Forensic Psychology

Lesson Pathway (double lessons)

Lesson Number Content
1 Offender Profiling – The top down approach
2 Offender profiling – The bottom up approach
3 Biological Explanation of offending behaviour – A historical approach.
4 Biological Explanation of offending behaviour – Genetic & neural
5 Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Eysenck’s theory
6 Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Cognitive approach
7 Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Differential
association
8 Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Psychodynamic
approach
9 Dealing with offender behaviour – Custodial sentencing & recidivism
10 Dealing with offender behaviour – Behaviour modification in custody
11 Dealing with offender behaviour – Anger management
12 Dealing with offender behaviour – Restorative Justice programmes
13 Consolidation using PLC
14 End of module test
Offender Profiling – The Top Down Approach

AO1

Offender profiling is an investigative tool employed by the police when solving a crime.
Professional profilers work with the police especially during high profile murder cases.
Methods vary but compiling a profile will usually involve scrutiny of the crime scene and
analysis of the evidence in order to generate a hypothesis about the likely characteristics of
the offender (age, background, occupation etc.)

The American approach is known as the top down approach – looking at the bigger picture
before the details. The FBI developed this approach in the 1970s. The first behaviour science
unit looked at data from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers
including Ted Bundy & Charles Manson.

This approach is also known as the Typology approach. Using the typology approach
murders and rapists are usually categorised into two categories, organised or disorganised.

Organised Crime Scene Disorganised Crime Scene

Plan the crime.
Victim is deliberately chosen.
High control over the victim.
Detached surgical precision.
Few clues left at the crime scene.
The criminals tend to be:
Above average IQ.
Skilled professional.
Socially & sexually competent.
Married with children.
Little evidence of planning.
Spontaneous crimes.
Body left at the crime scene.
Little evidence of control.
The criminals tend to be:
Lower than average IQ.
Unskilled work/unemployed.
Sexual dysfunction and failed relationships.
Often lives alone/close to where the crime
took place.

There are four main stages in the construction of an FBI profile.

Data Assimilation – The profiler reviews the evidence (photos, pathology reports).
Crime scene classification – Organised or disorganised.
Crime reconstruction – Formulate a hypothesis in terms of the sequence of events (the
behaviour of the victim).
Profile generation - Formulate a hypothesis in terms of the likely offender
(background/behaviour/looks).
AO3

However the top-down approach is best suited to certain scenes that reveal details about
the suspect, such as rape, arson, cult killings and sadistic torture. More common crimes such
as burglary or property crime do not lend themselves to offender profiling as the crime
scene reveals very little about the offender, so at best this is a limited approach.

However it is argued the top-down approach is outdated and assumes that patterns of
behaviour remain consistent. Alison et al (2002) suggests this approach is naïve and
informed by old fashioned theories of personality which sees personality as being driven by
dispositional factors rather than external factors that constantly change.

However it can be difficult to measure the effectiveness of any profiling technique

scientifically. E.g. If 10 statements about the offender are correct and 10 are incorrect then
it is difficult to establish whether this is a successful profile. For this reason, profiling has
been criticised as being too vague and little more than common sense.

However Campbell (1976) argues “psychologists confronted with real life murder mystery
can’t do any better than a college student, who could have done the same material put in
front of him.”

However evidence does not support the disorganised offender, Canter (2004) studied 100
murders using the smallest space analysis. Each was examined with reference to 39
characteristics thought to be typical of organised and disorganised killers. Although the
evidence did suggest evidence of a distinct organised type, this was not the case with
disorganised which seems to undermine the classification system. Nonetheless this system
is still used by profilers in the US and has widespread support.
Offender Profiling – The Bottom Up Approach

AO1

The British Approach to offender profiling is also known as the bottom up approach and it is
data driven rather than relying on the judgements of the profiler.

Two examples of the data driven approach are:

 Investigative Profiling
 Geographical Profiling
This was developed by David Canter a psychologist who proposed that profiling can be and
should be based on psychological theory and research. There are three main features of this
approach:

Interpersonal Coherence

People are consistent in their behaviour and therefore there will be links (correlations) with
elements of the crime and how people behave in everyday life. At the same time people’s
behaviour changes over time and therefore looking at the differences in crimes over time
may offer further clues.

Forensic Awareness

Certain behaviours reveal an awareness of particular police techniques and past experience
for example, Davis et al (1997) fund that rapists who conceal fingerprints often had a
previous conviction for burglary.

Smallest Space Analysis

Data about crime scenes and offender characteristics are correlated so that the most
common connections can be identified. For example, Salfati & Canter (1999) analysed the
co-occurrence of 48 crime scenes and offender characteristics taken from 82 UK murder
cases where the victim was a stranger. They were able to identify three underlying themes.

1. Instrumental opportunist - Instrumental refers to using murder to accomplish a

goal. Opportunist means the offender took the easiest opportunity.
2. Instrumental Cognitive means the offender had a particular concern with being
caught and so the crime was more planned out.
3. Expressive Impulsive means the offender was uncontrolled, a heat of the moment
with strong emotions, may have felt provoked by the victim.
AO3

In support, Copson (1995) surveyed 48 UK police forces that had used investigative profiling
and found that over 75% of them said the profilers advice had been useful, however only 3%
said the advice had actually helped to identify the offender. This suggests that the method
may not be that useful in actually catching offenders.

However whilst data driven profiling is more scientific than the American approach it is only
as good as the data that is input and the underlying assumptions used to work out links
between data items. One issue being the data only relates to offenders who have been
caught and therefore this tells us little about patterns of behaviour related to unsolved
crimes.

AO1 - Geographical Profiling

Canter also states that the locations of crimes can reveal information about the offender.
Geographical profiling is more concerned with where rather than who. It makes sense to
assume that offenders are more likely to commit a crime near where they live or near where
they habitually travel to because it involves less effort. Thus the location of a crime can be a
prime clue in an investigation.

Geographical profiling analyses the location of a connected series of crimes and considers
where the crime scenes were committed, the spatial relationship between different crime
scene and how they might relate to an offenders place of residence.

AO3

In support Rossmo (1999) claims whilst geographical profiling may not solve crimes
specifically it can be useful; in prioritising searches or identifying a geographical area where
DNA could be collected. However it cannot distinguish between multiple offenders in the
same area and also the method is limited to spatial behaviour (not any personality
characteristics). As such it is questionable how much it offers than the traditional method of
police placing pins on a map.

However Campbell (1976) states that “psychologists confronted with real life murder
mystery can’t do any better than a college student could of with the same material put in
front of him”. Furthermore Oleson (1996) says ‘old fashioned experience is far more
important than training in psychological profiling’.

