Forensic Psychology Flashcards
1
Q
Crime
A
An act that breaks the law and can result in some form of punishment
2
Q
Why is crime a social construct?
A
Laws often change and there are cultural and historical differences in definitions of crime.
For example, homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1967 in England.
3
Q
Offender profiling
A
An investigative tool used by professionals to help them to accurately predict the traits and characteristics of a suspect.
4
Q
The top-down approach
A
Profilers start with a pre-established typology (category) and work down to lower levels in order to assign offenders to one of two categories based on witness accounts and evidence from the crime scene.
5
Q
Where did the top-down approach originate from?
A
Originates from the work of the FBI in 1970s America
6
Q
Two offender categories in the top-down approach
A
Organised offender and disorganised offender
7
Q
Characteristics of an organised offender
A
- Evidence of planning: little evidence/clues left behind at the crime scene
- Victim appears to be chosen or even known to the offender
- Likely to be in a skilled, professional occupation
- Average or higher intelligence
- Likely to have experienced inconsistent discipline in their childhood
8
Q
Characteristics of a disorganised offender
A
- Little evidence of planning: signs of spontaneity, likely to leave evidence behind
- The victim appears to be randomly chosen
- Unlikely to have success in employment
- Below average intelligence
- Likely to have experienced harsh discipline in their childhood
9
Q
What evidence was the top-down approach based on?
A
FBI’s Behavioural science unit conducted extensive interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers to understand the patterns and behaviours of offenders.
10
Q
What was the aim of the interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers?
A
To develop specific details of crimes and crime scenes so that database of common characteristics could be developed.
11
Q
Strength of the top-down approach interviews
A
It produced qualitative data which generated rich, detailed information on the patterns and behaviours of offenders
12
Q
Weakness of the top-down approach interviews
A
Small sample size
Unrepresentative sample: may only be applicable to murderers and rapists; hard to generalise to other non-serious crimes such as petty theft
13
Q
Four main stages in the construction of an FBI profile (Howitt, 2009)
A
- Data assimilation: the profiler reviews the evidence eg crime scene photographs
- Crime scene classification: as either organised or disorganised
- Crime reconstruction: hypotheses in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of the victim, etc
- Profile generation: hypotheses related to the likely offender eg of demographic background, physical characteristics, behaviour etc
14
Q
Limitation of the top-down approach
A
One limitation of the top-down approach is that it’s based on flawed evidence.
The categories were based on interviews conducted with 36 sexually motivated serial killers. The sample is small and unrepresentative, meaning it may be difficult to generalise these categories to other non-serious crimes such as petty theft that may exhibit different characteristics.
This suggests the evidence that the top-down approach is based on has low population validity and thus undermines this approach. It may only be appropriate for profiling offenders of particular crimes such as murder or rape and not theft or arson.
However, it has been argued that it is possible to adapt it for other kinds of crimes, including burglary. Meketa (2017) reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary. This led to an 85% increase in solved cases in three US states. This suggests that top-down profiling has wider application that it was originally assumed.
15
Q
Strength for organised offender category (top-down approach)
A
There is evidence to support a distinct offender category.
For example, David Canter et al. (2004) conducted an analysis of 100 US murders each committed by a different serial killer. A statistical analysis was used to assess the co-occurrence of 39 aspects of serial killings, which included things like the form of murder weapon used and the cause of death.
This analysis revealed that there does seem to be a subset of features of many serial killings which matched the FBI’s typology for organised offenders, thus increasing the validity of the top-down approach.
However, many studies suggest that the organised and disorganised categories may not be mutually exclusive and that the categorisation may be too simplistic. For example, Godwin (2002) argues that it’s difficult to classify killers as one or the other type. A killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics, such as high intelligence but commits a spontaneous murder and leaves the victim’s body at the crime scene. This suggests that the typologies model is too simplistic and lack validity as it assumes that there are only two types of offenders and can only be used to explain certain crimes.
16
Q
Who developed the bottom-up approach?
A
David Canter
17
Q
The bottom-up approach
A
It is grounded in theory and is a ‘data-driven’ approach, which relies heavily on statistical databases. Evidence is used to create hypothesis and theory.
There are two elements of bottom-up offender profiling:
1. Investigative psychology
2. Geographical profiling
18
Q
Investigative psychology
A
- Involves using statistical analysis of the crime scene.
- Details of the crime scene are statistically analysed, and added to larger statistical data set of crimes already recorded by police.
- Details of the crime are then compared to this larger statistical data (database), which helps to generate data about the offender (e.g. typical offender behaviour patterns and potential relationships between crimes).
19
Q
Key assumptions in investigative psychology (which are also informed by data) that help build up the profile
A
- Forensic awareness
- Time and place
- Interpersonal coherence
20
Q
Key assumption of investigative psychology: Forensic awareness
A
Details of the crime scene can be used to determine whether the offender has any knowledge about how criminal and police investigations work (i.e., did they cover their tracks?)
