Forensic Psychology Flashcards
dark figure
amount of crime that goes unreported and unrecorded
introversion
- focused more on internal thoughts, feelings and moods
- rather than seeking external stimulation
extraversion
- outgoing, seeking excitement and stimulation
- likely to engage in risk-taking behaviour
Neuroticism
- have distress/dissatisfaction within themselves and their lives
- more prone to negative feelings (e.g. anger and guilt)
psychoticism
- cold, unemotional and prone to aggressive and interpersonal hostility
socialisation
- process in which individuals learn to behave in a way acceptable to society
- individuals who score high on extroversion, psychoticism and neuroticism scale cannot be conditioned –> do not experience anxiety alongside anti-social behaviour and there for are not socialised
biological basis: Eysenck’s criminal personality
- personality traits are biological and come alongside the nervous system we inherit
- innate
biological explanation for extraverts (EYSENCK)
- extroverts = underactive nervous system
- cause them to constantly seek excitement and stimulation –> leads to risk taking behaviour
- less likely to be socialised
- less likely to learn from mistakes
biological explanation for neuroticism (EYSENCK)
- neurotics = high levels of reactivity in sympathetic nervous system
- respond quickly to threats –> causes them to be jumpy, nervous and over anxious
- behaviour is therefore difficult to predict
biological explanation for psychotics (EYSENCK)
- psychotics have higher levels of testosterone - cold, unemotional and prone to aggression
The criminal personality
- neurotic-extravert
- combines extravert and neurotic characteristics
- also will score highly on psychoticism scale
- Eysenck said criminal behaviour was developmentally immature –> selfish and concerned with self-gratification –> impatient and cannot wait for things
Measuring the criminal personality
- Eysenck developed ‘Eysenck’s Personality Inventory’ (EPI)
- A test that locates respondents along the E and N dimensions
- P scale was later added
Evaluation: Eysenck’s criminal personality
P - culture bias
E- Bartol et al studied Hispanic and African American prisoners in New York
- they were overall less extrovert, than the non-criminal control group
C - this sample was a very different cultural group than that investigated by Eysenck, this questions the generalisability of the criminal personality
P - Evidence support
E - Eysenck compared 2070 male prisoners’ scores on the EPI with 2422 male controls
- groups were subdivided into age groups
- across all age groups prisoners recorded higher
scores on measures P,E & N
C - this is excellent evidence because it uses a control group to compare behaviour, uses a large sample
–>increasing generalisability to the population
P - Too simplistic
E- Mitchell suggested our personalities change depending on who’s around us/where we
- also suggested criminals answers may be influenced by mood
C - we therefore should be careful not to take a reductionist approach in explaining criminal behaviour
- and consider: non-biology e.g. setting
The psychodynamic explanation for criminality
- superego = formed at the end of the phallic stage after children resolve the Oedipus complex
- Blackburn argued that if the superego is somehow deficient or inadequate then criminal behaviour is inevitable because the id is given ‘free rein’ and not properly controlled
- there are 3 types of inadequate superego
The weak superego
- if the same-sex parent is absent during the phallic stage, the child cannot internalise a fully formed superego —> no opportunity for identification to internalise any moral values
- higher chance of immoral or criminal behaviour
The deviant superego
- if the superego that the child internalises has immoral or deviant values = this would lead to offending behaviour
For- e.g. a boy who is raised by a criminal father is not likely to associate guilt with wrongdoing
The over-harsh superego
- A superego inherited from an overstrict same sex parent –> the superego is so harsh the individual is constantly crippled with guilt.
- this may unconsciously drive the individual to commit criminal acts to fulfil their superegos need for punishment
healthy superego
- healthy superego = kind but firm internal parent, it has rules but is forgiving of wrongdoing
3 types of inadequate superego
- The weak superego
- The deviant superego
- The over-harsh superego
The superego
- formed at the end of the phallic stage after children resolve the Oedipus complex
- It operates on the morality principle and punishes the ego through guilt for wrongdoing and rewarding it with pride for moral behaviour.
The psychodynamic explanation for criminality: Evaluation
P - Gender bias
E - theory suggests that girls develop a weaker superego because they cannot suffer from castration anxiety
- and therefore do not have as much motivation to identify with the same-sex parent
C - implies girls should be more prone to criminality
- evidence does not support this —> why are 80-90% of prisoners in all countries male
P - poor validity
E - criminals actively go to great lengths to try to conceal their behaviour
C - therefore it is unlikely that they want to get caught so they can be punished because of their unconscious desire for punishment
P - unfalsifiable
E - nobody can prove that they didn’t experience identification through fear of castration —> since experience is repressed at the last stage (people can’t remember)
C - you cannot prove nor disprove the theory –> highly unscientific
correlation not causation
simplistic = drugs? alcohol?
