Anger Management and Restorative Justice Programmes

Anger Management and Restorative Justice

Anger management focuses on therapeutically addressing these feelings of anger by assuming violent or criminal behaviours result from anger and frustration. Various techniques help perpetrators control and manage their feelings to reduce crime. Restorative justice programmes focus more on the retribution aspect of criminal behaviour. This programme emphasises criminals making amends for their crimes to the people they have directly affected.

Anger Management Test

Although anger is normal, adaptive human behaviour, sometimes it becomes maladaptive. Dr. DiGiuseppe has developed two psychological tests that measure dysfunctional anger: the anger disorders scale (ADS) and the anger regulation and expression scale (ARES). The former measures anger in adults and the latter in adolescents and children.

Anger Management Therapy

Anger management therapy is a cognitive behavioural therapy aiming to alter an individual’s reaction and way of thinking in response to an adverse situation that elicits anger, which is different from the ‘token economy’ solution. The aims of anger management therapy are:

1. Cognitive restructuring – allows a greater sense of self-control and awareness over their anger.

2. Regulation of arousal – to learn how to control one’s physiological state.

3. Behaviour strategies – learning different things to regulate behaviour, e.g. problem-solving skills, assertiveness, and strategic withdrawal.

Anger Management Techniques

Several techniques and methods of managing anger exist. Overall, the three phases involved in anger management therapies are:

1. Cognitive preparation includes identifying which situations cause anger and encouraging self-reflection to identify irrational thoughts and triggers.

2. Skills training involves self-regulation, relations, and cognitive flexibility using techniques advised by the therapist to help avoid potentially triggering situations and deal with them appropriately.

3. Applications training involves using the above skills in non-threatening, controlled situations to practice them for the real world.

Stress Inoculation Model

Stress inoculation therapy (SIT) is a psychotherapy technique used to help patients prepare themselves for handling stressful situations in advance. This should be successfully done with the least amount of upset feelings. In SIT, the therapist is ‘inoculating’, i.e. preparing patients to become more resistant to the stressors’ effects, just like a vaccine works against the effects of a disease.

Anger Management Exercises: Research Evidence

Several studies proved the success of the anger management exercises included in the therapy. Some studies include:

• Taylor and Novaco (2006) reviewed a few studies of anger management therapy in a meta-analysis and found 75% improvement rates.

• Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) analysed 58 studies that reviewed the effects of CBT on prisoner offenders, with 20 of them using anger control in the therapy. They found anger control was a significant factor in influencing improvement rates.

• However, Howelles et al. (2005) looked at five meta-analyses and found anger management programmes only had a small to moderate effect on improving anger control rates. Those who wanted to improve pre-treatment showed the best rates, which helped predict the results. Still, there were no statistically significant differences between the controls and the experimental groups.

• Law (1997) reported a research study where only one participant showed improvement.

Anger Management Therapy Evaluation

Overall, anger management therapies employ cognitive behavioural techniques to address anger and/or frustration to reduce acts induced by these volatile emotions. However, we need to ask whether or not these techniques are helpful or successful in addressing anger. Let us consider some strengths and weaknesses of anger management therapy.

Weaknesses

No consistent methodology for anger management therapy exists, making it hard to compare their efficacy. The duration of the therapy can vary. No accurate, standardised measurement of anger can be used to determine effectiveness since, so far, studies all use self-report scales. Self-report scales are also subject to social desirability bias, acquiescence, and misunderstandings.

Most programmes only assess anger management’s short-term effects and do not test whether the improvement lasted in the long term.

McGuire (2008) performed a meta-analysis and found there were cases of reduced re-offending a year after the anger management therapy (long term) compared to just testing participants on probation (short term). However, there’s a good chance that this type of success (improvement in anger) is not just in response to anger management therapy but also due to having some kind of general support from treatment, i.e. someone there to listen to you and be there. Then, when this goes away at the end of the programme, the support system is lost.

The therapy requires personal motivation for one to complete and benefit from it. Studies that include some other sort of benefit, e.g. release from prison for offenders on probation, lack validity.

Strengths

The previously mentioned studies provide research support for the effectiveness of anger management therapy.

Now consider the following two studies.

Ireland (2004) conducted a long-term study with 87 offenders who were young males. There was a baseline measurement of anger using a self-report questionnaire. A staff member also assessed each participant. There were 50 participants in the experimental group and 37 in the control group.

Treatment comprised 12 one-hour sessions over three days. The participant was re-assessed (self and staff) after eight weeks. They found significant improvements in the experimental group of 92%, 8% worse after treatment, and no changes in the control group. This study can refute the point about how just the general therapy can be the reason there are improvements, rather than the anger management itself, since there were no changes in the control group.

The Relationship Between Anger and Crime

Loza-Fanous (1999) claimed the link between anger and crime in research relies on lab studies. They found no difference in anger levels between violent and non-violent offenders, suggesting no link. They, overall, cast doubt on the efficacy of assessing anger and using it to predict violent and non-violent behaviours.

