Forensic psychology Flashcards
(40 cards)
1
Q
Top-down approach
A
Starts with the classification at the crime scene and then a profiler uses this classification to make judgements about likely offenders who would fit the circumstances (going from classification to data).
2
Q
Stages of the top-down approach
A
1 - Profilers inputs (data from the crime scene is gathered).
2 - The decision making models (profiler starts to look at meaningful patterns based on the data).
3 - Crime assessment (profiler makes decision about whether or not the individual fits into the organised or disorganised category - based off idea that normal behaviour and criminal behaviour are consistent).
4 - Criminal profile (a profile is constructed of offender).
5 - Crime assessment (report given to police and persons matching that profile are investigated - if new evidence or no suspect go back to stage 2).
6 - Apprehension (suspect apprehended and process reviewed).
3
Q
Barnum effect
A
Ambiguous descriptions can be made to fit any situation.
4
Q
Evaluation of top-down approach AO3
A
- Useful (Copson, 1995, questioned 184 US police, 82% said technique was useful); also offers police a new perspective therefore may prevent wrongful convictions, so can aid the police.
- Snook et al (2008) argues that profilers are not effective and do little more than psychics, it is not based on scientific evidence, the believability of this approach may be explained by the Barnum effect - so may lead to harm as profiles may mislead police if they are wrong.
- Distinction between organised and disorganised has been criticised, Canter et al (2004) analysed 39 aspects of serial killing murders and found no clear division between organised and disorganised types of offenders.
5
Q
Criminal consistency (top-down approach)
A
A criminal will not change their normal behaviour when they commit a crime.
6
Q
Organised offender (top-down approach)
A
Highly intelligent and socially + sexually competent.
7
Q
Disorganised offender (top-down approach)
A
Unplanned, take advantage of situation, poorer social skills and lonner.
8
Q
Bottom-up approach
A
Involves collecting data from the crime scene, this data is then analysed using statistical techniques to generate predictions (going from data to classification).
9
Q
What are the two branches of the bottom-up approach
A
- Investigative psychology.
- Geographical profiling.
10
Q
Investigative psychology AO1 (bottom-up approach)
A
- Profilers could and should be based on psych theory and research.
3 main features: - Interpersonal coherence (links/connection with elements of the crime and how people behave in everyday life).
- Forensic awareness (behaviours may reveal awareness of particular police techniques and past experiences.
- Small space analysis (data about many crime scenes and offender characteristics are correlated so the most common connections are identified).
§ Themes of small space analysis = instrumental opportunistic, instrumental cognitive and expressive impulsive.
11
Q
Geographical profiling AO1 (bottom-up approach)
A
- Canter proposed people also reveal themselves by the location they choose to commit the crime.
- Geographical profiling analyses the spatial relationships between different crime scenes and how they relate to offender’s places of residence.
- Circle theory (offenders commit crimes within an imagined circle - Marauder (near offender’s home) and commuter (offender travels to other location and commits crimes within a defined space).
- Criminal geographic targeting (CGT) - computerised system by Rossmo.
§ Formula produces 3D map displaying spatial data related to time, distance and movement to and from crime scenes (called a jeopardy surface).
§ Different colours on a map indicate likely closeness to the crime scene.
12
Q
Evaluation of the bottom-up approach AO3
A
- More scientific as uses statistics and computer analysis, but the data is from solved crimes so info from unsolved crimes is lost + computer programmes have to be designed by humans which has been criticised.
- Copson (1995) found 75% of police questioned said advice had been useful.
- Poor at distinguishing between multiple offenders in the same area + is limited to spatial behaviour and ignores personality, Rossmo introduced it to vancouver PD which was eventually dismissed as wasn’t useful.
13
Q
Historical approach AO1
A
- Biological theorists assume that crime is an innate tendency which be may genetically determined or the result of abnormalities within brain structure or function.
- Lombroso saw criminal behaviour as a natural tendency.
§ These individuals had lacked evolutionary development and therefore were more animalistic in their nature so would find it hard to adjust to a civilised society. - There are physiological ‘markers’ that were linked to particular types of crimes.
§ e.g. curly hair, long ears, swollen fleshy lips, dark skin.
14
Q
Lombroso’s research AO1
A
- Examined the facial and cranial features of hundreds of italian convicts, both living and dead.
- He proposed that the atavistic form was associated with a number of physical anomalies which were key indicators of criminality.
- He concluded that 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by atavistic characteristics.
15
Q
Evaluation of the historical approach AO3
A
- More scientific as focused on observation + founded criminology.
- Poor research design - only focused on prisoners, Goring (1913) found no support for physical differences between prisoners and non-prisoners.
- Biological determinism (also complicates application of the law).