21
Q
Key assumption of investigative psychology: Time and place
A
Time and place of offence may reveal information about where offender lives (their base), mode of travel or whether they are employed/unemployed
22
Q
Key assumption of investigative psychology: Interpersonal coherence
A
The way the offender behaves at the crime scene and how they interacted with the victim may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations.
23
Q
Geographical profiling
A
Refers to the analysis of crime locations and times to identify patterns of an offender.
- Analyses the spatial relationships between linked crime scenes to reveal clues about offenders life, job, where they live, where they socialise, mental map of offender.
- Use data from crime scene used alongside local crime statistics, local transport, etc.
- It links to Canter’s Circle Theory, which states offenders have a spatial mindset and commit crimes within a geographic circle they are familiar.
- Profilers are able to establish whether an offender is a commuter or a marauder.
- The analysis of locations also allows profilers to establish a jeopardy circle based on emerging patterns.
24
Q
Jeopardy surface (circle)
A
Where an offender might strike next
25
Centre of gravity
Where an offender is likely to be based
26
Commuter
Offender travels from their home to a familiar area then commits crimes within a criminal range of that area.
27
Marauder
Offender commits crimes within a criminal range from their own home
28
Strength of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling: real world application
P: it has been used successfully to catch offenders.
E/E: In 1986, Canter used this approach to provide an offender profile for the ‘Railway Rapist’ (John Duffy) who had sexually assaulted and murdered women near railway stations in London. After a conviction in 1988, it was confirmed that 12 out of the 17 characteristics in the profile provided by Canter were accurate.
L: This confirms that the bottom-up approach to offender profiling does have useful applications in fighting crime.
29
Strength of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling: more useful than top-down offender profiling
P: more useful in a wider range of criminal behaviours than top-down offender profiling.
E/E: The categories in the top-down approach are based on interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers.The sample used is small and unrepresentative, thus it may be limited to extreme offender behaviours such as rape and murder. The bottom-up approach is ‘data-driven’ so it can be applied to more types of crimes like theft.
L: This suggests that the bottom-up approach is a more suitable method of offender profiling as there are more opportunities for it to be applied.
30
Strength of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling: highly scientific approach to offender profiling
P: It is deemed to be a highly scientific approach to offender profiling.
E/E: Since the foundation of this approach is data, and decisions and assumptions are data-driven, the approach is objective and refrains from forming profiles with hunches and subjective interpretations of crime scenes. This contrasts with the top-down approach to offender profiling, which is not reliant on data and instead is built with a hypothesis about offender behaviour based on the templates derived from subjective interviews of extreme offenders.
L: This increases the credibility of the bottom-up approach
31
Limitations of offender profiling: issues
P: One weakness of the offender profiling is that it is not always accurate.
E/E: In the case of Rachel Nickel, police arrested an innocent man named Stagg based on an offender profile. This illustrates the fact that just because someone fits a profile, it doesn’t mean that they are the offender. Further evidence that supports this view comes from Copson (1995) who surveyed 48% police departments and found in only 3% of cases did the offender profiling lead to the accurate identification of the offender.
L: This suggests profiling can help narrow down a list of suspects and give a lead in an investigation but it will not deliver the actual suspect, and therefore highlights the potential dangers of how profiling can be misused.
32
Two types of explanation of offending behaviour
Biological and Psychological
33
Who was Lombroso?
Lombroso (1876) was the first person to offer a theory about why people commit crimes. He was the first to offer a supposedly biological explanation of crime and ‘the born criminal’.
34
What research did Lombroso conduct? (method)
Lombroso examined the physical and cranial characteristics of 4000 living and 400 deceased Italian criminals.
35
What did Lombroso conclude from his research?
Lombroso concluded that there were clear physiological traits that were common across all criminals, termed the ‘atavistic form’.
36
Features of the atavistic form
- Narrow, sloping brows
- High cheek bone
- Strong prominent jaws
- Dark skin
- Curly hair
- extra toes/fingers
- extra nipples
37
Why did Lombroso think criminality was innate?
Lombroso concluded that criminals were primitive ‘**genetic throwbacks**’, meaning they were biologically different from non-criminals, and were not able to control their behaviour since they were born this way.
Lombroso also argued that criminals lacked **evolutionary development**. Their savage nature meant they couldn’t adapt to a civilised society, and so they committed a crime.
38
Lombroso also argued that different types of criminals had different characteristics. What are the characteristics of murderers and sexual deviants, according to Lombroso?
