Forensic Psychology Flashcards
1
Q
Offender Profiling- Top-Down Approach- AO1
A
- Offender profiling=behavioural+analytical tool help investigators predict and profile characteristics unknown offenders
- Top-down=FBI / interviews sexually motivated murderers
=starting with pre-established typology and working down to assign offenders as organised/disorganised - Organised offender=evidence of planning / has M.O / socially and sexually competent / higher IQ
- Disorganised offender=little evidence of planning / leaves clues at scene / socially and sexually incompetent / lower IQ
- Constructing FBI profile
Data assimilation=review evidence
Crime scene classification=organised/disorganised
Crime reconstruction=hypotheses
Profile generation
2
Q
Offender Profiling- Top-Down Approach- AO3
A
- Research support +
Canter=analysis 100 US murders
Smallest space analysis=correlations across samples of behaviour
Found subset of features of serial killings matched FBI’s typology for organised offenders
Increased validity - Wider application +
Meketa=top-down applied burglary=85% rise in solved cases in 3 US states
Uses organised/disorganised distinction but adds impersonal and opportunistic categories - Flawed evidence -
FBI profiling=36 murder interviews- 25 serial killers, 11 single/double murder
24 organised / 12 disorganised
Canter=poor sample- not random, large or different kinds offender
Not standardised and not comparable
Not sound, scientific basis
3
Q
Offender Profiling- Bottom-Up Approach- AO1
A
- Bottom-up=Profilers work up from evidence collected from scene to develop hypotheses about characteristics, motivation, background
- Investigative psychology=matches details from crime scene with statistical analysis of offender behaviour patterns on database
Comparison / committed by same person
=interpersonal coherence- interaction with victim=same as everyday life
=significance time and place- where offender living
=forensic awareness - Geographical profiling=crime mapping of home of offender- spatial consistency- centre of gravity=future offences by geographical locations of previous crimes- Canter’s circle theory
=marauder- operates in close proximity to home base
=commuter- travelled distance from usual residence
4
Q
Offender Profiling- Bottom-Up Approach- AO3
A
- Evidence for investigative psychology +
Canter+Heritage=analysis 66 sexual assault using smallest space analysis
Behaviours=common in different samples behaviour
Characteristic pattern=whether more offences committed by same person
People consistent in behaviour - Evidence for geographical profiling +
Lundrigan+Canter=collated 120 murder cases
Smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency
Body disposal site=centre of gravity- creating circular effect around home base=middle of pattern
More noticeable for marauders - Geographical information insufficient -
Success reliant on quality of data police provide
75% crimes not reported
Questions utility of approach as relies on accuracy of geographical data
Other factors just as important in creating profile
5
Q
Biological Explanations- Historical Approach (Atavistic Form)- AO1
A
- Historical approach=Lombroso
Criminals=genetic throwbacks- primitive subspecies biologically different non-criminals - Biological approach=offenders lacked evolutionary development and would turn to crime
Offending behaviour=rooted in genes (innate)- offender not to blame for actions - Atavistic form=offender subtype identified by physiological markers- features of face and head
=cranial- narrow brow / strong jaw / facial asymmetry / dark skin
Insensitivity to pain / tattoos / unemployment - Offender types
=murderers- bloodshot eyes / curly hair / long ears
=sexual deviants- glinting eyes / fleshy lips / large ears - Lombroso’s research
383 dead convicts / 3839 living ones
40% criminal acts=people with atavistic characteristics
6
Q
Biological Explanations- Historical Approach (Atavistic Form)- AO3
A
- Lombroso’s legacy +
Lombroso=father of modern criminology
Shifting away moralistic discourse to scientific
Theory heralded beginning of offender profiling - Contradictory evidence -
Goring=anything physically atypical about offenders
3000 offenders and non-offenders=no evidence offenders have particular facial/cranial structures - Poor control -
Failed to control variables
Did not compare with control group=could have accounted for confounding variables
Research=links between crime and social conditions
Research does not meet modern scientific standards
7
Q
Biological Explanations- Genetic- AO1
A
- Genetic explanation=offenders inherit gene/combo of genes that predispose to commit crime
- Twin and adoption studies
Christiansen=concordance offender behaviour in 35% MZ and 13% DZ
Checked against police records=underlying traits also inherited
Crowe=bio mother criminal record=50% same thing by 18 - Candidate genes
Tiihonen=MAOA and CDH13=violent crime
MAOA=regulates serotonin- aggressive behaviour
CDH13=substance abuse
5-10% violent crime due to these genes - Diathesis-stress model=combination of genetic predisposition and bio/psycho trigger=offending behaviour
8
Q
Biological Explanations- Genetic- AO3
A
- Issues with twin evidence -
Assumed environment same as twins brought up together
