Forensic Psychology Flashcards
Offender profiling
- B|T
- What is offender profiling?
- What is the main aim of offender profiling?
- What methods are used in offender profiling?
- What is offender profiling used for?
- What are the two approaches to profiling?
- This is an investigative tool used by police when solving crimes
- Main aim of OP is to narrow likely suspects, professional profilers often called to work with police especially in high profile murder cases
- Methods include careful scrutiny of crime scene, analysis of other evidence including witness reports
- Used to generate hypotheses about probable characteristics (charac) of offender
- This includes potential age, background, occupation etc
- Two approaches to profiling, top-down approach and bottom-up approach
The top-down approach
- Where did this approach originate from?
- What did the FBI conclude?
- What does each category contain?
- How is this used by offender profilers?
- Originated from US, as a result of work done by FBI in 1970s
- FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit drew upon data collected from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually-motivated murderers (includes Ted Bundy and Charles Mason)
- Concluded data could be categorised, organised or disorganised crimes/murders
- Each category has certain charac, if data from crime scene matches with some charac of a category, we can predict other charac that may be likely
- This therefore can be used to find the offender
- Offender profiler’s using this method would collect data about murder (charac of murderer, crime scene etc), then decide category the data best fits in
Types of offender
- O|D
- What are the two types of offender?
- How are the two different?
- What does this generally correlate to?
- Two types off offender, organised and disorganised
- Distinction based on idea that serious offenders have certain signature (“ways of working”, referred to as modus operandi)
- These generally correlate with set of social and psych charac that relate to individual
Organised offenders
- Describe the characteristics and behaviours of this type of offender
- Show evidence of having planned crime in advance, victim deliberately targeted, suggests individual has “type” of victim they seek out
- Maintain high degree of control during crime, operate with almost surgical precision, little evidence/clues left at crime scene
- Above-average intelligence, in a skilled, professional occupation, socially and sexually competent (skilled), usually married may even have children
- Remember they tend to be like this, not always like this
Disorganised offenders
- Describe the characteristics and behaviours of this type of offender
- Show little evidence of planning, suggests offences may be spontaneous (spur-of-the-moment acts)
- Crime scene tends to reflect impulsive nature of the attack, body usually still at the scene
- Appears to have been very little control from offender, usually have lower-than-average intelligence, usually in unskilled work or unemployed
- Often have history of sexual dysfunction, failed relationships, tend to live alone, relatively close to where offence took place
Constructing an FBI profile
- D|C|C|P
- What are the four main stages in the construction of an FBI profile?
- Describe each of these stages
- Four main stages, data assimilation, crime scene classification, crime reconstruction and profile generation
- Data assimilation, profiler reviews evidence (crime scene photographs, pathology reports, witness reports etc)
- Crime scene classification, organised or disorganised
- Crime reconstruction, hypotheses of sequence of events, behv of victim etc
- Profile generation, hypotheses related to likely offender (demographic background, physical charac, behv etc)
Evaluation of top-down approach
- C|CP|M|FE|NAC
- Research support (Canter et al 2004)
- Counterpoint (Godwin 2002)
- Wider application (Meketa 2017)
- Flawed evidence (Canter et al)
- Not applicable to all crime (Mischel 1968)
Research support (Canter et al 2004)
- Strength, support for distinct organised categories of offenders
- Canter et al (2004) conducted analysis of 100 US murders committed by different serial killers
- Smallest space analysis used; stats technique identifies correlations across different samples of behaviour
- Used in this case to assess co-occurrence off 39 aspects of serial killings
- Included following, whether torture or restraints used, whether there was an attempt to conceal the body, the murder weapon used, and the cause of death
- Analysis revealed there seems to be a subset of features of many serial killings that matched FBI’s typology for organised offenders
- Suggests key component of FBI typology approach has some validity
Counterpoint (Godwin 2002)
- Many studies suggest organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive (can be mix of both)
- Variety of combos that occur at any murder scene
- Godwin (2002) argues in reality it’s difficult to classify killers as one type or the other
- Killer can have multiple contrasting charac (high intelligence and sexual competence, spontaneous murder leaving victim’s body at crime scene)
- Suggests organised-disorganised typology is more likely to be a continuum rather than one or the other
Wider application (Meketa 2017)
- Strength, approach can be adapted to other kinds of crime such as burglary
- Critics claimed technique only useful for limited number of crimes such as sexual-motivated murder
- Meketa (2017) reported 85% rise in solve cases in three US states when top-down profiling was applied to burglary
- Method used retained organised-disorganised, also introduced other categories
- Interpersonal (offender knows victim, steals something significant) and opportunistic (generally inexperienced young offender)
- Suggest top-down profiling has wider application than originally assumed
Flawed evidence (Canter et al)
- Limitation, evidence it’s based on
- FBI profiling developed using interviews from 36 murderers
- Canter et al argued sample poor, not random, not large sample, did not include different kinds of offenders
- No standard set of questions, interviews different, not really comparable
- Suggests top-down profiling does not have a good, scientific basis
Not applicable to all crime (Mischel 1968)
- Top-down approach based on principle of behavioural consistency
- Offenders have charac ways of working (their modus operandi)
- Situationist psychologist such as Mischel (1969) questioned behavioural consistency
- Argued behv more driven by situation than personality
- Suggests people not always aggressive, just aggressive in certain situations
- Suggests top-down approach may not always lead to successful identification of the offender
The bottom-up approach
- What is the bottom-up approach, what is its aim?