- Alpha bias as Lombroso exaggerated the differences between males and females by saying that women were less evolved than men, naturally jealous and insensitive to pain, low in intelligence and therefore less likely to offend.
16
Q
Genetic explanations AO1
A
- Brain differences between criminals and non-criminals.
- Certain genes may predispose someone to commit a crime.
- Johannas Lange (1930) studies 13 MZ twins and 17 DZ twins and found that 10 of MZ twins verses only 2DZ twins had a co-twin who had been in prison.
Candidate genes: - Lack of MAoA genes = lowered sensitivity to dopamine and serotonin.
- CDH13 linked to substance abuse and attention deficit disorder.
- Tiihonen et al (2015) genetic analysis of offenders and found abnormalities with MAoA and CDH13 = violent crimes and people with these abnormalities 3x more likely to have a history of violent behaviour.
Diathesis-stress: - Diathesis (having a predisposition to a disorder), stress (anything in the environment that may trigger diathesis).
- Genes ‘switched’ on and off by epigenomes which are controlled by environment.
- Caspi et al (12% of men interviewed with low MAoA experienced maltreatment when babies, but made up 44% of violent convictions.
17
Q
Evaluation of genetic explanations AO3
A
- Biologically deterministic (criminality cant 100% be explained by genetics, but Tiihonen et al found those with defective genes 13x more likely to have history of violent behaviour, therefore determinist view can’t be fully ruled out.
- More focused on violent crimes, but is evident that psychopathy is inherited, Blorigen et al (2005) support for genetic basis but appropriate behaviour is a social construct so can’t just be explained by genes and environment.
18
Q
Neural explanations AO1
A
- Most research into brain differences focused on people with antisocial personality disorder, as many criminals have it.
Prefrontal cortex: - Amygdala ‘wired’ to produce aggression.
- Prefrontal cortex controls aggressive responses and emotional responses.
- Raine (2000) found an 11% reduction in volume of grey matter in prefrontal cortex of people with antisocial personality disorder compared to controls.
Limbic system: - Made up for subcortical structures, including thalamus and amygdala that are linked to emotion and motivation.
- Raine et al (1997) studied murderers who were found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), found abnormal asymmetries in the limbic system - especially amygdala.
Neurotransmitters: - Serotonin (low levels predispose impulsive aggression and criminal behaviour).
- Noradrenaline (high and low levels linked to aggression, violence and criminality).
19
Q
Evaluation of neural explanations AO3
A
- Biologically reductionist (neurotransmitters tested mostly with animal studies, testing aggressiveness not criminality + isn’t 100% correspondence with any area of brain or neurotransmitter so data can’t be used to predict who is more likely to offend, therefore limited as only tells us about effect of neurotransmitters on aggression not offending behaviour).
- Practical applications (neurotransmitters, e.g. serotonin - this info may be able to decrease chances of individuals reoffending).
- Lots of research conducted only show correlation not cause and effect.
20
Q
Eysenck’s criminal personality AO1
A
- Crime result of personality trait that are biological in origin.
- There are 3 dimensions; extraversion (sociable, crave excitement/change, carefree, impulsive), neuroticism (anxious, moody, find it difficult to calm down once upset), and psychoticism (aggressive, anti-social, egocentric, cold).
- Theory most widely used in Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).
Biological basis: - Individuals inherit a predisposition to specific traits therefore some individuals born with higher chance on being an offender.
- Extraversion (level of arousal low so seek more stimulation = crime).
- Neuroticism (high levels = get upset quickly = crime).
- Psychoticism (linked to higher levels of androgens so males more likely to be on this end of scale).
21
Q
Evaluation of Eysenck’s criminal personality AO3
A
- View that all offending can be explained through specific criminal personality type challenged (Moffit, 1993, several distinct types of adult male offender based on timing of first offence and how long offending persists + Digman five factor model of personality there are additions to E and N) suggests high E and N doesn’t mean individual will engage in offending behaviour.
- May be culturally biased as tested and established in UK - Bartol and Holanchock (1979) studied Hispanic and African American offenders in New York and found that offenders less extroverted than control group of non-offenders, suggests external validity of theory poor.
- Inconsistent, personalities change in different situations, e.g. calm at home neurotic at work, Peak et al found no correlation between traits displayed therefore regularity due to similar situations no different one - theory = bad as we dont have ‘one’ personality.
- Real-world application, might provide ideas of how to prevent criminal behaviour, e.g by modifying socialisation of kids with potential to become offenders.
22
Q
Differential association AO1
A
- Criminal behaviour is a result of socialisation.
- Criminality arises from learning attitudes towards crime and the learning of specific criminal acts.
Pro-criminal attitudes: - If pro-criminal attitudes outweigh anti-crime attitudes that person will go onto offend.
- Should be possible to use maths to predict how likely someone is to commit a crime if we know how much exposure they’ve had to deviant and non-deviant norms and values.
