1 / 29

Dealing with offending behaviour

6.2 Psychology. Dealing with offending behaviour. Anger Management Programmes. Session Outline. Aim: To examine the use of offender treatment programmes and their effectiveness Learning Objectives: By the end of these sessions you will be able to:

Download Presentation

Dealing with offending behaviour

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. 6.2 Psychology Dealing with offending behaviour Anger Management Programmes

  2. Session Outline • Aim: • To examine the use of offender treatment • programmes and their effectiveness Learning Objectives: By the end of these sessions you will be able to: • Describe and evaluate Anger Management • Describe and evaluate Ireland’s (2000) study • Describe and Evaluate Restorative Justice • Discuss the effectiveness of offender treatments

  3. is a type of C B T Anger Management

  4. AO1 – Background Novaco (1975) suggests cognitive factors trigger an emotional state that turns into aggressive behaviour. Some people become angry quickly in situations that cause them anxiety or they see as being threatening. Becoming angry is reinforced as the person feels in control of the situation which reduces their anxiety .

  5. How anger management works The individual learns to identify what triggers their anger They are then taught behaviour techniques to avoid conflict

  6. Offenders sign up for a 6-12 week course with a skilled therapist Calm People Should Avoid Angry People

  7. Breakdown of Sessions 12 x 1hour over 3 days • Session 1 : Content of sessions, rules of the course. Importance of using anger diaries. • Session 2: Triggers for angry behaviour, understanding the consequences of temper loss. Anger Management Therapy With Young Male Offenders 183 • Session 3: Cycle of angry behaviour, importance of body language in signalling anger. • Session 4: Replacing aggressive body language with non-aggressive body language. • Session 5: Importance of thoughts. Using ‘non-angry’ thoughts. The parts of an angry incident i.e. before, during and after. • * Session 6: Using non-angry thoughts before, during and after angry incidents. Importance of self-praise following avoidance of anger-loss. • .

  8. Session 7: Importance of bodily arousal in relation to angry behaviour. Learning how to wind down. • Session 8: Relaxation techniques to help cope with feeling wound-up. • Session 9: Choosing how you behave towards others. • Session 10: Learning to express anger assertively. • Session 11: Recognising and dealing with criticisms and insults. Peer group pressure and how to deal with this. * Session 12: Identifying high-risk situations and lapse/relapse

  9. Research evidence suggests that this approach can be effective Keen (2000) studied young offenders who took part in an anger management programme. 8 x 2hour sessions By the end of the programme offenders reported increased awareness of their anger and better ability to control themselves 

  10. Ireland (2000) • Aim To assess whether anger-management programmes work within a group of young male offenders • Procedure Quasi experiment - Two groups Control Group (37 participants) No intervention or treatment programme Experimental Group (50 participants) Received ‘CALM’ anger management programme

  11. Sample • 50 prisoners who had completed an anger management course and a control group of 37 prisoners who had been assessed as suitable for such a course but had not actually completed one.

  12. Ireland (2000) • Procedure Each participant was measured on the following... 1. Their responses to a cognitive behavioural interview 2. Wing Behavioural Checklist (WBC) - Completed by prison officers rating 29 angry behaviours 3. Anger Management Assessment (AMA) - A self-report questionnaire on anger management with 53 items completed by the prisoners themselves

  13. Ireland (2000) • Results: There was a significant reduction in prison wing-based aggression in the experimental group but not in the control group. • Prisoners who had completed CALM rated themselves lower on the AMA questionnaire and were rated lower on the WBC by the prison officers. • There was no significant reduction in either of these measures in the control group. • 92% of the treatment group showed improvements on at least one measure of aggression, 48% showed improvement on both measures. • 8% showed no improvement or deterioration on both measures.

  14. Ireland (2000) • Conclusion • The CALM programme seemed effective and prisoners appeared to be helped by the programme. • However, there is no re-offending data so it is unclear whether these programmes have a long-term effect. • Also, the fact that 8% of prisoners appeared to get worse requires investigation.

  15. Ireland (2000)- Evaluation • Method – Quasi Experiment • This allows a cause and effect relationship to be inferred as we can assess the offenders’ aggressive behaviours before and after the intervention • However, there is a lack of control over other extraneous variables which may have affected inmates’ anger such as relationships with other inmates, news from family, etc. • Some ecological validity as carried out in the institutional setting, however it is unclear whether these results apply when prisoners are released

  16. Ireland (2000) - Evaluation • Method – (cont’d...) • It wasn’t possible to randomly assign participants to each group, so they couldn’t be matched on variables such as age or offence type • There are inherent difficulties in using self-reports in a forensic setting where there may be clear incentives for individuals to appear successful following treatment e.g., for parole purposes

  17. Ireland (2000) - Evaluation Because the sample comprised all male young offenders (mean age of 18-19 years) in a young offenders’ institution serving sentences of less than 3 months on average, the results cannot be generalised to other settings and groups such as female offenders, released offenders or those in a prison.