- How is a profile made?
- How does the approach differ to the top-down approach?
- Aim of approach is to generate picture of offender (likely charac, routine behv, social background)
- Obtained through systematic analysis of evidence at crime scene
- Profile is “data-driven”, obtained as investigator engages in deeper and more rigorous scrutiny of details of offence
- Approach is more grounded in psych theory than top-down approach
Investigative psychology
- What is investigative psychology?
- What does it attempt to do, what is its aim?
- What concept is central to this approach?
- What other variable is key?
- What is forensic awareness?
- A form of bottom-up profiling that matches details from crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behv patterns based on psych theory
- Attempts to apply stat procedures with psych theory to analysis of crime scene evidence
- Aims to establish patterns of behv likely to occur or coexist across crime scenes
- This is used to develop a statistical database that acts as a baseline for comparison
- Specific details of offence can be matched against the databases to reveal important details about offender (personal history, family background etc)
- May also determine if series of offences are linked (likely to be committed by same person)
- Central to approach is concept of interpersonal coherence (way offender behaves at scene, includes how they “interact” with victim, may reflect behv of offender in everyday situations)
- Dwyer (2001), some rapists like to humiliate victims and maintain max control, others more apologetic (could tell police how offender relates to women more generally)
- Significance of time and place, key variable, may indicate where offender is living
- Forensic awareness, individuals have been interrogated by police before, their behv may denote how mindful they are of “covering their tracks”
Geographical profiling
- What is geographical profiling?
- How is it used?
- What principle is it based on?
- Explain what this principle is
- What assumption is made when using this approach?
- What is Canter’s and Larkin (1993) circle theory?
- What is a marauder, what is a commuter?
- What gives investigators an insight of the nature of the offence?
- What other things are revealed?
- Form of bottom-up profiling, based on principle of spatial consistency, offender’s operational base and possible future offences revealed by geo location of their previous crimes
- Uses info of location of linked crime scenes to make inferences of home or operational base of offender, known as crime mapping
- Based on principle of spatial consistency (ppl commit crime within a limited geo space)
- Used with psych theory to create hypotheses about how offender thinks and their modus operandi
- Assumption made that serial offenders restrict crimes to geo areas they are familiar with
- Understanding spatial pattern of their behv provides investigators “centre of gravity”, likely to include offender’s base (usually in middle of spatial pattern)
- This is the basis of Canter’s and Larkin (1993) circle theory because pattern of offending forms circle around offender’s home base
- Distribution of offences leads us to describe offender in two ways, marauder or commuter
- The marauder operates in close proximity to their home base
- The commuter is likely to have travelled a distance away from their usual residence
- Such spatial decision-making offers investigators insight of nature of offence (planned or opportunistic)
- Also reveals offenders “mental maps”, mode of transport, employment status, approximate age etc
Evaluation for bottom-up approach
- C|CP|E|I|MR
- Evidence for investigative psychology (Canter and Heritage 1990)
- Counterpoint (Circular argument)
- Evidence for geographical profiling (Lundrigan and Canter 2001)
- Geographical information insufficient (Ainsworth 2001)
- Mixed results (Copson 1995, Kocsis et al 2002)
Evidence for investigative psychology (Canter and Heritage 1990)
- Strength, evidence supports use of investigative psychology
- Canter and Heritage (1990), analysis of 66 sexual assault cases, data examined using smallest space analysis
- Several behvs identified as common in different samples of behv such as use of impersonal language and lack of reaction to victim
- Each individual displayed charac pattern of such behvs, this can help establish whether 2+ offences committed by same person (referred to as “case linkage”)
- Supports one of the basic principles of investigative psychology and the bottom-up approach, people consistent in their behv
