Forensics

Week 8 - Intro

This can be defined as the activities of all psychologists whose work is related to and impacts the criminal justice system - this can include social/clinical/cognitive/developmental/personality psychology

Ethical principles - Numberg code, declaration of Helsinki by WMA 1964, and follow certain parameters

Have analytical and critical attitudes - examine the evidence and make use of logic

Correlational and Experimental Research (adv and disadv)

Be sceptical, but not cynical (don’t just believe but question)

Consider both individual differences and situational variables

Examine theories and beliefs empirically

Crime has a context

Week 9 - Theories and perspectives of offending

Development of Offending

Different ways to categories crime

The individual

Group and socialisation theories - peers and families

Community influence - different areas provide different opportunities for progress or crime

Societal/macro-level theories - society is structured to create crime

All of them

Social learning

“Monkey see, Monkey do” - people tend to mimic their peers behaviour - modelling: imitation of behaviour

Reinforcers - Consequences that increases the chance of a behaviour (e.g. social approval, money, sex, social inclusion, etc.)

Bandura (1977) - according to SLT people learn about behaviour through consequences. Vicarious learning or observational learning; mainly through family and friends (reinforcement)

Bandura (1963) - Bobo doll stud

This theory is useful as it explains complex behaviours and assumes most of the process is normal. However, it’s not clear why criminal behaviour is sometimes learnt or not

Cognitive theories of crime - hypothesis: low intelligence leads to poor learning skills

Poor marketable skills to earn a living, unemployment

Poor ability to avoid risks

Get caught easily

Controversial hypothesis (weak support): Cullen, Genreau, Jarjoura, and Wright (1997). They concluded that intelligence and other factors are more important

Delf-regulation and risky behaviour (crime)

ability to control your behaviour in various situations is important

some research links low self-regulation and aggression

Baumeister and Heatherton (review), 1996: proposed that failure to control impulses leads to a number of problem behaviour, including aggression and violence.

self-regulation is a (finite) resources and can potentially run out (such as gambling and drunk driving)

DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot (2007) - participants engaged in a task that supposedly uses up self-regulatory resources and were provoked. Participants who had previously employed self-regulation were more aggressive than other participants

Is free will a mental resource? - Raine (2002), suggest prefrontal deficits, low autonomic arousal, early health factors and development of aggressive and antisocial behaviour. Maybe related to psychopathy

Biological explanation

Hormones, neurotransmitters, etc.

Evidence - hormones, twin studies, etc.

Heritability of aggression about 50%, but several genes appear related to aggression

Interactionist approach

Biosocial theory of crime (Hans Eysenck) → Biological factors have a big impact on criminal behaviour, but that impact depends, to various degrees on external factor. Factors → personality and environmental produce crime

Biology → psychology → social factors → crime

A few controversial claims of the theory: Genetics, physical traits and environment

Juvenile offenders

Factors that affect offending in childhood and can combine with additional factors to increase the risk of delinquency

• More extreme, punitive ways to raise children

• lack of love or rejection

• lack of supervision

• family disruption

• Individual characteristics

• Deviant parents

Violent media (tv and gaming) and violence

Anderson and Dill (2000): university students completed a measure of trait aggressiveness. They also reported their video game playing habits. Those who reported playing violent vg in junior or high school engaged in more aggressive behaviour

Engelhardt, Bartholow, Kerr, and Bushman (2011): people who play violent video games show diminished brain responses to images of real-life violence. They became desensitized to violence. This was positively correlated with aggression.

Media and aggression, negative perceptions

The APA's task force on television, reporting in early 1992, noted the following facts:

The average child sees 100,000 acts of violence and 8,000 murders before the end of elementary school.

The rate of violence on prime-time TV is five to six incidents per hour but on Saturday mornings, it's 20 to 25.

Minorities are virtually absent and when they do show up, they are often victims or criminals.

TV has no clear effect on school achievement or academic skills.

Girls who watch the most TV have the most negative attitudes toward women.

Week 10 - Victims and fear of Crime

Social context of crime

Path from commission of the crime to punishment of the offender is complex

Crime is not simply the product of the mind of the criminal

Crime is a public issues - as the public opinion affects the criminal justice system

However public opinion is often inaccurate, especially since it is unrealistic for the public to have an accurate perception of crime rates.

fear of crime - important political concept

Gov may try influence as the less fear of crime better job they are doing.

Survey

• 21% worried about violent crime

• 15% worried about burglary

• Women more worried than men

• Belief that crime is increasing more likely to worry about crime

Crime can be influenced by direct knowledge, mass media or aspects of our personality and social characteristics

Fear-Victimisation Paradox

No clear relationship between fear of crime and victimisation rate. Most likely victims of crime

• Young males

• Men most likely to be attacked by a stranger

• Women more likely to be attacked by an acquaintance

Theories of fear of crime

Cultivation theory - assumption that mass media, (especially tv) are means of cultural transmission and affect fear of crime. Does this theory hold up:

• Relationships

• Approach is perhaps too basic - in communities where people felt unsafe local newspapers covered more crime

Available Heuristic theory - most people don’t tend to think about the risk of crime victimisation in each location know based on their stat knowledge of crime rates. The feeling is situation dependent

• Availability heuristic - the extent the media create vivid and accessible images of crime in peoples’ minds

• Contents of tv series

• Finding supported by other research

Cognitive theory - fear is hypothesised to be product of risk and seriousness. Subject victimisation: belief about the likelihood of risk of being a victim and Perceived negative impact: belief about the seriousness of the consequences of crime

• Evidence to support the theory → tested with variety of crime victims and control groups

• But evidence remains that some victims are profoundly affected by their victimisation

Victims of crimes

Increasing importance of the victims in the CJS - UN declaration of basis principle of JfVoC and abuse of Power (1985). Sympathetic treatment of rape victims and child witnesses

Victimology → Victim-offender interface. Original focus on victim characteristics that increased likelihood of victimisation. Recent focus on how psychology can help victims

Psychological Consequences of being victimised - PTSD, from reliving the event, severe anxiety, and other symptoms

PTSD - DSM V definition

Restorative justice - involves a supervised meditation meeting between the victim and the offender with a trained mediator. This allows the victim to confront the offender and explain the impact. Allowing the offender to face up the consequences and start the rehabilitation process. This has to be voluntary and both pirates need to seek a positive outcome, with respect and no degrading Aims:

• Rehabilitation of Offenders – Being punished is a passive process; restorative justice requires the offender to be an active participant in the process. It is tough for the offender to listen to the impact of their crimes on the victim and take full responsibility for their actions. The experience should reduce the likelihood of them reoffending.

