AQA A-Level Psychology 16 Mark Model Essays
Forensics
1. Discuss the psychological effects of custodial sentencing (16 marks)
Psychological effects of custodial sentencing include anxiety and distress, self-harm, prisonisation,
brutalisation and institutionalisation. Prisons provide a stressful environment as offenders are
subject to violence, intimidation by guards and other prisoners, lack of access to resources and
cramped conditions. Many people respond to this through acts of self-harm, or even suicide. One
source of psychological distress may be the rigid hierarchical system amongst inmates in prisons,
where older, more established criminals expect absolute obedience, and brutally punish those who
cross them. This inmate code reinforces to other prisoners that treating people harshly is both
acceptable and a useful way of getting things done, leading to brutalisation. Prisonisation means
that offenders get so used to this way of operating that they cannot then reintegrate into society.
Behaviours that are acceptable in prison - such as enforcing one’s will through aggression - are not
acceptable in the outside world, and an ex-prisoner struggles to adjust to this. Institutionalisation in
prisons also fosters a dependency culture that means offenders do not learn how to be autonomous
and personally effective, which means they are more likely to reoffend.
In terms of evaluation, the negative effects of custodial sentencing are apparent in the official
statistics. 119 killed themselves in prison in 2016 in the UK, representing a 32% increase on the
previous year. 25% of women and 15% of men in prison report symptoms of psychosis, which is
another sign of poor mental health. However, as a counter-argument, it is unclear whether these
people had psychological issues before they arrived in prison. This is known as the importation
model, in which people bring with them any psychological trauma to an institution, causing the
appearance of a causal link. Therefore, it may be that people who experience negative psychological
impacts in prison would have experienced these in the outside world anyway.
The psychological effects of prison may actually be positive. Shirely et al. found that US prisons
which implemented college education programmes had 43% lower recidivism rates, reflecting the
adaptive psychological functioning fostered by academic initiatives in prisons. The prison system in
Norway, for example, focuses more on rehabilitation and de-emphasises retribution, which helps
prisoners to develop healthier ways of thinking, better mental health and equips them with the skills
needed to improve their lives upon re-entering society. This suggests that, structured in the right
way, prisons can facilitate improvements in people’s mental health.
However, according to Sutherland’s differential theory of offending behaviour, custodial sentencing
ultimately leads to faulty cognitions and has poor psychological consequences. This is because
prisons serve as a ‘school for crime’, in which low-level criminals are exposed to more experienced
offenders who teach them techniques that they can action upon release. People are also exposed to
a high concentration of deviant pro-criminal attitudes which distorts their psychological processes
and reinforces offending behaviour as the norm. This is maladaptive for both the individual, who is
more likely to reoffend, and for society, which suffers the economic and social consequences of this.
Therefore, the psychological effects of custodial sentencing are, on the whole, damaging.
2. Outline and evaluate biological explanations for offending behaviour (16 marks)
Biological explanations for offending behaviour include both genetic and neural explanations. The
genetic explanation suggests that offending behaviour has a heritable component which can be
passed down through our genes. Twin studies and adoption studies are used to exemplify the
, genetic explanation because it is supposed that they can separate out the influences of ‘nature’ from
those of ‘nurture’. Christansen et al. conducted research on 3500 twins in Denmark and found a
concordance rate for crime of 36% for monozygotic (MZ) twins and 13% for dizygotic (DZ) twins,
suggesting a moderate genetic component. Evidence from Crowe et al. is perhaps more convincing.
Adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal
record by the age of 18. In adoption children whose biological mother did not have a criminal record,
this risk decreased to 5%. Candidate gene studies have also been used to demonstrate that certain
genes may confer a predisposition to criminal behaviour. Tilihonen et al. studied 8000 Finnish
offenders and concluded that 5 - 10% of crime in Finland could be attributed to the MAO3 and the
CDH13 genes. The MAO3 gene is associated with lower serotonin and reduced aggression whereas
the CDH13 gene is associated with ADHD and substance abuse. This provides evidence that criminal
behaviour may be partly genetic. Another aspect of the biological explanation is neural, and
therefore examines how neurochemicals - such as neurotransmitters - in the brain may trigger the
urge to offend, and be implicated in the realisation of this urge. Adrienne Rayne et al. conducted
brain scans of convicts and matched controls, finding an 11% reduction in grey matter in the
prefrontal cortex in the offender group. The prefrontal cortex is associated with planning behaviour
and the regulation of our emotions, so it follows that a smaller prefrontal cortex is associated with
impulsive criminal behaviour. Another aspect of the neural explanation looks at how mirror neurons
play a role in our ability to empathise with others. Keysers et al. found that offenders do have the
capacity for empathy, but this ‘switch’ can be turned on and off, whereas in neurotypical people, it is
always ‘on’. This means that offenders may be biologically wired to lack constant empathy, or be
able to disable their empathetic reactions, leading to offending behaviour and an inability to relate
to other people’s perspective.
One limitation of the neural explanation for offending is that it may oversimplify the link between
neural differences and antisocial personality disorder (APD). Farrington et al. studied a group of men
who scored high on psychopathy (similar to APD). These individuals had experienced risk factors in
early childhood, such as being raised by a physical parent, being neglected or being subject to
physical abuse. These experiences may have caused APD and some of the neural differences
associated with it (such as reduced activity in the frontal lobe due to trauma). This suggests
intervening variables have an impact on the relationship between neural differences and APD.
The biological explanation for offending is also complicated by the diathesis-stress model, which
argues that although we may inherit a genetic predisposition to committing crime, an environmental
stressor is required for this urge to offend to be realised. Adoption study research by Mednick et al.
supports this idea. Adopted children who had no convicted (biological or adoptive) parents had a
13.5% chance of developing a criminal record. Where an adopted child had one convicted biological
parent had a 20% chance of being convicted themselves. Where both the adoptive parents and the
biological parents had a criminal record, the risk was 24.5%. This suggests that offending is the
product of both genetics (represented by the biological parents) and environment (represented by
the adoptive parents), which means a purely biological argument is limited.
Furthermore, the biological argument has vexing implications for the judicial system. Most legal
statutes around the world assume that an individual has personal responsibility for their choices and
it is therefore fair to punish them for making wrong ones. This idea that people who offend have
clear intent is known as mens rea. However, mens rea becomes problematic in the context of a
deterministic biological argument for offending, which suggests that people who have certain genes
and neurochemical imbalances may not have total free will to determine whether they commit
crime or not. Many courts of law have rejected defences that hinge on the argument that crime is
biologically determined in the past (e.g. the Stephen Mobley case) because it could be seen to justify
