Types and effectiveness of punishments



Types and effectiveness of punishments

What should we do with offenders? How can we prevent offenders from offending again? This topic looks at how psychology can be used to answer these questions. Are the current methods used the right methods to use?

Many people believe that all offenders should be punished. Psychologists have developed an approach that believes individuals can change and can be responsive to rehabilitative interventions, either within prison or the community.

• Imprisonment: One way police can deal with criminals is to imprison them. Prisons serve many functions;

• Punishment: making the offender ‘pay’ for their offence by subjecting them to an adverse environment.

• Incapacitation: preventing the offender from re-offending.

• Deterrence: making the offender ‘think twice’ about committing an offence because of the consequences involved.

• Rehabilitation: altering the offender so that upon release they do not re-offend.

• Probation: Offenders placed on probation are released into the community on the condition that they submit to the supervision and guidance of the probation officer whom they have to meet regularly. This is generally the case when given a suspended sentence; failure to comply with the probation order would lead to imprisonment. Probation may be used as an alternative to a custodial sentence (e.g. prison), but can also apply to offenders released from prison who may be expected to undergo a period of probation before being discharged altogether.

Many offenders commit further crimes almost immediately after being released from prison. In the 1960’s and 1970’s the reconviction rate was around 60%. According to Home Office data amongst young males the reconviction rate was 82% in 1994. It can therefore be argued that these results show that prison does not significantly reduce the chance of re-offending.

Walker and Farrington 1981 - What is the effectiveness of punishments?

Walker and Farrington (1981) conducted a study using a sample of 2069 male offenders in England, to assess the effectiveness of different types of reconviction rates using different types of sentencing. The types of sentencing included fines, probation, and imprisonment. Walker and Farrington followed offenders to see if they were caught re-offending after their punishment, or sentence, was over. Various factors were controlled for by the experimenters, for example, type of offence, age, and previous convictions. The results showed that reconviction rates varied according to the offender’s previous convictions.

|Previous Convictions |Most effective punishment |

|No previous convictions |Imprisonment |

|1-4 previous convictions |Probation |

|5 or more previous convictions |No difference in type of sentence (nothing helped). |

This suggests that the effectiveness of punishments can be determined by the number of previous convictions an offender has had. If an offender has never convicted before, imprisonment is the most affective way to punish them according to recidivism rates.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Easily replicated: to check reliability; these results could |Can’t be generalised: to all crime as this study controlled |

|be gathered again later to see if previous convictions are |crime type. Therefore, recidivism may be different for |

|still a reliable way of determining which punishment would be|different crimes when punished in certain ways. Type of crime |

|most effective in reducing recidivism rates. |may be a variable we need to consider alongside previous |

|Longitudinal study: offers a way of seeing how behaviour |convictions. |

|changes over time; how recidivism rates are affected after |Validity: Unknown whether ex-convicts had committed further |

|punishment. |crimes, as they may have not been caught. This affects the |

|Useful applications: as this study shows the effectiveness of|validity of the recidivism rates recorded. |

|punishments based on previous conviction rates. Could be used|Reductionist: type of punishment is related to previous |

|when sentencing to give most effective punishment to |convictions only. May be other factors; type of crime, |

|offenders. |environment. |

Sugg 1999 – The effectiveness of electronic monitoring.

Sugg et al aimed to examine the effectiveness of electronic monitoring curfew orders on recidivism rates. The sample comprised 261 offenders from Norfolk, Manchester and Reading who had been given curfew orders with electronic monitoring between July 1996 and June 1997 (the second year of the ‘tagging’ trials). 91% of the sample were male and most were mid to late twenties. Typical offences were theft, burglary and driving offences. The average number of previous convictions was eight.

Their method was to calculate the probability of the sample being re-convicted using OGRS2. This is a Home Office algorithm, which predicts the probability of an offender being re-convicted, based on age, criminal history and time in youth custody. This suggested that the sample could be considered to be of medium to high risk of reconviction. The analysis suggested 67% would be re-convicted at the end of two years. This prediction was then compared with actual reconviction rates.

They found that 72.8% (190/261) had been re-convicted with two years and 166 of those reconvicted were within one year. The researchers also compared the reconviction rates of the ‘tagged’ group with a matched comparison group of offenders sentenced to community service orders (the most likely alternative had tagging not been available). There was no significant difference between these two groups. 160 of the 261 also had community service orders running in addition to the tagging. There was also no significant difference between this sub-group and the remaining 101 offenders in terms of reconviction rates.