• Atonement for Wrongdoing – Offenders may offer concrete compensation (money or unpaid work) or atone by showing genuine feelings of guilt and remorse.

• Victim’s Perspective – Restorative justice restores power to the victim. Their voice is heard in the legal process, and they feel that their feelings have been taken into account. Many who have been through the process report that it has reduced their feeling of being a ‘victim’ and helped them to feel safe again.

Victim decision making - victims are central to bringing crimes into CJS, 3/5 crimes in the US are reported to police by victims, the rest from other important groups: police, witnesses, etc

Factors involved in victims deciding to report a crime (Greenberg & Beach, 2001, 2004)

Talking to others about their victimisation

Type of advice given to the victim: calling the police most influential.

Type of crime: burglaries more likely than theft.

Victims’ decision making processes in property crimes: reward/cost driven, affect driven, socially driven+

Week 11 - Public attitudes to the criminal justice system

Criminal justice system - gov organisation and practices that serve to control both crime and the population. Includes:

Ministry of Justice

• Reduce reoffending

• Reduce youth crime

• Build a prison system

• Reduce the cost of legal aid

• Improve the court systems

Government agencies

Importance of public opinion

Public voice and involvement is a core principle of any democracy; without this the criminal justice system wouldn’t operate (no reporting’s, witnesses or jury)

Public opinion creates boundaries within the community will accept or support the policies.

Public opinion is important to the CJS policy; however the public need to develop an opinion based on all facts. Their knowledge about the CJS and crime rates tend to be poor & inaccurate with a few misconceptions (belief crime is increasing, lack of knowledge around sentencing, etc)

Knowledge about CJS comes from

Direct experiences - jury duty, witnesses, secondary victimisation

Indirect experiences - being vicarious victim of crime, knowing others who have been victims of crime, “common knowledge”, media

Punitiveness vs Justice

Age - older people are more punitive than younger people (Hough and Moxon 1985, Cullen et al 1985)

Gender - men more punitive and express less confidence in the CJS than women (Hough et al 1988)

Education - people with lower educational attainment have poor knowledge of CJS (Mattinson and Mirrlees-Black 2000)

Ethnicity - Black Americans more likely to find the CJS discriminatory than White Americans (Hough et al 1988)

Religion - Muslims and Hindus more likely then Christians or Buddhists to believe the police do a good job (Jansson et al 2007)

Employment - Manual workers and people with lower educational attainment are more punitive (Hough and Moxon 1985)

Ideology and attitudes

People with highly conservative beliefs favour punitive sentences (e.g. Baron & Hartnagel, 1996; Stinchcombe et al., 1980).

Highly religious people or people with fundamental religious beliefs are more likely to be punitive (e.g., Grasmick et al., 1992).

People who believe in a just world are more likely to endorse punitive punishment (e.g., Finamore et al., 1987; Palasinski & Shortalnd, 2016).

Confidence and trust in justice - CJS fairness vs effectiveness

Mori (2009) - over 75% of public have confidence in CJS respect for rights and fair treatment of accused persons, less than 25% have confidence in CJS effectiveness in reducing crime

Influence of police contact - trust in CJS generally - negative contact damaged trust wit no effect of positive contact. Trust in police specifically - positive contact improved trust

Vigilantism

PJohnston (1996) - Six elements of vigilantism

• Planning and premeditation;

• Voluntary private agents;

• Threat or use of force;

• Response to crime and social deviance;

• Personal and collective security;

• Not supported or authorised by the state.

James, Bakali and Woods (2010) - an assessment of police contact

Satisfaction with police response - 15% satisfied, 40% unsatisfied, 45% neither satisfied nor unsatisfied.

Extent of endorsement of vigilante behaviour - Higher trait anger, Poorer attitudes towards police ability, Increased tendency to employ moral disengagement strategies (Bandura, 2002),

Particularly distortion of consequences.

Week 13 - Courts and Stalking

Courts

Indictment

UK is a constitutional monarchy, prosecutions are undertaken on behalf of the state in the name of the monarch by the Crown Prosecution Service

The decision to prosecute is based of 2 tests - realistic prospect of success and public interest

Plea bargains

Forensic psychologists are involved here to make sure that the person is mentally fit to plead

Legal proceedings can be discontinued if someone’s mental health concerns’ outweigh the interest of justice

Trials - system is adversarial or accusatory rather than inquisitorial

Contest in which lawyers present a case for or against the accused and engage in cross examination

Judge acts as umpire to presentation and questioning

Onus - prosecution to present a compelling case demonstrating guilt, Defence challenges its soundness

Burden of proof; criminal - beyond reasonable doubt, civil - balance of probability

Inquisitorial system - judge has greater role in calling witnesses and questioning, lawyer is secondary. Judges acts as investigator and can direct police to gather evidence

Adversarial system

• Characteristics of Anglo-American system

• 2 advocates represents their parties positions before an impartial person or group who attempt to determine the truth of the case

• Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince the judge or jury that their perspective on the case is correct one

