Forensic Psych Flashcards
Offender Profiling
Also known as “criminal profiling”, a BEHAVIOURAL and ANALYTICAL tool, that is intending to help investigators ACCURATELY PREDICT and PROFILE the characteristics of UNKNOWN CRIMINALS.
Top - down approach
Profiler has EXPERIENCE. Profilers start with a PRE-ESTABLISHED TYPOLOGY and work down, in order to ASSIGN OFFENDERS to ONE of TWO CATEGORIES, based on WITNESS ACCOUNTS and EVIDENCE from the crime scene.
Organised Offender
Evidence of planning, targets victims, tends to be socially and sexually competent with higher than average intelligence eg. Ted Bundy.
Disorganised Offender
Little evidence of planning, leaves clues, tends to be socially and sexually incompetent, with lower than average intelligence.
Top Down Approach Info
- Originated in the US, as a result of work carried out by the FBI in the 1970’s.
- The FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit drew upon DATA gathered from in-depth INTERVIEWS, with 36 SEXUALLY MOTIVATED SERIAL KILLERS eg. Ted Bundy.
- Also known as the TYPOLOGY APPROACH, offender profilers who use this method will match what is KNOWN about the crime and offender to a PRE-EXISTING TEMPLATE created by the FBI.
- Murderers or rapists are CLASSIFIED into 1 of 2 categories (disorganised or organised) on EVIDENCE.
- This classification INFORMS the subsequent POLICE INVESTIGATION.
- The approach starts with the BIGGER picture and then FILLS in the DETAILS.
Organised Characteristics
- Victim targeted
- Monitors media coverage of crime
- Aggressive
- Controls conversation
- Weapon absent
- Crime scene orderly
- Highly intelligent
- Body transported from OG point of murder
- Attempts to clear up
- Socially competent
- Sexually competent
- Skilled occupation
- Inconsistent discipline as a child
- High birth order (eldest)
- Body hidden from view
Disorganised Characteristics
- Victim selected at random
- Average intelligence
- Aggressive
- Crime unplanned
- Avoids conversation
- Lives alone
- Lives/works close to the crime scene
- No interest in media coverage
- Poor work history
- Weapon present
- Sexual activity after death
- Body left in view
- Socially immature
- Sexually incompetent
- Harsh discipline as a child
- Low birth order (youngest)
Organised Offenders
Behaviour towards victim:
Aggressive
Victims are targeted
Crime scene detail:
Weapon absent
Crime scene orderly
Body transported from OG point of murder
Attempts to clear up
Body hidden from view
Characteristics of criminal:
Monitors media coverage of crime
Controls conversation
Highly intelligent
Socially competent
Sexually competent
Background of criminal:
Skilled occupation
High birth order (eldest)
Inconsistent discipline as a child
Disorganised Offenders
Behaviour towards victim:
Aggressive
Victims selected at random
Crime scene detail:
Crime unplanned
Weapon present
Sexual activity after death
Body left in view
Characteristics of criminal:
Average intelligence
Avoids conversation
Lives alone
Lives/works close to crime scene
No interest in media coverage
Socially immature
Sexually incompetent
Background of criminal:
Poor work history
Low birth order (youngest)
Harsh discipline as a child
Constructing an FBI Profile
1) Data assimilation - Information is gathered from the crime scene and other sources about exactly what happened. They will look at photos of the scene, forensic evidence, police reports etc.
2) Crime scene - A decision is made regarding whether the criminal appears to have planned the act (organised) or acted hastily in an unplanned way (disorganised).
3) Crime reconstruction - Hypotheses are generated about what probably happened during the crime scene eg. victim behaviour + sequence of events.
4) Profile generation - A rough sketch of the criminal is developed including social groups, appearance and likely behavioural traits.
A03) Top down approach
Weakness of RM) Only applies to particular crimes
P) Limitation of top-down profiling –> Best suited to crime scenes such as rape, arson + cult killings.
E) Used for crimes that involve such macbre practices such as sadistic torture, dissection of the body and acting out fantasies.