Sugg et al concluded that curfew orders have no significant effect on recidivism and they argue that this is because such orders do not address the real problems. However they cite evidence to suggest that curfew orders can be useful in conjunction with other programs such as cognitive-behavioural programs not least because they tend to increase attendance on such programs.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Longitudinal study: offers a way of seeing how behaviour |Validity: Unknown whether ex-convicts had committed further |

|changes over time; how recidivism rates are affected after |crimes, as they may have not been caught. This affects the |

|punishment. |validity of the recidivism rates recorded. |

|Useful applications: as this study shows the effectiveness of| |

|punishments based on previous conviction rates. | |

Offender Treatment Programmes

A Token Economy is a treatment programme based on the principles of operant conditioning. It is based on the idea that criminal behaviour is learned just like any other behaviour and can therefore be ‘unlearned’. In a token economy system within an institution such as a prison, desirable behaviours such as compliance and co-operation are reinforced by the use of tokens. Tokens may then be exchanged for reinforcers such as sweets, drinks and visits home. Through selective reinforcement socially approved behaviours are learnt and undesirable behaviours are extinguished through lack of reinforcement.

Hobbs & Holt 1976 – The usefulness of Token Economy

Token economy programmes tend to have a direct, short-term effect on specific behaviour. Hobbs & Holt (1976) studied the effects of introducing token economies in three small juvenile delinquent institutions. A fourth institution acted as the control (no token economy was introduced). Tokens were awarded for behaviours such as:

• Obeying rules

• Doing chores properly

• Co-operative social interactions

• Appropriate behaviour when queuing for meals

The groups who received tokens showed a significant increase in the targeted behaviours (e.g. obeying rules) compared to the group who did not receive tokens (control). This suggests that token economy programmes provide a successful way of increasing socially desirable behaviour and reducing negative (or socially undesirable) behaviour. However, one problem with such research is there is a lack of longitudinal studies, evaluating how affective such behaviour modification programmes are once offenders are released from prison.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Useful applications: shows that TA can be used successfully |Sample: only looked at juvenile offenders. Can we apply this |

|as a way of controlling prisoners. |to adult offenders? |

|Ecological Validity: as the study took place in a real prison| |

|there is high EV. | |

Novaco 1975 – Anger Management

Anger management is another way to treat offenders and is based on the idea that anger is the primary cause of violent criminal acts and once offenders can learn to control this anger, bad behaviour in prisons will decrease, as will rates of recidivism (re-offending).

Anger management is a cognitive-behavioural approach, developed in the mid 1970’s and is based mainly on the work of a psychologist named Novaco (1975). Its aim was to teach individuals how to apply self-control in order to reduce interpersonal anger, with the long-term aim of reducing disruptive behaviour. Anger management programmes do not stop the individual experiencing anger but teaches them to deal with their angry reactions more effectively.

Anger management programmes are usually performed in groups and involve three distinct stages:

1. Cognitive preparation

2. Skill acquisition

3. Application Practice

In the cognitive preparation stage, offenders are encouraged to analyse their own patterns of anger and to identify the kinds of situations that would provoke an angry reaction from them. They attempt to analyse their thinking processes during angry outbursts and to recognise possible irrational thoughts that lead to aggressive responses.

In the skill acquisition stage offenders are trained in the skills that might help them to avoid anger-provoking situations or deal with them more effectively. Skills include relaxation to avoid excessive arousal levels, assertiveness to help the individual make their point in an effective but non-aggressive way and other social and communication skills such as conflict resolution.

In the application practice offenders are given the opportunity to apply their new skills in a controlled and non-threatening environment. This usually involves role-play in which individuals act out scenarios based on situations that previously made them angry, using their new skills to deal with the situation more effectively. This phase includes extensive feedback on their performance form the therapist and other group members.

Ireland 2000 – Does anger management work?

Ireland conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of a brief group-based anger management programme. Ireland made two comparisons; pre and post test scores for a ‘treatment’ (experimental) group, and scores between the experimental and control group. In the experimental group there were 50 prisoners completing an anger management course. In the control group there were 37 prisoners awaiting the start of an anger management course. They were matched for age, offence and levels of angry behaviours. Ireland assessed self-reported angry behaviours, and observations done by prison officers of angry behaviours. The results showed significant reductions in the angry behaviours of the experimental group (92% of prisoners showed improvement). There was no change in the angry behaviours of the control group

The main problem with anger management programmes is that the long-term effectiveness with violent offenders has not been established. There is also little data to compare anger management with other forms of treatment.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Useful applications: shows that AM can be used successfully |Sample: only looked at a small group of offenders, however, |

|as a way of treating offenders. However, only really applies |there was a control group which helps us infer cause and |

|to those violent offenders. |affect. |

|Ecological Validity: as the study took place in a real prison|Longitudinal Research: this research is over a limited time. |

|there is high EV. |More long term research is needed to see if the treatments |

| |last for longer. |

Environmental Crime Prevention

Some psychologists suggest that the environment we live in creates opportunities to commit crime – hence the environment is a cause (or at least a factor) of crime.