• Judges are impartial to ensure fair play, judges don’t actively steer the questioning of witnesses

• Lawyers are partisan and act for opposed parties, evidence must be relevant and presented orally

• Criminal defendant isn’t required to testify

Inquisitorial system

• Characteristics of Continental European system

• Legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case

• Primary objective is achieving the truth with the rights of individual secondary

• Judges can be involved from the early stages of police investigation - judge steers the legal process including the questioning of witnesses

• Those knowledgeable about the events provide info to the court

• The criminal defendant is the first to testify and knows the state’s against them

Courts hear both criminal and civil matter

Civil - county courts hear most civil matter like debt repayment, breach of contract. Family court handles matters of adoption, parental disputes. High courts hear matters like estates and mortgages. Court of appeal hears referrals

Criminal - All criminal cases start at the magistrate level. The seriousness of a case determines if it stays in the M court or moves to Crown court

Types of courts

Crown - serious (indictable only) offences. Judge and jury of 12 run by majority. Deals with appeals from magistrates courts and appeals from here go to court of appeal then to supreme court

Magistrates - Less serious (summary) offences. 2 or 3 magistrates of 1 district judge (no jury). Most common and most often there is a plea and magistrates deal with sentencing. Young people (<17) go to youth court.

Either - either way offences can be dealt with ether court, magistrates decide which

Crown court classes - crown courts divided into 3 levels of seriousness

Class 1 - Most serious, normally heard by a high court judge

Class 2 - Offences which include rape, usually heard by a circuit judge under the authority of the presiding judge

Class 3 - Includes all other offences, such as kidnapping, burglary, grievous bodily harm and robbery. Normally tried by a Circuit Judge or Recorder

The Jury

12 people who observe the trial in the crown court and decide verdict. Previously had to be unanimous in UK, not since 1967. Considered perhaps the most important institution of the CJS. Provokes a great deal of public sentiment and often referred to as the “just face of the legal system”

Role of jury - England and Wales - 2% of criminal cases are put before a jury

Jury selection - the principle of judicium parium in the Magna Carta is often caried as a guarantee to the right to a trial by one’s peers. However, it’s difficulty to decide one’s peers.

Legal criteria used to select jurors in England and Wales

Random selection from electoral role, Aged 18-70 years, Lived in UK for at least five years, since 13 years of age, Cannot be disqualified or ineligible:, Mental health issues, Anyone who has been in prison for five years or more

Youth Justice System

10 - 17 year olds and is less formal (3 magistrates or district judge), under 16 need guardian present, no jury, no members of the public (without permission), defendant called by first names. Youth rehab order has 1 - 18 requirements . Custodial sentence served in a secure children’s home, secure training centre or youth offender institute

Other courts

Coroners - Coroners are lawyers, doctors or both. Charged with looking into violent or unnatural deaths, deaths in prison and sudden deaths. Inquest is held to lay out details about who deceased is where they died and they don’t indicate blame. The come to verdict about the death occurred and can lay out some facts.

Tribunals - Courts of law dealing with employment, health and education, immigration and other issues.

Stalking

Stalking - repeated acts, experienced as unpleasantly intrusive, which create apprehension and which can be understood by a reasonable fellow citizen to be grounds for becoming fearful. - Mullen, Pathe and Purcell (2009)

UK legislation

The protection from Harassment Act 1997, first UK legislation that covered stalking. But victims felt staking was not being taken seriously. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, s.111 created 2 new offences:

• Involves fear of violence

• Involves serious alarm or distress

Definition are about context

Repeated behaviour, unwanted by victim, victim fears for safety, broad language and focus on cause or consequence of act not acts themselves

Stalking is about forcing a relationship (all good contact), forcing contact, but why try force contact

There are over 20 typologies, 3 broad categories have been used for typologies. Classification based on: Mental disorder, stalker’s prior relationship with victim, primary motivation of the stalking

Rejected stalker

Starts after relationship breakdown (usually sexual), aim to reconcile, revenge or both. Stalking continues because behaviours creates a pseudo-relationship. Most commonly perpetrated by intimate partners, but can be any close relationship (emotion) and most persistent and intrusive

Less psychotic more personality problems and substance abuse, often jealous (controlling and possessive pre and post split, clingy). Most likely to engage in intimidation

Resentful and retaliatory

Perpetrator sees self as victim of injustice. Motive is to get retribution. Behaviours designed to frighten and distress victim. Stalking persists due to positive reinforcement of acts for stalker. Typically, a short burst of activity soon after ‘injury’

Retaliatory, resentful, high rates of psychosis and substance abuse, self centred, defensive, immature and hostile

Intimacy Seekers

Trying to establish a relationship (intimate or friend). Convinced victim does or will reciprocate. Tend to be older and lonely, but can be narcissistic and feel they are due a relationship. Continues because fantasy is better than loneliness and-or intrusions become the relationship (value being in love or having a friends and overvalue any positive feedback and see hidden messages in bad feedback or makes excuses)

Positive about self, deny problems, high psychosis, low personality disorders, highly value placed on victim and self, less intrusive in pursuit, but can be violent if rejected or opposed

Incompetent suitors

Trying to establish a relationship due to loneliness or lust, Unlike Intimacy Seeker more often looking for a date or sexual encounter, Poor social skills, especially in courting, Awkward, pushy, insensitive, interpersonally inept, Feel entitled to a relationship and are indifferent to how the victim feels, From the totally impaired to the pushy caricature of man who does not see why someone would not want him

Tend to not gain satisfaction from pursuit to are quick to stop, Least persistent but most likely to recidivate with a new V Low psychosis, higher on narcissistic and obsessive, They respond well to sanctions but its difficult to keep, them from doing it again to another person and Need social skills training (general and perhaps cultural)

Predatory (Least common)