Learning criminal acts: - Individuals can learn particular techniques for commiting crime through observational learning, imitation or direct tuition.
23
Q
Differential association AO3
A
- Accounts for crimes in different sectors, e.g. corporate crimes more common in middle-class social groups, suggests we do learn criminal behaviour through observational learning and imitation.
- Cambridge study of Delinquent Development found that most important risk factor for later offending were measures of family criminality and poor parenting - shows criminal behaviour can be a result of socialisation.
- Cox et al (2014) theory isn’t testable because of the difficulty of disentangling learned and inherited influences therefore hard to establish cause and effect or figure out what ratio of favourable to unfavourable influences would tip the balance of that a person becomes a criminal.
24
Q
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development AO1
A
- Internal mental processes cause of offending behaviour.
- Level 1 (pre-conventional) offenders stuck at this stage, what is right and wrong is determined by the rewards and punishment.
- Level 2 (conventional) views of others matter, want to avoid blame/ are seekings approval.
- Level 3 (post-conventional) abstract notions of justice + rights of others can override obedience to laws/rules.
25
Evaluation of Kohlberg's theory of moral development AO3
- Not an explanation just a justification, Krebs and Denton (2005) found that in real-life moral decisions, moral principles were used to justify behaviour after it occurred, therefore theory explains how individuals rationalise their criminal behaviour not why they offend.
- Gender bias as stages developed off interviews with males and yet theory applies to both genders, assuming that women and men are similar. But then testing women they represented level 2 whereas men represented level 3 implying men have more moral reasoning than females.
- Practical applications, Palmer (2003) suggested relationship between moral development and offending behaviour, therefore intervention programmes can incorporate training to increase offender's level of moral reasoning.
26
Cognitive distortions AO1
- Cognitive distortions are errors in people's thinking.
Minimisation:
- Offender doesn't accept the reality of the situation and downplays the severity of their actions to deal with guilt.
Hostile Attribution Bias:
- The way offenders interpret other people's behaviour (other's actions seen as negative reaction to the self (offender)).
- Spielberger (1988) found relationship between HA bias and aggression.
27
Evaluation of minimisation theory AO3 (cognitive distortions)
- Kennedy and Grubin (1992) found majority of offenders attempted to excuse their behaviour by blaming others, usually the victim, 1/4 of sex offenders believed their victims benefited in some way - shows minimisation used as defence mechanism to repress guilt.
- Not an explanation, more of a coping mechanism after a crime, therefore doesn't explain why individuals offend.
28
Evaluation of hostile attribution bias AO3 (cognitive distortions)
- Hutchinson et al (1993) found link between HA bias and domestic violence, found men who has been violent towards their wives were more likely to think that the women was being negative towards the husband and that her intentions were hostile.
- Use of hypothetical situations in measuring HA bias means that the measure could lack predictive validity, meaning answers given may not actually be the response in the real-world.
- Schonenbery and Aiste (2014) violent offenders more likely to see angry faces as an expression of aggression than control group, so suggests violent offenders do misinterpret other's actions.
29
Psychodynamic explanation AO1
- Superego likely to be related to offending behaviour as is concerned with what's right and wrong.
- Freud argued if superego is inadequate criminal behaviour is inevitable because the id is given 'free rein'.
- Underdeveloped superego = child doesn't identify with same sex parent and are less able to control antisocial impulses and so is more likely to act in a way that gratifies impulses.
- Overdeveloped superego = child strongly identifies with same sex parent who is strict (commits crime as desires to be caught and punished to reduce guilt).
- Deviant superego = normal identification with same-sex parent who is criminal so picks up deviant attitudes.
- Maternal deprivation hypothesis = affectionless psychopathy and therefore more likely to become offenders, 44 thieves study 86% affectionless psychopaths experienced frequent early separations.
30
Evaluation of the psychodynamic explanation AO3
- Only theory that considers emotions, a degree of biological factors and childhood experiences and so offers a perspective on behaviour that other approaches ignore.
- Gender bias (alpha bias) - during phallic stage women identify less, as little reason to identify with women, and so women have weaker superegos according to Freud devaluing women, also if this was true would see more women criminals than men because of weaker superego but this isn't the case.
- Little evidence to suggest children raised without same-sex parent are less law abiding, contradicting the weak superego argument.
- Oversimplifies, focuses on problems in early childhood alone, Farrington et al's 40-year study found that most important risk factor for offending were family history of offending, suggesting even if psychodynamic explanation correct, it's incomplete so may benefit from being combined with other theories.
31
Aims of custodial sentencing AO1
- Deterrence: individual (implies use of increasingly heavy penalties for repeat offenders) and general (pain inflicted on particular offender justified is leads to benefit of reduced crime by others).