Newman 1972 – Defensible Space

Newman is one psychologist that argues that the architectural design of the surrounding area in which we live can contribute towards high rates of crime. Newman (1972) developed a theory to account for this, which is known as defensible space theory. He suggested that residents of housing projects (e.g. high-rise buildings where much crime takes place) were unable to defend their territory as the buildings offered little opportunity for secondary boundaries/territories around them. Therefore, the term defensible space is used to refer to the semi-private areas surrounding living quarters that residents can territorialize so that they appear to belong to someone. According to Newman, buildings, such as high-rise apartment blocks, lacked defensible space, which encouraged vandalism, theft etc.., because residents had no sense of ownership of surrounding areas.

Support for Newman’s theory comes form a case study, in which Newman compared two adjacent housing estates in New York City, that of Van Dyke and Brownsville. Brownsville was found to have a far lower crime rate. Newman suggested that the reasons for this were that the Brownsville estate had much more defensible space – three story wings, with entrances being used by a small number of families, children played on stairs and outside on benches and grass areas. In contrast, the Van Dyke estate was high-rise (14-storey), with no communal boundaries outside that provided little or no defensible space.

Problems with Newman’s theory are that the relationship between crime rates and defensible space is a correlational one and therefore we cannot say what is causing what. Also, it is difficult to generalise from one case study. Many other housing projects that could have been studied were not. Additionally, some psychologists report that other factors have a greater impact on crime than defensible space, such as a strong correlation between the number of children in an area and the rate of vandalism.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Useful applications: if we want to reduce crime we can build |Correlational: the conclusions are correlational therefore we |

|estates that have defensible space. |cannot infer cause and effect. |

| |Generalisations: the study was conducted in the US. Can we |

| |apply these findings to the UK? |

| |Reductionist: only looks at one variable in relation to crime.|

| |Maybe the types of housing are an effect of the demographic |

| |who live there. Big housing estates tend not to have |

| |defensible space and this is where there is also low |

| |employment and high crime rates. |

Wilson & Kelling 982 – Zero Tolerance

The term zero tolerance refers to a policing strategy in which law enforcement agencies respond vigorously to all criminal offences that occur in an area. This not only means through investigation of serious offences but also cracking down on apparently trivial ones such as minor acts of vandalism and other minor ‘nuisance’ offences (eg. public urination, soliciting prostitutes). Wilson and Kelling (1982) put forward a set of ideas that have become known as the ‘broken window’ theory. They argue that areas in which petty crime appears not to be policed ‘invite’ more serious offenders to increase their activity.

The most famous example of the implementation of a Zero Tolerance policing strategy is New York City, where it was introduced in the early 1990’s. Over the course of the decade there was a significant reduction in crime, including serious crime. Other cities that implemented Zero Tolerance reported similarly impressive results and over the same period there was a sharp decline in violent and property crime across the US as a whole.

It is argued that there are many other factors that caused these results and Zero Tolerance cannot receive all of the credit. For example, in New York many of those arrested for minor offences had a criminal record for more serious offending. This may mean that their arrest, by removing them from circulation, prevented them from committing serious crimes. Also, the general decline in crime in the US could have been in response to many other factors including a growing economy, a decline in the use of cocaine and increased gun control in metropolitan areas.

Zero Tolerance is therefore not necessarily the quick-fix solution to crime that has been claimed and there is some evidence that suggests it can be counterproductive. Its implementation must be carefully considered, as it is not appropriate for all areas. In particular there is a danger that Zero tolerance may lead to increased targeting of ethnic minorities – think about what’s happened since the July bombings.

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Useful applications: if we want to reduce crime we need to |Correlational: the conclusions are correlational therefore we |

|enforce Zero Tolerance. |cannot infer cause and effect. |

| |Generalisations: the study was conducted in the US. Can we |

| |apply these findings to the UK? |

| |Useful: might not work in all areas of the world. Could lead |

| |to certain groups of people feeling victimised. |

Past Exam Questions

Section A Question

a) Outline how psychologists have investigated the effectiveness of punishments [6]

b) Evaluate the difficulties of investigating the effectiveness of punishments [10]

Section B Question

a) Outline treatment programmes and punishments for offenders [10]

b) Evaluate treatment programmes and punishments for offenders [16]

c) You have been asked to develop a treatment programme for offenders to reduce car crime. What suggestions will you make? Give reasons for your answer. [8]

Model Answer – Section B

Section B

a) Outline treatment programmes and punishments for offenders [10]

b) Evaluate treatment programmes and punishments for offenders [16]

c) You have been asked to develop a treatment programme for offenders to reduce car crime. What suggestions will you make? Give reasons for your answer. [8]

a) Punishments have multiple functions in society such as incapacitation, acting as deterrents, and rehabilitating the offenders, however, many offenders commit further crimes soon after being released, and in 1994 the reconviction rate was as high as 82% of released offenders. Walker & Farrington (1981) conducted a study to investigate the effectiveness of different punishments on recidivism rates by following 2069 male offenders after they had been released. The types of sentences that were studied included prison, probation and fines, and it was suggested by the results that of the various factors and variables that could influence an offenders probability of re-offending, it was the number of previous convictions that dictated which punishment would be most effective for an offender. Results provided that for those offenders with no previous convictions imprisonment was the most effective; those with one-to-four previous convictions probation was most effective; and for those with more than 5 convictions the type of punishment had no influence on recidivism rates.