AO1 – Circle Theory

Canter & Larkin (1993) proposed that most offenders have a spatial mind-
set; they commit crimes within a kind of imagined circle.

Marauders are offender whose home is within the geographical area in

which the crimes are committed.

Commuters are offenders who travel to another geographical area and commits crimes
within a define space around which a circle can be drawn.
AO3 – Circle theory

In support Canter & Larkin studied 45 sexual assaults and showed support for their model by
distinguishing between marauders and commenters, however 91% of offenders were
identified as marauders. If almost all of offenders are marauders, then the classification
does not seem very useful.

However Petherick (2006) pointed to a number of flaws with the model. If a person’s home
base is not actually at the centre of the circle, this means that the police may look in the
wrong place. Also representing ranges in terms of circles is oversimplified.

However Britton (1992) reviewed the CID’s impression of profiling and police responses
were negative. There was little evidence that profiles were accurate or helped with arrests.
However users stated that it had potential but should be used with caution.

In support Jackson (1993) conducted research in the Netherlands and had 20 interviews
with police who reported a high level of satisfaction, stating that profilers were better at
how to progress with investigation than at how to actually identify the offender.

However Pinizzotto & Finkel (1990) compared five groups on their ability to write profile of a
murder and a sex offence. The Groups were expert profilers, detectives with profiling
experience, detectives without profiling experience clinical psychologists, undergraduates. It
was found that profilers showed significant more accurate profile on sex offences but not as
accurate on murder as the detective without profiling experience.

AO1 - Criminal Geographical Targeting (CGT)

This is a computerised system developed by Rossmo based

on his research. The formula produces a 3D map displaying
spatial data related to time, distance and movement to
and from a crime scene. The map is called a jeopardy
surface; the different colours indicate likely closeness to
the crime scene.

AO3

However Rossmo was dismissed from Vancouver police department and they stopped used
his methods as they did not feel it enhanced police outcomes (Turvey 2011). Rossmo
however continues to promote geographical profiling and his software.
Biological Explanation of Offending Behaviour – A Historical Approach

AO1

In 1876 Lombroso published his book ‘The Criminal Man’ stating that offenders possessed
similar characteristics to lower primates and that this could explain why they became
criminals. He argued that criminals were ‘throwbacks’ to an earlier time.

Lombroso claimed that criminal types were distinguishable from the general population
because they looked different. The principle markers of criminality were a strong jaw and a
heavy brow. However, he also suggested that different types of criminal had different
features, so murderers had bloodshot eyes and curly hair, whilst sex offenders had thick lips
and protruding ears.

Empirical Evidence

Lombroso based his theory on his own research using post mortem examinations of
criminals and by studying the faces of living criminals. He made precise measurements of
skulls and other physical characteristics. This is called anthropometry (the measurements of
humans). Over his life he studied 50,000 bodies. In one study of 383 convicted criminals he
found that 21% had one atavistic trait and 43% had at least 5 traits.

Lombroso later recognised that it was unlikely that only one factor would be the cause of
criminality. He proposed that the inherited atavistic form interacted with a person’s physical
and social environment. This led Lombroso to identify three types of criminals.

1. Born criminals – Throwbacks, identifiable by their physical characteristics.

2. Insane criminals – Those suffering from mental illness.
3. Criminloids – A large, general class of offenders whose mental characteristics
predisposed them to criminal behaviour under the right circumstances.
AO3

A positive criticism of Lombroso’s work is his contribution to criminology, as some argue

that he brought science to the study of crime with the use of empirical data (Carrabine et al
2014). Lombroso is regarded as the father of modern criminology and due to his ideas that
crime should be punished less harshly a more humane view of criminal behaviour came
about; one which took biology and environment into account.

However Lombroso is criticised for the lack of controls in his research, he did not pay the
same kind of attention to non-criminals as he did to criminals; had he done so he would
have found as many non-criminals share the same characteristics of the criminals. Goring
(1913) compared 3,000 convicts with a similar sized group of non-convicts and found no
differences except the convicts were slightly smaller.
However there was a gender bias in Lombroso’s research. Whilst he did later write a book
called ‘The Criminal Woman’ he believed that women were less evolved than men, that they
were naturally jealous and insensitive to pain, but they were also passive and lower in
intelligence with a maternal instinct. All of which according to Lombroso neutralised their
negative traits and they were therefore less likely to be criminals. Those women who did
become criminals had masculine characteristics which were of more benefit to men, but in
women created a ‘monster’.

Somatotypes – AO1

Some theories of inherited criminality were based on body shape or somatotypes (soma
means body). Kretschmer (1921) suggested that there were 4 body types; these were based
on his own studies on over 4,000 criminals.

1. Asthenic/leptosomic (thin, small, weak).

2. Athletic (muscular, large–boned).
3. Pyknic (stocky, fat).
4. Dysplastic (or mixed) more than one type.
Kretschmer believed that pyknic persons were friendly, interpersonally dependent, and
gregarious. In a more extreme version of these traits, this would mean for example that the
obese are predisposed toward manic-depressive illness. Thin types were associated with
introversion and timidity. This was seen as a milder form of the negative symptoms
exhibited by withdrawn schizophrenics.

AO3

However Kretchsmer’s research has been criticised as it has never been scrutinised and
therefore it is unsure if it is based on evidence. However Glueck (1970) did find evidence for
the link between body type and criminality. They found that 60% of delinquents were
mesomorphs (roughly the same as athletic).

In support, Sheldon (1949) developed his own set of somatotypes based on research of 200
young adults; he concluded that there are differences between delinquents and non-
delinquents, delinquents tending to be mesomorphs, therefore supporting the idea that
innate criminal types can be identified by their body types.

However whilst we may mock the ideas of Lombroso, the basic notion of criminal types has
not gone away; they have just become more sophisticated (Canter 2010).
Furthermore Eysenck also suggests that we are born with the potential to become criminals,
he argues that there are certain personality types that are more likely to become criminals;
so the idea that criminality is innate still exists.

Yet more support for the innate nature of criminology can be found when looking at the link
between genetics and crime, for example Raine (1993) looked at MZ & DZ twins and found a
concordance rate of 52% for MZ twins and 21% for DZ twins for delinquency.
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour – Genetics & Neural Explanations

AO1

Genetic explanations for crime suggest that would-be offenders inherit a gene or a
combination of genes that predisposes them to crime. When investigating genetic links to
crime commonly research has looked at twin studies. Lange (1930) looked at 13 MZ
(identical) and 17 DZ (non-identical) twins where one of the pair had served timed in prison.
10 of the MZ twins and 2 of the DZ twins had a co-twin who had also served time in prison,
thus demonstrating the family link to criminality.

