A03

• One strength of differential association theory is that it shifted the emphasis away from early biological explanations of offending behaviour such as Lombroso’s theory of atavistic form. It draws attention to the fact that dysfunctional social circumstances may be more to blame for offending behaviour than genetics. It is therefore more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of crime
• There is evidence to support the suggestion that pro-crime attitudes are often learnt from the family. For example, Mednick et al. (1984) conducted an adoption study and found that boys who had criminal adoptive parents but non-criminal biological parents were more likely to go on to offend than boys whose adoptive parents and biological parents were non-criminal. This illustrates the importance of family influence whilst controlling for the influence of genes, therefore supporting differential association theory
• One weakness of differential association theory is that it is difficult to test. For example, it would be very difficult to measure the number of pro-crime and anti-crime attitudes an individual has been exposed to over the course of their lifetime. Without this information, it is difficult to establish at what point the urge to offend is realised. The theory does not provide a satisfactory solution to these issues, undermining its scientific credibility
• One weakness of differential association theory is that it can be accused of being deterministic. This is because it suggests that individuals who are exposed to pro-crime attitudes will go on to offend. In reality, many individuals who are exposed to pro-crime attitudes choose not to offend, despite these influences. There is therefore a danger within differential association theory of stereotyping individuals who come from dysfunctional social circumstances as ‘unavoidably criminal’
• One strength of the top-down approach to offender profiling is that it can be adapted to other types of crime, such as burglary. Critics of the top-down approach have claimed that the technique only applies to murder. However, Meketa (2017) reported that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary in three US states leading to an 85% rise in cases. This suggests that the top-down approach has wider application than was originally assumed.  
• One weakness is that the suggestion that there is a clear distinction between organised and disorganised offenders has been criticised. For example, Maurice and Godwin (2002) argue that, in reality, it is difficult to classify offenders as one type or the other. For example, an offender may have characteristics such as high intelligence and sexual competence, but commit a spontaneous murder leaving the victim’s body at the crime scene. This suggests that the classification of offenders as organised or disorganised is too simplistic. 

   
• One weakness is that the evidence upon which the top-down approach is based. The top-down approach is based upon interviews carried out with 36 murderers in the US. At the end of the process, 24 were classed as organised offenders and 12 were classed as disorganised. that the sample was poor, only included sexually-motivated murderers. There was also no standard set of questions, not really comparable. This suggests that the top-down approach does not have a sound scientific basis. 

   
• One strength is that the bottom-up approach is considered to be more scientific than the top-down approach. This is because it is more grounded in evidence and psychological theory than the top-down approach, and does not rely on the intuition of the profiler. This is a strength of the bottom-up approach. 

   
• One strength is that there is evidence to support geographical profiling. Lundrigan & Canter (2001) collated information on 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US. They found that the location of each body disposal site created a ‘centre of gravity’ that included the offender’s home base. This supports that view that geographical information can be used to identify an offender. 
• One weakness is that studies examining the effectiveness of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling have produced mixed results. For example, Copson (1995) surveyed 48 UK police forces using investigative psychology and found that 75% of the police officers questioned said that advice provided by the profiler had been useful. However, only 3% said that the advice had helped identify the actual offender. This suggests that the method may not be useful in actually catching offenders, but the slight benefit that it affords makes it worthwhile.

   
• One strength is that there is evidence that behaviour modification programmes are effective. For example, Hobbs & Tyllon (1976) introduced a token economy system to three young offenders’ institutions and found a significant reduction in undesirable behaviour. This supports the use of behaviour modification programmes in custody. 

   
• One strength is that behaviour modification programmes are easy to implement. There is no need for expertise or specialist professionals as there would be for other forms of treatment such as anger management. Rather, behaviour modification programmes can be implemented by virtually anyone in any institution. They are therefore cost-effective and easy to follow. This supports the use of behaviour modification programmes in custody. 

   
• One weakness is that behaviour modification programmes have little rehabilitative value. Often, any positive changes in behaviour that occur when the offender is in prison quickly disappear when they are released. This may be because the behaviour is not always reinforced in the real world, or because the rewards that the offender receives from reoffending are more powerful. Furthermore, many of the positive behaviours learnt in prison, such as walking in a straight line, do not apply to the real world. This does not support the use of behaviour modification programmes in custody. 

   
• One weakness is that some people respond better to behaviour modification programmes than others. Programmes with young offenders have been reasonably successful but there has been much less success with violent offenders. For example, Rice et al. (1990) studied 92 men in a Canadian maximum security psychiatric hospital and found that 50% of inmates treated in this way went on to reoffend. This suggests that behaviour modification programmes are not effective for all offenders. 

