Association of Cognitive Deficits and Criminal Behavior

There is established literature demonstrating that impaired cognitive functioning plays a role in criminal behavior. The most current explanation of the association between cognitive deficits and crime is that the relationship is multidetermined, beginning with a developmental trajectory involving early neuropsychological impairment (especially lower verbal skills and problems in executive function), school failure, a drift toward antisocial peer group, and, as a consequence, the weakening of prosocial bonds. For those with acquired impairment, the link is more directly related to impaired judgment and poor consequential thinking, planning, and problem-solving skills. These related executive function deficits are implicated in aggressive, impulsive, and erratic behavior. Some have gone so far as to label a constellation of personality changes produced by frontal lobe damage as acquired sociopathy. One leading researcher attributed a life-course pattern of antisocial behavior to developmental neuropsychological problems that interact with a criminogenic environment, culminating in an antisocial personality. Later research also implicated cognitive impairments to adolescent-limited criminality.

Although the relationship may be complex, there is little doubt that impaired cognitive function is a direct criminogenic factor, not only a responsivity factor affecting offenders’ response to interventions. Thus, this should be considered in theories of crime causation and in planning intervention strategies to reduce criminal recidivism.

Effects of Cognitive Deficits on Rehabilitation Efforts. The presence of cognitive deficits in offender populations is associated with histories of lower educational achievement, unstable employment history, learning disabilities, and symptoms of ADHD. For those offenders who have severe cognitive deficits, the correctional environment can be especially demanding. Difficulties understanding and abiding by institutional rules and vulnerability to victimization and exploitation can make the prison experience more challenging for offenders with serious cognitive deficits.

There is some evidence that problems in executive function may impair offenders’ ability to respond to correctional programming as measured by program completion rates and improvements associated with participation. Standard correctional program components require considerable levels of literacy that can be discouraging to participants and a barrier to their treatment progress. However, correctional programs that focus on selfregulation skills (i.e., problem-solving, goal setting, planning, and consequential thinking) and address substance abuse (particularly alcohol abuse) are appropriate interventions for many offenders with cognitive deficits. Agencies should be mindful, however, that participants with cognitive deficits will require assistance to compensate for lower literacy and attention deficits. For those with the most severe deficits, specially designed correctional programs may be required to accommodate their learning styles. When these provisions are in place, there is encouraging evidence that offenders with cognitive deficits can complete and benefit from correctional programs.

In addition to programs that directly target factors related to unstable employment history, low educational attainment, and ADHD symptoms can block opportunities for offenders with cognitive deficits to attain prosocial goals once released. Therefore, vocational training, educational upgrading, and job skills coaching that prepare offenders for community employment are appropriate targets for intervention to reduce future recidivism and improve reintegration potential.

Offenders with cognitive deficits pose a greater challenge to institutional or community management. They can have more trouble adjusting to the constraints of incarceration and increased difficulty following the institutional rules and managing relationships with other offenders. Their rates of institutional misconducts and the severity of the incidents, therefore, are generally greater than those of offenders without these deficits. This finding is consistent with research showing that cognitive deficits are associated with poor social adjustment across a variety of contexts. An understanding of the behavioral patterns associated with severe cognitive deficits could facilitate informal resolution when institutional incidents arise.

Because of higher risk ratings and institutional adjustment problems, offenders with cognitive deficits tend to serve a larger proportion of their sentences prior to be given their first release. This can mean that they are not afforded the same period of time to be supervised and receive the benefit of services from correctional agencies before their sentences are completed. On release, their outcomes tend to be poorer, reoffending and returning to custody at rates higher than those without deficits. This suggests that, in addition to the social and vocational training support required to meet their considerable needs, they require a higher level of monitoring and supervision in the community. Provisions are needed to broker longer-term services from agencies that provide assistance after the mandate of correctional agencies expires.

It should be noted that the contribution of cognitive deficits to the prediction of future offending behavior is much less significant than that provided by standard measures of criminal risk and need, which are composite constructs composed of a number of well-established factors related to correctional outcomes. Still, the overall view of the latest literature is that the level of cognitive function is independently related to correctional outcomes, even when risk and need are considered. In knowing this, staff have valuable information that can assist them in case planning, accommodation of correctional program delivery, and aiding these offenders in their reintegration efforts.

Lynn A. Stewart

Further Readings: Lindsay, W. R., Hastings, R. P., & Beech, A. R. (2011). Forensic research in offenders with intellectual & developmental disabilities 1: Prevalence and risk assessment. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(1), 3-7. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Developmental Psychopathology, 3(1-2), 135-151.

Stewart, L. A., Wilton, G., & Sapers, J. (2015). Offenders with cognitive deficits in a Canadian prison population: Prevalence, profile, and outcomes. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 44, 7-14.