Custodial Sentencing & Behaviour Modification in Custody

Custodial Sentencing

Aims of Custodial Sentencing

Custodial sentencing involves a convicted offender spending time in some form of prison or institution. The main reasons for this are as follows:

1) Deterrence – Prison should be an unpleasant experience. So someone who has gone to prison, would not want to return. The thought of prison should act as a deterrent to others and prevent them from committing crime.

2) Incapacitation – Taking a criminal out of circulation means they are unable to commit further crime, keeping society safe.

3) Retribution – Society is taking revenge on the criminal. They are paying for their crimes by having their freedom taken from them.

4) Rehabilitation – Prison can be used to reform criminal through training, education and therapy, so they leave prison a changed person.

Psychological Effects of Custodial Sentencing

A lot of research has been carried out in order to understand the effects that offender institutions have. Overall, research has found three main psychological effects on prisoners.

1) Stress and Depression – Suicide rates are higher in prison than in the general population, as are cases of self-harm. If a prisoner suffers with mental health issues before their sentence, this is likely to worsen in prison.

Dooley (1990) found that out of 442 deaths, 300 were due to suicide. Significantly more of the prisoners who had committed suicide were on remand (have not been convicted of a criminal offence and are awaiting trial following a not guilty plea). Deaths occurred mostly at night and were mainly caused by hanging themselves with bed sheets. 

2) Institutionalisation – Having adapted to the norms and values of prison life, some prisoners find it impossible to cope in the real world on their release. Some even commit crimes with the intention of being arrested and returned back to the comfort of what they know – prison.

This idea is supported by Azjen’s cognitive model – This study believes that if we can change a prisoners internal beliefs about the value of their life on the outside, they are more likely to have a positive internal belief to stay out of prison and therefore behave in a way that keeps them out of prison. Azjen believed the following:

3) Prisonisation – Similar to institutionalisation, some behaviours that are unacceptable in the outside world are encouraged and rewarded inside the walls of a prison. Prisoners learn to accept the prisoner code in order to survive, for example the unofficial hierarchy of prisoners.

Recidivism (AKA reoffending)

Statistics have shown that the UK and US have the highest recidivism rates in the world. Research has shown that 60-70% of offenders will reoffend! This is one of the biggest issues with prisons and institutions. This asks the question, should prisoners only be used to punish offenders, or should they be used to try and rehabilitate and reform. Research has also suggested, that offenders with short sentences e.g. up to 6 months, are even more likely to reoffend.

In contrast, recidivism rates are the lowest in Norway. Prisons in Norway focus heavily on rehabilitation and skills development. However, this has been criticised because it is believed to be a soft option that is not a true punishment. This may make victims feel as though they have not got the justice that they deserve. This link below has a video which gives in an insight into a prison in Norway which is based on the island of Bastoey.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18121914

Evaluation

Evaluation:

• Usefulness: The research by Dooley may support the idea that custodial sentencing is effective in meeting the requirements of retribution and incapacitation.
• Applications: There is research that supports the benefits of rehabilitation within prisons. Gillis & Nafek (2005) found that offenders who followed an employment skills program prior to finishing their sentence, were more likely to remain on conditional release and less likely to return with a new offence when compared to offenders who did not follow the employment program. At the end of the study period, 70% of the employed group remained on conditional release (have been released from prison but must follow strict rules, otherwise they go back to prison – AKA probation) compared to 55% of the unemployed group.
• Supporting research may lack validity: Prisons may not be the issue. The research by Dooley does not consider pre-existing psychological and emotional difficulties, or drug addictions. It is therefore difficult to generalise findings that apply to every prison and every prisoner and it is hard to establish whether the prison environment caused the psychological damage.
• Applications/Alternatives to custodial sentencing: You could argue that research into custodial sentencing has encouraged research into alternatives such as restorative justice and probation, this is because prison systems in the UK and US have not been very successful in preventing reoffending. Therefore, this has enabled us to have a better understanding in how to meet the aims of custodial sentencing.
• Research to support: There is research to support the psychological effects of prison – see Dooley & Azjen’s model above, You can also make reference to Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. However, the psychological issues highlighted, supports the idea that prison is not effective in rehabilitating the individual. It may be a punishment, but it does not help to reform offenders.

• Freewill and determinism: How much choice does a person have about becoming a criminal? Can we justify punishment? Some individuals are born into situations where they have little choice. For example, Fafchamps (1992) found that during a crisis of poverty in Madagascar, there was a rise in crop theft, but organised crime remained the same. This would imply that the situation forced those with little money, to steal food in order to survive. Custodial sentencing therefore, does not seem like a fitting punishment for all offenders, and therefore alternatives must be explored.

• Individual differences: Research ignores individual differences – some prisoners adapt more easily than others. In addition, the experience of prison is not the same for everyone – type of institution, sentence length and previous experience of prison, all contribute to how the person copes psychologically. The research by Dooley also did not consider pre-existing psychological and emotional difficulties. It is therefore difficult to generalise findings that apply to every prison and every prisoner.

