Forensic Psychology Flashcards
(152 cards)
What is Offender Profiling?
An Investigative method used by police in order to identify potential perpetrators of a crime. Profiles are typically compiled via careful examination of the crime scene and evidence such as witness reports. From this, a hypothesis is generated about the probable characteristics of the offender eg. age, background, occupation. There are two methods of offender profiling.
What are the two types of offender profiling?
. Top-down approach (American approach)
. Bottom-up approach (British approach)
What is the top-down approach?
. The top-down approach was adopted by the FBI in the 1970’s, based on data collected by the FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit following in-depth interviews with 36 sexually-motivated murderers
. It argues that offenders can be categorised into one of two categories - organised or disorganised
. Organised and disorganised offenders are categorised based on the idea that serious offenders have signature ways of working - ‘modus operandi’ - which correlate with a set of social and psychological characteristics
. Each category has characteristics. If these characteristics later matched with data from a crime scene, investigators could then predict other likely characteristics about the offender - this could then be used to find them
. Data is collected about a murder or serious crime, and then it is decided which category the data is best suited to
What is an ‘organised offender’
. ‘In control’
. The organised offender shows evidence of having planned the crime ahead of time: they seem to have carefully selected the victim, with victims often fitting a certain criteria. They chose private locations, and often keep victims alive for a time after the initial attack, transporting them to these secondary private locations. They use weapons and materials they have brought with them. They tend to leave little evidence at the crime scene, and may hide the body
Organised offenders may torture the victim, and take trophies from the crime scene in order to remember the attack. They also frequently follow media coverage of the crime.
In everyday life, they appear to be socially and sexually competent - they may be married and even have children
They tend to be of normal to high intelligence, but may be low achievers
. Hazelwood and Douglas (1980) suggested that organised offenders are ‘lust murderers’, planning their crimes and specifically targeting their victim. Violent fantasies will often have been carried out on the victim
What is a disorganised offender?
. ‘Out of control’
. Disorganised offenders show little evidence of having planned their crimes: their crimes appear to be spontaneous and spur of the moment. Crime scenes are often chaotic, with a lack of effort to conceal the crime. There is little to suggest that they have carefully selected their victim, though they may share some basic characteristics. Victims are often killed at the place of the initial confrontation, generally quickly and using improvised weaponry.
They don’t tend to take trophies from the crime scene or follow media coverage of their crime
Disorganised offenders are often of limited intelligence, with poor social skills. They likely live alone, often in unskilled work or unemployed. They may have a history of failed relationships. They often live close to where the offence took place.
What steps are involved in constructing an FBI profile?
. Data assimilation - The profiler reviews the evidence eg. photos, pathology reports, witness statements
. Crime scene classification - It is classified as either organised or disorganised
. Crime reconstruction - Hypotheses are drawn about the sequence of events, behaviour of victim etc.
. Profile generation - Hypotheses about the likely offender are made, which may include their demographic or background, physical characteristics, behaviour etc.
What is a strength of the top-down approach - research support?
+ Research support for a distinct organised category of offender - Canter et.al (2004) conducted an analysis of 100 US murders, each committed by a different serial killer. Smallest space analysis (identifies correlations across samples of behaviour) was used to to assess the co-occurrence of 39 aspects of serial killings. This included: whether there was torture or restraint, whether there was an attempt to conceal the body, the murder weapon used, and cause of death. The analysis revealed a subset of features of many killings, which matched the FBI’s typology for organised offenders. This strengthens the top-down approach, as it demonstrates the validity of the concept of ‘organised’ offenders.
What is a counterpoint for the research support argument - top-down approach?
While research supports the existence of ‘organised’ characteristics, it also suggests that organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive. Godwin (2002) argues that it is difficult to classify killers as a distinct type, as they may have multiple contrasting characteristics. For example, they may have high intelligence and sexual competence, but commit a spontaneous murder and leave the body at the crime scene. This suggests the organised/disorganised categories are too simplistic, and are likely more of a continuum than two distinct typologies.
What is a strength of the top-down approach - applicability?
+ The top down approach has wide applicability, as it can applied to both violent and non-violent crimes - Meketa (2017) reported that top-down profiling has been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states. The method retains the organised-disorganised distinction, but also adds the categories of interpersonal (where the offender knows their victim and steals something of significance) and opportunistic (where offenders tended to be young and inexperienced). This shows the top-down approach to have wider application than initially thought, demonstrating its real world value.
What is a limitation of the top-down approach - poor evidence base?
FBI profiling was developed based on interviews with 36 murderers in the US, 25 serial killers and 11 single or double murderers. 24 of the 36 were classified as organised, and 12 as disorganised. Canter et.al has since argued that this sample was poor, as the FBI did not select a random or large sample. It also contained murderers exclusively, without any other type of violent or non-violent offender. There was also no standard set of questions, meaning each interview was different. In turn, their findings aren’t comparable. This suggests that the top-down approach lacks a scientific basis, challenging its credibility.
What is the bottom-up approach?
. The bottom-up approach is a data-driven approach which aims to generate a picture of an offender (characteristics, routines, social background) through systematic analysis of crime scene evidence. It doesn’t begin with fixed typologies or categories of criminal - the profile is data-driven and emerges as the investigator scrutinizes details of an offence. It is more grounded in psychological theory than the top-down approach. It involves investigative psychology and geographical profiling. Is closely linked with the work of David Canter
What is investigative psychology?
