Forensic Psychology

by Graham M Davies

  19.2.1.1 Instrumental versus Expressive Violence

  Violence is often referred to as either instrumental or expressive (Berkowitz, 1993). Instrumental violence is usually characterised as goal oriented or purposeful, controlled, and unemotional. It is often used as a means to an end. For example, an individual may use violence in the course of a robbery, to ensure that he/she is successful. Expressive violence may also be labelled reactive, angry, emotional or impulsive (McGuire, 2008). Expressive violence often occurs when an individual is attempting to decrease an unpleasant internal state – such as their anger or physiological arousal. For example, someone may commit a violent act purely because they are angry. However, aggressive acts commonly serve more than one function and may be planned, yet still involve high levels of anger (Daffern, Howells, & Ogloff, 2007).

  19.2.1.2 Intimate Partner Violence

  Intimate partner violence (IPV) or domestic violence (see Chapter 11 for a more in-depth discussion of IPV) involves the use of aggression between partners in intimate relationships. Terms such as battering, spousal abuse and marital violence are often used interchangeably to describe it (Graham-Kevan & Wigman, 2009). IPV is considered not only to include physical aggression but also to extend to acts of verbal and emotional abuse (including yelling, swearing, threats and name calling) and sexual abuse, in addition to destruction of pets and property and other coercive behaviours.

  19.2.1.3 Murder

  Dearden and Jones (2008) reports that around 40% of murder victims are killed by a family member, and nearly 25% by an intimate partner. Contrary to popular opinion, convicted murderers are extremely unlikely to be convicted of a second homicide, even without treatment. Studies have found that only between 1% and 3% of murderers are re-arrested for another murder (Bjorkly & Waage, 2005). They are also comparatively unlikely to be convicted of a further offence of any kind. Langan and Levin (2002) followed up 272,111 released U.S. prisoners and found that murderers had the lowest re-arrest rates (40.7%) compared to other groups of violent offenders. Roberts, Zgoba, and Shahidullah (2007) found the rate of violent recidivism for murderers ranged from 2% (for those committed of an accidental murder) to 16% (for those who committed a murder resulting from an altercation).

  PHOTO 19.2 A sexual offence occurs when an individual forces another to engage in sexual behaviour, exposes their genitals or sexually touches someone against their will.

  Source: © mauro_grigollo/Shutterstock

  19.2.2 Sexual Offenders

  A sexual offence occurs when an individual forces another to engage in sexual behaviour, exposes their genitals or sexually touches someone against their will, or if they engage in sexual behaviour with someone who is not of a sufficient age or does not otherwise have the ability to consent. This includes exposing sexual material to others against their will, production of sexual material depicting individuals who are not old enough to consent to sexual activity, and possession of such images. It also includes observing unsuspecting people who are naked or engaged in sexual activity (i.e. voyeurism).

  19.2.2.1 Child Sexual Offenders

  Individuals who sexually abuse children are a wide-ranging group from those who are completely paedophilic (attracted to prepubescent children), to those who are attracted to pubescent children (hebephilic), to those who are aroused to both children (typically teenagers) and adults, and to those who are aroused to adults but who abuse children for a variety of reasons to do with power, control or sense of entitlement (i.e. incestuous offenders). It is common practice in both research and reviews (Bourget & Bradford, 2008; Laws & O’Donohue, 2008) to describe sexual offenders in relation to the type of offence they committed. The term child sexual abuse is used to describe sexual activity with a child, including both familial (incestuous) and extra-familial victims. The term child abuser is commonly used in the UK and the equivalent term child molester is commonly used in North America. These terms broadly cover all those who have committed offences against children (regardless of gender and relationship to victim). Individuals who abuse children are most commonly classified according to their relationship with the victim (i.e. related/unrelated), the gender of victim they target (male/female/both) and age group (pre/post pubescent).

