Forensics- P3 Flashcards
(26 cards)
The top- down approach to offender profiling AO1
- offender profiling= an investigative tool used by the police to help narrow down suspects
- American approach= top-down profiling
- FBI behavioural science unit created this in 1970’s based on in depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated killers, concluded that they could be categorised into organised and disorganised
- each category has characteristics, in future if some of the evidence matched one of the categories, predictions about other characteristics could be made
- organised: evidence of pre-planning, deliberate, high control, ‘type’ of victim, socially and sexually competent, leave little evidence
- disorganised: little evidence of planning, spontaneous, body usually left at the scene, very little control, low IQ, sexually and socially dysfunctional, live close to the scene
- Douglas et al added a ‘mixed offender’ category with traits of both
- 4 stages of constructing an FBI profile
1. data assimilation= profiler reviews evidence
2. crime scene classification= disorganised/organised
3. crime reconstruction= hypothesis made about the sequence of events
4. profile generation= hypothesis related to the likely offender e.g. physical characteristics
The top- down approach to offender profiling AO3
- S: research support: Canter conducted an analysis of 100 murders committed by serial killers, using smallest space analysis (a technique whihc identifies correlations across different behaviours) they identified the co-occurence of 39 aspects of killings (e.g. torture/ restraint) and revealed that there are specific traits typical of organised killings
- HOWEVER: many studies suggest that organised and disorganised are not mutually exclusive, combinations occur at most crime scenes, the typology should be more of a continuum
- W: issues with reliability: Jackson and Bekerian- intelligent offenders may deliberately try to miselad investigators by altering the crime scene- reduces possibility of accurate assumptions being made
-Snook et al: courts in the US often reject the approach as ‘junk science’, the profiles are so broad that they could be applied to many cases due to the little scientific evidence used - W: only applies to certain crimes- best suited to crime scenes that reveal a lot about the offender (e.g. murder/ rape/ arson), useful when they involve specific practices like dissection, not useful for more common offences like burglary
- W: based on outdated models of personality- based on the assumption that offenders have constant patterns of behaviour and motivations, instead critics suggest that motivations and behaviours are constantly changing with external factors
Bottom- up approach to offender profiling AO1
- British approach- building up a picture of the criminal (and their characteristics) through systematic analysis of evidence
- not based on fixed typologies, it is data driven and emerges as the investigator engages in deeper scrutiny of evidence
1. Investigative psychology= applying statistical procedures alongside psyc theory to crime scene analysis- - establishes patterns of behaviour that are likely to co-exist across crime scenes
- creates a statistical database which can be used as a baseline for comparison
- specific details can be matched against the database and reveal details like the familybackground of the offender
- can also help to establish if the same criminal has committed different crimes
- significance of time and place: may indicate where they live
- forensic awareness= if they’ve been interrogated by the police before they may learn how to ‘cover their tracks’
2. Geographical profiling= uses info about the location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about the likely home of the offender (crime mapping), based on spatial consistency= people tend to operate within a limited area - Canter’s circle theory= patterns of crimes form a circle around the offender’s home, some are mauraders, some are commuters
- this can also indicate whether it was planned or opportunistic and info about thier mode of transport, age and employment status
Bottom- up approach to offender profiling AO3
Atavistic form
Historical approach (a biological explanation) AO1
- Lombroso (1876)- criminals are ‘genetic throwbacks’= a primitive subspecies who are biologically different to normal people
- criminals were seen as lacking development, savage and untamed- they couldn’t adjust to civilised society so turned to crime
- crime is innate/ natural for criminals
- atavistic form: the criminal subtype can be identified by psysiological (facial and cranial) differences:
-narrow sloping brow
-strong prominent jaw
-facial asymmetry
-dark skin
-extra toes/ nipples/ fingers
-insensitivity to pain, unemployment, tattoos and use of slang - murderers: cold stare, bloodshot eyes, curly hair, hawk-like nose
- sexual deviants: glinting eyes, swollen lips, protrudinf ears
- Lombroso’s research: examined the facial and cranial features of 4000+ Italian criminals, 40% of criminal acts could be linked to atavistic traits
Atavistic form
Historical approach (a biological explanation) AO3
- W: methodological issues-