Christiansen (1977) looked at the concordance of criminal behaviour for 87 MZ twins and
147 DZ twins. It was found that the concordance rate for MZ twins was 33% and the
concordance rate for DZ twins was 12%. As the concordance rate for MZ twins is higher (and
they share all their genes), it would again suggest that certain genes for criminality can be
inherited. Raine (1993) reviewed 13 studies looking at the influence of genetics on
criminality and found a concordance rate for MZ twins of 52% and for DZ twins 21%, again
suggesting a genetic link.

Tihonen (2014) conducted a genetic analysis of 900 offenders which revealed abnormalities
on two genes that may be associated with violent crime.

 MAOA – Which controls dopamine and serotonin in the brain.

 Cadherin 13 (CDH13) which has been linked to Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
Individuals with this high risk combination were 13 times more likely to have a history of
violent behaviour.

AO1 Diathesis-Stress model

Current thinking is in terms of epigenetics which proposes an interplay between genetics

being ‘switched on’ or off by epigenetics (material in each cell of the body that acts like an
off/on switch to turn genes off or on). Whether or not this is ‘switched on, or off’ is affected
by environmental factors. One possible factor is maltreatment as a child. Caspi (2002) used
data from a longitudinal study that followed 1,000 men from infancy in the 1970s to the age
of 26 years when they were assessed. Caspi found that 12% of these men had low MAOA
and had also experienced maltreatment as a young child; these men were responsible for
44% of the violent convictions in the sample.

AO3

In support of the influence of gene on violent crime, Young et al claim to have found a
genetic mutation that causes violence in mice. It is suggested that a counterpart of this gene
does exist in humans, but we do not yet know its function.
However one of the major issues of using twin studies to find a link between genes and
crime is that in most cases the twins are also raised in the same environment and therefore
they are exposed to the same socialisation factors, one way to try and untangle the
nature/nurture debate is to use adoption studies. Further support for the influence of
genetics on criminality can be found by looking at adoption studies, in support of this link
Hutchings & Mednick (1975) looked at 14,000 adoptions in Denmark and found a significant
number of adopted boys with criminal convictions had biological parents (particularly
fathers) with criminal convictions. This would support the influence of genes on criminal
behaviour.

Further support for genetics comes from Crowe (1972) who found that children who were
adopted and had a biological parent with a criminal record had a 50% greater risk of having
a criminal record themselves at the age of 18 compared to adopted children without a
biological mother with a criminal record, their risk was just 5%.

However Brennan (1993) found that genetic influences were significant in cases of property
crime but not violent crime.

However research often fails to look at the difference between people who are habitually
violent or in cases of where it is a one off. The Surgeon General’s report on youth violence
(2002) concluded ‘The data do not suggest a strong role for heredity in violence’.

AO1

Neural explanations considers how structures of the brain may be different in criminals, as
well as there being differences in neurotransmitter levels. A common observation is that
criminals report having had a head injury; in general 8.5% of the US population have had a
brain injury compared to 60% of the US prison population (Harmon 2012). This would
suggest that areas of the brain are linked to an increase in aggressive and criminal
behaviour.

Raine (2004) citied 71 brain imaging studies of murderers, psychopaths and violent
individuals and found that they had a reduced function of the prefrontal cortex (an area of
the brain responsible for controlling behaviour and impulsivity). Lowered activity in this area
is associated with a loss of control and impulsive behaviour.

Raine also studies murderers who were found not guilty for reasons of insanity (NGRI) and
compared them to matched control. It was found that the experiment group of violent
individuals had abnormal asymmetries in the limbic system, particularly in the amygdala.
There was reduced activity on the left side and increased on the right side.
Seo (2008) suggests that low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin may predispose
individuals to impulsive aggressive and criminal behaviour, partly because this would usually
inhibit the prefrontal cortex.

It is argued that high levels of dopamine are associated with high levels of aggression.
Buitelaar (2003) gave anti-psychotics (which reduce dopamine) reduced aggressive
behaviour in violent delinquents.

AO3

In support of Raines findings, Volkow et al (1995) found violent psychiatric patients had
reduced cerebral blood flow to prefrontal cortex: Therefore showing the link between
neural components, aggression and crime.

However biological explanations are deterministic and assume that all behaviour is not
consciously controlled by the individual and that we lack free will. If this is the case then
should we prosecute violent individuals? For example, Mobley who killed a manager of a
pizza shop and then claimed it was due to a genetic cause and was then given death by
lethal injection, should we review the way in which we regard and punish offenders? This
could ‘give an excuse’ for aggressive individuals to commit crimes of violence.

One positive benefit of research into neural causes is that it could lead to a possible method
of treatment. For example if low levels of serotonin cause increased aggression in criminals,
then inmates in prison could be given diets to enhance their serotonin levels and therefore
decrease aggression and reduce the chance of re-offending.

In support of the role of serotonin, Scerbo & Raine (1993) looked at neurotransmitter levels
in antisocial children and adults; they found lover levels of serotonin in individuals described
as aggressive. These lower levels of serotonin were also found in people who had attempted
suicide however, they found no link between aggression and dopamine levels.
Psychological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Eysenck’s Theory

AO1

Eysenck proposed that there are identifiable personality traits and that these have a genetic
basis and that 67% of the variance for the traits was due to biology. An adult personality is a
combination of biological tendencies and learning experience. Eysenck proposed that
personality traits tend to cluster around three dimensions.

1. Extraversion – Introversion
2. Neuroticism – Stability
3. Psychoticism - Normality
Extraversion – This is determined by the overall levels of arousal in a person nervous
system. A person who is under aroused requires more stimulation, whereas as over aroused
person does not require this. Extroverts seeks seek external stimulation to increase their
cortical (brain) arousal. Introverts are more innately internally aroused and therefore seek
to reduce or avoid stimulation.

Neuroticism – This is determined by the level of stability (the amount of reactivity) in the
sympathetic nervous system. For example how much a person responds in situations of
threat (the fight/flight response). A neurotic person is someone who is slightly unstable and
reacts/gets easily upset quickly. At the opposite end of this dimension the ‘stable’
personality has a more unreactive nervous system. They are calm under pressure.

Psychoticism – This has been related to levels of testosterone, which means that men (who
have more testosterone than women) are more likely to be found at this end of the
spectrum.

The links to personality & crime can be explained in terms of arousal.