  19.2.2.2 Rapists

  Rape is defined as a sexual assault upon an adult usually involving, or with the intent to commit penetrative sexual acts without the victim’s permission. It has been noted that offenders who commit rapes are typically not that different from other more general offenders (Howard, Barnett, & Mann, 2015), or for that matter from non-offenders (Marshall, 2000). Early research evidence for this can be found in work by Malamuth (1981) who found in a survey of U.S. college males that 35% of the sample reported that they would be willing to rape if they were assured of not being punished.

  Rapist typologies exist that highlight the underlying motivations for rape. Generally, the overarching themes of rapist typologies focus on whether the rape was motivated by sexual or non-sexual needs (Beech, Oliver, Fisher, & Beckett, 2005; Robertiello & Terry, 2007). See Box 19.1 for a classification of rapists as outlined by Knight and Prentky (1990).

  BOX 19.1 CLASSIFICATION OF RAPISTS (ACCORDING TO KNIGHT & PRENTKY, 1990)

  Here, rapists are grouped around three motivational types: sexual motivation, anger motivation and sadistic motivation. There are two types of sexually motivated rapists identified in the system:

  The opportunistic rapist, where the offender has a number of pro- offending attitudes, including the belief that there is nothing wrong with having coercive sex with women. The sexual assault committed by this type of rapist is an impulsive, predatory act, controlled more by situational circumstances than by explicit sexual fantasy or anger.

  The non-sadistic sexual rapist, where there will be a high level of sexual fantasy that precedes the offence(s). These fantasies will reflect sexual arousal and distorted attitudes about women and sex. Typically, there may be comparatively low levels of interpersonal aggression in this type of offender, with the offender using instrumental force to ensure compliance from the victim. There are two types of anger-motivated rapist identified in the Knight and Prentky system:

  The vindictive rapist. Women are the central and exclusive focus of these men’s anger. The sexual assault is marked by behaviours that are physically damaging and intended to degrade and humiliate their victim(s). There is no evidence that anger is eroticised or that they are preoccupied with sexual fantasies. The system notes that the violence of the vindictive rapist may be so severe that it results in murder.

  The pervasively angry rapist. This type of offender is motivated by undifferentiated anger in all aspects of his life. Such offenders are equally likely to express their unmanageable aggression towards men and women. These men will have long histories of antisocial behaviour where rape is another expression of their anger and hostility. There is one further type, referred to as the sadistic sexual rapist, in this system, where there is a fusion of sex and aggression. Knight and Prentky note that here there is a frequent occurrence of erotic and destructive thoughts and fantasies, and that anger is eroticised

  19.2.2.3 Sexual Murderers

  Estimates would suggest that there are around 200 men within the prison system in the United Kingdom who have committed a murder with an apparent, or admitted, sexual motivation (A. Carter, Lifer Unit, HM Prison Service, personal communication, May 2003). For the most part, such individuals have, up until only recently, been managed within the prison system in the same way as other, nonsexual violent offenders because of their status as a murderer rather than a sex offender. It is only in the last 10–15 years that the sexual element of their crime has been formally recognised in terms of treatment provision, with men who have killed their victims (where it is suspected or known that there was a sexual component to the killing) now accounting for approximately 5% of all men going through sex offender treatment (Beech et al., 2005). See Box 19.2 for a classification of sexual murderers suggested by Beech,
et al., 2005.

  BOX 19.2 CLASSIFICATION OF SEXUAL MURDERERS

  Sadistically motivated. Here, the offender is under extreme internal compulsion to kill. The murder arises because the offender carries out his deviant/ sadistic fantasies related to sex murder. This type of sexual murderer could be seen as a more extreme version of the sadistic rapist described in Box 19.1.

  Sexually motivated. Here, the murder is motivated by the offender’s need to keep his victim quiet or to prevent detection during, or after, the commission of a sexual assault. The primary motivation in this type of offender is to sexually offend. In this way, the perpetrator either impulsively kills or has planned to kill his victim to avoid detection. Hence, this type of offender could be seen as either an extreme version of the sexually motivated opportunistic rapist (sexual assault plus impulsive murderer) or the non-sadistic sexual rapist (sexual assault plus planned murder) described above.

