicit coercion

  forced participation - against ethical code of therapists, therefore AM unethical method

  YET - AM and Domestic Violence Professionals Ethical Code, says AM should be delivered based on valid informed consent
• EVALUATING ANGER MANAGEMENT - Ethical

  P- [Psychological Harm]

  E- anecdotal evidence (Guardian Article) - women may be psychologically harmed by AM, as there are reports of female offenders suffering anxiety and depression after AM

  E- AM could be deemed an inappropriate method for female offenders

  - not based on empirical evidence, and therefore should be treated with caution, however it could form the basis of future research into gender differences in modifying criminal behaviour
• EVALUATING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - Effectiveness

  P-[Research Evidence]

  E- Sherman+Strang - reviewed 20 studies of face to face Restorative Justice in the UK, USA and Australia, all showed reduced reoffending

  - 1 study = reoffending = 11% in RJ group compared to 37% in matched control - custodial sentence

  -RJ especially effective with violent + property crimes

  E- demonstrates RJ can effectively reduce recidivism = key aim

  - support RJ - reviewed 20 studies across many different countries
• EVALUATING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - Effectiveness

  EXT for Sherman + Strang

  Limitation to their findings - found RJ - more effective for crimes with personal victims rather than against businesses

  Strongly suggests RJ is effective for rehabilitation of some offenders but not all, it's limited to particular crimes
• EVALUATING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - Effectiveness

  P-[Not effective in all situations/for all offenders]

  E- Offender must admit guilt, if they refuse/have psychopathic traits = unsuitable for RJ - ineffective for rehabilitating

  -some crimes aren't suitable for RJ and victim may not want to take part

  -not all victims are suited to RJ and may not want to engage with offender/feel unable to

  E- RJ isn't a universal solution for dealing with criminal behaviour, as

  Watchel+McCold argue that if a stakeholder is missing, RJ only partially effective
• EVALUTATING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - Effectiveness

  P-[Research Evidence]

  E- UK RJ Council (2015) reports 85% victim satisfaction from face to face meetings with offender

  - Avon + Somerset Police reported 92.5% victim satisfaction

  E- due to range of crimes these victims suffered, suggests RJ = effective from victim's perspective

  - HOWEVER - important to note these stats don't show that RJ works at modifying offender's behaviour, only that victims are pleased with the process
• EVALUATING RESTORATIVR JUSTICE - Ethical

  P- Ethical Issues to offender + victim

  E- [v] - may feel worse afterwards, if offender doesn't show remorse/empathy, could cause psychological harm to victim and create distress > feel 'injured'

  [o] - issue of voluntary consent, offender may feel forced to participate as the only alternative to prison

  - cause offender psychological harm, victim may gang up on them and cause them to feel shame

  E- some argue RJ - unethical

  - suggests both o+v need to be carefully considered before RJ, may cause more harm than good
• EVALUATING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - Ethical

  P-[Peace Circles = more ethical version of RJ]

  E- crime has wide implications for communities and for RJ to be fully functioning, must involve wider communities

  - PC= examples of community programmes implemented in areas where violence and crime are high

  -aim= create environment of respect, community offers support to victim and offender

  E- support rather than exclusion from community > another benefit for society (compared to custodial sentences)
• EVALUTATING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - Social

  P-[Significant social benefits]

  E- Rj introduced as original penal system didn't address needs of victims > aim = redress this balance as victims can have a say with what happens to the offender

  - provides victim with control and choice, chance to ask questions and explain impact of crime to discourage reoffending

  - as victim = member of society > RJ - way of meeting needs of society and provide greater assistance to those affected by crime

  E- argued - more beneficial to society than custodial sentence - offer little to victims
• EVALUATING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - Social

  P-[Economic benefits]

  E- reoffending cost UK £9.5 billion per year

  - UK RJ Council claims - £8 saved for every £1 spent on RJ

  - cost of RJ - often funded by fines paid by offender

  E- powerful at demonstrating the financial benefits to society of RJ