- Incapacitation (remove opportunity of offending for a period of time - seen as form of 'public protection'.
- Rehabilitation (aims to prevent reoffending through modification of attitudes and behavioural problems).
- Retribution (tariff = a set of punishments of varying severity which are matched to crimes of differing seriousness - the punishment should fit the crime).
32
Evaluation of the aims of custodial sentencing AO3
- Reoffending rates high, therefore doesn't deter criminals so isn't reducing crime rates.
- Prisons don't rehabilitate ('college for crime') - offenders may learn additional antisocial behaviour from each other.
- Main reasons we have prisons is for incapacitation and retribution as don't meet aims of deterrence and rehabilitation, but prisons viewed as punishment by general public + whilst in prison offender can't commit more crime, therefore prisons make victim and public feel like justice has been served and makes them feel safer.
33
Recidivism AO1
Why do criminals reoffend:
- Mental health and addiction issues (Carriet et al found a relationship between substance abuse and non-violent crimes).
- Family support and stability impacts recidivism rates (Naser and La Vinge found that continued contact with family members during and immediately after release from prison reduces recidivism).
- Institutionalisation (Malott and Fromader found that offends felt unsupported upon release and said that better resources, treatment and support services after release would help reduce recidivism).
34
Psychological effects of custodial sentencing AO3
- Mental health: depression (helplessness) Heather (1977) negative correlation between the symptoms and length of imprisonment + Howard League for Prison Reform reported 10,000 incidents of self-harm in 2008 + Newton found suicide rates 4 times higher in British prisons than in general population
- Institutionalisation: no longer able to function on the outside, the routine of prison life + security of having and bed and meals may be more comfortable than living on the outside, therefore positive reinforcement of offending behaviour.
- Effect on the family: children negatively impacted due to shift in quality of care resulting from parental loss (Bloom 1995), one negative outcome = involvement in criminal justice system themselves.
- Positive effects: offenders may become better people, can access education and training programmes + treatment (e.g. anger management) therefore can be long-term positive effects.
35
Token economies AO1 (behavioural modification in custody)
- Works well in closed societies as behaviour can be closely monitored.
- Good behaviour is reinforced by a 'token' which can be exchanges for privileges.
- No compliance can lead to privileges being removed.
- Selective reinforcement encourages learning of desirable behaviours and reduces undesirable behaviours - target behaviours must be clearly specified;
36
Evaluation of token economies AO3 (behavioural modification in custody)
- Easy to implement, so no need for trained psychologist, but important to pre plan and staff must be consistent (proven by Blanchard's 1977 study).
- Rice (1990) effective in institutions but no influence on behaviour after release therefore doesn't rehabilitate.
- Implementation has been problematic, staff inconsistent + limited resources affect its application (Reppucci et al).
- Violation of human rights, Hall (1997) says can be solved but are still objections to it.
37
Anger management AO1 (behavioural modification in custody)
- AM designed to prevent anger prompting criminal acts, it is focused on controlling impulses and anger.
Has 3 stages:
- Cognitive preparation (analyse own patterns of anger + identify situations which provoke anger in them).
- Skill acquisition (clients taught skills to help manage their anger + taught better communication skills to help resolve conflicts with anger).
- Application training (clients apply skills initially in controlled environment, receive feedback, later clients try out skills in real-world).
38
Evaluation of anger management AO3 (behavioural modification in custody)
- Ireland (2000) offenders who has AM has 92% reduction in levels of anger, but research involved self-report and didn't measure behaviour or recidivism so unclear whether AM has rehabilitative effect.
- Effectiveness affected by offender engagement (Howswell et al, 2005).
- Can give offenders insight into how they think, helping gain insight into thinking issues that led to offending.
- Lack of evidence to suggest AM has long term impact; could just be short-term, meaning offender likely to reoffend. Measuring long term impact is hard as recidivism can be impacted by other factors.
39
Restorative justice AO1 (behavioural modification)
- Flexible and can be offered as an alternative to prison, as an 'add on' to community service or as an incentive which may lead to the reduction of an existing sentence.
- Offenders must take responsibility.
Key features:
- Focus on acceptable of responsibility and positive change for those who harm others.
- Active involvement from all parties (when possible).
- Focus on positive outcomes for survivors and for those who engaged in the wrong doing.
40
Evaluation of restorative justice AO3 (behavioural modification)
- Sherman and Stand (2007) found reduction in recidivism in 3 countries + UK Restorative Justice Council reported a 14% reduction in re-offending.
- Feminists taken issue with widespread use, e.g domestic abuse due to the power imbalance between abuser and abused, therefore should be carefully considered before used.
- Not suitable with all crimes, may not be appropriate, e.g rape cases, and victim may decline offer, therefore can be used a global way of dealing with offending behaviour.