  Grievance motivated. Here, the murder and associated sexual attack arise out of a strong build-up of violence. This tension arises from protracted conflict with another person(s) or circumstances usually unrelated to the murder victim. This type of sexual murderer could be seen as a more extreme version of the anger driven rapists (especially the vindictive types) described in Box 19.1.

  Although sex offenders are generally discussed as falling into one of these categories, recent evidence suggests that there is crossover between sex offending and other types of offending, and even within sex offending somewhat (Howard et al., 2015). In a sample of 14,408 offenders in the UK, 24% were found to have been sanctioned for sexual offences only, but sex offenders were found to be moderately specialised in one particular type of sex offending (Howard et al., 2015). Similarly, Soothill, Francis, Sanderson, & Ackerley (2000) found that if sexual offenders committed a new sexual offence, it was most likely of the type they had previously committed.

  19.3 TREATMENT FRAMEWORKS

  19.3.1 Treatment Frameworks for Violent Offenders

  Within their review of the rehabilitation efforts with violent offenders, Polaschek and Collie (2004) usefully distinguished violent offender treatment on the basis of their theoretical approaches. They classified treatment programmes as being based on anger management, cognitive skills, interpersonal violence programmes or multi-modal approaches. Anger management and cognitive skills tend to be shorter and less intense treatment (typically less than 150 hours). They are both based on the assumption that one factor (anger or antisocial thinking) is the cause of violent behaviours. Multi-modal programmes tend to be far more intensive (typically 300+ hours) and assume that many factors are involved in the causation and maintenance of violent behaviours, targeting a large number of psychological and behaviours factors (such as social skills, thinking, substance abuse, and so on). We will now briefly describe each of these approaches in more detail.

  19.3.1.1 Anger Management

  One of the most common types of programme used with violent offenders is anger management (Novaco, 1975). Anger management programmes tend to be facilitated in groups and are brief in duration (i.e. 10–20 two-hour sessions). They typically focus on increasing the offender’s awareness of anger and its triggers, and then providing a range of skills including social skills and relaxation training to assist the offender to decrease anger arousal and strengthen anger control.

  This approach assumes that the violence was caused by, or as a consequence, of the individual’s anger. Howells (2004), for example, notes that violent acts have been labelled as angry behaviours (p. 190). However, there are studies (e.g. Mills and Kroner, 2003) that do not find support for a link between anger and violent criminal behaviours. Given that many proponents of anger management programmes also note that anger should be considered a contributing factor to violence, “particularly when occurring with a number of other conditions” (Howells, 2004, p. 189), or is not even necessary for violence to occur (such as when violence was instrumental or even sadistic), then it seems necessary to also target the other conditions and hence the need for multi-faceted treatment (Novaco, 2013; Polaschek, 2006).

  19.3.1.2 Cognitive Skills Programmes

  Cognitive skills programmes have also been used explicitly in the treatment of violent offenders (Hollin, Palmer, & Hatcher, 2013). Examples of cognitive skills programmes include Reasoning and Rehabilitation (Antonowicz, 2005), Think First (McGuire, 2005), Enhanced Thinking Skills (Clark, 2000), and the Cognitive Self-Change Model (Bush, 1995).

  These programmes are based on the notion that violent offending is caused by antisocial cognitions, and are focussed towards helping offenders to recognise their thought patterns that are conducive to crime and to acquire new ways of thinking about and solving their problems. They are facilitated in groups and tend to be brief although comparatively longer than anger management programmes. Robinson (1995) reported on a cognitive skills programme in Canada that consisted of 36 two-hour sessions. Henning and Frueh (1996) reported a mean length of 10 months’ attendance in a sample of 55 offenders completing cognitive skills programmes. Bush’s (1995) Cognitive Self-Change Model, however, has been reported to last up to three years with two sessions per week.

