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- W: based on outdated models of personality- based on the assumption that offenders have constant patterns of behaviour and motivations, instead critics suggest that motivations and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
-
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’ -
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
- research support: Canter and Heritage- analysed 66 sexual assault cases using smallest space analysis- found aome characteristics were identified as common such as impersonal language towards victim and lack of reaction towards them: may indicate if one offender committed multiple offences
- scientific basis: Canter argues that it is more scientific and objective- has more basis in psychological theory, with the use of AI they can quickly manipulate geographical and psychological data to produce useful insights, it has also expanded to include analysis of evidence presented in court- useful in all stages of the judicial process
- research to support geographical profiling: Lundrigan and Canter collated info from 120 murder cases involving serial killers, smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency in the killers’ behaviours, location of each body disposal site was in a different direction from the previous creating a ‘centre of gravity’ at the offender’s base (more noticable for mauraders)
- some significant failures: Copson surveyed 48 police forces and found that the advice provided by the profiler was judged to be useful in 83% of cases but in only 3% did it lead to accurate identification of the offender, Kocsis found that chemisty students produced a more accurate offender profile on a solved murder case than an experienced detective
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
2. deviant superego= when a child internalises their same-sex parent’s deviant superego e.g. their parent thought that crime was acceptable
3. over-harsh superego= excessively strict parenting leads to an over-harsh superego, crippled by guilt and anxiety so may commit crime to stisfy their need for punishment
Maternal deprivation
* Bowlby’s 44 thieves study- interviewed and assessed 44 juvinile thieves, 14/44 were classed as affectionless psychopaths and 12/14 had separation from mother
* maternal deprivation hypothesis= early and prolonged separation from mother can lead to emotional damage later in life: lack of empathy may lead to crime- don’t understand how their actions might impact others
Psychodynamic explanation (a psychological explanation) AO3
Inadequate superego:
* research support: Goreta analysed 10 offenders and diagnosed all of them with disturbances of the superego- they experienced guilt and the need for self- punishment= over-harsh superego
* however, possible innaccuracies: theory suggests that strict parenting leads to feelings of guilt and anxiety but research has shown that strict parents tend to produce rebellious children who rarely experience guilt
* gender bias: this explanation suggests that girls develop a weaker superego as they identify less with their same-sex parent, meaning girls’ morality would be weaker and they’d offend more but in the UK there are 20x more men in prison than women and Hoffman found that young girls tended to be more moral than young boys
Maternal deprivation:
* methodological issues: didn’t distinguish between deprivation and privation, was the interviewer and the assessor= researcher bias
* other factors may be involved: Lewis analysed 500 interviews and found that M.D was a poor predictor of future offending, there may be a correlation but unlikely a causation, many other factors could be involved e.g. M.D may be due to growing up in poverty which may explain offending
Differential association theory (a psychological explanation) AO1
- Edwin Sutherland: attempted to develop a set of scientific principles whihc could explain offending based on social factors: cause and effect relationship between offenders and their backgrounds
- offending is a learnt behaviour: learning occurs through interactions with significant others, through family and peers we are exposed to deviant or non-deviant norms and values
- differential association= the degree to which we associate with someone else- how much time we spend with them
- learning attitudes: if a person is socialise into a group with pro-crime attitudes, they are more likely to take on these views. if their pro-criminal attitudes outweigh their anti-criminal attitudes they will offend
- learning techniques: in social groups they may be exposed to criminal methods such as how to break into a house
- socialisation in prison: in prison offenders may learn teachniques and be exposed to attitudes of more experienced criminals= re-offending
Differential association theory (a psychological explanation) AO3
- can explain many crimes: Akers et al studied 3065 adolescents in the US and found positive correlations between both alcohol use and marijuana use and peer acceptance of these behaviours, peer relationships accoutned for 55% of drinking behaviour and 68% of marijuana use
- can explain crimes in different sectors of society: some offences may be clustered in inner-city working class areas (e.g. burglary) but some are clusted in more affluent groups- white collar crime- Sutherland was intereted in these kinds of corporate offences (e.g. tax evasion)- theya re typical of middle class social groups who share deviant values