Extraverts seek more arousal and thus engage in dangerous activities such as joy riding and
other impulsive crimes. Neurotics are unstable and therefore more likely to over react in
times of threat, for example lash out when angry. Psychotic individuals are aggressive and
have less empathy and therefore this easily links to crime. Eysenck also explained crime in
terms of the outcome between innate (biological predetermined) personality &
socialisation. A person is born with a certain personality but the interaction with the
environment is key in the development of criminality. If we look at the conditioning in a
‘normal’ person, wrongdoing is avoided because of punishment and this therefore reduces
the likelihood of them behaving in deviant ways. Eysenck claimed that people who are high
in extraversion are less easily conditioned and therefore they do not tend to learn to avoid
antisocial behaviour. Eysenck devised a questionnaire known as the EPQ (Eysencks
personality questionnaire) to measure personality; he found that prison inmates score
higher on psychoticism and extroversion as well as on neuroticism (Eysenck and
Gudjonsson, 1979).
AO3

However Eysenck’s theory assumes that personality is constant, people can change
depending on the situation which they are in, for example calm at home and neurotic at
work. To support this Mischel & Peake (1982) asked family, friends & strangers to rate 63
students in a variety of situations and found almost no correlation between the traits
displayed. This means that the idea of a criminal personality is flawed as people do not
simply have ‘one’ personality.

However Eysenck and Gudjonsson’s study might be a reflection of inmates’ current prison
experience, rather than of their offending behaviour that got them into prison in the first
place. Blackburn (1993) therefore concludes that Eysenck’s theory of criminality is not well
supported despite the fact that correlates between criminal behaviour and personality traits
have been obtained.

However one could argue that Eysencks categories are reductionist. More recently
Eysenck’s personality constructs have been changed into a five factor model of personality
(McCrae & Costa 1999).

 Openness to experience
 Conscientiousness
 Extroversion
 Agreeableness
 Neuroticism
Support for Eysenck’s idea that personality has a biological basis comes from Zuckerman
(1987) who conducted twin studies. He found a +.52 correlation for MZ twins on
neuroticism compared to +.24 for DZ twins. For extraversion he found +.51 for DZ and +. 12
for DZ. This therefore does show that there is a biological basis however; Eysenck claimed
that 67% of the variance was due to genetics and this is not the case. A +.50 concordance
rate is about a 40% variance as when calculating variances you take into account the effect
of environment (phenotype) and disregard this and only consider the effect of the genotype.

In support Dunlop (2012) found extraversion & psychoticism were good predictors of
juvenile delinquency. However this study only used students and their friends (aged 15-75)
as participants and delinquency was assessed using minor offences in the previous twelve
months. One could argue therefore that this was an unrepresentative sample with an
inadequate measurement of delinquency and therefore results cannot be generalised.

Contradicting this Van Dam (2007) found that only a small number of male offenders in a
juvenile detention centre had high scores on all of Eysenck’s variables. This lack of
consistency between results would suggest that there is more to criminality than simply
personality type.
Psychological explanation of offender behaviour – The Cognitive Approach

AO1 - Cognitive Distortions

This is a form of distorted thinking, the ‘distortions’ are ways in which reality has become
twisted so what is perceived as reality no longer represents what actually is reality: The
individual however believes their perception of reality to be accurate. In the context of
criminal behaviour, the distortions allow the criminal to deny or rationalise their behaviour.
There are two cognitive distortions that we are going to look at:

 Hostile attribution bias

 Minimalisation

AO1 - Hostile attribution bias

Attribution means drawing inferences about a person’s behaviour, for example they smile,
you might think that they like you. Hostile attribution bias is when a person thinks the worse
and incorrectly interprets behaviour, for example, someone smiles and you think they are
thinking bad thoughts about you. This can lead to more aggressive behaviour.

AO3 – In support, Schonenberg (2014) showed emotionally ambiguous faces to 55 violent

offenders and compared their responses with a control group. The offenders were more
likely to interpret angry faces as an expression of aggression. It was concluded that such
misinterpretations of nonverbal cues may at least partly explain aggressive- impulsive
behaviour in susceptible individuals.

AO1 - Minimalisation

This explains how an offender may reduce negative interpretation of their own behaviour
and the impact that it has on others both before and after a crime. It helps the individual to
accept the consequences of their own behaviour and negative emotions can be reduced. An
example might be if a burglar was planning to steal from a wealthy family, the burglar might
think that it will have little or no effect on the family as they can afford it. In this way they
minimise the guilt in committing the crime.

AO3 – In support, Kennedy & Grubin (1992) found that sex offender’s accounts of their
crime downplayed their own behaviour. For example some simply denied that a crime had
taken place. However Marina & Mann (2006) argue that this is part of ‘fairly normal’
behaviour and that all people try and blame events on external sources to protect the self.
Therefore Minimalisation is not a deviant behaviour at all.

AO3 – A positive of research into cognitive distortions is that it has led to the treatment of
offenders. Heller (2013) used cognitive techniques on a group of young men from a
disadvantaged area in Chicago. Those participants who had attended 13 one hour sessions
had a 44% reduction in arrests compared to a control group. This would suggest that there is
a cognitive element in why people commit crimes.

Levels of Moral Reasoning

AO1 – Kohlberg interviewed boys & men about the reasons for their moral decisions and
constructed a stage theory of moral development. There are three stages and each is
subdivided into 2 sections (see image).

People go through the stages as a

consequence of biological maturity
and having opportunities to discuss
and develop their thinking, such as
learning to take the perception of
another person.

In a longitudinal study Kohlberg

found that 10% of adults reach the
post conventional stage, the most
common stage for adults is the
conventional stage. Adults who
break the law at the conventional
stage would feel that it was
justified as it helps to maintain relationships or society. So an offender might accept
breaking the law to protect family members or other people.

Hollin (2002) found that criminals are more likely to be at the pre-conventional level. They
believe that breaking the law is justified if the rewards outweigh the costs or if punishment
can be avoided. Most people are at this stage when they are ten years old. This fits in with
the ‘age of criminal responsibility’. In England & Wales children under the age of 20 cannot
be charged with a crime because it is believed that they do not understand moral
responsibility.

AO3 – However Colby et al (1983) conducted a 20 year longitudinal study of 58 American

males who progressed as predicted through levels 1 – 4. It was found that only 10% of
adults at the age of 30 had reached stage 5 and no evidence of stage 6 was found. This
would suggest that Kohlberg’s stage theory is not accurate for all people.

