Forensic Psychology

Question 1

Outline the top-down approach to offender profiling.

Answer 1

Aims to narrow list of suspects using crime scene and other evidence.

US approach created two types of profile based on FBI interviews with 36 sexually-motivated murderers. Profile based on offenders “way of working” which correlates with social/psychological characteristics.

Organised:
- Planned crime, targets victim, high IQ, skilled job, high control, married.

Disorganised:
- No planning, impulsive, lower IQ, skilled job, high control, married.

FBI profile construction is formed.

Question 2

Outline the FBI profile construction.

Answer 2

1. Data assimilation
2. Crime scene classification
3. Crime reconstruction
4. Profile generation

Question 3

Give two positive evaluations of the top-down approach to profiling.

Answer 3

1. Research support:
   Canter et al.
   - Analysis of 100 US serial killings using “smallest space analysis”. Revealed subset of behaviours which matched FBI organised profile. Theory has some validity.
   => Counterpoint:
   Godwin
   - Most killers have multiple contrasting characteristics. Disorganised/ organised may be a continuum.
2. Wider application:
   Meketa
   - Top-down profiling applied to burglary, 85% rise in solved cases in US. Two new categories, interpersonal and opportunistic.

Question 4

Give one negative evaluation of the top-down approach to profiling.

Answer 4

Flawed evidence:
Canter et al.
- 36 interviews is small, not randomly selected, didn’t include different kinds of offender nor standard questions. No sound scientific basis.

Question 5

Outline the bottom-up approach to offender profiling.

Answer 5

Investigative psychology:
- Bottom-up approach used to generate profile based on crime data. Profile emerges as case continues.
- Statistical analysis of crime scene evidence detects patterns across offences using a database. Features of the offence can correlate with background.
- Analysis based on interpersonal coherence, way offender behaves at the scene reflects how they “interact” with victim.

Geographical profiling:
- Crime mapping used to make inferences about the offender based on location.
- Circle theory, offences form a circle around offender’s home base. Canter and Larkin.
- Two types, marauder and commuter. C & L.

Question 6

Give two positive evaluations for the bottom-up approach to offender profiling.

Answer 6

1. Evidence for investigative psychology:
   Canter and Heritage
   - 66 sexual assault cases, smallest space analysis, consistent pattern of behaviour for each individual. Supports principles of investigative psychology.
   => Counterpoint:
   - Database made up of solved crimes which may have been easy to link, a circular argument.
2. Evidence for geographical profiling:
   Canter and Lundrigan
   - Information from 120 US murders, place where bodies left created a circle of gravity pointing to home base.
   => Counterpoint:
   - If you have to wait for enough people to die to form possible location, not good approach.

Question 7

Give one negative evaluation of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling.

Answer 7

Geographical profiling not sufficient alone:
Ainsworth
- Recording of crime may not be accurate, 75% of crimes not even reported. Other factor e.g age and experience also need to be considered.

Question 8

Outline the biological explanation of offending behaviour (a historical approach).

Answer 8

Lombroso (19th century) laid foundation for profiling, criminals are genetic throwbacks, primitive subspecies. Called “atavistic form”.

Biological as theory states offending behaviour is innate due to lack of evolutionary development.

Criminals can be identified by biological markings, “atavistic” characteristics:
- Narrow sloped brow
- Strong permanent jaw
- High cheekbones
- Facial asymmetry

Different crimes associated with different characteristics e.g gingers = murderers.

Research:
- 383 dead and 3839 alive convicts. 40% of acts correlated with atavistic characteristics.

Question 9

Give one positive evaluation of the atavistic form.

Answer 9

Lombroso’s theory changed criminology:
- Moved discussion of criminal behaviour away from moralistic towards scientific. The fore-runner to profiling. Scientific contribution?
=> Counterpoint:
- Theory more subjective than objective. Many traits fitted those of African descent. Purely a result of racist prejudices and belief in eugenics.

Question 10

Give two negative evaluations of the atavistic form.

Answer 10

1. Contradictory evidence:
   Goring
   - A contemporary compared 3000 offenders and non-offenders. Found no physical differences, only trait suggested is that criminals often had lower than average intelligence.
2. Poorly controlled methods:
   Hay and Forrest
   - Lombroso did not use a control group, confounding variables not controlled. Social conditions are associated with offending behaviour, likely actual source of findings.