C) However, more common offences, such as burglary and destruction of property (or even murder + assault when committing these), DO NOT LEND themselves to profiling, because the resulting crime scene reveals VERY LITTLE about the offencer. Therefore, it is only a LIMITED APPROACH to identifying a criminal.
C) So, it does have its advantages, but can’t be applied to a wide range of crimes.
A03) Top down approach
Counter point to the point above:
Supports A01) Wider application
P) However, a contrast point to this, is the strength of the top down approach, as it can be adapted to other crimes.
E) For example, Meketa (2017) reported that a top-down approach has been recently applied to BURGLARY, leading to an 85% rise in SOLVED CASES in 3 US states.
C) The organised/disorganised distinction was kept, but TWO NEW CATEGORIES were added: interpersonal (victim + burglar knew each other) and opportunistic (young, inexperienced criminals).
C) This suggests that top down profiling has a WIDER APPLICATION than was originally assumed.
A03) Top down approach
Supports A01) Research support - Canter (2004)
P) Supporting research for a DISTINCT ORGANISED CATEGORY of offender.
E) Canter (2004) –> Did an analysis of 100 US murders by different serial killers, using a technique called SMALLEST SPACE ANALYSIS. This is a STATISTICAL TECHNIQUE, that identifies correlations across different samples of behaviour. He used this to assess whether there were characteristics, such as torture and attempts to conceal the murder weapon.
C) The analysis demonstrated that there was a SUBSET of FEATURES of many serial killings, that matched the FBI typology for OO.
C) This increases the validity for the pre-existing template used to classify criminals.
A03) Top down approach
Challenges A01) Not mutually exclusive
P) Limitation –> “Organised” and “Disorganised” types may not be two distinct categories.
E) For example –> A killer may have high levels of sexual competence or intelligence, but might then commit a spontaneous murder, as found by Godwin (2002). He found that it’s therefore difficult to classify killers as one or the other type, as an offender may have MULTIPLE CONTRASTING characteristics.
C) This cannot be categorised into either of the two.
C) This could therefore mean that the typology approach is more of a CONTINUUM, rather than one or another, which LOWERS ITS VALIDITY.
A03) Top down approach
Weakness of RM)
P) Weakness –> The original data on which the organised/disorganised classification comes from, as it’s based on 36 of the MOST DANGEROUS/ SEXUALLY MOTIVATED murderers eg. Bundy + Manson.
E) Self report data was used to identify the key characteristics, that would help police “read” a crime scene.
C) This means that self-report methods question the validity of the classification system, as individuals are HIGHLY MANIPULATIVE, so not likely to be the best source of reliable info. Additionally, their RATIONALE might be quite different to more typical offenders.
C) Therefore, the use of self-report methods lowers the internal validity of the classification system.
Bottom Up Approach
Profilers work up from evidence collected from the crime scene, to develop hypotheses about the likely characteristics, motivations and social backgrounds of the offender.
Bottom up approach info
- Developed in the UK, as a more data-driven approach is taken.
- Aims to generate a picture of the offender, their likely characteristics, routine behaviour and social background.
- This is completed through systematic analysis of evidence at the crime scene.
- Unlike the top down approach, it DOES NOT begin with fixed typologies. The investigator engages in deeper and more rigorous scrutiny of the details of the offence.
- It is more ground in psychological theory.
- The approach starts with the details and creates the bigger picture.
Investigative psychology
A form of bottom up profiling, that matches details from the crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns, based on psychological theory.
Investigative psychology
An attempt to apply statistical procedures, alongside psychological theory, to the analysis of crime scene evidence. Specific details are used.
The aim is to establish patterns of behaviour, that are likely to occur ACROSS crime scenes. This is to develop a statistical database, which acts as a baseline comparison.
Approach is mostly associated with Prof David Canter. The main focus of investigative psychology is assessment of the crime scene, to analyse BEHAVIOUR AND SOCIAL INTERACTIONS between the OFFENDER and VICTIM.
