forensic psychology Flashcards
<div><strong>What is the Bottom-Up Approach?</strong></div>
“<p class="">(Canter - Britain) This approach is data driven rather than assigning profiles like the top-up approach. Analysis of evidence to build up ana image from the crime scene of where the offender might be from and their charcteristics</p>”
<div><strong>What is investigative psychology?</strong></div>
“<p class>It is the combining of psychological theory with statistics in order to create a profile that can then be matched against a pre-existing database. This also allows for pattern recognition, connecting crimes together.</p>”
<div><strong>What is interpersonal coherence?</strong></div>
q
“<p class="">Dwyer (2001) saw that how the killer interacts with their victims can be used to deduce how they act in day to day life. For example the need to control everything can indicate a preference for certain jobs or habits.</p>”
<div><strong>Why do the time and space a crime is committed in matter?</strong></div>
“<p class>This allows you to see the routine and the familiarity of the criminal with the area, narrowing the pool of suspects who could have committed the crime.</p><p class> </p>”
<div><strong>What is geographical profiling?</strong></div>
“<p class>This is also known as ‘crime mapping’ and was developed by Rossmo (1997) who showed that by collecting information from abduction sights they could work out a radius within which the killer must live. (spatial consistency) </p><p class>It can also be used to define the MO of a way the criminal works in order to predict how they will act in the future.</p>”
<div><strong>What is Canter’s Circle Theory?</strong></div>
“<p class>Canter + Larkin (1993) suggested there are two types of serial killers/rapists that can be defined by this method:</p><ul class=""><li style="">The Marauder - works in close proximity to their home .</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">The Commuter - They travel to an area to engage in crime, often a large distance.</li></ul><p class>From this you can narrow down the area of search and monitor transport and certain routes.</p>”
<div><strong>How did Canter develop his use of bottom-up theory?</strong></div>
“<p class>Aim: Testing the reliability of ‘O&D’ types.</p><p class>Procedure: Content analysis of hundred cases of serial killers, all looking at the third victim. This idea was originally based upon Douglas’ (1992) research.</p><p class>Findings: Disorganised was the more common form and easier to detect while organised crimes were more likely to conceal the body (70%).</p>”
<div><em><strong>What are the strengths of this study? (Canter disorganised) </strong></em></div>
“<ul class=""><li style="">real crimes used </li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">information taken from multiple sources</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">used to establish criteria rather than using there own</li></ul>”
<div><em><strong>What are the weaknesses of this study? (canter discorganised) </strong></em></div>
“<ul class=""><li style="">Most criminals are not murderers, unrepresentative sample</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">cultural bias</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">reliability of data collection is questionable</li></ul>”
<div><em><strong>How does Canter and Heritage’s (1990) work aid the police?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Through the process of carrying out 66 case reviews using connect analysis (smallest space method) they were able to identify correlations between the data and the behavioral pattern of the offender. Eg. they may use impersonal language or have a lack of emotional reaction to the suffering of the victim. By helping the police understand the mindset of the prisoners they are more likely to apprehend them faster, therefore supporting the bottom up approach as it leads to effective practical application. (or if it was the same offender)</p><p class> </p>”
<div><strong>What is offender profiling?</strong></div>
“<p class>This is also known as criminal profiling or typology.</p><p class>The aim is not to solve the crime but to limit the suspect pool.</p>”
<div><strong>What is the Top-down Approach?</strong></div>
“<p class>This was created by the FBI in 1978 and is where profilers will put information about the crimes into pre-existing templates. Eg. info about the crime scene, type of crime and offender characteristics. </p><p class>It was based on interviews with convicted murderers, notably Bundy and Manson.</p><p class>Hazelwood and Douglas (1980) later ended up forming the categories of ‘organised’ and ‘disorganised’ killers which can be inferred from the crime scenes. </p>”
<div><strong>What is an organised killer?</strong></div>
“<ul class=""><li style="">Have an orderly life</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Kill after a specific event</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Plan and control their murders</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">There will often be few clues left behind</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">They are of higher than average intellect </li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Socially & sexually competent </li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Be employed and possibly have children and be married</li></ul>”
<div><strong>What is a disorganised killer?</strong></div>
“<ul class=""><li style="">Crimes are often heat of the moment</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">No pre-planning or thought</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">There may be a wealth of evidence left behind</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Of a lower intellect</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Impulsive and socially incompetent </li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Unskilled workers or unemployed </li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Live close to the murder site </li></ul>”
<div><strong>What are the 4 main stages to FBI profile construction?</strong></div>