One treatment programme that psychologists have developed to help deal with offenders is that of Token Economy. Token Economy systems work based on the ideas of Operant Conditioning whereby behaviours can be learned and unlearned through the use of positive re-enforcers such as sweets or phone cards. Hobbs & Holt (1976) studied the effects of implementing a Token Economy within three small juvenile delinquent centres; also studying a centre with no treatment programmes as a control group. Within these centres token were awarded for behaviours such as obeying rules, doing chores, co-operative social interactions, and appropriate behaviour. It was observed that there was a significant increase, in those institutions where the Token Economy was introduced, in desired behaviour. It was therefore suggested that using Token Economy programmes provides successful way of dealing with socially desirable behaviour in the short term (Rice et al. (1990)).

A more long-term solution for treating offenders was provided by Novaco (1975) in the form of Anger Management. Anger Management is based on the solid principles of the cognitive-behavioural approach that attempts to alter the underlying attitudes and beliefs of an offender allowing this to influence their subsequent behaviours. Anger Management programmes are consist of three distinct stages: cognitive preparation where the main focus is identification of anger and situations where anger is prevalent; skill acquisition where the focus is on developing skills to better deal with anger situations; finally, application and practice which is the repeated rehearsal of those skills. Ireland (2000) investigated the effectiveness of Anger Management programmes by studying the self-reported angry behaviours and reports from prison officers of inmates on an Anger Management course. These results were compared with a matched group of offenders who were waiting to complete the course. The results from this study showed significant reductions in angry behaviours in those offenders who had completed the course over those who had not (92% of prisoners showed improvements).

b) An initial criticism of studies in this area of research is the narrow samples that are used in the research which are not representative of the general population. As a result of this we could have problems generalising the results to offenders of different crimes, locations, races, or genders. For example Sugg et al.’s study of the effectiveness of electronic monitoring curfews sample consisted of males aged from early to late twenties, and had typically been convicted of crimes such as theft, burglary, and driving offences. In comparison the research on Token Economy by Hobbs & Holt (1976) only looked at juvenile offenders in three institutions and not at the effectiveness of the programmes in other institutions such as prisons. Even though these samples don’t represent the general population many offenders are young males so samples such as this may actually reflect the target population of generalisations.

Studies conducted to investigate the effectiveness of punishments and treatment programmes, by their nature, use participants selected from real prisons. As a result there is a large amount of ecological validity as the behaviours observed are in the natural environment and little manipulation has taken place. For example, the Walker & Farrington (1981) study followed 2069 offenders after they had been released to see how many of them re-offended. The researchers did not manipulate anything, but merely recorded the recidivism rate therefore allowing a large amount of ecological validity. Similarly, the studies on treatment programmes (Hobbs & Holt (1976) and Ireland (2000)) looked at the effectiveness of those programmes in real prisons and juvenile centres. Consequently, if studies are high in ecological validity researchers can be more confident when making generalisations to behaviour outside of the research.

Research in this area have shown that treatment programmes can be useful tools to reduce both long and short-term behaviours, therefore, suggesting definite applications to real-world situations. For example, Hobbs & Holt (1976) showed that Token Economy systems significantly lower undesirable behaviours within juvenile institutions. Further to this Ireland (2000) also showed the useful applications of cognitive-behavioural approaches such as Anger Management to lowing long-term recidivism rates in offenders. Even though research in this area has shown to have useful applications, there is little longitudinal research to investigate the long-term permanent effects of such programs.

A final problem with research into punishments and treatment programmes lies in the researchers only focusing on one variable that could be the cause of a problem; this is known as being reductionist. An example of reductionism in the research can be seen in Walker & Farrington’s (1981) research as they only suggested that the type of punishment should be related only to the number of previous convictions. Many other factors should be taken into consideration when sentencing such as type of crime, family situations, etc. In contrast some researchers identify that many variables or factors need to be looked at to provide the best chance of reducing reconviction rates. Sugg et al. suggested that punishment programmes where not enough to lower recidivism rates and that punishments should be used in conjunction with other treatment programmes (such as cognitive-behavioural approaches) to be successful.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download