Canter’s (1994) Key psychological principles
They inform and assist the profiling process.
Interpersonal coherence - The way an offender behaves at the scene of the crime + how they interact with the victim. This may reflect how they interact in a day to day situation.
Time and Place - Could indicate something about where they live or work or where they are geographically comfortable.
Forensic Awareness - Behaviour could indicate that they have been involved with the police in the past eg. how good they are at covering their tracks or lying to the police.
Two features emerge from these principles, that help see if crimes are committed by same offender.
- Offender consistency hypothesis –> Whether the offender has behaved in the same way each time they commit a crime.
- Behavioural distinctiveness –> Known as the criminal’s signature.
Geographical profiling
Based on the principle of SPATIAL CONSISTENCY: that an offender’s operational base and possible future offences, are revealed by the geographical location of previous crimes.
Geographical profiling
Spatial consistency - Suggests that serial offenders will restrict their work to geographical areas that they are FAMILIAR with.
Least effort principle - Offenders are more likely to commit a crime near where they live or habitually travel to, bcus it requires the least amount of effort.
Geographical profilers are concerned with WHERE, rather than who. The focus of this method is to try to establish how the LOCATION of a crime scene, can provide VITAL CLUES about the offender.
It tries to predict key profile information, such as the most likely area the offender would live, work, socialise and travel in. Info about any of these would help police narrow down the suspects + centre of inquiry.
Circle Theory - Canter + Larkin, 1993
Suggests that the pattern of offending often forms a CIRCLE around the offender’s HOME or BASE OF OPERATIONS.
Marauder - Operates in close proximity to their home base, but the crimes are often more spread out.
Commuter - Travel a distance away from their usual residence, but the crimes are usually closer together.
Crime mapping allows educated guesses to be made, about where the offender is likely to strike next. This is known as the JEOPARDY SURFACE.
A03) Bottom up approach
Supports A01) Investigative psychology
P) One strength of investigative psychology is that evidence supports its use.
E) Canter + Heritage (1990) –> Conducted an analysis of 66 sexual assault cases. Data was examined using smallest space analysis and several behaviours were identified as common in samples of behaviour, such as impersonal lang + lack of reaction to the victim.
E) Each individual displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviours and this can help establish whether two or more offences were committed by the SAME PERSON.
L) This supports one of the basic principles of investigative psychology, that people are consistent in their behaviour, so characteristics can be applied when profiling.
A03) Bottom up approach
Supports A01) Geographical profiling
P) One strength of geographical profiling is the supporting evidence.
E) Lundrigan + Canter (2001) –> Collated info from 120 murder cases, involving serial killers in the US.
SSA revealed spatial consistency in their behaviour.
The location of each body disposal site created a CENTRE OF GRAVITY.
E) Offenders start from their home base and would go in different directions each time they needed to dump a body, which created a CIRCULAR around the home base, as the offenders bases were located at the centre of the pattern.
L) This supports the view that geographical information can be used to identify an offender.
A03) Bottom up approach
Challenges A01) Copson’s challenging evidence
P) A challenge of investigative profiling comes from evidence by Copson (1995), as he finds some benefits, but negatives to suggest that profiling isn’t useful.
E) Copson (1995) –> Surveyed 48 UK police forces using investigative profiling and found that over 75% of the police officers questioned, said that the profiler’s advice had been useful.
C) However, only 3% said that the advice had helped IDENTIFY the ACTUAL offender. Yet, most said they would use a profiler again.
C) This implies that the method may not be that useful in ACTUALLY catching offenders, but the slight benefit that it brings makes it worthwhile.
CP: However, another contrast point to its benefits is that not all police use profilers. In Copson’s study, in one year, the maximum number of crimes per year where profiling was used was only 75 cases!!!
A03) Bottom up approach
Weakness of RM) Geographical info is insufficient
P) A weakness of geographical profiling is that it may be reliant on the quality of data, that the police can provide.
E) The recording of crime is not always accurate, as this can VARY between police forces. There is an estimate that 75% of crimes are not even reported to the police in the first place.