AO3 – In support of Kohlberg & Snarey (1985) conducted a meta-analysis of 44 studies from
27 cultures. Support was found for Kohlberg’s prediction through levels 1 – 4 with
individuals going through the stages in the same order and time. However stage 5 is found
more often in western cultures than rural or village cultures. This suggests that Kohlberg’s
stage theory is a reflection of western individualism and is not universal.

AO3 - Gugjonsson (2007) assessed 128 male juvenile offenders and found that 38% of them
did not consider the consequences of what they were doing and 36% of them were
confident that they would not get caught. This suggests that they were at Kohlberg’s pre-
conventional level of moral reasoning, supporting the relationship between moral reasoning
and offender behaviour. Further support was found by Chen & Howitt (2007) who used a
test based on Kohlberg’s stages in male (aged 12-18) in Taiwan. Those offenders who
showed more advanced reasoning were less likely to be involved in violent crimes.

AO3 – A limitation of Kohlberg’s research only used male participants and was therefore
androcentric. Gilligan (1982) suggested the theory is focused on the male perspective, one
of justice rather than of caring.
Psychological Explanations of Offending Behaviour – Differential Association

AO1 - Edwin Sutherland (1939) proposed Differential Association Theory suggesting that
offending behaviour can be explained entirely in terms of social learning theory. It is
regarded as a sociological theory because it suggests that people are socialised into crime.

The concept of Differential association is that people vary in the frequency with which they
associate with someone who have more or less favourable attitudes towards crime, and
their attitudes influence their own attitudes and behaviour. Sutherland believed that it
might be possible to develop a mathematical formula which would predict whether or not
someone would turn to crime; based on frequency, duration and intensity of the social
contact. The child would learn their attitude towards crime from those around them.
Furthermore the child would learn which particular types of crime are acceptable within
their community. For example they may learn that burglary is acceptable but violent crime is
not.

Attitudes and behaviours are learned from intimate personal groups such as family, friends
and peer groups. They are also learned from the wider community, for example the degree
to which the community supports or opposes criminal involvement (differential social
association). This determines the differences in crime rates from one area to another. The
individuals or social groups may not be criminals themselves but they may still hold deviant
attitudes or have an acceptance of such attitudes. Sutherland suggested the frequency,
length and personal meaning of such social associations will determine the degree of the
influence.

Sutherland did not actually suggest the mode of learning, but it is likely to be both direct and
non-direct through operant conditioning. Direct conditioning might be praise or punishment,
indirect would be vicariously (learning from the consequences of another’s behaviour). Role
models would provide opportunities to model behaviour and if the role models are
successful in their criminal activities this would provide non-direct reinforcement. Social
groups establish norms by which we define behaviour.

Sutherland’s 9 key principles of offending behaviour

1. Criminal behaviour is learned rather than inherited.

2. It is learned through association with others.
3. This association is with intimate personal groups.
4. What is learned are attitudes, techniques and motivation.
5. This learning is directions – either before or against crime.
6. If the number of favourable attitudes outweigh unfavourable ones then a person
becomes an offender.
7. The learning experiences (differential association) vary in frequency and intensity
for each individual.
8. Criminal behaviour is learned through the same process as any other behaviour.
9. General ‘need’ (for example money) is not a sufficient explanation for crime
because not everyone with these needs turn to crime.
AO3

A major positive of differential association theory is that it changed people’s views about
the origins of criminal behaviour. It was marked as an important shift from ‘blaming’
individual factors to pointing to social factors. This theory has also suggested that crime did
not need to be explained in terms of personality (mad or bad) but could be explained in
terms of social experiences. This has real world applications as learning environments can
be changed.

In support Sutherland also introduced the idea of ‘white collar crime’ which highlighted
criminal acts committed by people who would otherwise be regarded as respectable
members of the community. This therefore has removed some of the stereotyping of what a
criminal should ‘look like’.

In support Osbourne & West (1979) found that a father had a criminal conviction, 40% of
their sons had also committed a crime by the age of 18; this was compared to a control
group of sons whose fathers did not have a criminal conviction, and 18% of these had
committed a crime by the age of 18. This demonstrates the influence of role models and
frequency as factors of offending behaviour.

In support, Akers et al (1979) conducted a survey of 2,500 male & female adolescents in the
US to look at alcohol and drug behaviour. It was found that the most important influence on
this form of deviant behaviour was from peers and differential association. Differential
reinforcement and imitation accounted for a 68% variance in marijuana use and 55% of
alcohol use.

However Cox et al (2014) argue that the theory is not testable as it is difficult to untangle
learned and inherited behaviours. Nor does this theory take any biological factors into
account: Raine (2004) found that many violent individual have reduced functioning in the
pre-frontal cortex area of the brain (this is responsible for regulating emotions and morals).
Lowered activity in this area is associated with impulsiveness and a loss of control.

Furthermore Cox et al also ask how does one measure the effect of number and strength of
associations on subsequent attitudes? It is also unclear what ratio of favourable influence tip
the balance so the person becomes a criminal.

However differential association cannot explain why most offences are committed by
people under the age of 21. Surely frequency would increase with time and therefore this
theory cannot fully explain all criminal behaviour.
Psychological Explanations of Offending Behaviour – The Psychodynamic Approach

AO1

John Bowlby proposed that prolonged separation between a mother and child (without an
appropriate substitute carer) before the child was the age of 2 and a half would have long
term consequences. One of these long term effects was affectionless psychopathy (a lack of
shame, remorse, and a lack of responsibility). Bowlby worked at a child guidance clinic in
London where he regularly met and worked with children who had been caught stealing. He
observed that many of them had experienced early separation and displayed signs of
affectionless psychopathy. He compared a group of 44 thieves with a control group of 44
(none of the control group had experienced early separation whereas 39% of the
delinquents had). These delinquents that showed signs of affectionless psychopathy had the
most experiences of early separation – 89% had experienced it.

AO3

A positive criticism of Bowlby’s work is that it has real world applications in the treatment of
emotional problems in children, Bowlby suggested as progress in treating this could be slow,
that prevention was better than cure. Bowlby was one of the psychologists (along with
Robertson & Robertson) who instrumented positive changes in childcare, for example in
hospitals parents used to have to leave their child in alone and now, that deprivation is
avoided as parents can now stay in over-night with their child.

However the findings of the 44 thieves study only demonstrated a correlation between
separation and emotional problems. There may have been other variables involved, for
example discord in the family home that may have caused the issues. It could also be that
the behaviours that the children displayed (features of affectionless psychopathy) may have
been the cause of the separation; parents may have been unable to cope with their
behaviour.