• Usefulness is limited: One of the main aims of custodial sentencing is to protect society. However, lots of research suggests high reoffending rates. Although putting offenders in prison my protect society from harm in the first instance, the majority of offenders are coming out of prison and causing harm to society again. Therefore, incapacitation may not be an aim that is fulfilled by custodial sentencing. In addition, the idea that prison acts as a deterrent is also evidenced to not be the case.
• Social sensitivity: The treatment of prisoners is a huge controversial debate. One of the aims of custodial sentencing is to get revenge and to take away the freedom of the offender. Some individuals would argue that the offenders should suffer, others focus on rehabilitation. This sparks a great deal of emotion, especially with victims who have suffered horrific and personal crimes.
• Usefulness: The psychological effects of prisonisation may mean that custodial sentencing can actually increase the likelihood of offending, rather than decrease. This highlights that the prison systems may need to change. It could be the way prisons are run and monitored that are the issue, and not necessarily the prison itself.

Behavioural Modification In Custody

Behaviour modification utilises the behaviourist approach as a form of rehabilitation. The general aim is to replace undesirable behaviours with more desirable ones.

Token economy

This technique uses Operant conditioning by providing a reward for desirable behaviours such as: following prison rules, avoiding conflicts and fights, keeping their cell in order etc. This is a form of positive reinforcement, as the prisoners will be able to exchange their tokens with positive things such as a phone call to a loved one or being able to buy food, in the hope that the desirable behaviours will be encouraged.

This is the same technique that we have covered in schizophrenia. The primary reinforcer is the reward such as food or cigarettes, the secondary reinforcer is the token that is used to be exchanged for the reward.

This programme will be explained clearly to prisoners before it is put it place. They will also be told that if they perform undesirable behaviours, privileges will be revoked, and punishments will be put in place.

Behaviour modification works when it is clear. In prisons, those participating in token economy would have an understanding on what would be classed as a desirable behaviour, what they would need to do to in their actions, and a baseline measure would be established. Anyone who comes into contact with the offender must follow the regime. The whole programme can be overseen by prison officials who are able to monitor the effectiveness for each individual offender.

Hobbs & Holt (1976) introduced token economy with a group of young offenders across 3 behavioural units (and a fourth unit acted as a control – as they didn’t receive the token economy). They observed a significant difference in positive behaviour compared to the non-token economy group.

Evaluation

Strengths:

• Practical applications – Token economies are easy to implement and do not require specialist training like other therapies such as Anger Management or employment skills workshops.
• Individual differences – Clinton (2004) found that for maximum affect the rewards and frequency of them, needed to be individually tailored to the inmate. This may encourage desirable behaviour more effectively. One inmate may really want to speak to their family members at home and see this as a reward. Others may be completely detached from family and therefore would not see this as a reward.
• Usefulness – By assuming that desirable behaviours can be learned and undesirable behaviours can be unlearned, it helps to see prisoners as people who can be rehabilitated and have the capacity to change. This could be useful in developing further techniques to help offenders.
• Generalisability – Can be used with a number of offenders as it is focusing on rewarding general desirable behaviours

Weaknesses:

• Practical applications – However, all staff must implement them consistently which can be difficult. Some offenders may be rewarded more than others, but this may be seen as unfair.
• Usefulness is limited – It may encourage prisoners to become more sly and sneaky with their behaviour. They could be carrying out a variety of undesirable behaviours, but it isn’t being picked up by staff. This could then lead to the reinforcement of undesirable behaviours as a consequence. In addition, it could be argued that token economies may not really change behaviour – people may simply mimic or fake ‘desirable’ behaviour in order to get tokens. By focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause, it may not actually change behaviour.
• Validity – Cause and Effect – The effects they appear to produce may not be primarily due to the token economy. Patients may be responding to increased attention, planned system of activities and improved monitoring, rather than a desire to get tokens, therefore it may be difficult to assume that the token economy has caused a change in behaviour.
• Usefulness – It could be deemed less useful as it may not have long term effects. On release prisoners revert back to previous criminal behaviours because the rewards are not reinforced outside of prison. Cohen (1971) found that a group of offenders who were reinforced with token economy – 3 years later, rates of recidivism went back to reflecting national statistics.  Therefore the long-term effects of token economy can be questioned.
• Ethics – Token economies raise ethical issues. Is it ethical to withhold ‘privileges’ such as watching TV because a severely disordered person does not do what a nurse thinks is desirable? Are people’s human rights threatened when staff can control their access to food and their freedom of movement?
• Individual differences – Creating individualised behaviour modification programmes may be extremely difficult. This is due to the large number of prisoners that are in prison, and also the limited number of staff. The practical restraints would mean it could be hard to ensure that rewards are tailored to every single prisoner.