Sutherland’s theory of differential association
- proposes that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour
differential association: criminality arises from 2 factors…
- learning attitudes towards crime
- learning specific criminal acts
the differential association suggests we learn through…
interaction and communication
the differential association suggests we learn from…
significant others e.g. family, friends/peer group
differential association theory: learning pro-crime attitudes
- pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime attitudes –> individual will go on to offend
- and visa versa
- criminal morals include
e. g. 1 ‘it’s okay to steal from them because they have insurance’
e.g. 2 ‘its just a bit of fun and nobody is getting hurt’
differential association theory: learning criminal acts
- whilst being exposed to pro-crime attitudes individuals may be exposed to particular techniques for committing a crime
- e.g. picking a lock, hot wiring a car
how likely a person is to commit a crime is affected by…
- frequency - how often they are exposed to crime
- duration: how long they are exposed to crime
- priority: how important the person who is expressing the criminal acts/moral is
- intensity: do they see the crime irl or on tv
Evaluation: differential association theory
P - useful applications
E - explains why imprisonment doesn’t prevent reoffending
- whilst in prison surrounded, by other criminals, may learn more criminal acts and morals
- over 50% of criminals re-offend, usually for a worse crime
C - instead community service that does not expose offenders to criminals and instead non-criminals and non-criminal attitudes
P - untestable and unscientific
E - cannot do a mathematical calculation of criminal behaviour
- cannot identify the exact point in which exposure to criminality causes criminality
C - therefore cannot prove the theory, reducing its scientific credibility
P - Versatile theory
E - has the ability to explain more than just juvenile delinquency but also white-collar, corporate and organised crime
C —-> since crime is understood to be learnt behaviour the theory is applicable to a wide range of crime
cognitive explanations for criminality: moral development:
- Kohlberg suggested crime is a result of people’s decisions and judgements of right and wrong
- used moral dilemmas (Heinz) to study moral reasoning
morality
- sense of what is right and wrong
Kohlberg’s moral ladder
- pre-conventional level
- conventional level
- post-conventional level
- people have different levels of moral reasoning
- work up
- can’t skip levels (stage theory)
pre-conventional level
- rules are obeyed to avoid punishment
- rules are obeyed for personal gain
conventional level
- rules are obeyed to gain approval ‘good girl’ ‘good boy’
- rules are obeyed to maintain social order
post-conventional level
- rules are obeyed if they are fair to everyone
- democratic rules are challenged if they infringe on the rights of others
- the individual establishes their own rules in accordance with a personal set of ethical principles
criminal level of morality
- criminal offenders are more likely to be at the pre-conventional level
- with a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards
- non-criminals are more likely to progress to the conventional level and beyond
Kohlberg’s moral ladder evaluation
P - Evidence support: Palmer
E - compared moral reasoning of offenders vs non-offenders
- using 11 moral dilemmas such as not taking things from others and keeping a promise to a friend
- criminals showed less moral reasoning
C - this is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions increasing the validity of the theory
P - research has validity issues
E - morality is often measured through self-reports (Palmer) which are subject to social desirability bias
C - reduces the validity of the results
- just because you know the right thing to do doesn’t mean you actually would if it came down to it
P - Individual differences
E - moral reasoning may be dependent on type of crime
- impulsive crime: less thought, moral reasoning isn’t practised
- whereas in crimes for financial gain e.g. robbery pre-conventional reasoning is more likely
C - theory may not apply to all types of criminals —> tends to be associated with crimes in which criminals belive they can avoid punishment
cognitive explanations for criminality: cognitive distortions:
suggests criminals have errors in the way that they interpret other people’s behaviour and justify their own actions
distortions
errors in people’s information processing system ‘faulty thinking’
2 types of cognitive distortion:
- hostile attribution bias
- minimalisation
2 types of cognitive distortions
- hostile attribution bias
2. minimalisation
attribution
how we assign a cause of behaviour
hostile attribution bias
- the theory suggests that criminals may be violent because they misinterpret non-aggressive cues (e.g. being looked at)
- they may see someone as being confrontational when in reality they are not
- this may trigger a disproportionate, often violent response
evidence for hostile attribution bias
- 55 violent offenders
- presented images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions
- compared to non-aggressive matched control group
- violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive images as angry and hostile
minimalisation
- a type of deception that involves downplaying the significance of event or emotion
evidence for minimalisation
- 26 imprisoned rapists
- 54% denied believing they had committed an offence
- 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim
- child molesters
- 35% claimed the crime was non-sexual (just being affectionate)
- 36% stated the victim had consented
cognitive explanations for criminality: cognitive distortions: Evaluation
P - evidence support for both hostile attribution bias and minimalization
E - 55 violent criminals (more likely to identify emotionally ambiguous expressions as hostile)
- group child molesters (35% ‘just being affectionate’ - non-sexual and 36% ‘child had consented
- 26 imprisoned rapists (54% no crime committed and 40% minimised harm caused to victim)
C - such vast amounts of evidence increase the validity of the theories explanations
P - applications
E - CBT such as anger management therapy have shown high levels of success
- include accepting crimes and not minimising them which has been linked with lower chances of reoffending
C -This gives the cognitive explanation a useful real-world application