  Ward and Nee (2009) have argued that cognitive skills programmes are unlikely to meet the needs of serious high-risk violent offenders with their well-rehearsed and entrenched beliefs and attitudes about aggression and violence. They argue that these programmes are based upon a relatively narrow approach to changing cognitions that may not be adequate on their own for such violent offenders.

  19.3.1.3 Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Programmes

  IPV programmes have historically been educational and developed around feminist theories of why IPV occurs (see Chapter 11 for more details of this). Consequently they tend to focus on issues such as power and control, abusive/coercive behaviours within intimate relationships, and communication and stress management techniques (Graham-Kevan & Wigman, 2009), and hence IPV programmes have developed quite separately from those for generally violent men (Polaschek, 2006). This has been the result of an assumption that men who physically assault their partners are different from generally violent men. However, although Hanson and Wallace-Capretta (2000) report that IPV offenders are more likely to possess attitudes tolerant of partner assault, including attitudes related to sex roles and relationships with women, they also found that IPV offenders shared many characteristics of the generally violent offenders, such as high levels of antisocial attitudes.

  More recently, many researchers/clinicians in the field of IPV research take a gender inclusive approach (i.e. women also perpetrate violence towards men), thus it has been argued (e.g. Dixon, Archer, & Graham-Kevan, 2012; Dutton, 2006) that feminist oriented approaches are not adequate to address violence perpetrated by women while Mederos (1999) has argued that the focus of IPV programmes is too narrow and that they do not currently take into account the heterogeneity of IPV offenders; and Norlander and Eckhardt (2005) note that the relevance of alcohol abuse is often overlooked by IPV programmes.

  19.3.1.4 Multi-modal Programmes

  McGuire (2008) has noted that (on the basis of a review of effective aggression and violence treatment), “it is almost certainly necessary to increase the duration and intensity of treatment (‘dosage’) above presently inadequate levels” (p. 2591). The more recently developed multi-modal treatment programmes for high-risk violent offenders tend to be of greater intensity and target a larger and broader range of issues than do anger management or cognitive skills programmes.

  Multi-modal programmes such as the New Zealand Violence Prevention Unit (Polaschek, Wilson, Townsend, & Daly, 2005) are typically reserved for men with a history of serious violent behaviour who have been assessed as higher risk of rerecidivism. They are usually staffed by multi-disciplinary teams consisting of psychologists, custodial staff and other educational and programme staff. The duration of such programmes is usually at least 12 months, with treatment being delivered primarily in a group therapy setting wi
th additional individual treatment as is necessary.

  These programmes, at least in theory, allow for a greater level of individualisation of therapeutic targets within the treatment programme and a longer period of time in which to achieve these. These programmes also operate on the assumption that violence may have been caused by multiple issues and therefore all of these issues need to be targeted in treatment (Polaschek, 2006). In this sense they are of far greater intensity than anger management or cognitive skills programmes and target a greater range of issues.

  19.3.1.5 Treatment Content of Programmes for Violent Offenders

  A longstanding question regarding the treatment of violent offenders is whether they require specialised treatment, or if they can simply attend and benefit from more general offending programmes (Polaschek & Collie, 2004). The ultimate question is whether serious violent offenders have treatment needs that are different from that of non-violent offenders. This is complicated by the fact that non-violent high-risk offenders tend to have histories of at least one violent offence (Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005), and that risk factors or criminogenic needs for violence appear to be better predictors of non-violent reoffending (see, for example, Wong & Gordon, 2006).

  When planning for treatment, the most important factor to consider is the heterogeneity among violent offenders. Specifically, it is critical that the function of the violence for the offender and the causative and maintaining factors are well understood (Howells & Day, 2002). Given the wide range of violent behaviours, it is entirely plausible that two individuals with what appear to be very similar violent crimes may have offended for very different reasons.