forensics Flashcards
(35 cards)
top down AO1
Top down strengths
Meketa (2017) reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three U.S. states. The detection method retains the organised-disorganised distinction, but also adds 2 new categories ‘interpersonal’ (offender usually knows their victims and steals something of significance) and ‘opportunistic’ (generally inexperienced young offender). This suggests that top-down profiling has wider application than was originally assumed
Police who have used FBI methods believe it is useful. For example, Copson (1995) questioned 184 US police officers, of whom 82% said the technique was operationally useful and over 90% said they would use it again.
Top down limitations
Top-down profiling is too simplistic. The behaviours that describe organised and disorganised types of offenders are not mutually exclusive. For example, a crime scene can have a combination of organised and disorganised characteristics. This suggests that top-down profiling may not be a valid way to categorise offenders because it is too restrictive. It has led to other researchers to propose more detailed typological models such as Holmes (1998) who said that there were 4 types of serial killer.
There is a lack of theoretical foundation to this approach. It has been argued that this method is based more on hunch than reasoning. Reliance on intuition is problematic as personal emotion and memories can sway intuition. This can reduce the credibility of the method as it lacks the background research to say why it works.
bottom up AO1
bottom up strengths
The bottom-up approach is more objective and scientific than the top-down approach. Due to advances in artificial intelligence, investigators can manipulate geographical, biographical, and psychological data quickly, to produce insights that assist in the investigation. This means that the bottom-up approach is more grounded in evidence and psychological theory and less driven by speculation and hunches. The impact of this should be that the offenders are more quickly and accurately identified in investigations.
Canter and Larkin (1993) studied 45 sexual assaults and showed support for their model by distinguishing between marauders and commuters. However, 91% of the offenders were identified as marauders. If almost all offenders are marauders, then the classification does not seem particularly useful.
Bottom up limitations
The bottom of approach requires statistical information from previous crimes, which is not always easy to gather. Furthermore, the evidence that there is may not be perfect in terms of coverage. This means the evidence base on which this method functions may not be complete or accurate.
Locations are important for the identification of the offender, but there are other considerations that need to be made, such as psychological characteristics. Geographical profiling concentrates on location, which could miss important information if used in isolation.
ativistic form AO1
ativistic form- A biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive subspecies, ill-suited to conforming to the rules of modern society. Such individuals are distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics.
Lombroso argued offenders were distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics. These included: a narrow, sloping brow; a strong prominent jaw; high cheekbones; facial asymmetry. Other physical markers included dark skin and the existence of extra toes, nipples, or fingers.
He even categorised types of criminals in terms of their features.
Although this theory is viewed as speculative and naïve by today’s standards, Lombroso is credited for making criminology more rigorous and scientific. His ideas may have laid the foundations for modern offender profiling.
Murders Bloodshot eyes, curly hair, and long ears.
ativistic form strength
Lombroso has been hailed the ‘father of modern criminology. He is credited for shifting the emphasis in crime research away from a moralistic discourse which viewed criminals as being wicked and weak-minded, towards a more scientific and credible realm involving evolutionary influences and genetics.
In this way, he has made a major contribution to the science of criminology.
atavistic form limitations
This theory may have, in some way, contributed to criminals being stereotyped as looking a certain way. This is clearly unhelpful and perpetuates an idea that certain features are associated with criminal behaviour.
The atavistic form explanation of offending includes distinct racial undertones. Many of the features that Lombroso identified as criminal and atavistic, such as curly hair and dark skin, are most likely to be found among people of African descent. This creates an uncomfortable and controversial aspect to this explanation of offending which overshadows criminology as a whole. It may cause people to focus more on other explanations for offending behaviour, reducing the variety of valid explanations for offender behaviour.
Even if there are criminals who have some of the atavistic elements in their facial appearance, this does not mean that this is the cause of their offending. Facial and cranial features can be influenced by other factors such as poverty or poor diet. This means that delayed evolutionary develooment mav not explain offender behaviour, instead pointing to criminals developing due to a range of environmental, rather than biological factors. There is also the suggestion that poor social interactions (which could be due to the way someone looks) can bring about criminal behaviours due to noor self-esteem and a reluctance to conform (Kaplan, 1980).
genetic explanations AO1
Genetic explanations for crime suggest that would-be offenders inherit a gene, or combination of genes, that predispose them to commit crime.
Lange (1930) investigated 13 monozygotic (MZ) and 17 dizygotic (DZ) twins where one of the twins in each pair had served time in prison. Lange found that 10 of the MZ twins, but only 2 of the DZ twins had a co-twin who was also in prison. Lange concluded that genetic factors must play a predominant part in offending behaviour.
Farrington compared criminal records of men and compared it to convictions for their mother and farther and found 64% of the families had at least one convicted person.
6% of the families accounted for 50% of all the convictions.
Adoption studies- Crowe (1972) found that adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by 18, whereas adopted children whose biological mother did not have a criminal record only had a 5% risk. This supports a genetic influence in offending behaviour.
Candidate genes- Brunner et al., 1993) researched 28 male members of a Dutch family who had histories of impulsive and violent criminal behaviours such as rape and attempted murder. The DNA of the men was analysed, and it was found that they shared a particular gene that led to abnormally low levels of MAOA.