C) This makes us question the use of an approach that RELIES on the accuracy of geographical data.
C) This suggests that GI ALONE, may not always lead to the SUCCESSFUL capture of an offender.
A03) Bottom up approach
Weakness of RM) Final conclusions
P) A weakness of offender profiling is that it can’t RELIABLY identify an offender, as suggested by the views of police forces, who have used the techniques, as well as the success rates.
E) The big danger lies in sticking too closely to one profile, as was the case in the murder of Rachel Nickell, who was 21, a Mother and stabbed to death in 1992, in front of her 2 year old son.
The profile created led to the identification of Colin Stagg, when it was actually Robert Napper who was the killer. Napper had been ruled out because he was taller than what was given in the profile.
C) Thus, while an offender profile can be helpful in narrowing down possibilities, it must be utilised with great caution, to avoid wrongful arrest and convictions.
C) Therefore, offender profiling has its flaws, as wrongful arrests can lead to damaged lives, if not used with caution, which is a weakness of the bottom up approach.
Biological explanations of offending behaviour
Atavistic form –> Biological approach to offending attributes criminal activity, to the fact that offenders are GENETIC THROWBACKS, or a primitive sub species, who are ILL-SUITED to conforming to modern society’s rules. Such individuals are DISTINGUISHABLE by particular FACIAL CHARACTERISTICS.
Summary of Lombroso
An early historical perspective for explaining criminal behaviour was suggested in the 1870’s. Lombroso suggested that criminals were genetic throwbacks - a primitive subspecies who were BIOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT to non-criminals.
Offenders were seen as lacking EVOLUTIONARY development - their SAVAGE and UNTAMED nature meant that they would find it IMPOSSIBLE to ADJUST to the demands of CIVILISED SOCIETY and would turn to CRIME.
Atavistic characteristics - “Physiological markers”
Lombroso argued the criminal subtype could be identified as being in possession of “physiological markers”, that were linked to types of crime.
Biologically determined, mainly features of the face + head, that make criminals physically different to the rest of us. They include:
- Narrow, sloping brow
- Strong, prominent jaw
- High cheekbones
- Facial asymmetry
- Dark skin
- Extra toes, nipples or fingers
He went on to CATEGORISE particular types of criminal, in terms of their PHYSICAL + FACIAL characteristics.
Murderers - Bloodshot eyes, curly hair + long ears.
Sexual deviants - Glinting eyes, swollen fleshy lips + projecting ears.
Fraudsters - Lips were “thin” and “reedy”.
Lombroso’s research
Lombroso examined the FACIAL + CRANIAL features of HUNDREDS of ITALIAN CONVICTS.
Italy (1871) - Studied skull of thief + arsonist Villella.
Used a post mortem + discovered he had an indentation at the back of his skull (found in apes).
Further research:
- Skulls of 383 dead criminals + 3839 living ones.
- Associated with a number of PHYSICAL ANOMALIES, which were KEY INDICATORS of CRIMINALITY.
- Concluded that 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics.
A03: Evaluation of Atavistic Form
P) A weakness of Lombroso’s theory is that it might be seen as supporting the EUGENICS philosophy and its practices.
E) This is because he is linking criminals to “undesirable traits”, to encourage only “desirable” people to reproduce, to create a “desirable society”, which will appear criminal free.
E) This could be seen as stopping criminals who have these characteristics, as it encourages the castration of them, to prevent genetic crime.
L) Therefore, Lombroso’s theory could be seen as supporting eugenics and the idea of a “desirable person” in society, which could be seen as discrimination.
A03: Evaluation of the Atavistic Form
Supports A01) Influential
P) Strength of Lombroso’s work –> Very influential.
Prior to his work, criminality was often seen from a religious perspective and was attributed to bad spirits and devil influence.
E) Lombroso’s theory, although lacking the scientific rigour of today, was an attempt to bring explanations of criminality into the REALMS OF SCIENCE.