  18. Ireland (2000) - Evaluation This study suggests that completing the CALM programme will reduce aggressive behaviour. But , is it the prison situation that causes this effect due to prisoners wanting early release? Or has the individual’s behaviour changed for good? We cannot be sure, as there is no re-offending data.

  19. General evaluation issues • It is an eclectic approach  A M works on the cognitive, behavioural, & social level therefore it is a technique that acknowledges offending is a complex social and psychological activity • It tries to tackle causes  A M explores the reasons behind the behaviour which means change is more likely to be permanent • However, it may not be effective in the long term  Blackburn (1993) suggests it’s ineffective in the long term – maybe ‘role playing’ lacks ecological validity

  20. Furthermore Anger may not be the cause of the offending  Loza (1999) found no difference in the levels of anger between violent and non-violent offenders…this suggests AM programmes could be misguided and a waste of resources ………..especially as it is expensive and time consuming  Some prisons cannot afford to run these programmes. Sometimes the prisoners are uncooperative. It relies on the willingness of the offender to want to change their behaviour .

  21. Restorative Justice Historically a person convicted of a criminal offence would have been described as having committed a crime against the STATE. Restorative Justice programmes switch the focus to the victim. The crime is seen to be more against the individual rather than against the state.

  22. Aim: to explain and examine evidence for the process of restorative justice. Offenders should be given a variety of options rather than the custodial system – punishment doesn’t always have to mean a prison sentence The best place for offenders is the custodial system Which opinion to you agree with ?

  23. Keyword: Work in schools, workplaces and hospitals to help manage conflict between people. Restorative Justice: Is a system of dealing with criminal behaviour which focusses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with the victims. Offenders see the impact of their crime and the process empowers victims by giving them a “voice.” Usually a face to face encounter with statements from both sides Service within the community to reflect the nature of the crime Offender may give financial restitution to the victim for the damage caused Sometimes

  24. ‘crime hurts, justice should heal’ Restorative justice has to be voluntary for all parties and seeks a positive outcome. It is respectful and not degrading for either offender or victim. The key principles are ‘healing’ and ‘empowerment’ The victim takes an active role The offender takes responsibility THE AIMS: • An opportunity to explain the impact of the crime (impact statements) • An acknowledgement of the harm caused • A chance to ask questions • Acceptance of responsibility • Active rather than passive involvement of both parties The meeting is supervised by a trained mediator

  25. Key Study: Sherman & Strang(2007) Sherman & Strang's (2007) meta-analysis concluded RJ is no more harmful than the traditional justice system. It is at least equally as effective as the traditional justice system in all cases. In most cases (especially with more serious offences and with adult offenders) it is significantly more effective than the traditional justice system at lowering recidivism rates as well as lowering rates of post-traumatic stress disorder in the victims What is meant by a meta-analysis? Explain the strengths and weaknesses of conducting a meta-analysis with reference to the study above (6marks)

  26. A case of restorative justice Peter Woolf was a prolific offender, ensconced in a world of violence and depravity, who, by his own reckoning committed about 20,000 crimes. Then he burgled a house, fought with his victim and ended up in prison yet again. This time though it was different. Peter met with his victim, Will, in a restorative justice session that took place in the prison. The meeting changed both their lives for ever. Peter and Will tell their stories in this film which coincides with the launch of Peter's book, ‘The Damage Done’ published by Bantum Press and the launch of Why me? founded by Will, a campaign group set up by and for victims of crime who have benefited from restorative justice and want others to be able to benefit from the same opportunity.

  27. Evaluating Restorative Justice Are there some crimes where RJ would not be suitable? Why might some feminist groups disagree with RJ when applied to domestic violence?

  28. Limitations It depends on the offender genuinely showing remorse – some may just want to escape prison. It may be expensive, as specialist mediators are required – meetings can be set up and cancelled at the last minute as people ‘lose their nerve’. RJ is seen as a soft option by the public and politicians who want to be seen as being tough on crime – so despite it effectiveness the will to use RJ is not always there.

  29. Which method is the most suitable? Dealing with offenders: Behavioural Modification (token economy) Anger Management Restorative Justice Stand at the front, middle and back of the room based on your choice! Be prepared to defend it!!

More Related