Behaviour is a means to perpetrate an attack on victim (usually sexual), Some also gain pleasure from planning (sense of control and power), Plan through following and observing. Do not want victim to be in fear, are surreptitious – no warning. Typically male, have paraphilias, substance abuse and PDs. Short pursuit, few methods, more violent

Text points out commonalities with sex offenders, Less focused on a single victim. Management - Important to identify sexual element and treat paraphilia and Need legal sanctions and potentially incarceration

Utility of typologies

Facilitate communication

Identify relationships between similar groups

• Tells us something about what is to be expected of each group

• Trajectory

• Time to desistance / risk of continued stalking

• Likelihood of violence

• Likelihood of future stalking toward another victim

• Insight into who that victim might be

• Potential risk factors (targets for management)

Guide to prognosis/risk assessment and risk management

Week 14 - Murder and Psychopathy

Psychopathy

Psychopathy - a mental disorder involving anti-social behaviour and includes low empathy, remorse and impulsive and egotistical characteristics.

Psycho and Sociopaths are often used interchangeably, but have slight variation

P - It has been argued to be innate, biologically based. Some claim they feel no remorse, guilt or empathy

S - more determined by environmental factors such as, poverty, neglect, etc. They lack empathy, guilt and remorse for people in general, but may feel attached to select individuals

Predictor factors

Low resting heart rate - well-replicated predictor of anti-social behaviour in youth in both men and women. This is heritable.

Frontal deficits in the brain - responsible for many higher-level functions. Reviews of brain imaging studies of violent and psychopathic populations (Raine, 1993; Raine and Buchsbaum , 1996; Henry and Moffitt, 1997) and can show that violent offenders have functional deficits to the anterior regions of the brain, like frontal region

Direct effects - less able to reasons and make appropriate choices in risky situations, may relate to impulsivity. Antisocial groups show poor fear conditioning, suggesting less responsive to punishment. Might lead to seeking arousal and stimulation, provided by aggressive and risky context

Early health factors - lead to damage and or underdevelopment of pre-frontal context, can lead to anti-social and aggressive behaviours and general problems with impulsivity and risk-taking

Sociopathic and Psychopathic-like individuals

Some people don’t have the innate or developmental characteristics of sociopaths, but come to engage in extreme levels of violence. May feel little to no guilt or remorse. May even enjoy it

Desensitization to violence - decrease in the psychological and physiological reaction to witnessing and engaging in aggression and violence. Exposure to violence desensitizes individuals. When this is paired with practising aggression, the person becomes capable of more extreme acts over time

Thus, sociopaths and psychopaths have lower inhibitory capacity. They probably become criminally violent after prolonged exposure aggression, either by observing it and somehow being involved in it

Rumination and the displacement of aggression in the UK gang-affiliated youth

Gang Aggression tends to be associated with murders and inter-gang violence. However, they are more complex and influenced by similar variable in non-criminal population

Displaced Aggression (DA): Aggressive action directed (displaced) towards a person or object that is NOT the original source of the provocation or negative affect.

Triggered Displaced Aggression (Pedersen, Gonzalez & Miller 2000): disproportionate levels of aggression directed at an individual who provides a minor provocation, as a function of a prior provocation.

3 situations that preclude retaliation can set the context for displacing aggression

1. The provoking situation has an immaterial source (e.g., the economy is bad).

2. The source of the provocation leaves before you retaliate (e.g., vandals damage your car and disappear before they are caught).

3. The provocateur has power over you (e.g., your boss informs you about how dumb he thinks you are).

Situations like these can leave individuals primes for aggressive responding. This influences their perception and reaction to subsequent events and increase the chances of ‘venting’ or over-reacting to what are normally just mild annoyances

Why should we expect a greater tendency to displace aggression in this population

Non-normative behaviours bring them into conflict with others, including authority figures. This leads to more aversive events that may prime them for aggression.

Social environments that produce maladaptive behaviours and lifestyles may also produce more negative affect overall (see Vigil, 1998), which also primes aggressive responding.

The previous factors may enhance rumination. Rumination has been defined as self-focused attention towards one's thoughts and feelings and their causes (Lyubomirsky &Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995).

Rumination can maintain negative affect and cognitive representations of provoking events thus keeping individuals primed for aggressive responding. Gang members are expected to ruminate more than non members because people who perceive anger as useful may be more likely to ruminate

Study

Method - A total of 310 adolescent students ( 186 males, 125 females) from 3 schools in London and complete our questionnaire. Age ranged from 14 to 16 years. They completed

1. The aggression subscale of the displaced aggression questionnaire (Denson, Pedersen & Miller, 2006).

2. Angry Rumination scale (Sukhodolsky, Golub, & Cromwell, 2001): angry afterthoughts and angry memories subscales.

3. Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992): trait physical aggression, trait hostility, trait anger.

4. 5 items from Caprara’s irritability questionnaire (Caprara, Cinanni, D'Imperio, Passerini, Renzi, & Travaglia, 1985).

5. Five additional items about displacing aggression to siblings and friends and members of others groups.

Participants indicated their agreement with three statements, using a scale ranging from 1) disagree to 5) agree:

1) I have friends that are members of a gang.

2) I spend time with people who belong in a gang.

3) I consider myself as belonging to a gang.

Results - Correlations among gang affiliation, trait aggression, trait hostility, irritability, rumination, displaced aggression (DA), gender, and trait anger.We found: A significant affiliation x rumination x gender interaction, (b = –.21), t(309) = -3.37, p= .001.

In addition, there was: a significant gender x affiliation interaction, (b = –.14), t(309) = -2.35, p= .02. A significant affiliation x rumination interaction, (b = –.13), t(309) = 3.40, p= .001.