Shared environment assumption=MZ more than DZ as look identical so treated more similarly
Higher concordance rates as treated more similar - Support for diathesis-stress +
Mednick=neither bio/adoptee parents criminals=13.5% adoptees that did
Rose to 20% when either bio parent had conviction
24.5% when adoptive and bio had conviction
9
Q
Biological Explanations- Neural- AO1
A
- Neural differences involved those with antisocial personality disorder(APD)=reduced emotion, lack of empathy, characterises convicted offenders
- Prefrontal cortex=Raine- APD brain
APD=reduced prefrontal cortex activity (regulates emotional behaviour)
11% reduction volume grey matter in APD prefrontal cortex - Mirror neurons
Keysers=only when asked to empathise did their empathy reaction activate (controlled by mirror neurons)
APD not without empathy but neural switch, unlike atypical brain where empathy switched permanently on
10
Q
Biological Explanations- Neural- AO3
A
- Brain evidence +
Kandel+Freed=frontal lobe damage(planning behaviour) and antisocial behaviour
Damage=impulsive, emotional instability and inability to learn from mistakes - Intervening variables -
Farrington=men scored high psychopathy- risk factors in childhood
Early childhood experiences=APD and neural differences associated with it
May be other variables that have impact on the complex process
11
Q
Psychological Explanations- Eysenck’s Theory- AO1
A
- Personality theory=3 dimensions- introversion-extraversion / neuroticism-stability / psychoticism-sociability
- Biological basis=type of nervous system we inherit- offenders=high NEP
Extravert=stimulation, risk-taking
Neurotic=high reactivity, jumpy, hard to predict
Psychotic=high testosterone, unemotional, aggressive - Socialisation- offenders developmentally immature, selfish, immediate gratification
- Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ) measured criminal personality
12
Q
Psychological Explanations- Eysenck’s Theory- AO3
A
- Research support +
Eysenck+Eysenck=prisoners scores EPQ with controls
NEP over all ages=prisoners higher scores than controls
Offenders rate higher across 3 dimensions - Too simplistic -
Moffitt=offending behaviour in adulthood and adolescence
Personality=poor predictor how long offending occurs
Persistence in offending behaviour=reciprocal process between personality and environmental reactions to this - Cultural factors -
Bartol+Holanchock=hispanic and afrian-american offenders in max security
6 groups based on history and nature of offences
All groups=less extravert than control due to different cultural group than Eysenck
13
Q
Psychological Explanations- Cognitive- Level of Moral Reasoning- AO1
A
- Kohlberg- decisions based on what believe to be right/wrong
- Stages of moral reasoning:
Level 1=pre-conventional morality
Stage 1-punishment orientation
Stage 2-Instrumental orientation
Level 2=conventional morality
Stage 3-good boy/girl orientation
Stage 4-maintenance of social order
Level 3=post-conventional morality
Stage 5-morality of contract and individual rights
Stage 6-morality of conscience
=offenders have lower level moral reasoning than non-offenders - Link with criminality
Offenders more likely pre-conventional=avoid punishment and gain rewards
Supported=offenders more egocentric, non-offenders more honest, generous and non-violent
14
Q
Psychological Explanations- Cognitive- Level of Moral Reasoning- AO3
A
- Research support +
Palmer+Hollin=moral reasoning offenders and non-offenders using 11 moral dilemma questions
Offender group=less mature moral reasoning- consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions - Type of offence -
Thornton+Reid=financial gain crimes=more pre-conventional moral reasoning than impulse crimes
Pre-conventional=offenders believe good chance evading punishment
Theory doesn’t apply to all crime
15
Q
Psychological Explanations- Cognitive- Cognitive Distortions- AO1
A
- Cognitive distortions=faulty, biased, irrational ways of thinking=perceive ourselves, others world inaccurately
- Hostile attribution bias=tendency judge ambiguous situations as aggressive when may not be
Schonenberg+Justye=images ambiguous facial expressions- violent offenders perceived as hostile
Dodge+Frame=children ambiguous provocation clip- identified as aggressive=situation more hostile - Minimalisation=type deception downplaying significance event/emotion- strategy dealing with guilt
Barbaree=26 rapists- 54% denied offence, 40% minimised harm caused to victim
16
Q
Psychological Explanations- Cognitive- Cognitive Distortions- AO3
A
- Real world application +
CBT aims challenge irrational thinking- offenders encouraged face up what have done=less distorted view of actions
Studies=reduced minimalisation=reduced risk reoffending
Cognitive distortions have practical value - Type of offence -
Howitt+Sheldon=questionnaire responses sexual offenders
Non-contact sex offenders=more distortions than contact sex offenders
Previous offending history=use distortions as justification
Distortions not used in same way by all offenders
17
Q
Psychological Explanations- Differential Association Theory- AO1
A
- Differential association theory=through interactions we learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour
