forensics ao3

Question 1

bottom up approach in offender profiling (research support for its use)

Answer 1

• researchers conducted meta analysis of 66 SA cases using small space analysis
• lots of behaviours identified as common such as impersonal language and lack of reaction to victim
• each offender showed consistent pattern of behaviour and help researchers perform case linkage
• supports investigative psych that criminals show consistent behaviours

Question 2

bottom up approach in offender profiling (evidence for geographical profiling)

Answer 2

• researchers collected information for 120 murder cases with serial killers across US
• showed spatial consistency in killers behaviour
• each body disposal created centre of gravity (going different directions/locations from home base but all sites create circle around home)
• shown esp for short distances
• supports profiling from bottom up approach to identify criminal

Question 3

bottom up approach in offender profiling (geographical information maybe insufficient)

Answer 3

• may not be enough to develop its own offender profile due to inaccurate stats/dark figure of crime
• profiling relies on quality of data police can provide which varys in accuracies
• an estimate of 75% of crimes not reported in first place (dark figure)
• questions use of approach + other researchers say other factors important in creating profile eg age
• information may lack validity = lead to inaccurate profile = not sufficient on own need other info to

Question 4

top down approach in offender profiling (limited application)

Answer 4

• lacks generalisability to other crimes largely used for violent and rape so limited in offender profiling
• it is also androcentric as approach largely generalised to males then females = beta bias
• however this idea has changed and that it is more generalisable
• as long as add interpersonal and opportunistic categories
• there a strength

Question 5

top down approach in offender profiling (use self report methods)

Answer 5

• interviews done on 36 killers
• self report so may change answers due to social desirability may lie
• not a standard set of questions so cant compare
• limited sample only killers in US = cant apply to other crimes or cultures
• so imposed etic if used in other cultures

Question 6

top down approach in offender profiling (questioned existence of organised/disorganised types)

Answer 6

• researchers analysed 100 murders in US
• each case examined against 39 characteristics of organised/disorganised characteristics
• findings show evidence for distinct organised but not disorganised
• undermines use of top down approach and classifying personality as disorganised doesnt seem to be present

Question 7

historical approach to offending behaviour - atavistic form (lombroso influential in crime studies)

Answer 7

• lombroso called father of modern criminology
• shifted emphasis of crime research from moralistic discourse to more scientific position
• also trying to describe how particular people are likley to commit particular crimes = theories led to offender profiling
• he had major contributions to study of criminology

Question 8

historical approach to offending behaviour - atavistic form (lack of control)

Answer 8

• he didnt compare his offender group with control non offending group
• these could have controlled for many confounding variables
• research has shown links for crimes and social conditions explaining why people offend
• lack of control meant potential confounding variables low internal validity question link between atavism/ crime = low scientific credibility

Question 9

historical approach to offending behaviour - atavistic form (determinist)

Answer 9

• atavistic form suggests crime has genetic cause = show determinism= support nature side of debate
• however even if criminals show atavistic features doesnt mean its the cause of offending
• facial/cranial features maybe influenced by other factors rather than indication of delayed evolutionary genes
• take interactionist approach instead (people with atavistic features lean to criminality due to how theyre treated etc)

Question 10

genetic explanations of offending behaviour (twin studies support)

Answer 10

• MZ rate higher than DZ rate so when genetic similaritiy increases so did offending behaviour
• however rate not 100% shows not entirely genetic and other factors affect offending behaviour
• suggests nature nuture interactionism
• however twins likley exposed to same environment so concordance could be due to same environment than genetic similarity

Question 11

genetic explanations of offending behaviour (support for diathesis stress)

Answer 11

• researchers did study with 13000 danish adoptees if neither biological or adpoted parents had convictions adoptees who did was 13.5%
• if only one biological/adopted parent did behaviour went to 20%
• if both did it went to 24.5%
• shows both genetics and environment play role in offending behaviour

Question 12

neural explanations of offending behaviour (research shows link between frontal lobe and crime)

Answer 12

• researchers studied frontal lobe damage and antisocial behaviour
• those with damage showed impulsive behaviours and emotional instability
• however relationship between APD and brain is complex = researchers studied group of men who scored highly for APD
• experienced many risk factors growing up eg abuse
• shows early childhood experiences AND neural difference lead to APD
• cant establish cause and effect between APD and neural differences could be 3rd variable involved

Question 13

neural explanations of offending behaviour (determinism)