Murderers:
- Bloodshot eyes
- Long ears
- Curly hair
Sexual deviants:
- Glinting eyes
- Projecting ears
39
Outline the atavistic form (6 marks)
The atavistic form was developed by Lombroso to explain criminal behaviour. He theorised that criminals were evolutionary ill-suited to modern society as they were genetic ‘throwbacks’ who were unable to control their behaviour. This theory was based on his research in which he examined the physical and cranial features of 4000 living and 400 deceased Italian convicts. Lombroso found that 40% of criminal acts are committed by people who shared the same physiological characteristics that were particularly distinguishable, termed the atavistic form. Features of the atavistic form included facial asymmetry, a prominent jaw, dark skin and curly hair. Lombroso proposed that offending behaviour was innate and so an offender was not to blame for their actions as it was a natural tendency.
40
Strength of Lombroso’s work: legacy
One strength of Lombroso’s work is it made a valuable contribution in the field of criminology. Lombroso’s work introduced the idea of examining crime through the lens of evolutionary and genetic factors, contributing to a more scientific understanding. Lombroso played a key role in shifting the focus of crime research from a moralistic discourse, where offenders were judged as morally wicked and weak-minded, to a more scientific approach which considered evolutionary influences and genetics. This suggests that individuals are not solely to blame for criminal behaviour. This is a strength because his theory laid the groundwork for offender profiling by attempting to describe how specific types of people are more likely to commit certain crimes.
41
Limitation of Lombroso’s work: scientific racism
Critics, including Matt Delisi (2012), question whether Lombroso’s legacy is entirely positive. They point out the racist undertones of the theory, highlighting that many features he deemed atavistic, such as dark skin and curly hair, are often found in people of African descent. Lombroso’s theory is criticised for implying that individuals with certain physical traits, more common among Africans, are more prone to criminal behaviour, reflecting the eugenic attitude of the 19th century, and thus is considered a socially sensitive research. This suggests that certain aspects of Lombroso’s theory were influenced by the racial prejudices of his time and are highly subjective rather than being entirely objective, which contradicts the scientific methodology, thus undermining the credibility of his theory.
42
Limitation of atavistic form: difficult to establish cause and effect
One limitation of this biological explanation of offender behaviour is that it is difficult to conclude a cause and effect relationship between the atavistic form and offender behaviour. Possible physical traits associated with the atavistic form may create social barriers, such as lack of job opportunities and failure to form meaningful relationships. However, other theories identify these social issues as precursors/early factors that contribute to criminal behaviours. This suggests that the consequences of the atavistic form such as social difficulties may be just as influential in an individual committing crime. This means that it is difficult to determine a cause and effect relationship between the atavistic form and crime, thus undermining the credibility of the atavistic form as a biological explanation of offending behaviour.
43
Limitation of atavistic form: contradictory evidence
One limitation of the atavistic form is that there is conflicting evidence. Goring (1913) carried out a similar study with a control group, where he compared 3000 offenders with 3000 non-offenders, and concluded that there was no evidence supporting the idea that offenders have distinct facial and cranial characteristics that set them apart from non-offenders (though he did suggest that many individuals who commit crimes be have below average intelligence). This questions the internal validity of Lombroso’s findings and undermines his theory of the link between the atavistic form and crime.
44
Limitation of Lombroso’s work: poor control
One limitation is that Lombroso’s methods of investigation were poorly controlled. Lombroso failed to control important variables within his research and unlike Goring, he did not compare his sample of offenders to a control group of non-offenders, which could have helped control for various confounding variables like poverty that might explain higher crime rates in certain groups. Research has demonstrated links between crime and social difficulties like poverty. This reduces the internal validity of his work as there may be other factors that affect an individual’s likelihood to commit crimes, which further undermines the legitimacy of his research findings and his impact on criminology.
45
Why could Lombroso’s theory be criticised for being biologically deterministic?
His theory suggests people are born with the disposition for criminal behaviour based on their physiology and free will has no influence.
46
Why could Lombroso’s theory be criticised for being biologically deterministic?
His theory ignores other factors and suggests that offending behaviour is innate.
47
Why could Lombroso’s theory be considered socially sensitive?
1. Suggests criminality is inevitable and so rehabilitation or strategies for reducing crimes (custodial sentences) are pointless.
2. If criminals have no free will then society cannot blame offenders, which contradicts our justice system.
3. Could give scientific credence to institutional racism.
48
How would the biological approach explain offending behaviour?
The biological explanations focus on the role of nature and assumes all offender behaviours are the result of our physiology, rather than our environment.
49
Define predisposition
Increased tendency / vulnerability
50
Define concordance rate
the probability that two people with shared genes will develop the same characteristic/ trait eg offending behaviour
51
Christiansen et al (1977): Twin studies on offending behaviour - Findings
They found that in over 3500 twin pairs, the concordance rate for offending behaviour, meaning the extent to which both twins shared the same offending characteristic, was 35% for identical monozygotic (MZ) twins and 13% for non-identical dizygotic (DZ) twins.