Question 11

Outline the genetic biological explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 11

Twin and adoption studies suggest genes predispose offenders to crime. 35% (MZ) versus 13% (DZ) concordance for offending behaviour in male twins - Christiansen.

Candidate genes:
- MAOA = serotonin regulator linked with aggressive behaviour.
- CDH13 = linked to substance abuse and ADHD.
5-10% of severe violent crimes in Finland accounted for by these - Tiihonen et al.

Diathesis stress model:
- Genes + stressor/trigger

Question 12

Give one positive and one negative evaluation of the genetic explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 12

Support for diathesis stress model:
Mednick et al.
- 13000 Danish adoptees. Criminal behaviour in those with no biological or adoptive convicted parent 13.5%, one biological parent 20%, both was 24.5%. Both genetic and environmental effect important.

Limitation of twin studies:
- MZs treated more similarly than DZs, this may explain higher concordance.

Question 13

Outline the neural explanation for offending behaviour.

Answer 13

Neural differences in people diagnosed with APD (many convicted criminals diagnosed).

Less activity in pre-frontal cortex. 11% less grey matter in area which regulates emotion.

Mirror neurons (empathy). Individuals with APD may have empathy register which switches on and off.

Question 14

Give one negative and one positive evaluation for the neural explanation for offending behaviour.

Answer 14

Support for link between crime and frontal lobe:
Kandel and Freed
- Link between frontal lobe damage and impulsive behaviour/ inability to learn from mistakes.

Link between neural differences and APD is complex:
Farrington et al.
- Male adults with APD also had parent with convictions or displayed physical neglect, traumas could cause both APD and neural differences.

Question 15

Outline the three personality dimensions in Eysenck’s psychological explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 15

1. Introversion - Extraversion
   - Sociable and energetic measure
2. Neuroticism - Stability
   - Anxiety and emotional instability measure
3. Psychoticism - Sociability
   - Anti-social behaviour and susceptibility to psychopathological disorders measure.

Question 16

Outline Eysenck’s psychological theory of offending behaviour.

Answer 16

Three dimensional personality

Innate biological basis:
- Es have underactive nervous system so seek excitement and activity.
- Ns have reactive SNS so are jumpy.
- P have high testosterone so are aggressive.

Criminal personality:
High N+E+P = criminal personality

Offending behaviour is selfish and concerned with immediate gratification. Sign of immaturity.

High E and N scorers lack ability to learn, less likely to learn anxiety responses to antisocial behaviour.

Personality can be measured using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).

Question 17

Give one positive evaluation of Eysenck’s psychological explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 17

Research support:
Eysenck and Eysenck
- Compared 2070 male prisoners with 2422 male controls. Prisoners higher on E, N and P scores than non-offending controls.
=> Counterpoint:
Farrington et al.
- Meta-analysis reveals offenders high on P, but not E and N. Inconsistent cortical arousal in extraverts and introverts.
- Also, beta-bias when applying these findings. Research group was all male.

Question 18

Outline Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning part one.

Answer 18

Level 1: Pre-conventional
- Punishment orientation
- Instrumental/ personal gain

Level 2: Conventional
- Good person orientation
- Maintenance of social order

Level 3: Post-conventional
- Individual rights
- Morality of conscience

Question 19

Outline levels of moral reasoning as part of the cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 19

Moral development proceeds through levels as children get older.

Offenders typically at lower level/ pre-conventional:
- Need to avoid punishment and gain rewards.
- Less mature, childlike reasoning.

Offenders more egocentric, show less empathy and generally have poorer social perspective taking skills.

Question 20

Give one negative and positive evaluation of moral reasoning as part of the cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 20

Research support:
Palmer and Hollin
- Compared moral reasoning of offenders and non-offenders on SRM-SF scale. Offenders less morally mature. Supports Kohlberg.

Moral reasoning depends on type of offence:
Thornton and Reid
- Crimes for financial gain more likely to show pre-conventional reasoning than impulsive crimes. PC associated with crimes where people think they can evade punishment.