- Scientific basis- Sutherland
Conditions which cause crime present when crime present, absent when crime absent
Discriminate between offenders and non-offenders - Offending as learned behaviour
Predict how likely will commit offences- frequency, intensity, duration exposure to crime - Learning attitudes=socialised into group and learn attitudes towards law=pro-crime/anti-crime
- Learning techniques=learned techniques committing offences
- Socialisation in prison
Inmates learn techniques from other offenders that they put into practice on release
18
Q
Psychological Explanations- Differential Association Theory- AO1
A
- Differential association theory=through interactions we learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour
- Scientific basis- Sutherland
Conditions which cause crime present when crime present, absent when crime absent
Discriminate between offenders and non-offenders - Offending as learned behaviour
Predict how likely will commit offences- frequency, intensity, duration exposure to crime - Learning attitudes=socialised into group and learn attitudes towards law=pro-crime/anti-crime
- Learning techniques=learned techniques committing offences
- Socialisation in prison
Inmates learn techniques from other offenders that they put into practice on release
19
Q
Psychological Explanations- Differential Association Theory- AO3
A
- Shift of focus +
Away from bio. and theories blaming individual weakness/immortality
Deviant social circumstances/environments more to blame than deviant people
Realistic solution instead of eugenics or punishment - Wide reach +
Some offences clustered amongst affluent groups
White-collar/corporate offences=feature M/C social groups who share deviant norms/values
Not just lower classes/can be used to explain all offences - Difficulty testing -
Concepts are not testable as cannot be operationalised
Theory built on assumption offending occurs when pro-crime values outnumber anti-crime
Cannot know at what point urge to offend realised and offending career triggered
Does not have scientific credibility
20
Q
Psychological Explanations- Psychodynamic- AO1
A
- Inadequate superego- Blackburn=offending behaviour inevitable as Id free rein and not properly controlled
- Types of superego:
=Weak superego=same-gender parent absent in phallic stage=cannot identify and internalise superego=offending more likely
=Deviant superego=Internalised superego deviant values=offending behaviour
=Over-harsh superego=overly-harsh parenting style=crippled with guilt and anxiety=criminal acts to satisfy drive for punishment - Role of emotion
Emotional life of individual=acknowledges role of anxiety and guilt - Theory of maternal deprivation=Bowlby=failure to establish relationship in first few years=damaging and irreversible consequences
Affectionless psychopathy=lack of guilt, empathy and feeling for others
44 thieves study=14/44=affectionless psychopaths
12/14=prolonged separation during infancy
21
Q
Psychological Explanations- Psychodynamic- AO3
A
- Research support +
Goreta=freudian-style analysis 10 offenders
Over-harsh superego as guilt and need for self-punishment=desire to commit acts of wrongdoing
Psychic conflicts basis for offending - Gender bias -
Girls=weaker superego as identification with mother not as strong
Superego less fully realised=women more prone to offending than men
Opposite is true- Hoffman=hardly evidence for gender differences
Alpha bias at heart of theory and not appropriate explanation - Other factors -
Lewis=analysed interview data 500 young people=MDH poor predictor future offending and ability to form close relationships
Not necessarily causal relationship
Other reasons for link like growing up in poverty
MDH one, but not only, reason for offending
22
Q
Dealing With Offending Behaviour- Custodial Sentencing- AO1
A
- Custodial sentencing=decision made by court punishment for crime involve time in custody- prison or institutions
- Aims of custodial sentencing
=Deterrence=put off individual offending- general=to society- individual=to them alone
=Incapacitation=taken out of society to protect public- depend on severity of offence and nature of offender
=Retribution=society enacting revenge by making offender suffer- proportionate to seriousness of offence
=Rehabilitation=reform- leave prison better adjusted to take place back in society - Psychological effects of custodial sentencing:
=Stress and depression=high suicide rates/mutilation/self-harm/increased risk psych. disorders
=Institutionalisation=cannot function in real world as accustomed to norms and routines of prison life
=Prisonisation=adopting inmate code- unacceptable behaviour in real world encouraged in prisons - Problem of recidivism=reoffending
Difficult to obtain real figures- rates vary with time period after release/age/crime committed/country
23
Q
Dealing With Offending Behaviour- Custodial Sentencing- AO3
A
- Psychological effects -
Bartol=imprisonment brutal, demeaning, devastating
119 suicide, increase 29 on previous year
Average=1 every 3 days, 9x higher than general population
Most risk=young single men first 24 hours
25% women 15% men=symptoms psychosis - Training and treatment +
Rehabilitation=improved character so crime free life when back in society