Answer 13

• biological approach shows biological determinism
• shows we have no free will and we will offend if we have APD certain genetics brain issues etc
• doesnt align with legal system = all responsible for own actions
• biological explanation may complicate issue may feel like we cant convict criminals and potentially cant rehabilitate them

Question 14

eysencks theory (research support)

Answer 14

• Eysenck compared 2070 male prisoners EPI with 2422 male controls
• subgroups based on ages 16-69 measuring psychoticism extraversion neuroticism
• prison group scored higher than control of all age groups
• results show high score on these 3 categories = criminal
• androcentric = cant generalise on everyone = beta bias
• large pop validity = cant apply to wide range of men

Question 15

eysencks theory (ethnocentric study)

Answer 15

• other researchers studied hispanic and african american offenders in max security prison
• divide into 6 groups based off crime and history all groups less extravert than control = occured because different cultural group
• ethnocentric = imposed etic on other cultures = emic in US = cant apply to other cultures = lead to beta bias

Question 16

eysencks theory (reductionist/determinist)

Answer 16

• biologically reductionist reduces criminalitiy to personality traits
• miss other important factors like environment etc = take interactionist instead
• we have no free will because criminality determined by our biological personality
• at odds with legal system which says we are morally responsible for our actions

Question 17

cognitive explanations to offending (research support)

Answer 17

• researchers used scale of 11 moral dillema questions offending group showed more immature responses and behaviours than control
• suggests moral development key to criminality and less mature people show more offending behaviour
• also highlighted different types of offenders show different levels of morality
• pre planned offenders showed pre conventional morality compared to assault offenders didnt
• shows support for development of moral reasoning however wont work for all crimes as some offenders had higher morality

Question 18

cognitive explanations to offending behaviour (androcentric study)

Answer 18

• used all male sample to develop moral development theory
• if applied to women = beta bias = woman could go through something different
• researchers argue male morality views are law based while females are based on compassion/care
• limits explanation shows men/women have different moral development and further research has to be done for women

Question 19

cognitive explanations to offending behaviour (practical application)

Answer 19

• understanding cognitive distortions can help treat criminal behaviour
• like CBT helps offenders face up to their behaviours with less distorted view of actions
• researchers state that reducing denial and minimisation in therapy can reduce re offending
• so explanation supported by effective rehab techniques based on theory so has practical value

Question 20

differentitial association theory (shifting focus)

Answer 20

• moved away from biological explanations of offending and gave new perspective = not bio reductionist
• can give more realistic solution to offending than just eguenics or punishments and try change social circumstances
• however environmentally reductionist as suggests those from crime ridden backgrounds will go to offend and have no choice
• doesnt acknowlegde free will and ignores idea people choose not to offend
• also cant explain offenders that dont have these environments (reductionist)

Question 21

differential association theory (it is wide reach)

Answer 21

• takes into account offending within all sectors of society
• like inner working class or white collar backgrounds
• researchers interested to see how corporate offences feature in middle class working groups who deviate from social norms
• so strength as can explain crime from all social levels

Question 22

differential association theory (difficult to test)

Answer 22

• social interactions and influences difficult to test and cant be operantionalised so making predictions difficult with theory
• difficult to see how many pro crime attitudes a person has or have been exposed to
• theory also built on assumption crime only occurs when pro crime values out number anti crime ones
• without being able to measure this we cant be sure when urge to offend occured and when offending started
• difficult to test = low scientific credibility

Question 23

psychodynamic explanation to offending (pyschic determinist)

Answer 23

• suggests unconscious will determine our superego and superego leads to offending behaviour is inadeuqate in some way
• pessimistic view doesnt take into account free will suggests we have no choice whether we offend or not = no control over unconcious
• at odds with legal system = assumes we are responsible for our behaviour = but if we believe we cant control behaviour criminals might be let off

Question 24

psychodyamic explanations to offending behaviour (gender bias)

Answer 24

• theory suggests girls develop weaker superego = dont get castration anxiety = dont feel pressure to identify with mums
• therefore suggesting females more prone criminal behaviours than boys
• this is alpha bias as exaggerates differences between males and females and girls more likley to offend = as weaker superegos
• but in UK men 20x more likely to go prison then women and no difference in morality between boys/girls but if did girls more moral
• doenst support approach as opposite to everything it said

Question 25

psychodynamic approach to offending behaviour (one of first to link childhood to offending)

