Dealing With Offending Behaviour

• what is custodial sentencing?

  a criminal will be found guilty of a criminal act and sentenced to a period of time in prison or another criminal institution
• what are the four aims of custodial sentencing?

  1. incapacitation - it takes away basic freedoms of the offender and punishes them in the hope they will be put off reoffending and prevent further crimes in society
  2. retribution - directly punish offender and show society justice has been done
  3. rehabilitation - reforming prisoners so they leave prison better adjusted to life and less likely to commit crimes in the future
  4. deterrence - unpleasant experience of prison should put both offender and society off criminal behaviour
• evaluation of custodial sentencing (1)

  • The key function of custodial sentencing is to prevent recidivism; however, this is not what seems to happen statistically. For example, Hollin (1992) argues that a large proportion of offenders seem to reoffend and this supports Peterson et al. (1981) who estimates that 8-10% of criminals are responsible for around 50% of all crimes. This is important because it suggests that the aims of custodial sentencing are not being met, which puts greater strain on society.
• evaluation of custodial sentencing (2)

  • suicide and self-harm are high among prison inmates, particularly at the beginning of their incarceration. Daniel (2006) argues that the first 30 days of an offender’s arrival in prison is the high risk period where they are most likely to attempt to take their own life. This is in line with research which identifies anxiety and depression to be at their highest at the start of a custodial sentence. Research suggests that suicide among the prison population in the UK is four times higher than in the rest of society
• evaluation of custodial sentencing (3)

  • it is difficult to show causality with regards to mental health problems and prison. For example, it has been estimated that 70% of the prison population have a mental health condition of some description, although of course it is difficult to tell if they have suffered from it previously or if it has developed since being in prison; therefore, the data is somewhat flawed. This is important as it would help researchers to ascertain how serious the psychological effects of imprisonment are.
• what is recidivism?

  • the tendency of a convicted criminal to re-offend.
  • it has implications for the aims of custodial sentencing and suggests that current treatment programmes in prison do not necessarily work
• evaluation of recidivism

  • one problem with research into recidivism rates is that little is carried out in the post-release environment. For example, most research in this area is focused on prison and prisoners, showing little concern for what happens afterwards, which is problematic as this is perhaps where prisoners require the greatest amount of support (see Mallot and Fromander (2010) above). This is important because it is difficult to address recidivism until a prisoner has been released from prison.
• what is behavioural modification?

  • use of behavioural principles in order to attempt to rehabilitate offenders through making changes to their behaviour through conditioning, namely operant conditioning, which incorporates reinforcement and punishment.
  • In the context of prison, this is known as a token economy where good behaviour is rewarded with tokens that can be traded for desirable privileges (such as food or television time) and bad behaviour is discouraged through removing such tokens.
• evaluation of behavioural modification (1)

  • Cohen and Filipcjak (1971) found that a group of young male offenders who had experienced a token economy within an institution were less likely to have reoffended 1 – 2 years later compared to a control group of offenders. When followed up 3 years after release, the recidivism rates were the same for both groups, suggesting that the impact of token economies reduces over time.
• evaluation of behavioural modification (2)

  • One criticism of token economies for behaviour modification is that they are seen to breach basic human rights. For example, some have argued that some of the supposed rewards for good behaviour in a token economy programme should be seen as a right and not a reward given in response to desired behaviour. This is important because it has implications for how effective such treatment programmes are, particularly if offenders share this notion and become sceptical of token economies as a treatment programme.
• evaluation of behavioural modification (3)

  • Another potential problem with token economies is that while they should be straightforward to implement, they are not. For example, Reppucci and Saunders (1974) argued that inconsistencies amongst staff was a big problem in the successful administration of token economies. That being said, they are an easier option for treatment than programmes such as anger management treatments, which require a greater amount of training. This is important because it reduces the financial burden on state prisons to train staff in order to rehabilitate prisoners.
• what is anger management?

  • Anger management programmes are cognitive-behavioural in nature and designed to help people learn how to control their anger.
  • In the context of prisons, the assumption is that many crimes occur as a result of anger and therefore, anger management should help prisoners prevent themselves from carrying out crimes in the future.
• what are the three processes taught in anger management?

  • cognitive preparation - offender reflects on past experiences and considers patterns of anger
  • skill acquisition - teaches the person a range of skills to deal with anger proving situations
  • cognitive
  • behavioural
  • physciological
  • application practice - offenders are given opportunities to practice these skills in a controlled environment (role play)
• evaluation of anger management (1)

  • relationship between anger and violence is complex and hasn’t been extensively researched. For example, Loza and Loza-Fanous (1999) argue that the research links made between anger and violence are limited because they make use of self-reported explanations of an offenders’ motivations in committing violent crime, which may not be reliable. This is important, because the prisoner can blame their offending behaviour on anger problems and stop taking responsibility for their actions. Therefore, anger management programmes could do more harm than good.
• evaluation of anger management (2)

  • Another problem with anger management programmes is that they require full engagement from the prisoner. For example, despite gaining positive results, Keen (2000) also found that there were practical issues with encouraging young offenders (between the ages of 17 and 21) to take part fully, such as forgetting their anger diaries and egocentric behaviour, which made things challenging. This is a problem because it suggests that the programme may only be as effective as the group taking part; therefore, individuals in a difficult group may not benefit fully.
• what is the aim of restorative justice?

  • to help rebuild relationships between the offender, the victim, their family and the community at large.
  • It is a programme which attempts to improve the experience for the victim as well as encouraging the offender to take responsibility for their crime.
• what are the different techniques used in restorative justice?

  • Face-to-face meetings – as it sounds, this is where meetings between the offender and victim take place.
  • Mediation – involves a meeting between the offender and victim, but they are accompanied by a trained mediator. The job of the mediator is to help manage their discussions and offer support.
  • Indirect mediation – in this case, the offender and victim do not meet face-to-face (perhaps initially), but their communication is passed to each other via a mediator.
• evaluation of restorative justice (1)

  • allows the victim to put the crime behind them and gives them closure
  • shappland et al found that 85% of survivors reported satisfaction from meeting the offender, 60% felt better and 27% felt worse
  • strang et al conducted a meta-analysis of 10 studies and found that those who had restorative justice were less likely to reoffend
• evaluation of restorative justice (2)

  • offenders may use restorative justice to avoid punishment and some downplay their faults and take pride in the crime in front of the victim
  • it isn't suitable for domestic abuse because of the power in balance between abuser and the victim therefore its not suitable for all crimes
• evaluation of restorative justice (3)

  • A positive aspect of restorative justice programmes is that they are cost-effective methods of dealing with offending and reoffending. For example, Strang (2013) found that face-to-face meetings, or restorative justice conferences (RJCs), led to a reduction in recidivism. This is important because it offers a cost-effective way of dealing with offending behaviour.