P - descriptive not explanatory
E - explains what may be going in the criminal mind
- but does not explain how this faulty thought processing comes about
C - this is a weakness because where it is useful in predicting reoffending there is insight into why the crime was committed in the first place
The top-down approach
- based on in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers e.g. Ted Bundy
- offender, is matched to a pre-existing ‘template’, provided by the FBI from these interviews e.g. organised or disorganised
- used to guide police investigations
- suggests that the criminal has a particular way of working
Top-down approach: Template
- offender, is matched to a pre-existing ‘template’, provided by the FBI e.g. organised or disorganised
- used to guide police investigations
- suggest that the criminal has a particular way of working
- Templates were created through in-depth interviews with serial killers such as Ted Bundy and Charles Manson (36 sexually motivtated killers)
- based off of the theory that criminals ways of working often correlate with a certain set of social and psychological characteristic
Organised offender
- evidence of planning the crime in advance
- high degree of control during the crime
- little clues or evidence left behind e.g. body
- above-average intelligence
- skilled
- professional occupation
- socially and sexually competent
- usually married and may have children
unorganised offender
- little evidence of planning
- may be spontaneous
- crime scene shows impulsiveness nature
- body usually left at scene
- lower than average IQ
- unskilled work or unemployed
- history of sexual dysfunction or failed relationships
- live alone and close to location of offence
constructing an FBI profile - four stages
four stages:
- data assimilation: review of evidence
- crime scene classification: organised or disorganised
- crime reconstruction: hypotheses of events, behaviour of victim, etc
- profile generation: compile hypotheses related to offender
The top-down approach: Evaluation
P - only works for some crimes
E - works well for premeditated murder, rape & torture etc. because methods reveal info about the offender
- doesn’t work for crimes such as burglary because crime-scene doesn’t reveal much about the criminal
C- cannot be used to help solve all crimes
P - based of a small sample size
E - 36 killers in the USA
- male
- and all were caught
C - suggests theory can’t be representative since it is small AND since it can’t be generalised to those who weren’t caught
- also manipulative: why would they want to help police
P - classification is too simplistic
E - organised and disorganised categories are not mutually exclusive
- people can be both
- Godwin: ‘how would you categorise a criminal with high intelligence but commits a spontaneous murder’
C - another model may be more sufficient
- can’t categorise all criminals with this typology
The bottom-up approach
- generate a profile of the offender by looking at the available evidence
- no fixed typologies
- starts with details and creates big picture
- no initial assumptions
- data driven - uses databases to link crimes and predict actions of criminals
- generates characteristics of the criminal
- INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING
Investigative psychology
- applies statistical procedures alongside psychological theory to analyse crime scene evidence
- to establish patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur
- which allows for the creation of a database = from which comparisons can be made
- databases reveal important info about offender or links crimes
- uses interpersonal coherence
commuter
travels a distance away from their residence
Database
- all previous crimes are in a database for comparisons with new crimes
- similarities and differences
- can compare old crimes with new crimes
- Can establish if a series of crimes were committed by the same person (serial crimes)
- and predict important details about the criminal based off of previous criminals or based off of how they act at the crime scenes e.g. personal hsitory, family, etc
- yes/no system: yes weapon, drop down menu etc
The bottom-up approach: Evaluation
P - evidence support (Canter)
E - supports idea that profiling can be used to link serial cases
- 66 cases
- 27 offenders
- several common charvateristc occured such as ‘lack of reaction to the victim’ and ‘surprise attacks’ and ‘disturbance of clothing’
- nut they occured in diff patterens in diff induviduals
- e.g. one may rip clothes and another may use scissors
C - hilights how behaviour can be used to link several crimes to the same criminal –> strength - success
P - Slow
E - requires a lot of cases preferably with live victims to build a good picture of the criminal
- Duffy –> 18 known rape victims were interviewed over 12mnths and they still could not identify him
C - if victim testimonies contradict it makes it difficult to build a profile and find the victim
H - however criminal profiling was useful during the DUFFY case in whcih the profile moved him from suspect 1505 to suspect 1
- allowed him to be survied sooner than if they had to work through all the suspects
- prevented further rape/murder and removed him from the streets
P - Relies on databases
E - many SA victims do not report their assults
- criminals do not end up in databases
- they are then less likely to be put on the suspect lsit
- dark figure
C - reduces usefullness of this system and makes it more difficult to sue by the police
forensic awareness
- describes individuals who have be subject of police investigation/interrogation before so they now know how to/ now deliberately cover their tracks
- police will know they’ve committed before
Interpersonal coherence
- the way in which a crime is committed e.g how they ‘interact’ with the victim will reflect their traits/everyday behaviour
marauder
operates in close proximity to their home
Geographical Profiling
- based on the principle of spatial consistency: an offenders operational base and possible future offences are revealed by the geographical location of their previous crimes.
- Uses information to do with location of linked crimes to make inferences about likely home or operational base of an offender known as crime mapping.
criminal profiling
- aim: to narrow the suspect list
- involves inspection of the crime scene and analysis of evidence (including witness reports)
- –> and drawing conclusions about characteristics of the killer, e.g., age, occupation, and so on.
