Textbook Notes (367,876)
Canada (161,461)
Psychology (9,695)
PSYC39H3 (201)
Chapter 4

Chapter 4 from new book

14 Pages
Unlock Document

David Nussbaum

Chapter Four: Liking Theories to Practice Bill (age 28) for armed robbery charge admitted to being high on drugs & needed $$ not 1 involvement w/ property theft o Chaotic childhood, family situations, family & friends predominantly antisocial o Dropped out of high school at Grad 10 & alcohol and drug abuse Ideology typically polarize Canadians view on how to enhance public safety 2 side debate: o Greater Rehabilitation vs. Greater Punishment Rehabilitative program / Correctional Program - structured set of methods & activities delivered by skilled staff to provide opportunities for offenders to gain new attitudes & skills in order to reduce the likelihood of reoffending Offender Rehabilitations - the delivery of correctional programming that targets criminogenic needs for the purpose of reducing rates of reoffending by program completers Custody classification is the method by which incarcerated offenders are assigned to security level o Canadian assessment method (usually) consider treatment issues & development of correctional plan throughout the offenders sentence Offenders w/ different #s & severities of criminal risk factors may warrant assignment to different security levels or custody placement & to different correctional programs to better manage their risk of escape, institutional adjustment problems & reoffending Risk Assessment the determination of risk or probability of reoffending through the systematic review of static & dynamic factors Risk Management the application of risk-assessment info to differentially allocate resources such as programming & supervision in order to manage changes in risk over time Changing Criminal Behaviour Table 4.1 presents a simiplistic guidelines for what should be increased or decresed in order to decrease crime Behaviour Rewards Cost Criminal Reduce Add Prosocial Add Reduce Over time there is shift from individual rehabilitation program to greater reliance on punishment to reduce crime Utilitarian approach people engage in crimineal beahvaioru because it pays thus to reduce crime, its cost must increase o Andrew & Bonta & others refined this to Table 4.1 to reduce rime Over dedaced U.S. focus on increasing individual cost to crime as detterent Though Canada championed before the rehabilitate approach it is losing ground here regardless of the evidence that supports it Hence, multiple efforts required to change offenders behaviour & to decrease crime Different elements of criminal justice system( e.g. court, prison) have different foci despite agreed goal of crime reduction Purposes of Sentencing Canadian Criminal Code ,section 718 sentencing is to ensure respect for law & the maintenance of just, peaceful and safe society o Expectation is that this is achieved via imposition of sanctions Other purpose include: to denounce unlawful conduct, to remove offenders from society, to assist in rehabilitation of offenders, to provide reparation to victims, to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders Via Specific deterrence & general deterrence the expectation is that sanctions by court will reduce criminal behaviours of both individuals & general population Deterrence Punishment extreme hard / world realistic underlying this approach are views that: o 1) those who commit crimes are bad o 2) criminals are unlikely to change unless compelled to do so o 3) criminals need to be dealt w/ more strictly (to get their attention) o 4) cost & consequences of committing crimes need to be made serious as possible Rehabilitation extreme soft/world liberal underlying this are views that: o 1) those who commit cries are no different than others o 2) criminals have capacity to live decent live & reform o 3) offenders have grown up in adverse surroundings & need to be presented w/ better opportunities Both of these viewpoint influence public perception of the courts Sentencing & sanctions reflect major themes of : 1) Retribution asserts that society has the right, when harmed ,to harm the offender o This harm should correspond w/ the crime (eye for eye) o From justice perspective wants social retribution than at individual level 2) Incapacitation application of crime control by removing offender ability to commit crimes by incarcerating them o Reality majority of offenders return alive to communities commission of this have limited impact o There is data consistent w/ that incapacitation is expensive method to reducing crime 3) Deterrence application of punishment to influence behaviour popular viewpoint McGuire (2004) - measured deterrence across 4 Dimension & concluded that for punishment to be effective should follow this sequence: 1) Certainty likelihood of legal punishment st o 1 punishment to target behaviour should be unavoidable 2) Celerity - amount of time that elapses b/w offence being committed & an official sanction being imposed nd o 2 application should be immediate following the target behaviour 3) Severity magnitude of punishment rd o 3 it should be severe 4) Scope the relationship b/w types of crime in states & types of punishment o Lastly is to ensure that individuals being punished cannot meet their goals via alternative manner These dimension rarely applied in systematic manner possibly diminishing effectiveness of punishment to change behaviour o E.g. delay b/w arrest & conviction result in two-for-one rule (1 day on remand = 1 day of sentence if found guilty) Look at deterrence in crime justice applications coming from 6 areas: Sentencing (in term crime statistics), Relationships b/w imprisonment & crime rates, Effects of enhanced punishers, Meta-analytic reviews of outcome studies, Self-report surveys, Research on death penalty United Kingdom research compare 2 year reconviction data by type of sentence while controlling for risk level of the offender o No difference b/w immediate custody & community penalties of reconviction rates o Similar result in meta-analysis longer sentence had 2 & 3% increase in recidivism o Suggest general deterrence does not reduce crime in that longer sentence & incarceration not highly related to recidivism If specific deterrence is effective should see association b/w activity of courts for target crimes & amount of that crime dons see this o Compared fines vs. shorter jail sentence no effect on rates of drinking & driving o No difference in crime rate in white collar crime (prison vs. no prison w/ 10 year follow up) Suggest simply getting tougher on certain type of crimes may not diminish the rates of these crimes Another deterrence approach is enhanced punisher (punish smarter) -e.g. boot camp, shock incarceration, electric surveillance, curfews, intensive supervision o Meta analysis of 29 studies w/ boot camp in U.S. found not effect in reducing criminal behaviour o Study w/ intensive supervision does not reduce crime unless it includes rehabilitation programming o Study w/ 135 outcome students mean effect size around 0 fines & reinstitution reduce recidivism but only slightly Effect of deterrence by self-report of offender o Study of shoplifting teenagers experiencing an arrest had little impact on their subsequent criminal behaviour
More Less

Related notes for PSYC39H3

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.