Week 15 - Punishment

Punishment - the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for offence

Revenge - vengeful feelings and not necessarily a response to breach of law or code of conduct

Features of punishment

1. Involves the infliction of something which is assumed to be unwelcome to the recipient

2. The infliction is intentional and done for a reason

3. Those who order it are regarded as having the right to do so

4. The occasion for the infliction is an action or omission which infringes a law, rule or custom

5. The person punished has played a voluntary party in the infringement

6. The punisher’s reason for punishing is such as to offer a justification for doing so

7. It is the belief or intention of the person who orders something to be done

Behaviourism has 2 types of punishment (positive and negative punishment)

Why punish - protect society, prevent future offending, rehab, deterrent or the victim. This tends to be decided by the judge

Effective punishment

England and wales - short-term custody (<12 months) was associated with higher rates of re-offending when compared to community order and suspended sentence orders

Youth justice stats - 13,700 (38.9%) reoffended within 1 year of receiving a caution, non-custodial conviction or release from custody

Retribution - idea that the harm done to society by offender should be counterbalanced by proportionate punishment. Maintains that punishment is a ‘deserved’ consequence of earlier behaviour

Punishing is a duty of us all, punishment is deserved by the offender, punishment is not revenge, only the offender should suffer

Utilitarian theory

Common good, punishment is justified by its anticipated future consequences.

Utility of punishment

• Reduction of the frequency with which people infringe the laws and rules which make for a contented society

• Deterring offenders from offending

• Putting the offender where s/he cannot offend any longer

Punishing an offender results in greatest good for greatest number of people. It’s useful for purposes of rehab and reduction of offending.

Retributive and utilitarian traditions are both reflected in public opinion

Deterrence - people are deterred from action when they refrain from them because they dislike what they believe to be the possible consequences of those actions

Individual deterrence - deterrence of convicted offenders from re-offending

General deterrence (Lewis 1986) - “the inhibiting effect of sanctions on the criminal activity of people other than the sanctioned offender”

Humanitarian approach - offenders may come from disadvantaged backgrounds (socially and economically). Offenders may themselves have been childhood victims of criminal abuse. Given this deprivation and victimisation might argue that in a humane society offenders are indeed deserving recipients of rehab endeavours (Crow, 2001)

Week 16 - Effect of Imprisonment

Punishment can take different forms - police caution, fines, service community, prison, etc

Restorative justice

A supervised meditation meeting between victim and offender with a trained mediator. Allowing victim to confront the offender and explain the impact. Allowing the offender to face up the consequences and start the rehab process. This has to be voluntary and both parties need to seek a positive outcome, with respect and no degrading

Timeline of the UK Prison System

16-17th century - place to await trial and punishment. All offenders imprisoned together. Very poor condition (e.g. malnutrition, poor hygiene, disease, etc)

17-18th century - ‘Bloody Code’ era, transport to prison colonies with hard labour

18-19th century - imprisonment had replaced capital punishment for most serious offences. Millbank Prison (Ldn) built in 1816 (55 more built). Prison Act 1898 - abolition of hard labour, prison labour should be productive and not harmful to prisoners’ health

19-20th century - young people in separate facilities, 1933 the first open prison was built

Prison - England & Wales

71% sentenced adult males

What happens in Prison = Induction and assessment → rehab programmes, education and work → resettlement

Overcrowding

Sept 2011 - 85 establishments (63% of the estate) were overcrowded

Anecdotal evidence suggests that overcrowding leads to an increase in re-offending → can produce physio and psycho stress

Suicide in prison - Offenders entering prison have heightened risk, UK - 2 per week, US - 4x as common as the community

Homicide in prison - Murder is rare in prison in the UK, since 2005 there has been 16 homicides in prison; US rate 10x higher

Prison vs Community

Deaths due to illness and homicide were lower in prison, but suicide was higher

Towl (1996) - reducing suicide; reduce the numbers of remand prisoners and those with M.I., try avoid negative consequences for prisoners who report suicidal thoughts, enable staff to identify and assist prisoners with suicidal feelings

Bukstel & Kilman (1980) - reviewed 90 experimental studies; methodological flaws, crowding (phase of sentence and peer groups impact on personal feelings), deterioration from poor adaptation to surroundings

Effects of imprisonment - Toch (1977)

1. Privacy

2. Safety

3. Structure

4. Support

5. Emotional feedback

6. Social stimulation

7. Activity

8. Freedom

High Recidivism - possibly due to lack of needed financial resources, political climate, only recently effective treatments have been developed. BUT interventions and treatments to reduce offending and reoffending are largely unsuccessful

Redondo et al (2002) - Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of prison and community treatment programmes in Europe between 1980-1998. Differential in reoffending was 22% between the treated and untreated offenders. Best outcomes for educational programmes and cbt. Programmes in the community had the greates effects, sex offender prog had greater effects than for other crime like drug trafficking

Smith, Goggin & Gendreau (2002) - Meta analysis; Recidivism was NOT lower when prison terms were given or when longer terms were served. Lack of an impact of prison on recidivism applies to juveniles, women and other minority groups just as much as men. Little evidence to suggest that longer periods of incarceration may be associated with small increases in the amount of recidivism

Cognitive skills programmes - learn techniques of problem solving relevant especially to social interaction

Week 17 - Mental illness and offenders

Definition and diagnosis

Mental illness - variety of psychological conditions in which there’s a characteristic disabling and distressing impairment in some aspects of the psychological functioning of the individual

Mental illness means different things in law and psych, this is very common in the general population. WHO - approx 450 million people have a mental health problem. Office for National Stats Psychiatric Morbidity report - ¼ brit adults experience at least one diagnosable mental health problem in any 1 year

Mental Health Act (2007) - mental disorder - “any disorder of the mind”. Personality disorders (attitudes/beliefs/behaviours causing longstanding life problems), 3 main categories - suspicious, emotional & impulsive or anxious. People with mental disordered offenders should receive specialist treatment than be punished