Access education and training=increased possibility employment
Offenders college education programmes=43% less likely reoffend- prisons with programmes=fewer violent incidents - School for crime -
Undergo dubious education
Younger inmates opportunity learn new techniques from experienced offenders
Acquire criminal contacts may follow up when released
24
Q
Dealing with Offending Behaviour- Behaviour Modification in Custody- AO1
A
- Behaviourist principles:
Should be able to encourage unlearning of behaviour
=reinforcing obedient behaviour, whilst punishing disobedience, in hope former continues and latter dies - Token economy=operant conditioning:
Prisoners given token each time desirable behaviour
(Behaviours and rewards clear before programme implemented and non-compliance token withheld/removed) - Designing and using a token economy:
=operationalise target behaviours- breaking down into component parts
Units of behaviour objective, measurable and agreed with prison staff/inmates in advance
=scoring system- aware how much behaviours are worth
Some demanding more than others so greater rewards
Reinforcements outnumber punishments 4:1
=train staff- can implement token economy system successfully- standardise procedures so rewarding same behaviour in same way
Record when awarded tokens so progress of prisoners assessed
25
Dealing with Offending Behaviour- Behaviour Modification in Custody- AO3
- Research support +
Hobbs+Holt=token economy young offenders three behavioural units
Significant difference positive behaviour compared to non-token
Field=token economy young people behaviour problems=generally effective but still number didn’t respond
Youths placed on programme rewards more immediate and frequent=positive results
- Easy to implement +
Appeal relies on ease with which can be administered
No need specialist professionals as there would be in anger management
Token economies designed and implemented by anyone in any institution
Cost-effective and easy to follow once workable methods reinforcement established
- Little rehabilitative value -
Blackburn=any positive changes behaviour lost when released
Cognitive based treatments more permanent behaviour change
Understand cause and take responsibility- can easily play along with token economy to reap rewards
26
Dealing with Offending Behaviour- Anger Management- AO1
- Therapeutic programme identifying signs and triggers of anger as well as learning techniques to calm down
=recognise anger and manage it
=behaviourist- CBT
- Stages:
=Cognitive preparation
Reflect on past experiences and consider pattern of anger
If irrational therapist makes this clear
=Skill acquisition
Techniques and skills deal with anger in rational and effective way
Cognitive- positive self-talk counting to ten
Behavioural- assertive how communicate effectively
Physiological- meditation
=Application practice
Practice skills in carefully controlled environment
Commitment from offender, bravery from therapist- positive reinforcement
- Positive outcome young offenders:
Keen=17-21 national anger management package- 8, 2hour sessions
Offenders not taking seriously and forgetting routines=final outcomes positive- increased awareness difficulties and increased capacity control
27
Dealing with Offending Behaviour- Anger Management- AO3
- Better than behaviour modification +
Tackles causes of offending- cognitive processes
Alternative treatments only deal with surface behaviour
New insight into cause of criminality and self-discovery of how to manage outside prison setting
More likely permanent change
- Individual differences -
Howells=Australian offenders
Anger management little overall impact compared control group
Not true for all offenders
Intense levels of anger/open to change and highly motivated=significant progress
- Expensive -
Highly trained specialists
May not have resources to fund such programmes
Success based on commitment of participants
Change takes time which adds to expense of programmes
28
Dealing with Offending Behaviour- Restorative Justice- AO1
=rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims- see impact of crime and empowers survivors in recovery
- Key features:
=trained mediator
=neutral ground
=survivor explain how affected them and ask compensation
=offender actively involved regarding positive outcomes
=can work with indirect victims as well
- Sentencing and restitution:
=can act as occurring pre-trial or alongside sentence/alternative
=restitution- monetary payment by offender to survivor
- Restorative justice council:
=establish clear standards and support survivors/specialists
=can prevent and manage conflict in many areas
29
Dealing with Offending Behaviour- Restorative Justice- AO3
- Needs of the survivor +
Restorative justice council longitudinal study:
=85% satisfaction with process
=78% recommend
=60% made them feel better
=2% made feel worse
- Recidivism +
Strang=meta-analysis- restorative justice schemes and custodial sentencing
Restorative justice=less likely reoffend
Bain=lowered recidivism with adult offenders especially when 1-1
- Abusing the system -
Gijseghem=offenders use restorative justice to: avoid punishment / play down their faults / take pride in their actions