AO1 Freudian Theory

In Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis he stated that personality develops from three

components, the Id, Ego and Superego. The Id is based on the pleasure principle and
present from birth (think of the devil on your shoulder metaphor). The Ego is based on the
reality principle and mediates between the Id and the Superego. The Superego operates on
the morality principle (think of the angel on your shoulder metaphor). The Id and the
Superego are in constant conflict the Ego tries to pacify these two other parts of the
personality.
According to Freud the Superego develops when a child is around four years old when the
child is either going through the Oedipus complex (boys) or the Electra complex (girls). This
is when children learn to identify with the same sex parent. Freud believed that a parent
who does not identify with the same sex parents develops a weak Superego and so has little
control over anti-social behaviour and is more likely to satisfy the basic needs of the Id.

On the other hand, the child may develop a strong identification with an overly strict
parents and the consequence of this is an over developed Superego with extreme feelings of
guilt and anxiety most of the time. The individual would commit a crime with a wish to be
caught and then the punishment would help to relieve the feelings of guilt. If a child
identifies with a deviant parent, then they would adopt the same deviant behaviours as the
parent.

AO3

However there is a great deal of gender bias in Freud’s theory, he proposed that women
develop a weaker Superego than boys as they do not identify as strongly with the same sex
parent; partly Freud said, because the resolution of the Electra complex is less satisfactory
because Freud believed that there was little reason for anyone to identify with a woman
because of her low status.

However if Freud’s views were correct then there would be more women who were
criminals than men due to their weak Superego and this is not the case. Hoffman (1975)
found that there was very little difference in the moral judgement of boys and girls but
when there was a difference, the girls tended to be more moral than the boys.

However Farrington (2009) analysed results of a 40 year longitudinal study of 400 boys in
South London looking at what makes a child become a juvenile delinquent and factors that
were an important risk factor at the ages of 8-1o years for later offending, were found to be:

 Family history, genetics and or behaviour.

 Daring or rick taking behaviour.
 Low school attainment.
 Poverty.
 Poor parenting.
Therefore demonstrating that there is no single factor that can fully and adequately explain
why some people turn to crime and why others do not.
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Custodial Sentencing and Recidivism

AO1 - The aims of custodial sentencing

To protect the public - Putting criminals into prison is necessary in the case of violent
offenders or psychopaths who many not be capable of controlling their behaviour, and the
public needs protecting.

To punish an offender & to prevent recidivism - This is essentially a behaviourist approach

to dealing with offenders. The principle being that punishment decreases the likelihood of
the behaviour being repeated again. Punishment or the threat of punishment may not work,
but it is believed by some people that this is why people do not commit crimes.

To deter others - Prison sentences should discourage others from committing crimes. If the
punishment is seen as less serious, people may be willing to take the risk and break the law.
This is a social learning approach, the idea that we learn vicariously.

To atone for wrongdoing – retribution - The victim and their friends and family wish to feel
a sense of justice being done. The offender should be seen to pay in some way for the crime
that they have committed. Just paying a fine is often seen as insufficient.

To rehabilitate offenders - Many people take the view that the only way to prevent criminal
behaviour is through some form of education or therapy, especially in the cases of offenders
with mental health issues. Having a person in prison may offer the best opportunity for
therapy as they have fewer distractions and there may be incentive for participation.

AO3

However the high rates of recidivism suggests that for at least 50% of the population that
punishment does not work. The Prison Reform Trust (2014) reports that 46% of adults are
reconvicted within a year of their release and 67% of 18 year olds are reconvicted within a
year of their release. According to behaviourist principles punishment is most effective if the
punishment happens straight away and this does not happen in the case of a custodial
sentence.

However we would also expect the custodial sentence to be a deterrent and yet US statistics
show us that murder rates in the states are not lower where there is the death penalty.
However crimes are often committed when a person is highly emotional when people do
not stop to consider what the consequences might be.

However it has been suggested that prison may increase the likelihood of reoffending.
According to Sutherlands differential association theory this should happen as offending
behaviour is a consequence of increasing association with people who have pro-criminal
attitudes. Furthermore it is argued that imprisonment may lead to lowered self-esteem,
reduced empathy for others and/or anger towards the system (Pritkin 2009).
AO1 – Psychological effects of custodial sentencing

One effect of a custodial sentence is deindividuation. Prison uniforms may lead to a loss of
personal identity and as Zimbardo’s prison experiment showed us deindividuation leads to
an increase in aggression and in treating people in inhumane ways.

Depression, self - harm & suicide - Depression can be explained in terms of helplessness.
Offenders entering a prison may initially feel quite anxious about the new and frightening
experience and hopeless about the future. Abramson (1989) suggested that depression is
caused by both helplessness and hopelessness. The Howard league for prison reform
reported 10,000 incidents of self-harm in 2008, though self-harm may also be explained in
terms of conformity. Newton (10980) argues that self-harm is a way to becoming part of the
inmate culture. Finally suicide is a risk and an outcome of depression. The greatest risk
group are single, young men in the first 24 hours.

Overcrowding & a lack of privacy - The growing prison population in the UK (in 2015 80,000
men &4,000 women were in prison) has not been matched by an increase in the number of
prisons. Recent data suggests that 25% of prisoners are in overcrowded accommodation,
with two people sharing a cell designed for one (Ministry of Justice 2012). This has an effect
on psychological well-being as demonstrated by Calhoun (1962). He put rats into over-
crowding conditions and found that it led to an increase in aggression, stress, hypersexuality
and increased physical illness.

Effects to the family - Children with a mother or father in prison are affected financially and
psychologically and the reserve is true. Many parents in prison may feel guilt and separation
anxiety (Glover 2009).

AO3

However Walker found that sentence length made little or no difference to repeat offenders
who were just as likely to reoffend no matter what their sentence was. Rates of recidivism
vary with age and crimes, younger people are more likely to reoffend and those committing
crimes such as theft and burglary are more than twice as likely to reoffend that those
committing drug or sexual offences (Home Office 2005). It is therefore argued that
sentencing such be dependent for different groups of offenders.