Why this discrepancy

Howitt (2011) - Confounding factors

1. Socio-economic status

2. Diagnostic bias

3. Public perceptions

What kinds of diagnoses

DSM-V-TR (2022) - key published source for definitions of mental illness (e.g. bp, sz, etc)

Section 2 - diagnostic criteria and codes

DSM-IV,V-TR:

Axis 1 - clinical disorders (major depression, sz)

Axis 2 - Personality disorders, mental retardation

Axis 3 - General medical conditions

Axis 4 - Psychosocial and environmental problems

Axis 5 - Global functioning

DSM - Schizophrenia (sz)

Complex mental illness: the sufferer has problems differentiating real experiences from unreal experiences, problems thinking logically about issues and to behave as others do in social situations. No decisive differentiating feature exists and diagnosis calls for a thorough understanding of the condition and other conditions which may have some similar symptoms.

A - Characteristic symptoms - 2+ of the following must be present for a significant portion of time during a 1 month period (or less if successfully treated): Delusion, Hallucinations, Disorganised speech, Grossly disorganised or catatonic behaviour, negative symptoms

B - Social or occupational dysfunction

C – Duration of six months

D – Schizoaffective and major mood disorder exclusion

E – Substance/general mood condition exclusion

F – Relationship to Global Developmental Delay or Autism Spectrum Disorder

DSM - Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)

Mental disorder , which is characterised by persistent disregard for the rights of others and violations of these rights. Sufferers are considered deceitful and manipulative. The term is not applied to persons under 18 years of age.

A - significant impairments in personality functioning

B - Must be 18+

C - Evidence of conduct disorder from before 15

D - Antisocial behaviour isn’t present exclusively during sz or bp

E - Pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, with at least three of the following

Diagnostic bias - violence as a diagnostic criterion

DSM-1 (‘52) - 2% of diagnoses included violence as a diagnostic criterion

DSM-3 (‘80) - 47% of the psychiatric categories listed violence as a characteristic

Circularity in the diagnosis of mental illness, a person is classified as mentally ill on the basis of their behaviour. Then this diagnosis is used to explain their behaviour

Link et al (‘92)

Compared mental health patients to never-treated community residents. Controlling for socio-economic status; mental health patients had higher rates of violent and illegal behaviour. This difference was explained by psychotic symptoms.

Swanson et al (‘90) - community sample. Those who said they engaged in violent behaviour:

4x - sz or major affective disorder

14x - substance abuse

17x mental disorder and substance abuse.

Hodgins (‘92) - study of 15000 people born in Stockholm in ‘53

Men - 32% with no mental disorder, but 50% with major mental disorder were criminal

Women - 6% non-mentally ill vs 19% of mentally ill became criminals

The risks were somewhat greater for violent than for non-violent crime

Media shapes the public’s beliefs about the dangerousness of the mentally ill. Public attitudes become more negative after highly publicised violent incidents involving the mentally ill

But remember the importance of co-morbidity, which is the presence of a disease or condition additional to the one of primary interest and resulting in a combined effect. Mental illness often has co-morbidity with alcoholism and drug abuse

What else is there to consider

Clinical aspects of violence

Other factors than mental illness that affect the likelihood of violence. Mental illnesses are not all associated with violence in the same way

Mental illness is not an invariant feature of a person’s life. Change in intensity and form over time

Command hallucinations - hallucinations in which voices instruct the person to do certain acts e.g. crimes

Smith & Taylor (‘99) - study of male sz sex offenders

94% had some sort of delusions and hallucinations at the time of the offence, 51% - delusions were just coincidental and had no bearing on the attack,

25% - delusions of sexual of persecutory nature but didn’t reflect the characteristics of the sexual assault

18% - delusions that appeared to be directly related to the sexual attack

McNeil (97)

Previous history of violence is the best single predictor of future violence

Gender is a poor predictor of violence

Being victimised increases the risk of acting violently

Care-givers and nurses are at the greatest risk of violence, Poor social networks are associated with violence, Some environments are threatening, Homelessness is associated with violent behaviour, The availability of weapons increases risk

Responder to offender with mental illnesses - CJS, medical services, voluntary services, communities and family

CJS and mental illness - Police investigation → plea → trial → sentence

Interplay - problematic individuals will be diverted into 1 or the other system according to what capacity there’s in the medical system

British mental health hospital admissions correlate negatively with rate of imprisonment

End of sentence - Psychiatrists often link reduction in risk to reduction in psychiatric symptoms and compliance with medication

Week 18 - Sexual Offending

Sexual offending and the law

Sexual offences Act 2003

Rape - penetration without consent of a body part by a penis. Consent is when a person has capacity and freedom to agree to a sexual act

Other offences - assault by penetration, sexual assault, voyeuristic and up skirting

Age of consent and offences against children

UK age of consent is 16. Penetration, sexual contact and inciting children to engage is illegal when the victim is under 13. Also illegal when the victim is under 16 and perpetrator is 18+

Other offences - sexual contact with someone 16/17 may be illegal where there is an abuse of trust, familial children sexual offences, grooming, offences against a person with a mental disorder impacting capacity and indecent images of children

Other countries

Europe - varies from 14 (Portugal, Germany, Italy) to 18 (Malta, Turkey)

United States - states vary between 16 to 18

Implications for research - Studies may treat as criminal, individuals who would be acting lawfully in other jurisdictions

How common is sexual violence

Multi-country studies show global rate of sexual victimisation vary considerably (WHO, ‘12)

Lifetime prevalence of sexual partner violence reported by women aged 15-49 ranged from 5-59%

.3% to 12% of women reported sexual violence by non-partner since 15

Global rates of victimisation of other genders even harder to estimate.

