Textbook Notes (363,452)
Canada (158,372)
Psychology (9,573)
PSYC39H3 (201)
Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4.docx

7 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
David Nussbaum

CHAPTER 4 – Linking Theories to Practice Changing Criminal Behaviour - table 4.1, p.108 –decreasing chances of crime - over time there’s been shift from individualized rehab programs to punishment - utilitarian model=ppl engage in criminal behaviour because crime pays reduce crime=costs must increase  refined model: rewards for crime reduced and costs increased; rewards for prosocial behaviour increase and costs decreased - rehab approach appears to be losing ground in Canada (despite evidence that it’s more effective than punishment) PURPOSES OF SENTENCING - Canadian Criminal Code: sentencing to ensure respect for law and maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society - Other key purposes: denounce unlawful conduct, remove offenders from society, assist in rehab of offenders, provide reparation to victims, and promote sense of responsibility in offenders - Obvious goal: change criminal behaviour of those coming in contact w/ courts through means of specific and general deterrence; expectation: sanctions by courts=reduce criminal behaviour of individual and general population DETERRENCE - underlying assumptions w/ punishment and rehab extremes  punishment extreme described as “hard” (realistic), views that 1) those committing crimes are bad 2) criminals unlikely to change unless compelled to 3) criminals need to be dealt w/ more strictly 4) costs and consequences of committing crimes need to be made serious  rehab extreme described as “soft” (liberal), views thatthose committing crimes no different than others  criminals have capacity to live decent lives and reform themselves  offenders grown up in adverse surroundings and need to be presented better opportunities - sentencing and sanctions reflect major themes  retribution: asserts that society has right, when harmed, to harm offender  incapacitation: application of crime control by removing offenders’ ability to commit crimes by incarcerating them  deterrence: application of punishment to influence behaviour  effectiveness of its application o measured across four dimensions: certainty, celerity, severity, and scope o maximally effective: unavoidable, immediately follow target behaviour, should be very severe o rarely applied in systematic manner=potential diminish of punishment to change behaviour - evidence for effectiveness of deterrence in criminal justice applications, from six areas 1) sentencing in terms of crime statistics 2) relationship between imprisonment and crime rates 3) effects of enhanced punishers 4) meta-analytic reviews of outcome studies 5) self-report surveys 6) research on death penalty - research  no difference between immediate custody and community penalties on reconviction rates  general deterrence didn’t reduce crime in that longer sentences and incarceration=not highly related to recidivism  if specific deterrence effective=association between activity of courts for targeted crimes and amount of that crime not the case; getting tougher on types of crime may not diminish rates of it  another deterrence strategy=punisher smarter: enhanced punishers found no effect in reducing criminal behaviour  self-report exp. arrest had little impact on subsequent criminal behaviour, majority (regardless of lvl of seriousness) weren’t arrested  death penalty no difference in frequency of capital crimes THE CANADIAN PICTURE - police-reported crime rate decreased from 1981-2007 - overall rate of juveniles and adults charged decreased (slight variations for certain groups (juvenile girls) and types of crime (property crime on the rise) - incarceration rates decreased over past two decades - table 4.4 and figure 4.1, p. 114 – canada’s situation generally better than other countries in terms of rates for different types of crime - still calling to be tougher on crime to enhance public safety - question of whether there are alternate sentencing approaches –restorative justice is model that fits this Restorative Justice - puts emphasis on wrong done to person as well as wrong done to community – healing wounds of victims, offenders, and communities - not being soft on crime, emphasizes accountability by offender and recognition of harm they caused - key elements include: 1) identifying and taking steps to repair harm 2) involving all stakeholders 3) transforming traditional relationship between communities and their governments in responding to crime - goal: restore relationship, fix damage that’s been done and prevent further crimes (voluntary participation of victim of crime, offender, and members of community in discussions - key values underlying various approaches 1) encounter: victims, offenders, and community members to meet and discuss crime and its aftermath 2) amends: expect offenders take steps to repair harm caused 3) reintegration: restore victims and offenders to whole, contributing members of society 4) inclusion: opportunities for parties w/ stake in specific crime to participate in its resolution - types of approaches 1) victim offender mediation: implied as conferencing (mediation implies parties on somewhat equal ground seeking settlement-which they’re not) 2) victim assistance: victim services 3) ex-offender assistance: often begins while offender is incarcerated and continues w/ assistance w/ integration to community 4) restitution: financial compensation to victim by offender, can include direct or tangible, or indirect or intangible 5) community service: sometimes alternative to incarceration and probably part of probation order DOES RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WORK? - work=reduction of future crime, evidenced by lowered recidivism rates for offenders - voluntary=may be selection bias - evaluation research typically incorporates multiple indices of success: victim satisfaction, offender satisfaction, restitution compliance, recidivism - two predominant approaches to evaluate research: assessing a specific program or few distinct programs, aggregate across all identified studies using meta-analysis - appears that it shows positive effects across range of dependent measures  greatest effect=restitution compliance, weakest=recidivism  may complement rehab when utilized in conjunction may further reduce reoffending Offender Rehabilitation - social and political confidence in offender rehab in Canada remains modest - most refer to Martinson’s pessimistic review of extant outcome data noting ineffectiveness of rehab as “watershed event”  prominent scholars re-analysis of his data were unsuccessful in stemming anti-rehab wave  known as period of “dark ages” in offender rehab - initial efforts at counseling mainly conducted by psychologists –expected that improved psychological functioning=yield reduced reoffending  seen dilution of role in treatment, spend more time completing risk assessments - recently counseling in CSC use para-professionals (parole and program staff w/ B.A. degrees and specialized training - increasingly popular to use para-professionals to provide structured, skill-based correctional programming  most rehab and aftercare provided by them  services address criminogenic needs - self-help groups and therapeutic communities less popular  current approach is to target and reduce criminogenic needs using cognitive-behavioural model=assists offenders to understand high-risk situations and increases skills to become prosocial WHAT DOES AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM LOOK LIKE? Risk - refers to requirement to provide higher intensity programming to higher risk offenders - two aspects important to consider: 1) providing programming to lower risk offenders may actually increase risk of reoffending 2) some minimum dosage required in order for change to occur - program intensity isn’t linearly related to risk –some very high risk may not fully benefit from it –figure 4.2, p.122 Criminogenic Need - figure 4.3, p.123 – targeting criminogenic needs - targeting it=reduction in recidivism, targeting non-criminogenic=increases recidivism - targeting multiple criminogenic needs important Responsivity - states that mode and style of treatment must be matched to learning style and abilities of offender - two types 1) general responsivity: issue of matching offenders to programming that is cognitive-behavioural and based on adult learning – figure 4.4, p.123 2) specific responsivity: offenders differ significantly in motivation and potential readiness for intervention - when risk, need, and responsivity applied consistently=greatest reductions in reoffending – figure 4.5, p.124 DESCRIBING A CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM - structured intervention that addresses factors directly linked to offenders’ criminal behaviour (correctional services of Canada (CSC)) - corrections and conditions release act – purpose is to assist rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into community as law-abiding citizens through provision of programs in penitentiaries and in community - very specific activities clearly described in standardized manuals and in training of staff such that criminal risk is potentially reduced and managed A SAMPLE OF PROGRAM CONTENT - initial off
More Less

Related notes for PSYC39H3

Log In


Don't have an account?

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.