Behaviourists would argue that punishment is an effective suppressant of behaviour only under specific conditions; it must be probable, prompt and aversive. In the case of imprisonment, these conditions are frequently not met. First, many crimes are not solved therefore punishment may not be probable. Secondly, even if the offender is caught and convicted there may be a long delay between the committing of the offence and its eventual consequences, so punishment is rarely prompt. Lastly, the offender may have benefitted from the offence e.g. financially. It is suggested that a criminal may regard his imprisonment not as a consequence of his behaviour but as getting caught. Therefore his behaviour doesn’t change, just the steps to avoid getting caught in the future.
Apart from imprisonment there is substantial evidence that in many cases, non-custodial sentences are at least as effective as custodial ones. Firstly, a fine can be issued in which the offender is required to pay to the authorities an amount set by the court. Research suggests fines have 3 principal advantages (the system is economical as it costs little to administer and generates a source of revenue, fines don’t result in a loss of employment unlike imprisonment and fines can be imposed where other punishments are deemed inappropriate such as with a business as it would be hard to imprison an entire business).
However, a study that contradicts the advantages indentifies 2 problems with fines; the fine may be paid for by the offender’s friends or family therefore lessening the impact on the offender, and the fine may be seen as an ‘operating cost’ of offending which means paying fines may be seen as more beneficial than changing the offending behaviour e.g. a company may calculate that its cheaper to pay fines rather than clean up its act. Nevertheless, studies that support fines found that they led to a lower rate of reoffending than probation or a suspended prison sentence.
Probation is also used as a non-custodial punishment. Offenders are released into the community with the condition that they must meet certain standards or risk further imprisonment. Probation may be given with a suspended sentence or as a condition of early release from prison. If the terms are violated, it results in custody. The offender is required to be under supervision of a probation officer whom he is expected to meet regularly. Other conditions include submitting regular drug tests. To support probation, a study found that out of 857, 63% of offenders reoffended within 5 years after a custodial sentence whereas 41% reoffended within the same period after a probation sentence. Probation has some advantages over imprisonment e.g. it avoids some of the stigmatising and disruptive effects of imprisonment, it also costs considerably less. However, the effectiveness of probation depends heavily on the content of the programme.
Reparation and restitution based sentences require the offender to undertake activities that in some way ‘pay back’ the community or the victim for their crimes. With reparation the offender is required to spend a specified time participating in activities to benefit the community and restitution is where the offender is required to directly compensate the victim for their crimes. These sentences are used more in the US than the UK. A study which supports R&R examined the effectiveness of restitution in 4 different US communities; offenders were randomly given restitution or an alternative. The results shown that restitution was marginally more effective than other types of sentences but there were considerable variations depending on the nature of the community and the way the programme was managed.
Behaviour modification involves the use of operant conditioning principles to extinguish undesirable behaviours and promote desirable ones. Individual behaviour modification is not widely used in the rehabilitation of offenders, but there are some indications that it may be effective. To support this, a study devised a ‘buddy system’ in which adult volunteers were assigned to a young offender to provide reinforcement for socially acceptable ways of acting. However, whilst this appears to have improved the serious offenders’ behaviour its impact on those who had committed less serious offences was mixed.
Behaviour modification can be implemented on an institutional level though the use of token economy programmes. The management draws up a list of behaviours they wish to promote, which may include interacting positively, complying with rules, completing chores and when an offender carries one of these out, they receive a token. These may be exchanged for positive things (sweets, trips, television). In some schemes, tokens may be taken away as punishment. The reasoning behind this is that through selective reinforcement, desirable behaviour will be encouraged and undesirable behaviour will be discouraged. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of token economies suggests they have short term effects on offenders, however the improvements tend to not generalise beyond the institution in the longer term. Research supporting this disadvantage found a reduction in offending after 2 years but not after 3, and other research concluded that token economies make offenders easier to manage but they have little rehabilitative value.
Social skills training (SST) aims to equip offenders with micro skills (eye contact) and macro skills (negotiation) that allow them to avoid and deal more effectively with potential offending situations. Research suggests that offenders do learn the relevant skills but they may disappear in the long term; skills were present after 3 months but not after 6. Other research suggests that SST is generally effective if assessed using measures of behaviour and cognition but suggests that its impact on reoffending is less clear. There are signs however, that SST may have a role to play in crime prevention; it can be used to equip adolescents with the skills to resist offending.
Anger management is used to treat offenders. Research suggests that some violent offences occur because offenders can’t deal effectively with their anger. Cognitive behavioural techniques are used to help offenders deal more effectively with their feelings of anger and it aims to teach them 3 things; recognise their own feelings of anger, control their anger and resolve conflict in positive ways. Research indentifies these in more detail; they’re called Cognitive Preparation, Skills Acquisition and Application Practice. Anger management has been shown to be effective in a variety of contexts including marital conflicts but there have been few studies on its impact on offending. A study has shown for it to be effective but only if managed properly, given the right resources and targeted at the right offenders as some offenders act violently not out of anger but in order to achieve specific goals, therefore these individuals are unlikely to benefit from anger management and there are circumstances in which treatment may be counterproductive.
