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
1-4 previous convictions
5 or more previous convictions / Imprisonment
Probation
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 be gathered again later to see if previous convictions are still a reliable way of determining which punishment would be most effective in reducing recidivism rates.
Longitudinal study: offers a way of seeing how behaviour changes over time; how recidivism rates are affected after punishment.
Useful applications: as this study shows the effectiveness of punishments based on previous conviction rates. Could be used when sentencing to give most effective punishment to offenders. / Can’t be generalised: to all crime as this study controlled crime type. Therefore, recidivism may be different for different crimes when punished in certain ways. Type of crime may be a variable we need to consider alongside previous convictions.
Validity: Unknown whether ex-convicts had committed further crimes, as they may have not been caught. This affects the validity of the recidivism rates recorded.
Reductionist: type of punishment is related to previous convictions only. May be other factors; type of crime, 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 changes over time; how recidivism rates are affected after punishment.
Useful applications: as this study shows the effectiveness of punishments based on previous conviction rates. / Validity: Unknown whether ex-convicts had committed further crimes, as they may have not been caught. This affects the validity of the recidivism rates recorded.

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 as a way of controlling prisoners.
Ecological Validity: as the study took place in a real prison there is high EV. / Sample: only looked at juvenile offenders. Can we apply this to adult offenders?

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 as a way of treating offenders. However, only really applies to those violent offenders.
Ecological Validity: as the study took place in a real prison there is high EV. / Sample: only looked at a small group of offenders, however, there was a control group which helps us infer cause and affect.
Longitudinal Research: this research is over a limited time. 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 estates that have defensible space. / Correlational: the conclusions are correlational therefore we 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 enforce Zero Tolerance. / Correlational: the conclusions are correlational therefore we 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]