-poor control: he did not compare the criminals to a control grou, some of the characteristics may not be specific to criminals
-researcher bias: focussed on evidence that supported his theory and disregarded other evidence
-causation: the differences identified may have been caused by external factors (e.g. poverty and poor diet) rather than genetic differences - S: Lombroso’s legacy: ‘father of modern criminology’- shifted the emphasis away from moralistic discourse (criminals=weak-minded), more scientific approach, introduction to criminal profiling, big contribution to criminolgy
- W: HOWEVER, scientific racism- racial undertones, many of the ‘atavistic features’ (curly hair and dark skin) and more likely in those African descent, fits in to the 19th century eugenic attitudes, so some of his work may have been influenced by stereotypes
- W: contradictory evidence- Goring: compared 3000 criminals with 3000 non-criminals, found no evidence that offenders were a distinctly different group, however, he did find that offenders had a lower than average intelligence which provides some support for Lombroso’s idea that criminals are genetically different
Genetic explanation (a biological explanation) AO1
- crime is a result of offenders inheriting a gene (or a combination) predispose them to committing a crime
- twin-studies: Christiansen- 3586 twin pairs in Denmark, MZ concordance= 52%, DZ concordance= 22%, suggests that genetics have an influence, however not 100% so cannot solely be genetics
- candidate genes: MAOA gene has been linked to agression, it produces enzymes to break down neurotransmitters, if these are not broken down properly, mood may not be controlled- this can result in agression
-if you have a faulty or different MAOA gene you may be more susceptible to commit aggressive crimes, females are not affected by this as it is carried on the Y chromosome - diathesis-stress model: genes interact with the environment, tendency for offending behaviour may be a result of a genetic predisposition and an environmental trigger
Genetic explanation (a biological explanation) AO3
- S: support for diathesis-stress model: Mendrick et al- 13000 Danish adoptees when neither the biological or adoptive parents had convictions, 13.5% of adoptees did have convictions, when either the biological or adoptive parents did it rose to 20% and both 24.5%
- W: issues with twin studies: these assume that the twins have been exposed to the same environment, this may apply to MZ twins more as they look the same so may be treated in similar ways, this could be an alternative explanation as to why concordance rates were higher in MZ twins than in DZ twins
Neural explanation (a biological explanation) AO1
- high levels of dopamine- dopamine is linked to feelings of rewards and euphoria, aggressive acts lead to increased dopmaine levels (feelings of reward), aggressive acts are then repeated to continue the dopamine rewards loop
- stimulated amygdala- part of the limbic system, located in temporal lobes, its function is to regulate emotions so pressure on the amygdala has been lonked to aggression and aggression links to crime
- mirror neurons- most aggressive criminals have anti-social personality disorder, mirror neurons allow us to feel empathy, those with the disorder their mirror neurons function atypically
Neural explanation (a biological explanation) AO3
- S: support for stimulated amygdala: case of Charles Whitman- murdered 14 people, injured 44 others in a shooting spree, a post-mortem revealed that he had a cancerous tumor which would have been applying pressure to the amygdala
- W: HOWEVER socially sensitive- takes the responsibility/ blame away from individuals, may impact the judicial process
- S: research support for dopamine: Leblanc et al- gave p’s risperdone (an antipsychotic which reduces dopamine) and measured aggression before and after, there was a decrease in aggression of the risperdone group compared to a control
- W: determinism- not everyone with higher dopamine levels will be a criminal
Psychodynamic explanation (a psychological explanation) AO1
the inadequate superego
- tripartite personality= Id, ego, superego
- superego formed at the end of the phallic stage when we resolve the oedipus complex (electra complex in girls)
- superego works on the morality principle, punishes ego for wrongdoings through guilt
- Blackburn: if the superego is deficient, offending is inevitable as the Id has ‘free rein’
1. weak superego= if the same sex parent is absent or you fail to identify with them in the phalic stage, the superego won’t fully develop
Psychodynamic explanation (a psychological explanation) AO3
Differential association theory (a psychological explanation) AO1
Differential association theory (a psychological explanation) AO3
Cognitive explanations (a psychological explanation) AO1
Cognitive explanations (a psychological explanation) AO3
Eysenck’s theory of personality (a psychological explanation) AO1
Eysenck’s theory of personality (a psychological explanation) AO3
Restorative justice AO1
Restorative justice AO3
Anger management AO1
Anger management AO3
Behaviour modification is custody AO1
Behaviour modification in custody AO3