Counterpoint (Circular argument)
- Case linkage depends on database that only consists of historical crimes that are solved
- Fact crimes were solved may be because it was straightforward to link crimes together, makes this a circular argument
- Suggests investigative psychology tells us little about crimes that have few links between them (unsolved)
Evidence for geographical profiling (Lundrigan and Canter 2001)
- Strength, evidence supporting geo profiling
- Lundrigan and Canter (2001), gathered info from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in US
- Smallest space analysis reveals spatial consistency in behv of killers
- Location of each body disposal site created “centre of gravity”
- Assumed this happens because, when offender starts from home base, they go in different direction each time they dispose a body, creates circular effect around home base
- Offender bases consistently located in centre of the pattern; effect more noticeable for marauders (offenders travel short distance from home base)
- Supports view that geo info can be used to identify an offender
Geographical information insufficient (Ainsworth 2001)
- Limitation, geo profiling may not be sufficient on its own
- Success of geo profiling (as well as investigative psychology) may be reliant on quality of data that police can provide
- Recording crime not always accurate, can vary between police forces, estimated 75% crimes not even reported (“dark figure of crime”)
- Questions value of approach that relies on accuracy of geo data, even if info correct
- Ainsworth (2001), critics claim other factors just as important in creating profile such as time of offence and age and experience of offender
- Suggests geo info alone may not always lead to successful capture of an offender
Mixed results (Copson 1995, Kocsis et al 2002)
- Copson (1995), surveyed 48 police departments, found advice provided by profiler judged “useful” in 83% of cases, suggests it’s a valid investigative tool
- However, only 3% of cases lead to accurate identification of offender
- Nickell case, real killer (Robert Napper) ruled out, too tall to fit police profile officers were given
- Kocsis et al (2002), chemistry students produce more accurate offender profiles on solved murder case than experience senior detectives
- Suggests offender profiling may have little practical value when it comes to solving cases
- May focus police investigations, offer new lines of enquiry, falls short on what its designed to do (lead to identification of the offender)
Biological explanations of offending behaviour- Historical approach
- What did Lombroso’s book in 1876 suggest?
- What is atavistic form?
- How is this viewed in today’s standard?
- Lombroso (1876), Italian physician wrote a book translated “the criminal man”
- Suggested that criminals were “genetic throwback”, a primitive subspecies that were biologically different from non-criminals, ill-suited to conforming to rules of modern society (Atavistic form)
- In today’s standard his theory is seen as speculative and naïve
A biological approach
- What do offenders lack according to Lombroso?
- Describe the nature of an offender according to Lombroso
- How did he view offending behaviour?
- What did Lombroso propose at the time?
- Offenders seen by L as lacking evolutionary development
- Savage and untamed nature meant they found it impossible to adjust to demands off civilised society, inevitably turn to crime
- L saw offending behv as a natural tendency rooted into the genes of offenders
- L proposed a new perspective at the time he was writing, offending behv was innate, offender not to blame for actions
- In this way his ideas were revolutionary
Atavistic form
- What did Lombroso argue about offenders?
- Where were these features mainly located?
- Give examples of these features
- Give examples of other aspects of born offenders
- L argued offender subtype could be identified using particular physiological “markers” that were linked to particular types of offence
- Offenders would possess these “markers”, these are bio determined “atavistic” charac
- Mainly features of face and head (atavism did include other features), make offenders physically different from rest of us
- In terms of cranial (skull) charac, atavistic form included narrow, sloping brow, strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones and facial symmetry
- Other markers included dark skin, existence of extra toes, nipples or fingers
- L also suggested other aspects of born offender including insensitivity to pain, use of slang, tattoos and unemployment