However the cost of prison care (9.5 billion per year) and the problems associated with it
means that some alternatives are preferred. This includes probation, fines, electronic
tagging, community service and antisocial behaviour orders. Klein (1997) found that
cautions are more effective deterrents than arrests and that for some offenders sentenced
to community rehabilitation were less likely to offend (Home Office 2005). A further
advantage of a non-custodial sentence is that some of the problems arise in prison can be
avoided by non-custodial sentences such as community service; this may be especially
advantageous for new offenders and non-violent offenders.
Managing Offending Behaviour – Modifying Behaviour - Token Economy

AO1

Operant conditioning involves the reinforcement of new behaviours. In a token economy,

prisoners are given tokens when they perform desirable behaviours such as making the bed,
following orders. These tokens can be used to obtain desirable goods such as tobacco and
food, or watching TV. The food is a primary reinforce, the items purchased with the tokens
are secondary reinforcers through being presented alongside the reinforcing stimulus
(through association – classical conditioning). Target behaviours need to be clearly specified
and there must be a hierarchy where some behaviours get more tokens than others. Simply
giving rewards is not a token economy. Punishment can also be used as a further strategy to
remove some of the undesirable behaviours. Behaviour shaping – some complex behaviours
will need to be broken down into smaller components where the individual is rewarded for
achieving each step towards the ultimate behaviour. Over time the individual is given
increasingly more complex tasks in order to gain a token.

AO1 Key Study

Hobbs & Holt observed a token economy in use at Alabama boy’s Industrial school, a state
training school for adolescent delinquents (12-15 years). The aim was to reduce
inappropriate social behaviours before and after dinner when lining up.

Procedure – The staff were given extensive training 3 x four hours and then twice weekly for
three months. This was to identify and define target behaviours, discuss methods of
observing and recording of data and to work out the logistical problems. After the training
phase there were weekly sessions to assess the operation of the programme. 125
delinquent males were observed living in 4 cottages. Cottage one was used as a control
group where boys were not given tokens. Baseline data was taken before the token
economy started for all 4 groups. The boys were told the target criteria (no smoking, doing
chores, and lining up in straight lines for dinner) and they were told how many tokens each
behaviour could earn. Each week they took the boys to a token economy store where they
could exchange their tokens for food, cigarettes etc. They could also save up their tokens for
more ‘costly’ items such as visits home or baseball games.

Findings - There was an average increase 27% for socially desirable behaviours. The control
group showed no increase

Socially desirable behaviours before Socially desirable behaviours after

programme programme
66% 91%
47% 81%
73% 94%
AO3

A positive is that compared to other programmes token economy is comparatively easy to

implement. This means that prison staff can think about what behaviours are desirable and
increase such behaviours which improves the prison environment for prisoners and prison
staff. It can also be implemented without the need for a trained psychologist and it proves a
means of controlling behaviour.

In support Buchard & Lane (1982) found that socially approved behaviours were enhanced
and criminal behaviours diminished with the use of token economy systems in prisons.

However the use of token economy fell out of popularity after the 1970s because the good
results did not continue. Use in the UK was limited to young offender institutes. Brewer
(2000) argues that token economy can improve behaviour in the short term however
research suggests that it has little effect on reducing re-offending.

However, Kirigin et al. (1982) reported on the effectiveness of the Achievement Place
programme, a home-based TEP applied to both boys and girls for crimes such as theft,
burglary, assault and vandalism and found that those on the token economy programme
were half as likely to reoffend than those who were not.

However, Rice et al. (1990) found that although the TEP introduced to 92 male inmates in a
maximum-security psychiatric hospital did result in a behaviour change, this was unrelated
to their behaviour once discharged, and so concluded that such programmes should
emphasise the skills needed post-release.

However the effectiveness of TE can be influenced by individual differences, Cohen (1971)

found that juvenile delinquents who had been trained with TE were less likely to re-offend
after one year. However Reid (1990) studied 92 men in a Canadian maximum security
psychiatric hospital and found that 50% of the men treated with TE went on to re-offend.

However there are ethical issues when using TE, one is the violation of human rights
because an individual’s behaviour us being manipulated, not always with their permission.
However Hall (1979) suggests that this can be overcome with the procedures being agreed
on by prisoners and administrators.

However it is also argued that using food or visiting rights (basic needs) as rewards is
unethical as some prisoners may not be able to control their behaviour and therefore are
denied these rewards or even necessities.
Dealing With Offending Behaviour – Anger Management

AO1

Anger management is a form of CBT. The idea being to reduce an emotional response
(anger) by reconceptualising the emotion using a range of cognitive and behaviour skills.
This has become the most common rehabilitation programme.

As anger management is a cognitive approach it aims to change cognitions (thoughts) which

then changes behaviour (hence why it is called CBT).

There are two aim of anger management:

Short term aim – To reduce anger and aggression in prisons where it is a serious issue.
Novaco (2013) describes prisons as ‘effective anger factories due to the social climate’.

Long term aim – Rehabilitation and a reduction in re-offending especially for violent
offenders.

Novaco (2011) identified three key elements for anger management:

1. Cognitive re-structuring – A greater self-awareness and control over the cognitive
dimensions of anger.
2. Regulation of arousal – Learning to control the physiological state.
3. Behavioural strategies – Such as problem solving skills, strategic withdrawal and
assertiveness training.
Novaco based his work on the stress inoculation model – the idea of being able to provide
people with a ‘vaccine’ against future ‘infections’. There are three stages in this model of
treatment.
Cognitive Preparation – This is the initial phase, the client learns about anger and how it can
be both adaptive and non-adaptive. They analyse their own patterns of anger and identify
situations which provoke anger in them.
Skill Acquisition – Clients are taught skills to help them to manage their anger such as self-
regulation, cognitive flexibility, relaxation, and communication skills (so they can resolve
conflicts assertively without being angry).
Application Training – Initially clients apply the skills they have learned in controlled and
non-threatening situations such as role play scenarios that previously made them angry.
They receive feedback from the therapist and other group members. Later clients try their
new skills out in real settings.

AO3

However it can be difficult to compare results as some of the studies last a few weeks and
others a few years. Furthermore some are ran by trained psychologists and others by prison
staff, therefore there is no consistency in the quality of anger management programmes.
However self-report measures or observations are used to assess anger before and after the
effectiveness of anger management programmes. Self-report techniques are subject to bias,
one problem being the ‘hello-goodbye effect’, where prisoners want to be helpful in
showing that the therapy worked.

However anger management programmes may not work for all offenders, some may have
difficulties in reflecting and communication and they may drop out of the sessions because
of this. An alternative is the use of drama based courses which rely less on verbal ability.
Blacker (2008) found this type of therapy to be successful.

In support, Dowden, Blanchette and Serin (1999) found that anger management
programmes were successful in reducing recidivism with high risk offenders.

However Law (1997) found that only one individual who completed an 8 session course
showed any improvement.

In support, Ireland (2004) studied 87 young male offenders. 50 received anger management
and 37 did not get anger management. All PPs completed anger questionnaires prior to the
study. After the intervention the experimental groups showed improvements in anger-
related behaviour whereas the control group did not.