- shift in focus- helped to move the explanation away from biological theories such as the atavistic form which is socially sensitive and racist, towards a focus of socialisation- shifts blame from deviant people to deviant circumstances- more positive, rather than reinforcing eugenic policies
- socially sensitive and deterministic- may reinforce stereotypes that those from impoverished backgrounds will inevitably go on to offfend, ignores how people can use their free will and choose not to offend despite their circumstances
Cognitive explanations (a psychological explanation) AO1
Moral reasoning
* Kohlberg
* peoples’ moral decisions can fit into a stage, he was not interested in what people thought was right or wrong, but why (reasoning)
* levels= pre-conventional morality, conventional morality and post-conventional morality
* criminals don’t progress from pre-conventional= they seek to avoid punishment and gain reward so are more likely to commit a crime if they think they can get away with it, if punishment is avoided they continue the behaviour
Cognitive distortions
* faulty thought processes that can lead to a belief that crime is necesscary/ acceptable
* minimalisation= downplaying the seriousness of an offence e.g. burglars may percieve that they are supporting their family so view their own behaviour as acceptable
* hostile attribution bias= the tendency to interpret others’ behaviours as haing hostile content- this misinterpretation leads to a disproportionate reaction
Cognitive explanations (a psychological explanation) AO3
Moral reasoning
* research support: Palmer and Hollin- compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted criminals using 11 moral dilemma questions e.g. keeping a promise to a friend, the offender grup showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offenders
* positive implicatioons: interventions could be put in place to develop moral reasoning, programmes put in place to increase moral reasoning and help reduce reoffending
* limited to certain types of crime: level of moral reasoning may depend on the type of offence- those who commit crime for financial gain are more likely to show pre-conventional morality, tends to link to crimes that area easier to get away with
Cognitive distortions
* real-world application: can be applied to CBT, aims to challenge irrational thinking, offenders are encouraged to acknowledge the reality of their actions and develop a less distorted view of them
* depends of type of offence: the level of distortion depends on the type of offence e.g. Howwit and Sheldon found that non-contact sexual offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sexual offenders, and those who had a previous convictions were more likely to use distortions as justifications
Eysenck’s theory of personality (a psychological explanation) AO1
- Personality is made up of three dimensions:
1. introvert/ extrovert
2. neurotic/stable
3. psychotic/ non-psychotic - the criminal personality= neurotic- extravert- psychotic: neurotics are unstable so overreact to threats, extraverts take more risks and psychotics are agressive and lack sympathy
- these personality traits have a biological basis:
-extraverts: underactive nervous system, seek excitement and stimulation, risk taking
-neurotics: higher levels of activity in sympathetic nervous system, respond quickly to fight or flight, nervous, jumpy, behviour is unpredictable and irrational
-psychotics: higher levels of testosterone= cold unemotional and agressive - role of socialisation: socialisation links personality to offending behaviour- through conditioning we learn to accept delayed gratification rather than demanding immediate gratification, offenders are developmentally immature and only concerned with immediate gratification as their personality is harder to condition
Eysenck’s theory of personality (a psychological explanation) AO3
- research support: Eysenck and Eysenck- compared 2070 prisoners’ scores on te Eysenck personality questionairre (EPQ) with 2422 controls, prisoners had higher ratings on neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism- agrees with the theory
- issues with the research: limited only to the culture they studied, later research shows this may be culture specific, issues with measuring personality- may not be reducable to a score, too complex and dynamic
- however, Farrington et al: meta-analysis of relevant studies, found that offenders tended to score highly on psychoticism but not neuroticism or extraversion
- furthermore, EEGs show inconsistent evidence of differences in cortical arousal between intro and extroverts- casts doubt on the biological basis of the theory
- too simplistic- offending behaviour cannot be explained by personality traits alone, Moffit drew a distinction between adolescence-limited crime and life-course persistent crime, personality traits were a poor indicator of how long offending behaviour would go on for, persistence in offending may be due to the reciprocal interaction between personality and environment
Restorative justice AO1
- restorative justice= a system of dealing with offending behaviour through reconcilliation with the victim/ survivor
- changes the emphasis of crime from against the state to against the individual
- aims= recovery of survivor and rehabilitation of offender
- key features: trained supervisor mediates, offenders meet voluntarily with victim, all parties are actively involved, face to face or via video, survivor explain how it affected them and the community
- restorative ustice council: establishes clear standards for use of RJ and supports victims and professionals, also advocated for its use in other setting like schools