E) This suggests that Lombroso made a MAJOR contribution to the science of CRIMINOLOGY, as his theory HERALDED the BEGINNING of OFFENDER PROFILING.
L) Therefore, Lombroso was influential on the science of criminology, although it does lack the scientific rigour of modern studies.
A03: Evaluation of the Atavistic Form
Weakness of RM) Scientific Racism
P) Weakness of Lombroso’s theory –> May be a form of scientific racism. Several critics have drawn attention to the DISTINCT RACIAL UNDERTONES within his work.
E) Example –> DeLisi (2012) looked at the features that Lombroso identified as criminal, including CURLY HAIR and DARK SKIN, and found that they are most likely to be found among people of AFRICAN DESCENT.
E) He was basically suggesting that Africans were more likely to be offenders, which is a view that fitted 19th CENTURY EUGENIC attitudes.
L) This suggests that some aspects of his theory were HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE rather than objective and were influenced by RACIAL PREJUDICES of the time.
A03: Evaluation of the Atavistic Form
Challenges A01) Goring (1913)
P) Challenge –> Comes from Goring (1913), who set out to establish whether there were any PHYSICAL ABNORMALITIES among offenders.
E) After conducting a comparison between 3000 criminals + 3000 non-criminals, he concluded that there was NO EVIDENCE that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics.
C) Although, he did suggest that many people who commit crime have lower than average intelligence.
C) However, his findings challenge the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the population and are thus UNLIKELY to be a subspecies, as his evidence CONTRADICTS the link between atavism and crime.
A03: Evaluation of the Atavistic Form
Weakness of RM) Poor control
P) Limitation –> Lombroso’s methods of investigation were poorly controlled, as he failed to control important variables within his research.
E) Unlike Goring, Lombroso DID NOT compare his criminal sample with a NON CRIMINAL CONTROL GROUP. This could have controlled any CONFOUNDING VARIABLES that might’ve explained HIGHER CRIME RATES in CERTAIN GROUPS of people.
E) For instance, research has demonstrated links between crime + social conditions, such as poverty + poor educational outcomes (Hay+Forrest,2009)
These are links that would explain why offenders were more likely to be unemployed, for example.
L) This suggests that Lombroso’s research DOES NOT meet modern scientific standards.
A03: Evaluation of the Atavistic Form
Challenges A01) Nature or Nurture?
P) An alternative explanation that challenges Lombroso’s work, is the idea that nature and nurture may INTERACT, as OTHER FACTORS may influence their offending.
E) Lombroso proposed the atavistic form, which suggests that crime has a biological cause, so it is GENETICALLY determined and BEYOND the CONTROL of the individual. He believes that criminals are “genetic throwbacks”, who are FURTHER BACK IN THE EVOLUTIONARY CHAIN.
C) However, even if there are criminals who have SOME of the atavistic features, this does not mean this is the CAUSE of their offending. Facial and cranial differences may be influenced by OTHER FACTORS, such as POOR DIET or POVERTY, rather than being INHERITED.
C) This suggests that criminals are BOTH BORN+MADE, so NATURE AND NURTURE INTERACT, where crime is concerned.
Biological explanation: Genetic explanation
Genetics - Genes consist of DNA strands. DNA produces “instructions” for general physical features of an organism eg. eye colour, height and also specific physical features eg. neurotransmitter levels and size of brain structures. These may impact psychological features.
Genetic explanations -
Genes predispose individuals to criminal behaviour.
Adoption studies - Crowe (1972) - Adopted children who had a biological parent with a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by 18.
Adopted children whose Mother didn’t have a criminal record had a 5% risk.
Twin studies - The concordance rate of twins for criminal behaviour gives an indication of the extent that offending behaviour could be heritable.
Lange (1930) - One of twins had served time in prison. MZ concordance - 10/13 (77%) DZ concordance - 2/17 (11.8%) Sample size - 13MZ + 17DZ
Raine (1993) - MZ - 52% , DZ - 21% Sample size - Review of 13 studies
Christiansen (1977) - MZ - 35%, DZ - 13% Sample size - 3,586 twin pairs
Genetic explanations -
Candidate genes - Genetic analysis of almost 800 FINNISH OFFENDERS by Tiihonen et al (2015).