Establishing such a link can give offenders the excuse to commit such crimes and use their anger to justify their actions.

Restorative Justice Programmes

The goal of the restorative justice programme is that the participants restore the situation to how it was before they committed the crime. This programme came out of the failure to produce measurable effects and provide satisfactory results for the victim through programmes such as the ‘token economy’.

The aim of restorative justice programmes is rehabilitation. Victims show how the crime affected their lives, allowing the criminal to empathise and take responsibility for what they did, involving them in their rehabilitation.

Atonement for Crimes

Offenders may try to offer money or community service as compensation, which is psychological and shows that they feel guilty. Offenders may also show empathy and understanding of the impact of their actions on the victim when the victim explains their distress.

Atonement for crimes can be helpful to the victim because victimisation is reduced and they can find closure.

Restorative Justice Examples

Wachtel and McCold (2003) developed a theoretical framework of restorative justice. They proposed that restorative justice should start with the relationship between the victim and offender rather than the punishment given to the offender.

Punishing the offender doesn’t allow the relationship and the harm done to be healed.

Justice involves different stakeholders; the more stakeholders involved in the process, the more restorative it is. If one is involved, it would be partly restorative; if two, then mostly; and if three, then fully, e.g. the stakeholders involved in a laptop being robbed would be:

1. Victim

2. Offender

3. Police/authority or community member(s)

If the government or insurance company provides compensation, it’s not restorative. The offender should be made to provide compensation or return the laptop.

Components of Restorative Justice

The components of restorative justice involve victim reparation, communication of care reconciliation, and the offender taking responsibility. Let us take a deeper look into these different aspects of restorative justice.

Restorative justice typology represents how stakeholders interact and how restorative justice is produced.

Wachtel and McCold (2003) created a window to represent the types of ways offenders are treated when they're being socially disciplined.

Fig. 2 - Social Discipline Window.

Restorative Justice Programme Types

One type of restorative justice programme is peace circles. Peace circles are when a group of people sit in a circle and talk about a specific incident or event.

Peace circles are held to create an environment of respect in which the community supports the victim, and the offender is welcomed so that mutual understanding can be developed.

• Usually a talking object is passed around which enables on to talk uninterruptedly.
• A 'keeper' is present to keep things orderly and respectful, put forward solutions, and regulate negativity.

The main aim of peace circles is to support offenders and prevent them from re-offending rather than excluding them.

Fig. 3 - Peace circles are a form of restorative justice.

Some other types of restorative justice programmes are:

• Victim/offender mediation or dialogue.

• Victim assistance and involvement.

• Conferencing

• Former prisoner assistance and involvement.

• Real restitution.

• Reduction of DMI (Disparate Minority Incarceration)

• Community service.

Most people would argue that it is not suitable for all crimes. When it comes to crimes like rape and murder, restorative justice may not be appropriate. Confrontation, even with mediation, between the victim and perpetrator could further harm the victim and cause unnecessary trauma.

Restorative Justice Programmes Evaluation

These programmes offer the victim a chance to seek personal justice and closure and allow the criminal to take responsibility for their crimes and atone for them directly. However, the programmes are not always perfect. We need to assess their strengths and weaknesses first to understand their appropriateness.

• Research exists in support of the effectiveness of restorative justice programmes. The UK Restorative Justice Council (2015) reported that face-to-face meetings with offenders satisfied 85% of victims, including violent and non-violent crime victims.

• Avon and Somerset found that a satisfaction rate of 92.5% was reported even with victims of violent crimes.

• Sherman and Strang's (2007)’s meta-analysis of 20 studies comprising 142 criminals involved face-to-face meetings of the victim and offender. They found that it significantly lowered repeat offending for some offenders and reduced the potential psychological harm to the crime victims’ by reducing PTSD symptoms and other involved costs. Overall, victims and criminals were more satisfied with restorative justice programmes than conventional criminal justice procedures.

• Restorative justice has several advantages over custodial sentencing (i.e., being put in prison or another institute), e.g.:
  • Punishment is still involved in confrontation with the victim in restorative justice.
  • Deviant influences are removed from the offender they’d face in jail and would influence more anger and aggressive behaviour.
  • According to the Restorative Justice Council, for every £1 saved on restorative justice programmes, £8 is saved if custodial sentences are used.
  • However, this only works for some offenders, i.e. those who have committed lesser crimes and admit it, not impulsive, psychotic criminals.

However:

• Ethical issues include the potential for psychological and emotional harm for the victim and the possibility of them feeling more negative after the confrontation rather than better.

• If multiple victims gang up on the offender or if the offender is a child, these programmes can be harmful.

• Benefits need to be balanced for both the offenders and the victims, which is not always the case and is hard to control.

• Some people are reluctant to use it and are unaware of what it truly means or does.