Question 21

Give one positive and one negative evaluation of moral reasoning as part of the cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 21

Research support:
Palmer and Hollin
- Compared moral reasoning of offenders and non-offenders on SRM-SF scale. Offenders less morally mature. Supports Kohlberg.

Moral reasoning depends on type of offence:
Thornton and Reid
- Crimes for financial gain more likely to show pre-conventional reasoning than impulsive crimes. PC associated with crimes where people think they can evade punishment.

Question 22

Outline cognitive distortions as part of the cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 22

Faulty and biased thinking in the way we explain our own and other’s behaviour is common for offenders.

Hostile attribution bias:
- Tendency to perceive ambiguous cues as threatening, may appear in childhood.

Minimalization:
- Downplay significance of a crime, reduces sense of guilt e.g euphemisms, complete denial.

Question 23

Give one positive and one negative evaluation of cognitive distortions as part of the cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 23

Real-world application:
Harkins et al.
- CBT aims to reduce cognitive distortions, leads to reduced reoffending.

Cognitive distortions depend on the type of offence:
Howitt and Sheldon
- Non-contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders. Not predicted by theory.

Question 24

Outline differential association as a psychological explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 24

Sutherland created a set of scientific principles to explain all types of offending. Theory ignores class and ethnicity.

Offending is learned, each person associates with a different set of people. Two factors for learning:
- Learned attitudes towards offending
- Learning of specific offending acts

Mathematical prediction based on frequency, intensity, duration of exposure to deviant/ non-deviant attitudes.

Reoffending due to socialisation in prison - learning techniques and pro-crime attitudes.

Question 25

Give two positive evaluations of differential association as a psychological explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 25

1. Created shift of focus:
   - Moved study of offending behaviour away from biological accounts towards a more realistic solution that was not based off prejudice.
   => Counterpoint:
   - Risks stereotyping people from impoverished backgrounds, moreover it ignores role of individual decision making.
2. Theory has wide reach:
   - Can account for offences in all sectors of society and social class.

Question 26

Give one negative evaluation of differential association as a psychological explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 26

Difficulty testing the theory’s predictions:
- Claims to be scientific with mathematical prediction framework, but concepts can’t be operationalised. Tricky to measure all events without some subjectivity.

Question 27

Outline the psychodynamic approach as a psychological explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 27

Inadequate superego can lead to immoral behaviour. Three types:

1. Weak superego, absence of same-sex parent so no identification in phallic stage.
2. Deviant superego, child internalises same-sex parents moral values, they are just bad.
3. Over-harsh superego, excessively harsh parent causes unconscious drive to satisfy need for punishment so child commits crime.

The theory focuses on the role of emotion (e.g anxiety) and how it guides moral behaviour.

Maternal deprivation leads to affectionless psychopathy - Bowlby.
- 44 Thieves study

Question 28

Give one positive evaluation of the psychodynamic approach as a psychological explanation of offending behaviour.

Answer 28

Research support:
Goreta
- 10 offenders found to have disturbances in Superego formation and a need for self-punishment.

Question 29

Outline custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 29

Custodial sentencing = prison

Aims:
- Deterrence
- Incapacitation
- Retribution
- Rehabilitation

Psychological effects of custodial sentencing:
- Stress and depression, institutionalisation, prisonisation (in-mate code)

Recidivism:
- UK 45% reoffend within one year. Norway (rehabilitation over retribution) only 20%.

Question 30

Give one positive evaluation of custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 30

Base for training and treatment:
Shirley
- If prisons properly funded…offenders who take part in education are 43% less likely to reoffend. Prison could be a useful experience for some?

Question 31

Outline behaviour modification as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 31

Behaviourist approach, all behaviour can be learned and un-learned.

Token economy:
- Operant conditioning (PR), used to reward desirable behaviour. Tokens also can be removed, punishment.

Tokens are secondary reinforcers, tokens not rewarding in themselves but are exchanged for rewards.

Operationalise target behaviours and agree on scoring system. Then train staff to have standardised procedures.