Answer 25

- first to link childhood with morality and offending behaviour = now widely accepted - also acknowledeges emotional basis of offending which other approaches like cognitive ignore - however concepts its based off of are untestable as in unconcious mind - means it cant be proven or falsified - falsifiablity and testing features of science making this approach unscientific = lower credibility

Question 26

cusotidal sentencing (negative psychological effects on prisoners)

Answer 26

- prison can be brutal and devastating with suicide rates 9x in prison than general pop = 119 in 2016 - most at risk young men in solitary confinment - prison reform trust staes 25% of women and 15% of men reported symptoms of psychosis - negative impacts could effect rehabilitation however some prisoners were said to already have psychosis so prison didnt cause it

Question 27

custodial sentencing (allows opportunities for training and treatment)

Answer 27

- rehabilitation model suggests prisoners should be able to become better people and be less likley to reoffend - many also access training and education research has shown those who do college programmes in prison 43% less likley to reoffend - shows worthwhile experience and lower chances of reoffending - but not all prisoners offered same opportunites as prisons may lack funding - therefore success of sentencing relies on whats available at prison

Question 28

custodial sentencing (prisoners may learn how to offend better)

Answer 28

- younger inmates given opportunity to stay with more experienced older criminals - may teach them tricks and hacks for crime and form new criminal networks - supported by SLT as older prisoners become role models for younger inmates motivating them to do worse - undermine attempts to rehabiliate prisoners and increase chances of reoffending

Question 29

behaviour modification in custody (research support)

Answer 29

- researchers introduced token economy across 3 units - found significant difference in positive behaviour compared to control - researchers also found programmes with young people mor effective if rewards were more frequent and immediate = shows behaviour modifcations like TE do work - depends on consistency of staff if officers not consistent it wont work = must ensure full staff for TE to work

Question 30

behaviour modification in custody (not effective in long term)

Answer 30

- little rehab value because positive behaviour changes in prison hardly transfer to outside - more cognitive treatments like anger management may lead to more permananet changes as offenders take time to understand their behaviour - offenders can play along in TE for rewards but not actually change - supported by when TE is stopped offenders go back to normal behaviour - not effective = take interactionist

Question 31

behaviour modification in custody (easy to set up)

Answer 31

- can be easily administered no need for professional to be involved unlike anger management - can be designed and implemented by anyone takes little training but not as extensive as training professional for anger management - easy flow and cost effective = positive economic implications = useful as can be accessed by majority prisons and prisoners

Question 32

anger management (individual differences)

Answer 32

- success depends on individual differenences - researchers studies austrailian offenders (anger management and control) - however anger management had little impact for many but not true for all - significant progress for those who had high levels of anger before programme + those who were highly motivated and wanted to change - shows anger management only suits certain people not everyone

Question 33

anger management (expensive)

Answer 33

- expensive to run and need highly trained and qualified specialists - many prisons may not have resources or funds to fund it and if they do may have economic implications - also success based off criminals behaviour if theyre uncooperative its useless - therefore process may take longer and lead to further expense - shows anger management may not be option or successful in many prisons

Question 34

anger management (based on causal relationship between anger and offending)

Answer 34

- relies on causal relationship however no relationship found - psychometric tests have found no difference in anger levels for violent and non violent criminals - and anger is found in many crimes eg fraud - so anger management wouldnt be effective if anger wasnt present in crime in the first place - may potentially provide justification for their behaviour but no research to show anger is valid reason to offend in first place

Question 35

restorative justice (has positive outcomes)

Answer 35

- researcher did 7 year research and found 85% of survivors of crime reported satisfation with meeting offender - 78% would recommend if in similar situation and 60% felt better about incident - only 2% said made them feel worse - so restorative justice successful in helping survivors cope with aftermath of crime - however some researchers say it maybe distorted and is only used to help offender not survivor putting survivors needs second to offenders

Question 36

restorative justice (decreases rates of reoffending)

Answer 36

- researcher did meta analysis of 10 studies of face to face restorative justice and custodial sentencing - found RJ less likely to reoffend - found mainly in violent crimes compared to like property ones - othe researchers found lower reoffending rates in offenders with one to one contact than community involvement - positive on reoffending but varies on crime

Question 37

restorative justice (offenders may abuse system)

Answer 37

- will only work if offender signs up genuinely in order to make amends and regrets their actions - many sign up for different reasons (get out of prison play down their faults take pride in relationship with victim etc) - also some victims sign up to seek their own revenge or retribution as believe custodial sentencing along wont achieve these aims - so restorative justice may not be effective - also may reason why some offenders reoffend more