Type of Offense and Level of Moral Development Among Adult Male Inmates

Priest, Bobby J.; Kordinak, S. Thomas; Wynkoop, Timothy F.

doi:10.1002/j.2161-1874.1991.tb00076.x

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are broadly consistent with those of other studies (see Priest, Kordinak, & Wynkoop, 1991;Wilson, Goodwin, & Beck, 2002), although the convergent validity of these findings is difficult to ascertain because the sample characteristics and measures of moral reasoning varied between studies. For example, Priest et al (1991) and Wilson et al (2002) used the DIT to measure the quality of moral reasoning employed by the offenders in their studies. The DIT is a fixed-choice response-based measure of moral reasoning ability designed to evaluate the use of principled moral reasoning.…”

Section: Discussion Moral Reasoning and Offending Behavioursupporting

confidence: 89%

Moral Reasoning of Adolescent Male Offenders

Ashkar

Kenny

2007

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares the moral reasoning abilities of juvenile sexual and nonsexual offenders using a novel methodology that explores responses to questions addressing morality in a variety of offending contexts. Seven sexual and nine nonsexual adolescent male offenders from a maximum security detention facility in New South Wales, Australia, are presented with and asked to discuss a variety of hypothetical offending situations involving sexual and nonsexual offences. It is hypothesized that the quality of moral reasoning employed by offenders will be impaired in offending contexts in which they have prior experience. Responses are assessed using a modified version of the Moral Judgment Interview Standard Issue Scoring Manual. Responses by sexual offenders in sexual offending contexts and by nonsexual offenders in nonsexual offending contexts were dominated by preconventional reasoning, and both groups employed a greater use of conventional reasoning in noncongruent offending contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Moral Reasoning and Offending Behavioursupporting

confidence: 89%

Moral Reasoning of Adolescent Male Offenders

Ashkar

Kenny

2007

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is the level at which most adults, and most convicted felons, reason morally (even though they may not behave morally; cf. Priest, Kordinak, & Wynkoop, 1991).…”

Section: Cognitive Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuropsychology of Juvenile Adjudicative Competence

Wynkoop¹

2003

Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the application of neuropsychology to adult adjudicative competence has been examined previously (cf. Denney & Wynkoop, 2000;Wynkoop & Denney, 1999), there is nothing yet written on the application of neuropsychology to juvenile adjudicative competence. This article is a primer on juvenile adjudicative competence from a neuropsychological perspective, briefly describing some of the issues relevant to juvenile adjudicative competence, the complexities of juvenile justice, neuropsychological development (normal and problematic), neuropsychological differences between adults and children (development and assessment), application of child neuropsychology to adjudicative competence, and suggestions for future directions.

show abstract

Moral Development

Rivera-Vazquez¹

2013

The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Type of Offense and Level of Moral Development Among Adult Male Inmates

Cited by 9 publications

References 6 publications

Moral Reasoning of Adolescent Male Offenders

Moral Reasoning of Adolescent Male Offenders

Neuropsychology of Juvenile Adjudicative Competence

Moral Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About