An attempt to apply statistical procedures. alongside psychological theory, to the analysis of a crime scene, with the aim of establishing patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur at a crime scene. Through this, a statistical database can be developed which acts as a baseline for comparison between different criminals and different offences.
Specific details from an offence or series of offences can then be matched against the database to reveal details about an offender and their characteristics. It can also be used to identify a serial offender by seeing if offences are similar and linked
Significant to the theory are: interpersonal coherence, the significance of place and time, and forensic awareness
What is interpersonal coherence?
The idea that the way an offender behaves at the scene, including their interactions with victims, may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations eg. Dwyer (2001) identified differences between rapists, with some more apologetic, and others wanting to maintain maximum control and humiliate their victims. This could tell us about how they interact with women in everyday life
What is meant by the significance of time and place?
Key variable, linked to geographical profiling. The idea that where the crime takes place may indicate where the offender lives
What is forensic awareness?
Where individuals who have previously been subject to police investigation may be aware of their methods. As a result, they might be more mindful of how they ‘cover their tracks’ and behave at the crime scene
What is geographical profiling?
Where information about the location of linked crime scenes is used to make inferences about the likely home or operational base of an offender - known as crime mapping. This is based on the principle of spatial consistency, which is the idea that people tend to commit crimes within a limited geographical space.
It can be used alongside psychological theory to create hypothesis about how the offender is thinking and their modus operandi. It can help investigators determine whether the crime was planned or opportunistic, the criminals mode of transport, employment status etc.
It is the basis of Canter’s ‘circle theory’ (Canter and Larkin 1993). Profiling showed that if a circle was drawn linking all crimes committed by an offender, they were likely to live within that area. The assumption is that offenders will operate in areas familiar to them, so understanding spatial patterns gives investigators a ‘center of gravity’ likely to include a criminals base
Canter and Larkin proposed two categories of offenders - Marauders and Commuters
What is a ‘Marauder’?
A criminal who operates in close proximity to their home base
What is a ‘Commuter’?
A criminal who is likely to have travelled a long distance away from their usual residence
What was the ‘Railway Rapist’ case?
. The case of John Duffy in the 1980’s. Duffy carried out 24 sexual acts on women, and 3 murders, near railway stations in North London. Canter analysed geographical information about the crimes and combined this with details of similar past crimes. Through this, Duffy was able to draw up an accurate picture of the offender who was later identified as Duffy. Canter predicted that he lived in Kilburn (which Duffy had previously), that he had marital problems (separated), that he was small and physically unattractive, he was familiar with martial arts, that he had a need to dominate women (had attacked his wife) and that he had fantasies of rape and bondage (he had previously tied up his wife before sex).
Canter’s predictions helped lead to Duffy’s arrest.
What is a strength of the bottom-up approach - research support for investigative psychology?
+ There is evidence to support the use of investigative psychology - Canter and Heritage (1990) conducted an analysis of 66 sexual assault cases, examining data using smallest space analysis (identifies patterns in offences to see if they are linked). Several behaviours were identified as common in different samples of behaviour, such as the use of impersonal language and a lack of reaction to the victim. Each individual displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviours, which can help to establish whether several offences were committed by the same person (case linkage). This supports the idea that people are consistent in their behaviour, a key principle of investigative psychology, and shows that it can have practical application in real crimes.
Lundrigan and Canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US, and found evidence of spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers. The location of each body disposal site created a ‘centre of gravity’, presumably because the killers disposed of victims in different areas near their home, forming a circle around it. The effect was especially noticeable for ‘marauders’. This supports the use of geographical profiling in identifying offenders, displaying its practical value.
What is a counterpoint - research support for investigative psychology?
Case linkage is dependent on an existing database of historical crimes, which are in the database because they have been solved. The fact that they have been solved could have been because they were relatively straightforward to link to other crimes. So while investigative psychology may be useful for some crimes, it may be less applicable for crimes with fewer links between them which remain unsolved.
What is a strength of the bottom-up approach - research support for geographical profiling?
Lundrigan and Canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US, and found evidence of spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers. The location of each body disposal site created a ‘centre of gravity’, presumably because the killers disposed of victims in different areas near their home, forming a circle around it. The effect was especially noticeable for ‘marauders’. This supports the use of geographical profiling in identifying offenders, displaying its practical value.
What is a limitation of the bottom-up approach - mixed results from offender profiling?
Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police departments and found that the advice provided by the profiler was judged to be useful in 83% of cases. However he also found that in only 3% of cases did the use of offender profiling lead to the accurate identification of the offender. This inaccuracy was seen in the Rachel Nickell case, where one suspect was wrongfully accused based on the profile generated by investigators. Meanwhile the actual offender, Robert Napper, was dismissed as a suspect as he was several inches taller than the profile. So while offender profiling can be useful in some cases, it is a limited tool as it does not always lead to the successful capture of a criminal, and could potentially lead to wrongful arrests. This raises concerns in terms of its practical value, and with the ethics of offender profiling, as it can lead to incorrect accusations.
What are the biological explanations of offending behaviour?
. Historical explanation/Atavistic form explanation
. Genetic and neural explanation