“<ol class=""><li>Data assimilation - review evidence </li></ol><ol class=""><li>Crime scene classification - organised or disorganised?</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Crime reconstruction - hypothesis made of how the crime was committed eg. sequence or how the struggle took pace</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Profile generation - create a hypothesis of all the aspects related to the offender’s life in order to lower the pool of suspects</li></ol>”
<div><strong>How does Douglas explain a mixed crime scene?</strong></div>
“<ul class=""><li style="">more than one offender</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">an escalation of the situation</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">actions of the victims disrupting planning</li></ul>”
<div><em><strong>How is the original sample an issue?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>The original sample that informed this approach to criminal profiling is limited as it only looks at 36 US killers, 25 of them being serial killers which is not only the least likely form of murder to be committed so has limited grounds for real-life application but also is relying on self-report methods. These killers all want notoriety and are biased to report on their crimes in a way that favours this image. Therefore the method is based on unreliable information.</p>”
<div><em><strong>How is this approach outdated?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Alison et al (2002) point out that the personality theory element of this approach is no longer in line with the modern understanding of personality. We no longer see the internal condition of an individual as fixed and stable but rather as something that can be impacted by the environment and personal factors (eg. the shift in Duffy’s MO). Therefore profiling needs to be updated to account for these other factors that could be crucial to finding the perpetrator. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How is there an issue with the categories?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>While in application this model has been shown to be highly effective Canter et al (2004) found that from 100 murders the organised category could be supported while the disorganised category could not be as it was too diverse. Researchers such as Holmes (1989) have now redefined these categories to include visionary, mission, hedonistic and power/control killers. While others including Keppel and Walter (1999) have argued that there is too little focus on motivations and this should be the focus in order to apprehend them. Therefore is the presence of alternative, more effective methods calls into question whether</p><p class> the original categories are too limited to be wholly effective in application. </p>”
<div><strong>Explain the Level of Moral Reasoning?</strong></div>
“<p class>Kohlberg explored how moral reasoning is linked to criminal behaviour and that an individual’s ability to be criminal can be assessed in the stage of morality they are found to be in. These could be assessed through fictional moral dilemmas and how people responded to these (eg. the Heinz dilemma). He reasoned that criminals have a lower level of moral reasoning. In 1973 he found that violent youths tended to have lower moral development than non-violent individuals.</p>”
<div><strong>What is Kolhberg’s Model for Criminal Morality?</strong></div>
“<ol class=""><li>Pre-conventional level - punishment orientated, centred on personal gain</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Conventional level - approval orientated, maintaining social order</li></ol><ol class=""><li>Post-conventional level - internal compass, contract morality</li></ol>
What is hostility bias?
The hostility attribution bias - this is the consistent misinterpretation of someones intention which leads to violence. Schonenburg and Justye (2014) presented 55 ambiguous facial expressions to criminals and found that the control group consistently analysed them as less violent than the offenders.<p class>Dodge and Frame (1982) says that this is rooted in childhood. They showed children a video clip with ambiguous provocation. Children who had been previously classed as ‘aggressive’ where more likely to note the situations being aggressive in the study. </p>
<div><strong>How did Sutherland (1924) use his DA explanation?</strong></div>
“<p class>The people we associate with affect our behaviour and attitudes. Therefore if someone associated with criminal individuals they would adopt a ‘pro-crime’ attitude and learn the necessary skills to commit crime from them. Sutherland saw this as a universal feature regardless of race or ethnic background.</p><p class>He put this into two categories</p><ul class=""><li style=""><em>Learned attitudes towards crime: </em>when young people are exposed to and pick up criminal attitudes.</li></ul><ul class=""><li style=""><em>Learning specific criminal acts: </em>When an individual learns a set of skills that can be applied to a crime that could not be learnt in a normal environment. </li></ul>”
<div><strong>What are Pro-Crime attitudes?</strong></div>
“<p class>It can be a positive thing to take on the attitudes of those around them but it can also be a negative depending on who you grow up around. These can be strong enough to outweigh the anti-crime attitudes of society according to Sutherland. And from this he suggests that should we know the time of exposure and the frequency/intensity we should be able to predict whether that individual with has criminal tendencies. (this mathematical calculus is known as a differential association)</p>”