- sentencing: RJ can occur pre-trial or be used alongside a sentence (and to reduce a sentence)
- restitution: often seen as a monetary payment to reflect physical or psychological damage caused, could also involve the offender physically repairing any damage (e.g. break-ins), can also include emotional resitution- building back up their self-esteem
Restorative justice AO3
- decreases recidivism: Strag compared offenders who’d experienced face to face RJ with those who’d had custodial sentencing, found RJ group was significantly less likely to reoffend, especially in violent cases
- domestic violence: the NPCC does not support the use of RJ in cases of domestic violence, potential power imbalance, can put pressure on victim to go along with the abusers suggestions in sessions, HOWEVER can be useful for partners intending to stay together- identify harm caused and plan for the future
- research support: RJC conducted a meta-analysis inolving a 7 year research project
-85% survivors reported satisfaction with the programme
-78% would recommend to others in similar situations
-60% said it made them feel better about the incident enabling closure - however, not all evidence supports its use: Wood and Suzuki found that it isn’t as survivor focussed as the RJC suggests, survivors may be ‘used’ in the offenders rehabilitation rather than the focus being on their recovery
Anger management AO1
- works on cognitive processes, aims to get offenders to change their mindset
- form of CBT- taught to identify triggers, learn techniques to calm down and how to deal with siutations in a positive way
- e.g. CALM: controlling anger and learning to manage it- the main programme used in uk
- three stages: CSA
1. cognitive preparation= thinking back to previous situations and identifying potential triggers, if their response was irrational, therapist will explain why anger shouldn’t be an automatic or justified response
2. skills aquisition= taught techniques to help them deal with anger in a rational way
-cognitive: positive self talk
-behavioural: effective communication with need for violence
-physiological: relaxation training
3. application practice: practice new skills in controlled environment- role play with therapist, positive reinforcement
Anger management AO3
- positive outcomes for young offenders: Keen et al studied progress of offenders aged 17-21 when following a nationally recognised programme of 8x 2hr sessions - some initial issues (e.g. not taking seriously) but final outcomes were positive, reported an increase in awareness and control of anger
- individual differences in effectiveness: Howells investigated Australian offenders aabd found that participantion in anger management had little effect, HOWEVER significant progress was made for those with intense anger levels and those highly motivated to change
- expensive: requires highly trained specialists in dealing with violent behaviour- many prisons do not have the resources, change takes a long time which adds to the expense
- better than behaviour modification: benefits may last longer, tackles the cause of behaviour (cognitive processes) rather than just dealing with thhe surface level behaviour, gives an insight into the cause of their criminality and allows them to self discover ways of dealing with it OUTSIDE of the prison setting
- HOWEVER, Blackburn: anger management has noticable short term effects but not long term, application stage relies on role play which can’t reflect all real life triggers of anger
Behaviour modification is custody AO1
- works on behaviourist principles- behaviur is learn so can be unlearnt, uses principles of operant conditioning (reinforcement)
Token economy - used to obtain desired behaviour in institutions
- rewards desirable behaviour and punishes undesirable
- rewards are often tokens or points (secondary reinforcers) which can be exchanged for primary reinforcers- tangiable things they want e.g. phone call to loved one
Designing a token economy- OST
1. operationalisation- behaviours that are going to be rewarded and punished must be broken down into component parts e.g. independence could be broken down into making bed
2. scoring system- devise how much each behaviour is ‘worth’ by ranking them in a heirarchy, most desirable warrants the greatest reward
3. training- staff are trained on how to impliment the system including standardisation of how how reards are awareded and exchanged- they must all reinforce behaviours in the same way
Behaviour modification in custody AO3
- research support:
-Hobbs and Holt- introduced a token economy system with offenders across three behavioural untis and one control, they observed a significant differene in the token economy group
-Field- found token economies were generally effective but not for everyone until the rewards were immediate and frequent - consistency- they are only effective if they are applied consistently across the prison, this is an issue as often staff lack training and prsions have high staff turnover
- may not benefit long term behaviour- Blackburn: it has ‘little rehabilitative value’ and any positive changes will be lost when they are released, more congitive based treatments e.g. anger management have more lasting effects- make them understand the cause of their behaviour, offenders can easily ‘play along’ with a token economy
- easy to set up in custody: no need for specialist training, can be designed and implimented by anyone in any prison= accessible