He suggested that two genes may be associated with violent crime:
MAOA gene - Control DOPAMINE and SEROTONIN in the brain, is associated with aggressive behaviour, which causes offending behaviour.
CDH13 gene - Linked to SUBSTANCE ABUSE and ADHD. In the Finnish sample, individuals with a high risk combination were 13x more likely to have a history of VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR.
Analysis found that 5-10% of all SEVERE violent crime in Finland is attributable to the MAOA + CDH13 genotypes.
Genetic explanations -
Diathesis stress model
A tendency towards offending may come about through the combination of GENETIC PREDISPOSITION and biological or psychological triggers eg. being raised in a dysfunctional environment or having criminal role models.
A03) Evaluation of genetic explanations
Weakness of RM:
P) A limitation of using twin studies as genetic evidence is the assumption of equal environments.
E) It is assumed by researchers studying twins that environmental factors are held constant, because twins are brought up together and thus must experience similar environments. However, this “shared environment assumption” may apply much more to MZ twins than DZ, because MZ twins look IDENTICAL and people tend to treat them more similarly, which in turn, affects their behaviour.
E) Therefore, higher concordance rates for MZ’s in twin studies may simply be because they are treated much more similarly than DZ twins.
C) However, adoption studies are more reliable, as they eliminate the shared environment variable.
A03) Evaluation of genetic explanations
Supports A01:
P) One strength is support for the diathesis stress model of offending. A study of over 13,000 Danish adoptees was conducted by Mednick et al (1984).
When neither the biological or adoptive parents had convictions, the percentage of adoptees that did was 13.5%.
E) This figure ROSE to 20% when either of the bio parents had convictions, and 24.5% when BOTH adoptive and bio parents had convictions.
C) This shows that genetic inheritance plays an important role in offending, but environmental influence is clearly also important, providing support for the diathesis stress model.
C) Therefore, an interactionist approach may be critical to take, as genetics and an environmental trigger plays a role.
Neural explanations -
Consider how STRUCTURES of the BRAIN may be different in criminals, as well as there being differences in NEUROTRANSMITTER LEVELS.
Neural explanations -
Regions of the brain - A common observation is that criminals report having had some head injury. Harmon, 2012 - In general, 8.5% of the US population have had a BRAIN INJURY compared with 60% in US prisons.
Prefrontal cortex - Regulates emotional behaviour and controlling moral behaviour.
Raine (2004) - Cited 71 brain imaging studies - Showed that murderers, psychopaths and violent offenders have reduced functioning in the PFC, so they’re not able to regulate their emotional behaviour, which leads to criminal activity.
Limbic system - A central part of the brain where emotions are modulated and could be argued to be implicated in offending behaviour.
Raine et al (1997) - Studied not guilty by reason of insanity. NGRI’s showed LESS ACTIVITY in the FRONTAL LOBE (especially the PFC), which is associated with RATIONAL THINKING, MEMORY and SELF RESTRAINT.
LESS ACTIVITY in the PARIETAL LOBE –> associated w/ ABSTRACT thinking, such as morality/justice, which makes them commit.
MORE ACTIVITY in OCCIPITAL LOBE (vision).
Neural explanations -
APD - antisocial personality disorder eg. reduced emotional responses, lack of empathy –> linked with criminal behaviour.
Serotonin - Seo et al (2008) suggests that LOW LEVELS of the neurotransmitter serotonin may PREDISPOSE individuals to IMPULSIVE AGGRESSION and CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR, because serotonin normally INHIBITS the PFC. Dopamine hyperactivity may ENHANCE this effect.
Noradrenaline - Wright et al, 2015 - Both HIGH and LOW levels of noradrenaline have been associated w/ AGGRESSION, VIOLENCE and CRIMINALITY.
High levels associated w/ activation of the SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM and the FOFR , thus linked to AGGRESSION.