<div><em><strong>What is support from Hutcherson of Ohio University (2013)?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>They found that going to prison in their early criminal career actually aided the success of the criminal in earning on average $11,000 (illegally) more if they have spent a period of time in prison. Therefore the learning process of criminality does in fact lead to an increase in crime for exposed individuals. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How is blame redistributed?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Because they are shaped by their environment this also means that the criminals can be unshaped from their learnt behaviours and attitudes. With children, this might come in the form of removing them from a home where they are likely to be exposed to criminal attitudes and behaviours. Therefore it is not an innate quality and this leads to a less hard determinist stance that would lead to its groups being classed as permanently criminal and instead finding help. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How can Class support this?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>‘White-collar crimes’ always come from families who are middle class not by any other class and therefore there must be a link to the environment they grew up in having different attitudes and skills.</p>”
<div><em><strong>How is this not useful in an application?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>This is a theory that requires too many data points to calculate whether someone would or would not become a criminal due to their surroundings and therefore is impossible to apply effectively and once you add Sutherland’s assistance on a case by case basis it would be too costly and timely to even carry out. There are also alternative studies such as Mednicke et al that would still point to biology increasing the chances of criminality alongside the effects of the environment. Therefore Sutherland may only be looking at half of the picture. </p>”
<div><strong>What is Personality Theory?</strong></div>
“<p class>Eysenck theorised that the personality of a criminal is central to their tendency to commit criminal acts. He split this into 2 dimensions:</p><ol class=""><li>Introversion/extroversion (E) </li></ol><ol class=""><li>Neuroticism/Stability (N)</li></ol><p class>He saw this as stable throughout our lives and these would not change as they were hardwired into our nervous systems.</p><p class>He also later added 3. Psychoticism. (P)</p>”
<div><strong>What are some key points about the EPI test?</strong></div>
“<ul class=""><li style="">This is a form of psychometric test</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">The ordering of the questions and variation of answers are crafted so that demand characteristics are minimised</li></ul>”
<div><strong>What is the P.E.N model?</strong></div>
“<ul class=""><li style="">Extraverts are constantly seeking excitement and stimulation as they have an underactive nervous system and are not able to learn through conditioning.</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Neurotics and nervous and humpy, often overly anxious and are therefore hard to predict how they will act.</li></ul><ul class=""><li style="">Psychoticism tends to be demonstrated through aggressiveness and interpersonal hostility - Eysenck also linked this to a vulnerability to developing psychosis and that this trait would be common among relatives due to a biological factor.</li></ul><p class>He also points out the important role of socialisation. Those who have these character states will often present as socially immature and selfish. They tend to base their actions around self-gratification. Had they been able to learn through conditioning they would not present these traits. </p>”
<div><em><strong>What research supports this theory?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Sybil and Hans Eysenck (1977) looked at 2017 male prisoners in comparison to a control group of 2422 average males and found that there were higher scores for both categories was higher in all age groups when compared to the control. Therefore there are grounds to say that criminals have a consistent tendency towards neurotic and extroverted characteristics, supporting personality theory. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How is Eysenck's study biased?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>This study suffers from an androcentric bias as only males participated in the supporting research. This is largely due to the majority of crime being committed by men, making them the largest population in prisons to take part in the study. Therefore this cannot be applied to women - although we could causally conclude that women are not likely to have the criminal personality described by Eysenck and therefore are not likely to commit criminal acts.</p>”
<div><em><strong>How is there also a lack of evidence (specifically for a biological approach)?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>Farrington et al’s (1982) research point out how, despite reviewing data from several studies, there is no physical proof to be found on EEG machines for the presence of psychoticism. Therefore the research conducted by Eysenck may be suffering from experimenter bias where he found patterns to support his theory were none actually existed, a lack of inter-rater reliability and empirical evidence draws into question the validity of Eysenck’s research.
Farrington et al (1982) reviewed 16 studies of the relationship between E, N and P measures with
criminal convictions. They found that in the majority of cases offenders scored higher on P and N
but not on E. Hollin (1989) notes a similar pattern of findings: offenders generally show higher P and
N scores but not necessarily higher E scores. </p>”
<div><em><strong>How is there the issue of reductionism?</strong></em></div>
“<p class>There are still different types of criminals, it is not really a ‘one size fits all’ situation as while some might take part in petty theft it is not logical to pair their crimes to those of murderers or rapists as they do not have the same motives or mindsets. Moffitt (1993) supports this by stating that there are 6 different types of adult male offenders that can be classified and therefore it is more complex than a single ‘criminal personality’. It is also more complex with the ‘criminal personality’ not being as fixed as Eysenck proposed. Mischel (1988) pointed out how we change the way we present our personality depending on the role or people we are surrounded by. Therefore it is not as simple as characterising a single personality to identify a potential criminal. </p>”