Diathesis stress model- It is likely that even if genetics do have some influence on offending, it is at least partly moderated by the effects of the environment. A tendency towards criminal behaviour may come about through the combination of a genetic predisposition and a biological or psychological trigger.
genetic explanations strength
Most of the genetic research relates to the association between offending and violent or aggressive behaviour. Offending behaviour includes theft, fraud, drug use and bigamy - all of which are non-violent. At best, biological explanations may just account for certain kinds of crime such as those involving violence and also psychopathy. A psychopath is a person who lacks empathy with what other people feel and thus is more likely to commit crimes. There is evidence that this personality trait is inherited. For example, Blonigen et al., (2005) found support for a genetic basis looking at over 600 male and female twins.
genetic explanations limitations
The genetic explanation is biologically deterministic. The MAOA gene and CDH13 gene have both been implicated in violent crime. This suggests that offending behaviour is beyond the control of the individual. But this is problematic because the legal system is based on criminals having personal and moral responsibility, which raises ethical questions about how violent offenders should be treated.
The genetic explanation of offending is biologically reductionist. It focuses on genes such as MAOA and CDH13 in order to explain criminal behaviour. However, criminality is complex, and it may be inappropriate and overly simplistic to only focus on biology in offending behaviour.The genetic explanation is biologically deterministic. The MAOA gene and CDH13 gene have both been implicated in violent crime. This suggests that offending behaviour is beyond the control of the individual. But this is problematic because the legal system is based on criminals having personal and moral responsibility, which raises ethical questions about how violent offenders should be treated.
The genetic explanation of offending is biologically reductionist. It focuses on genes such as MAOA and CDH13 in order to explain criminal behaviour. However, criminality is complex, and it may be inappropriate and overly simplistic to only focus on biology in offending behaviour.
neural explanations AO1
Neural explanations of offending behaviour- biological theory that sees abnormally functioning brain physiology and biochemistry as forming the basis to an individual’s criminal behaviour.
Neural explanations are
explanations of behaviour and its
disorders, in terms of (dys)functions of the brain and nervous system.
Evidence suggests that there may be neural differences in the brains of offenders and non-offenders. This evidence has focused on individuals diagnosed with APD.
Neurochemistry- Noradrenaline helps individuals respond to threatening situations. Research suggests that high levels are linked to violence and aggression, and so, it is easy to explain some offending as being underpinned by a chemical imbalance.
Higley et al., (1996) found that levels of testosterone were positively correlated with aggressiveness but not impulsivity, whereas levels of serotonin were negatively correlated with impulsive behaviour but not general aggression. The results suggest that biochemical levels may underpin offender behaviour
Prefrontal cortex- Raine et al., (2000) found an 11% reduction in the volume of grey matter in the PFC of people with APD compared to controls. This reduced activity is argued to be why people with APD do not feel guilt-or appear to have a conscience. This means that they do not have the ‘brake’ that stops the majority of the population from committing crimes against others.
Mirror neurons- Keysers (2011) found that only when offenders were asked to empathise with a person depicted on a film experiencing pain did their empathy reaction, controlled by mirror neurons in the brain, activate. This suggests that individuals with APD do have some empathy but may have a neural ‘switch’ that can be turned on and off, unlike neurotypical brains where empathy is permanently turned on.
neural explanations strengths
There is support for the link between crime and the frontal lobe. Kandle and Freed (1989) reviewed evidence of frontal lobe damage, including the PFC, and antisocial behaviour. People with such damage tended to show impulsive behaviour, emotional instability and an inability to learn from their mistakes. The frontal lobe is associated with planning behaviour. This supports the idea that brain damage may be a causal factor in offending behaviour.
One potential benefit of research into neural abnormalities is that it could lead to possible methods of treatment. For example, if low levels of serotonin cause increased aggression in offenders, then people in prison could be given diets that would enhance their serotonin levels and hopefully decrease their aggression. Artificial sweeteners are high in phenylalanine and low in tryptophan both of which make the production of serotonin difficult.
genetic explanations limitation
The neural explanations are biologically deterministic. Impaired functioning in the PFC and mirror neurons has been linked to offending. This suggests that offending behaviour is beyond the control of the individual. But this is problematic because the legal system is based on offenders having personal and moral responsibility, which raises ethical questions about how offenders should be treated.
eyesenck criminal personality AO1
eyesenck criminal personality limitations
Eysenck’s theory recognises that personality may have a genetic basis and therefore suffers from biological determinism. The theory suggests that offending behaviour is a result of the activity of the nervous system. This suggests that people do not have control over whether they will offend or not.
This does not fit with the judicial system which suggests that individuals always have choice over their actions. This creates issues when it comes to making people accountable for their actions.
explanation may have cultural bias. Bartol and Holanchock (1979) looked into cultural differences between Hispanic and African American offenders in a maximum-security prison and divided them into 6 groups based on their criminal history and the nature of their offence. It was revealed that all six groups were found to be less extravert than a non-criminal control group. Bartol suggested that this was because their sample was a very different cultural group than that investigated by Eysenck.
It could be argued that Eysenck’s sample did not cover an adequate range of people and therefore specific personality types will have emerged as dominant. This questions the generalisability of the criminal personality and limits its ability to explain criminality of whole populations.
The idea that all offending behaviour can be explained by a single personality type has been heavily criticised. Digman (1990) suggested that there are additional dimensions alongside neuroticism and extraversion including openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. From this perspective, multiple combinations are available and therefore a high E and N score does not mean offending is inevitable.
cognative explanations AO1
cognative explanation strengths
cognative explanations limitations
differential association theory AO1
differential association theory strengths
differential association theory limitations
psychodynamic explanations AO1