Meta analysis puts global rates of child sexual abuse at 4-19% for boys and 11-22% for girls (Stolenborgh et al., 2014)

Common myths

People can usually conjure up a mental image of a typical “sex offender”

Parents are often extremely concerned about the risk of sexual assault and abduction by a stranger

Public may be concerned with so call paedophile rings or grooming gangs

Some people may believe that LGBTQ+ people pose a greater threat to children

Wortley (2009) examined misconceptions about child sexual abuse

Smallbone & Wortley (2000) and Smallbone & Wortley (2004). Myth: Parents should primarily worry about “stranger danger” - 56.5% of CSA perpetrators lived with victim, 36.9% knew child, 6.5% were strangers, 69% of offences happened in the home

Myth: Organised “paedophile rings” are responsible for a large amount of sexual offences - Prior to arrest 8% talked to other individuals who sexually offended. 4% were members of what could be be called a paedophile group

Myth: Gay people pose a greater risk to children

This belief has declined considerably since the 1970s

Stated orientation - 76% female only, 8% male only, 13% both

Victims - 72% female, 28% male

Paedophilia and Child abuse

People tend to use the terms “child molester” and paedophile interchangeably. However, not interchangeable.

Paedophilia: “a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” (WHO, 1997)

Hebophelia – around puberty

Ephebophilia – adolescent

Teleiophilia – adult

Child molestation - commits a contact sexual offence against a child, whether they have paedophilic interest or not. Often divided into two types of offending:

Incest/Intrafamilial, Less evidence of paedophilia, Lower re-offense rates, Unrelated/Extra familial, Greater risk

Prof Letourneau suggests that sexual interest in children is only one reason for sexual offending. 40-50% who commit contact offence are paedophilic (Seto, 2008)

Measuring problematic sexual interest. Traditionally measured by measuring arousal. Less direct methods are now being developed → looking at reaction times to stimuli (do people get distracted by stimuli they find sexually appealing (Ó Ciardha & Gormley, 2012))

What about people who look at indecent images of children (often referred to as child pornography)?

People apprehended for indecent images of children show greater paedophilic arousal than individuals apprehended for contact offences (Seto et al, 2006)

1 in 8 will have an officially recorded contact offence (Seto et al, 2011)

50% self report a contact offence

However-reoffending with a contact offence is less likely than individuals apprehended for contact offences

What about sexual offending perpetrated by women?

Meta analysis of results spanning 12 countries (Cortoni, Babchishin, & Rat, 2016) suggests that women account for: 2.2% of sexual offences reported to police, but 11.6% of offences in victim surveys

Many co-offend with a male co-perpetrator. Victims overwhelmingly male. Considerably lower rates of pedophilia

Why the under-reporting? - Social and cultural construction of women may see female abuse as less harmful

Sexual aggression towards adults

We tend to think of stereotypes of predator stranger-rapist when we consider assault and rape. However

Marital rape, Acquaintance rape, Date rape, Multiple perpetrator rape, Fraternities and campus-based sexual assault, Gangs, Rape in war, Prison rape

Factors implicated implicated in sexual aggression towards adults are typically characterised by: Hostile masculinity, Sociosexual orientation, Endorsement of rape myths, Alcohol use, Antisociality and Sadism (Abbey, Jacques-Tiura, & LeBreton, 2011; Knight and Sims-Knight, 2003; Malamuth & Hald, 2017)

A theory of sexual offending ~

Piece together the research findings on sexual offending into a complex causal model: It is not the only theory, But it does a good job of integrating a lot of research, It is also designed to explain offending against children and adults. But before that we take a break and consider the biological basis of sexual offending

Integrated theory of Sexual Offending (Ward & Beech, 2006, 2017)

Brain development

Latest research appears to point to pre-natal influences on sexual offending. Especially as a possible cause for the risk factor of paedophilia (e.g., the video from Dr Cantor. But also evidence for genetic influence on child molestation and rape (Långström, Babchishin, Fazel, Lichtenstein, Frisell, 2015)

However, it is not a smoking gun! (see Gannon, 2021)

Ecological niche

Refers to the social context of the individual → Own history of abuse (Glasser et al, 2001), 35% of male abusers had been victims, 11% of male non-abusers had been victims

Cultural norms facilitating sexual violence → Rape myth acceptance

Group processes → Multiple perpetrator rape, Rape in war

Clinical symptoms

Deviant arousal, emotional problems (regulating behaviour), social difficulties (need for intimacy and control) and offence-supportive cognitions

What are offence-supportive cognitions?

The literature is problematically vague (Ó Ciardha & Ward, 2013). Basically beliefs that effect how individuals see the world, Beliefs about themselves, victims and the world. But are these beliefs or excuses? (Maruna & Mann, 2006; Ó Ciardha & Gannon, 2011)

Throwing away the keys

So reoffending is low and even lower when treated. IIndividuals apprehended for a sexual offence are more likely to be convicted for a non-sexual crime (see also Hanson & Morton Bourgon, 2005).

Desistance is the other side of the coin to recidivism. A slowing down or a complete cessation of offending behaviour

Theories of desistance

Natural desistance – crime is a young man’s game

Cognitive transformation – recreating their identities through gradual or sudden change

Informal social control – stability, marriage, employment.

But does treatment really work?

Large study appeared to show opposite (Mews et al., 2017).Several studies have shown that treatment reduces sexual reoffending by about 27%-43% (Gannon et al, 2019; Marshall et al, 2013).

Especially when:

Prioritise higher risk individuals, Target criminogenic needs, Use procedures shown to be effective with particular targets, Responsive, Strengths-based (see Bonta & Andrews, 2007)

Week 19 - Rehabilitation of offenders

Reducing Crime

Various strategies employed for reducing crime:

1. Research that assesses effectiveness is very difficult: research designs have been inadequate, publication bias and bad operational definitions of recidivism

2. No relationship between serious crime and capital punishment has been found across different nations (Hood, 1996).

3. Studies on deterrence (e.g., longer sentences) show that it has little effect on recidivism. Gendreau, Giggin, and Cullen (1999) for instance, showed that in Canada, longer sentences actually increased recidivism slightly.