Low levels would REDUCE the ability to help people react to PERCEIVED THREATS.
Neural explanations -
Mirror neurons -
- Criminals w/ APD can experience empathy, but less than the rest of us.
- Keysers et al (2011) - Found only when criminals ASKED to empathise did their empathy reaction ACTIVATE (controlled by mirror neurons).
- This suggests that APD individuals may have a NEURAL SWITCH that can be turned ON and OFF, unlike the NORMAL BRAIN, which has the EMPATHY SWITCH PERMANENTLY ON.
A03) Evaluation of neural explanations
Supports A01:
P) One strength of the NE is support for the LINK between CRIME and the FRONTAL LOBE.
E) Kandel + Freed (1989) reviewed evidence of FRONTAL LOBE DAMAGE (including PFC) and ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.
E) People with such damage tended to show IMPULSIVE BEHAVIOUR, EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY and an INABILITY to learn from their MISTAKES.
L) This supports the idea that brain damage may be a CAUSAL factor in offending behaviour, as the frontal lobe is associated with planning behaviour.
A03) Evaluation of neural explanations
Weakness of RM:
P) A weakness of g + n explanations is that they may be OVERLY SIMPLISTIC + INAPPROPRIATE, so a form of BIOLOGICAL REDUCTIONISM.
E) Crime does appear to run in families, but so does EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY, MENTAL ILLNESS, SOCIAL DEPRIVATION and POVERTY (Katz et al, 2007).
This makes it difficult to DISENTANGLE the effects of g + n influences from OTHER POSSIBLE FACTORS. E) Additionally, MZ twins DON’T SHOW 100% concordance. Low concordance rates in genetic studies suggest that genes play a MINIMAL ROLE in CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR, so ENVIRONMENTAL factors are likely to be RESPONSIBLE aswell.
L) Therefore, the diathesis - stress model could be used to explain criminal behaviour where concordance rates for MZ twins are not 100%.
A03) Evaluation of neural explanations
Weakness of RM:
P) A weakness of the g/n explanation, is that the notion of a “criminal gene” creates an ETHICAL DILEMMA. Our LEGAL SYSTEM is based on the premise that criminals have PERSONAL + MORAL responsibility for their crimes and only in extreme cases, such as diagnosis of MI.
E) If people claim they were not acting under their own FREE WILL, it raises ETHICAL questions about what society does with people who are suspected of carrying CRIMINAL GENES and what implications this might have for sentencing.
E) This presents society with an ethical dilemma, as it means that perhaps we have to INCARCERATE people with criminal genes, BEFORE they have committed crimes. OR it might mean we prevent them from reproducing, as the EUGENICS movement would suggest this would prevent the genes being passed on.
L) Therefore, if criminals are imprisoned and found to carry this gene, it raises questions whether they should ever be released if they could not control or stop themselves from committing crimes.
Psychological Explanations
Eysenck’s personality theory: 1967
Eysenck developed a theory of personality based on the idea that character traits tend to cluster along three dimensions.
The criminal personality - An individual who scores highly on measures of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism (added later). It cannot be easily conditioned.
Is cold and unfeeling.
Likely to engage in offending behaviour.
Examples of character traits
Inbetween neurotic and introvert:
Moody, Anxious, Pessimistic
Inbetween extrovert and stable:
Sociable, Outgoing, Talkative
Inbetween stable and introvert:
Calm, Reliable, Peaceful
Inbetween extrovert and neurotic:
Active, Optimistic, Impulsive
Measuring personality
Eysenck Personality Inventory form of psychological test.
Puts people along the E and N dimensions, which determines their personality type. Added psychoticism later.
Criminals were thought to be high in extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism.
Low impulse control –> Emotionally unstable, extraversion
High impulse control –>
Emotionally stable, introversion
Psychoticism
Cold, heartless offender, who has an inability to feel remorse and guilt.
Extraversion
Chronically under-aroused nervous system, which leads to sensation seeking and risk taking behaviour.