However Watt et al. (1999) evaluated anger management programmes for violent offenders
in Australia. Violent male offenders already on an anger management programme were
compared with offenders on the waiting list for that programme. They were measured in
terms of anger knowledge, anger expression, observed aggressive behaviour and
misconduct in prison. They found no significant gain in scores for those who had completed
the programme compared to those on the waiting list.

However Howells et al. (2002) found very small impacts of anger management programmes
but raised the question as to whether it was the passage of time rather than the anger
management programme itself that had made such small changes.

In support, Escamilla [1998] evaluated the impact on a sample of 16 juvenile offenders who
completed a six-session group intervention into angry behaviour. In a follow-up they
reported that in the first year following completion of the course 25 per cent of the sample
were not re-convicted for an offence, 50 per cent had re-offended but were not convicted of
an aggressive offence, and 25 per cent were convicted of an aggressive offence. There were
no significant differences reported for the non-matched control group.
AO1 - Restorative Justice has the potential to address two key aims of custodial
sentencing:

1. Rehabilitation of offenders so that they do not re-offend.

2. Atonement for wrongdoing.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders

The victim has the opportunity to explain the real impact of the crime and this enables the
offender to understand the effects on the victim. Offenders may learn to take the
perspective of others which reduces the possibility of re-offending. In particular the
offender is encouraged to take responsibility for the crime and this should have an effect on
their future behaviour. Being punished is a passive process but restorative justice requires
the offender’s active participation.

Atonement

Offenders may offer concrete compensation for their crime (money or doing unpaid
voluntary community work). Most importantly the ‘atonement’ is psychological simply by
showing feelings of guilt. The victim has the opportunity to express their sense of
victimisation as they are no longer powerless and are given a voice. The victim also has the
opportunity to show their distress and this provides the offender to develop empathy.

The Victims Perspective

From the victims perspective restorative justice can reduce their sense of victimisation. The
victim may develop a greater awareness and understanding of the offender by listening to
their account which, in turn reduces the victims sense of being harmed.

A Theory of Restorative Justice

Wachtel & Mc Cold (2003) propose a theoretical framework, their starting point is that the
focus should be on relationships rather than punishment. Crime harms people and justice
requires that harm is healed as much as is possible. Early restorative justice programmes
focused on the offender and the victim, more recently it has involved the effect on the
wider community. The involvement of three stakeholders is necessary according to this
theory:

1. Victim seeks reparation.

2. Offender must take responsibility.
3. Community aims to achieve reconciliation to maintain a healthy society.
If only one stakeholder is involved then the process is only partially restorative, for example
if Government pays financial compensation. If two of the stakeholders are involved then it’s
mostly restorative, for example the offender receives therapy. Full restoration involves all
three stakeholders, for example the use of peace circles.
Peace Circles

Peace circles have been set up in many communities where violence and crime levels are
high. They aim to foster an environment of respect where the community offers support to
victims but also welcomes the offender into the circle to enable mutual understanding.
Everyone sits in chairs in a circle; a ‘talking piece’ is passed from one person to the next so
that people can speak uninterrupted. There is a ‘keeper’ whose task it is to maintain an
atmosphere of respect and offer constructive solutions (Pranis 2003).

AO3

In support of the effectiveness of restorative justice the UK Restorative Justice Council

(2015) reports 85% satisfaction from victims in face to face meetings with offenders. Further
support comes from Digman (2005) who states that victims claim a greater satisfaction from
restorative justice than when cases go through mainstream courts.

In support restorative justices has success in reducing re-offending, the UK Restorative

Justice Council (2015) report a 14% reduction in re-offending rates when compared to re-
offending rates after a custodial sentence.

In support, Sherman & Strang (2007) reviewed 20 studies of face to face meetings between
offenders and victims in the UK, Us and Australia. All studies showed a reduction of re-
offending. In one of the studies (142 males convicted of violence & property offences) there
were lower re-offending rates, only 11% re-offended compared to a matched control group
where 37% who did not receive restorative justice re-offended.

However restorative justice does not work for everyone; firstly the offender need to admit
to doing the crime. Secondly some kinds of crimes may not be suitable and finally some
victims may decline the offer to participate.

However from a victim’s point of view there are some ethical issues involved with
restorative justice, for example what if the victim actually feels worse after the process?
From the offender’s perspective, making people face up to their wrongdoings can lead to
abuses of power. Victims can ‘gang up’ on an offender, particularly if the offender is a child;
victims may try and shame the offender which is not the intention of the process. For this
reason restorative justice programmes need to be carefully balanced and ensure benefit to
both offender and victim.

A positive of restorative justice instead of a custodial sentence is that it avoids the deviant
subculture of a prison; it has been argued that offenders learn how to be more deviant by
going into the prison system.
A further positive of restorative justice instead of a custodial sentence is that the reduced
re-offending rates means that £8.00 is saved for every £1.00 spent (due to less court costs,
less police involvement, less offenders in prison), therefore restorative justice has less of a
negative impact on the economy.

Further support comes from Zehr (2002) who states that the main reason restorative justice
is that the traditional penal system did not address the needs of the victims, nor did it
promote offender accountability.

Extension – Watch this Youtube clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1s6wKeGLQk

Personal Check List

Content R O G
AO1 - Offender Profiling – The top down approach
AO3 - Offender Profiling – The top down approach
AO1 - Offender profiling – The bottom up approach
AO3 - Offender profiling – The bottom up approach
AO1 - Biological Explanation of offending behaviour – A historical approach
AO3 - Biological Explanation of offending behaviour – A historical approach
AO1 - Biological Explanation of offending behaviour – Genetic & neural
AO3 - Biological Explanation of offending behaviour – Genetic & neural
AO1 - Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Eysenck’s theory
AO3 - Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Eysenck’s theory
AO1 - Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Cognitive approach
AO3 - Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Cognitive approach
AO1 - Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Differential
association
AO3 - Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Differential
association
AO1 - Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Psychodynamic
approach
AO3 - Psychological Explanation of offending behaviour - Psychodynamic
approach
AO1 - Dealing with offender behaviour – Custodial sentencing & recidivism
AO3 - Dealing with offender behaviour – Custodial sentencing & recidivism
AO1 - Dealing with offender behaviour – Behaviour modification in custody
AO3 - Dealing with offender behaviour – Behaviour modification in custody
AO1 - Dealing with offender behaviour – Anger management
AO3 - Dealing with offender behaviour – Anger management
AO1 - Dealing with offender behaviour – Restorative Justice programmes
AO3 - Dealing with offender behaviour – Anger management

AREAS TO FOCUS ON FOR IMPROVEMENT