Punishment-based techniques are likely to work if they are unavoidable and there are alt behaviours for reaching a goal.

General research findings on treatment:

Treatment, defined in various ways, tends to have a positive effect among convicted offenders. The mean effect across interventions is small, but it includes those that weak or ineffective. There is great variability. We have found no magic bullet for treating offenders, yet.

Ineffective approaches

Vocational training without prospects for real jobs, scared-straight programs and wilderness and outdoor challenges programs

Interventions that target risk factors

Well-designed, high intensity, community based interventions most effective. Implementation is also important. Cognitive-behavioural programs focused on risk factors for criminal recidivism tend to be most effective.

Involving: interpersonal skills training, behavioural techniques such as modelling, graduated practice and role-playing, cognitive skills training, structured individual counselling for problem-solving training.

Techniques for rehabilitation

Cognitive and Behavioural treatment for recidivism

Assumes offenders are shaped and influenced by environment. They have learned maladaptive behaviours and failed to learn effective cognitive and behavioural skills for proper functioning in society.

Treatment involves problem-solving training, social-skills training, and pro-social modelling.

Treatments combining cognitive-behavioural treatments are considered most effective. Focus on behaviour is important for reducing recidivism.

Harsher approaches are not very effective.

Cognitive-behavioural techniques

Increase offenders’ insight into their actions. Model new ways of thinking and acting: including recognizing series of events and the resulting emotions, techniques for self-assessment, practise new behaviours through role-play.

Evidence - Henwood, K. S., Chou, S., & Browne, K. D. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CBT informed anger management. Aggression and violent behavior, 25, 280-292.

CBT-based anger management: reached 23% risk reduction general recidivism.

CBT based anger management: risk reduction of 28% for violent recidivism.

Treatment completion may result in a 42% risk reduction in general recidivism.

Treatment completion may result in a 56% risk reduction in violent recidivism.

Anger management may be effective in reducing risk, especially violent recidivism.

Research suggests that anger management alone tends to reduce aggression (at least in the short term). Still, more research is needed, and the most violent offenders are resistant to change. But combined with CBT, anger management is at least somewhat effective.

Why treat offenders ~

Why treat them

1. Safeguard prisoners’ health and dignity

2. Reduce long-term detrimental effects on society, hope they stop

3. Provide further perception of justice. Not every crime needs punishment

Can we cure offenders, should we still punish them?

The best research and meta-analyses show that rehabilitation works, with some types working better than others. Why is there so little effect on policy?

Backer, Liberman, and Kuchnel (1986): literature is written for researchers and not practitioners. Workshops and meetings do not involve active-directive learning.

So, investing in rehab can be important to society. Even better nutrition for children at risk of under-developing self-regulation functions can help reduce violence and aggression (see Raine, Mellingen, Liu, Venables, & Mednick, (2003).

Rehabilitation theory: Rehab is a broad term referring to the overall aims, values, principles and etiological assumptions that guide treatment of offenders.

1. More work needed, but, a good theory of offender rehabilitation should:

2. Specify the aims of therapy

3. Justify the aims based on assumptions about cause and related factors (etiology).

4. Identify clinical targets.

5. Outline treatment based on etiology and goals. Specify most suitable type of treatment, address motivation and educate therapist about best attitude to have.

Good Lives Model-Comprehensive (Ward & Gannon, 2006): has been revised from original model into a more comprehensive and systematic approach to rehabilitating sexual offenders.

With regards to sexual offending, GLM has three levels or components:

1) Set of general principles/assumptions specifying values regarding rehabilitation and the overall aims to strive for.

Humans, including offenders, have goals to seek many primary goods, which are states of affairs and of mind, personal characteristics, activities or experiences south for their own sake and that may increase psychological well-being (Ward Mann, & Gannon, 2007). Sexual offending is a socially unacceptable attempt at obtaining primary goods.

• No assumption is made as regarding humans being either ethical or unethical...we simply pursue these goods, which may lead to well-being, not necessarily morally good outcomes.

• Rehabilitation has many values, including what is best for offender, what is best for society, and the development of knowledge about the problem.

• Personal identity is important. Offenders should develop a sense of who they are and what it means to them to have a good life, and have the opportunity to exercise these in other to have a more meaningful life.

• Psychological well-being is important and primary goods need to be accessible. The conditions to acquire these goods should be nurtured.

2) Implications of assumptions for understanding and explaining offending and its functions.

Sexual abuse occurs from interaction of various causal variables...biological (inheritance, brain development; ecological niche (contextual situation, social, cultural, personal); neuropsychological. Biological and ecological niche factors can impact neuropsychological systems—motivational/emotional, perception and memory, action selection and control systems—to produce abuse.

These lead to various problems that set the context for and facilitate abuse:

Emotional problems, Empathy deficits, Social difficulties, Cognitive distortion, Deviant sexual arousal. These can combine to create a cycle that escalate and/or maintain sexual deviance.

In GLM, criminogenic needs are obstacles that block acquisition of primary goods...it is the behaviours or strategies for obtaining the goods that are problematic, not the primary goods themselves.

3) Treatment implications of focusing on goals/good, self-regulation strategies, and ecological factors.

RE: therapy, the models has 2 focus: Promoting goods and Reducing risk of re-offending

This means we want to provide sexual offenders with skills, values, attitudes, and resources for a meaningful life that has primary goods. This reflects etiological assumptions that offenders are seeking these goods.

Therapist should adopt a humanistic attitude towards offender, with respect for their capacity to change...this is a difficult thing to do, especially with regards to the worst offenders!