   
• One strength is that there is evidence to support the effectiveness of anger management programmes. compared the progress of two groups of offenders. One group of offenders attended 12 sessions other group of offenders did not. It was found that 92% of the experimental group showed an improvement on at least one measure. There were no such improvements in the control group. This supports the use of anger management programmes as a way of dealing with offending behaviour. 
• One strength is that anger management is thought to be more effective than behaviour modification. This is because, unlike behaviour modification, anger management tries to tackle one of the causes of offending. it attempts to address the thought processes that underlie offending behaviour. Experience of treatment programmes give offenders new insight into the cause of their criminality, self-discover ways of managing themselves outside of the prison setting. anger management is lead to permanent behavioural change and lower rates of recidivism. 
• One weakness is that evidence does not support the long-term effectiveness of anger management programmes. Blackburn (1993) found that, whilst anger management may have a noticeable impact on the conduct of offenders in the short-term, there is very little evidence that it reduces recidivism in the long-term. It has been suggested that this may be because the application phase of the treatment relies heavily on artificial role-play, which might not properly reflect real-life triggers. This suggests that anger management programmes do not always lead to permanent behavioural changes
• There are problems with anger management p expensive to run, highly trained specialists who are used to dealing with violent offenders. In addition, the success of anger management is often based upon the commitment of those who participate, and this may be a problem if prisoners are uncooperative and apathetic. These problems do not support the use of anger management programmes as a way of dealing with offending behaviour. 
• One strength is that there is evidence that victims who have taken part in restorative justice schemes feel that it was beneficial. For example, in 2015, the UK Restorative Justice Council (RJC) reported an 85% satisfaction rate from victims in face-to-face meetings with offenders. These reports of victim satisfaction covered a wife range of different crimes. This suggests that restorative justice schemes successfully help victims to recover from the effects of crime. 

   
• One strength is that there is evidence that restorative justice reduces reoffending. In 2015, the RJC 14% reduction in reoffending rates. reviewed 20 studies of face-to-face meetings between offenders and victims in the US, UK and Australia. They found that all of the studies showed reduced reoffending. In one of the studies, there were lower reoffending rates (11%) as compared with a matched control group who served a short prison sentence (37%). This suggests that restorative justice schemes successfully reduce reoffending rates. 

   
• One weakness is that the success of restorative justice hinges upon the extent to which the offender feels remorse for their actions. There is a danger that some offenders may sign up to a restorative justice scheme to avoid prison, or for the promise of a reduced sentence, rather than a genuine willingness to want to make amends with the victim. This means that restorative justice schemes may not lead to positive outcomes. 
• One weakness is that restorative justice schemes are expensive. The face-to-face meeting between the victim and the offender will be an emotionally charged affair requiring the input of a trained mediator. Trained mediators are rare, and therefore expensive. Also restorative justice schemes often suffer from high dropout rates as the victim or the offender may ‘lose their nerve’ prior to a scheduled face-to-face meeting and withdraw from the scheme. This means that, in practice, restorative justice schemes may not always be the most cost-effective solution. 
• One weakness is that high rates of recidivism suggest that custodial sentencing doesn’t work. It has been suggested that this may be because, according to behaviourist principles, punishment is most effective when it occurs immediately. This doesn’t happen in the case of custodial sentencing. As a result, an offender might actually see the sentence as a punishment for being caught rather than for the offending. This does not support custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.   

   
• One weakness is that it has been argued that being in prison may increase the likelihood of reoffending rather than decrease it. According to Sutherland’s differential association theory, whilst in prison, offenders are likely to learn techniques for committing crime from other offenders. This may undermine any attempts made to rehabilitate offenders and does not support custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.  

   
• The cost of prison care and the problems associated with it mean that an alternative might be preferred. Alternatives include probation, fines and community service. There is evidence that offenders sentenced to community service are less likely to reoffend, although this may be because less serious offenders are given community service. However, non-custodial sentences avoid the problems associated with prisons, and may therefore be particularly advantageous for young offenders and offenders who are non-violent.  
• Bowlby supported his own ideas in his study of 44 juvenile thieves. In this study, he found that 14 of the 44 juvenile thieves could be classified as affectionless psychopaths. Of these, 12 (86%) had experienced prolonged separations from their mothers during the first 2 years of their lives. This suggests that maternal deprivation causes offending behaviour and therefore supports Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation as a psychodynamic explanation of offending behavior. 