Question 32

Give two positive evaluations of behaviour modification as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 32

1. Research support:
   Hobbs and Holt
   - Young offenders produced good behaviour if rewarded.
   Field et al.
   - Best if rewards were more immediate, frequent and positive.
   => Counterpoint:
   Bassett and Blanchard
   - Any benefits lost if staff are inconsistent when applying techniques.
2. Easy to implement:
   - Does not need specialised help, once trained it can be run by prison staff. Cost effective!

Question 33

Give two negative evaluations of behaviour modification as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 33

1. Little rehabilitative value:
   Blackburn
   - Offenders can play along just for rewards without actual change in character. Once token economy discontinued offender may regress. Other treatments are more long lasting, focus on taking responsibility.
2. Ethical issues:
   - More institutionalised, no tokens in the real world for basic tasks. Others also suggest it is dehumanising and manipulative.

Question 34

Outline anger management as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 34

Cognitive factors trigger emotions which trigger aggressive acts. Anger reinforced due to feeling in control.

CBT: Recognise triggers and develop skills.

1. Cognitive preparation:
   - Reflect on past, identify triggers and their irrational responses.
2. Skills acquisition:
   - Techniques to deal with anger. Self talk, assertiveness, meditation.
3. Application practice:
   - Role play past situations.

Keen et al.
- Prison Service 8x2 hour sessions, increased awareness of anger and increased self control.

Question 35

Give one positive evaluation of anger management as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 35

1. Benefits outlast behaviour modification:
   Tackles the causes of offending. Better insight leads to more permanent change.
   => Counterpoint:
   Blackburn
   - Short-term impact but may not help cope with real-world triggers.

Question 36

Give two negative evaluations of anger management as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 36

1. Individual differences:
   Howells et al.
   - No overall benefit from treatment (compared to controls), except for those with high anger levels and motivation to change.
2. Expensive:
   - Needs highly-trained specialists. Takes time and commitment on part of prisoner. Most prisons cannot afford it.

Question 37

Outline restorative justice as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 37

Individual has suffered crime, not the state.

Healing process. RJ focuses on recovery of survivor and offender’s rehab.
- Reparation not Retribution

Can occur pre-trail, affects sentencing. Possible alternative to prison or sentence can be reduced.

Restitution payment for reasons that are financial (pay), practical (does repairs themselves) and emotional (support).

Restorative Justice Counsel (RJC)
- Monitors standards, supports survivors, promotes wider use for conflict.

Question 38

What are the key features of RJ?

Answer 38

1. Trained mediator
2. Face-to-face/ video call
3. Active involvement
4. Focus on positive outcomes for offender/ survivor.
5. May include community/ family help

Question 39

Give two positive evaluations of restorative justice as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 39

1. RJ supports needs of survivors:
   Shapland et al.
   - 7-year project. 85% survivors satisfied with process, 60% felt closure. RJ is worthwhile.
   => Counterpoint:
   Wood and Suzuki
   - Survivors may be used to help with offender rehab and not visa versa.
2. Reduces recidivism:
   Strang et al.
   - Meta analysis, offenders who experienced RJ less likely to offend (more so with committers of violent crimes).
   Bain
   - Less recidivism with one-to-one contact than general community involvement.

Question 40

Give one negative evaluation of restorative justice as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 40

Offenders can abuse the system:
Van Gijseghem
- Offenders intentions may not be honourable, use RJ to avoid punishment, play down their faults or even take pride in their relationship with survivor. Abuse system, do not change and go onto reoffend.

Question 41

Give three negative evaluations of custodial sentencing as a way of dealing with offending behaviour.

Answer 41

1. Negative effects of custodial sentencing:
   Bartol
   - Prison is demeaning. Suicide rates 9 times higher in UK prisons than general public.
   Prison reform trust
   - 25% women and 15% men develop psychosis.
   => Counterpoint:
   - Offenders may have pre-existing psychological difficulties when convicted.
2. Prison may be a school for crime:
   - Younger inmates learn more criminal acts and acquire more criminal contacts.
3. The purpose of prison?
   Onepoll
   - 47% viewed that prison should focus on punishment. But rehab focus prisons have much lower recidivism rates.
   => Counterpoint:
   - Rehab focussed prisons are EXPENSIVE!