   
• One weakness is that Bowlby’s study of 44 juvenile thieves has been heavily criticised. For example, Bowlby has been accused of researcher bias, insofar as his preconceptions of what he expected to find may have influenced the responses of his interviewees. This weakens Bowlby’s study as evidence to support maternal deprivation as a psychodynamic explanation of offending behaviour. 
• One weakness is that many of Freud’s concepts do not meet the scientific criterion of falsification. For example, the Oedipus/Electra complex are said to occur at an unconscious level, making them difficult, if not impossible to test and disprove. This has afforded the psychodynamic approach in general the status of pseudoscience (‘fake science’) rather than real science. 

   
• Blackburn’s ideas have been heavily criticised. For example, there is very little evidence that children raised without a same-sex parent are less law-abiding as adults, unconscious desire for punishment seems implausible, conceal their crimes, which suggests that they want to avoid punishment at all costs. Finally, if children raised by criminal parents go on to commit crimes themselves, this could be due to the influence of genetics or socialisation rather than the formation of a deviant superego. This contradicts Blackburn’s notion of a deviant superego.

   
• One strength of differential association theory is that it shifted the emphasis away from early biological explanations of offending behaviour such as Lombroso’s theory of atavistic form. It draws attention to the fact that dysfunctional social circumstances may be more to blame for offending behaviour than genetics. It is therefore more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of crime. 

   
• One strength is that there is evidence to support the suggestion that pro-crime attitudes are often learnt from the family. For example, Mednick et al. (1984) conducted an adoption study and found that boys who had criminal adoptive parents but non-criminal biological parents were more likely to go on to offend than boys whose adoptive parents and biological parents were non-criminal. This illustrates the importance of family influence whilst controlling for the influence of genes, therefore supporting differential association theory. 
• One weakness is that differential association theory is difficult to test. For example, it would be very difficult to measure the number of pro-crime and anti-crime attitudes an individual has been exposed to over the course of their lifetime. Without this information, it is difficult to establish at what point the urge to offend is realised. The theory does not provide a satisfactory solution to these issues, undermining its scientific credibility.  
• One weakness is that differential association theory can be accused of being deterministic. This is because it suggests that individuals who are exposed to pro-crime attitudes will go on to offend. In reality, many individuals who are exposed to pro-crime attitudes choose not to offend, despite these influences. There is therefore a danger within differential association theory of stereotyping individuals who come from dysfunctional social circumstances as ‘unavoidably criminal’. 
• One strength of differential association theory is that it shifted the emphasis away from early biological explanations of offending behaviour such as Lombroso’s theory of atavistic form. It draws attention to the fact that dysfunctional social circumstances may be more to blame for offending behaviour than genetics. It is therefore more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of crime. 

   
• One strength is that there is evidence to support the suggestion that pro-crime attitudes are often learnt from the family. For example, Mednick et al. (1984) conducted an adoption study and found that boys who had criminal adoptive parents but non-criminal biological parents were more likely to go on to offend than boys whose adoptive parents and biological parents were non-criminal. This illustrates the importance of family influence whilst controlling for the influence of genes, therefore supporting differential association theory. 
• One strength is that there is research evidence to support the role of hostile attribution bias in offending behaviour. Schonenberg & Justye (2014) presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with a control group, it was found that the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry and hostile. The researchers concluded that such misinterpretations of non-verbal cues may explain aggressive behaviour in offenders.
• For example, Barbaree (1991) found that among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offense at all and 40% minimised the harm they had caused to their victim. Similarly, Pollock & Hashmall (1991) reported that only 35% of a sample of child molesters argued that the crime that had committed was non-sexual (e.g. they claimed that they were ‘just being affectionate’) and 36% stated that the victim had consented. This suggests that minimalisation
• One strength is that there is evidence to support the suggestion that criminals show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-criminals. For example, Palmer & Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning between non-offenders and offenders 11 moral dilemma related questions such as not taking things that belong to others and keeping a promise to a friend. They found that the offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offenders, which is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions. This therefore supports level of moral reasoning as a cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.   
• There are problems with the research that Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral reasoning is based upon. In this research, Kohlberg asked individuals to respond to a series of moral dilemmas. However, it has been pointed out that what individuals say they would do in certain situations may differ greatly from what they would actually do. Also, Kohlberg only studied males and assumed that his findings applied to females. His theory is therefore beta biased because it ignores differences between the sexes. These problems weaken Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral reasoning.  
• One strength is that there is evidence to support Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality. For example, Eysenck & Eysenck (1977) compared 2070 male prisoners with 2422 male controls. They found that on measures on E and N, the prisoners recorded higher scores than the controls. These findings are therefore in line with the predictions of this theory