This shows that offending behaviour must have a genetic component as MZ twins share 100% of their genes, which predisposes an individual to commit crime
52
What is a candidate gene?
A gene that is believed to be related to a particular trait, such as a disease or a physical attribute.
53
Tiihonen (2015): Candidate gene study
1. Faulty MAOA gene - leads to higher level of serotonin and linked to aggressive behaviour.
2. Faulty CDH13 gene - linked to substance misuse and ADHD.
These traits are commonly associated with offending behaviour (predisposes individuals to commit crime).
They found 5-10% crime in Finland attributed to the MAOA and ADHD genotypes.
54
How could the diathesis-stress model be used to explain offender behaviour? Give an example.
Offending behaviour may come about through the combination of a genetic predisposition and a biological or psychological trigger.
E.g. being raised in a dysfunctional environment or having criminal role models.
55
Neural explanation of offending behaviour
Neural explanations focus on the function and structure of brain regions and how these are both implicated in offender behaviour.
56
Two sub-explanations within the neural explanation of offending behaviour
1. Pre-frontal cortex and amygdala
2. Mirror neurons
57
Why are samples consisting of Antisocial personality disorder (APD) participants used in many neural studies?
APD characterises many convicted offenders, like physical aggression and lack of remorse, so are used in many neural studies.
58
Prefrontal cortex
- Situated in the frontal lobe of the brain
- Associated with personality, planning ahead, displaying appropriate behaviour and emotions.
59
What does evidence suggest for patients with APD?
Evidence suggests there are structural and functional differences in the prefrontal cortex of offenders compared to non-offenders, where there is reduced prefrontal activity in patients with APD, hence why they are impulsive and they don’t consider the consequences of their actions and control their behaviour.
60
Amygdala
- Situated in the temporal lobe of the brain.
- Its functions involve memory and emotion, especially fear.
61
What is associated with a smaller amygdala?
Evidence suggests a smaller amygdala is linked to a lack of empathy in offenders, which may explain their lack of guilt and remorse when committing crimes.
62
What is a mirror neuron?
A neuron that fires both when a person acts and when a person observes the same action performed by another. The neuron “mirrors” the behaviour of the other, as though the observer was acting.
63
What mechanism does a mirror neuron provide for experiencing?
They provide a neural mechanism for experiencing and hence understanding other people’s states.
64
Mirror neurons in offenders
Mirror neurons appear to be ‘switched’ off in offenders, meaning they do not empathise with other people in a typical way.
65
Keysers (2011) - Mirror neurons and APD
Only when offenders with APD were asked to empathise (with a person on film depicted experiencing pain) did they show an empathy reaction, where the mirror neurons in the brain activated. Neural switch that turns ‘on’ or ‘off’ unlike normal brain where the empathy switch is always on.
66
Strength of genetic explanation of offending behaviour: Supporting evidence
Christiansen (1977) - concordance rates for offending behaviour was 35% for MZ twins compared to 13% for DZ twins. Higher concordance rate for MZ twins who share 100% of their genes, meaning they are biologically predisposed to have offending behaviour.
67
Strength of genetic explanation: Support for diathesis-stress model
Mendick (1984) conducted a study on adopted children. When neither the biological or adoptive parents had convictions, 13.5% of adoptees had a conviction. This rose to 20% when either of the biological parents had convictions, and 24% when both adoptive and biological parents had convictions. This shows that genetic influence plays a role (the biological parents)
but environmental influence was also important (through the adoptive parents).
68
Supporting evidence for genetic explanation
Farrington (1996) found 75% of families where a parent was an offender, there was a child who had also been convicted of a crime. This suggests a genetic link.
69
Limitation of genetic explanation of offending behaviour: Role of shared environment
P: One limitation of the biological explanations is that it is hard to discount the role of the shared environment in twin studies.
E: Despite high concordance rates for offending in MZ twins, it cannot be ignored that the twins likely had the same environments growing up and therefore shared the same peer and life experiences.
E: This means that it is not possible to tell whether their genes or their environment has been the most influential factor in their behaviour.
L: Therefore, it is hard to establish a cause and effect relationship between genes and offending behaviour.
70
Limitation of genetic explanations of offending behaviour: Biologically deterministic
P: Biologically deterministic
E: suggests that offending behaviour is determined by their genes, and that there is no free will in whether they become offenders or not.
E: This is a limitation because it removes any accountability for committing crime, and would suggest that strategies in reducing crime (eg custodial sentencing) or rehabilitating offenders are pointless.
71
Why is the genetic explanations of offending behaviour considered socially sensitive?
It suggests that criminals have no free will, and are therefore not accountable for their actions. This contradicts our legal justice system, where criminals are held responsible for their actions.
72
Limitation of the genetic explanation of offending behaviour: Biologically reductionist + CC
P: biologically reductionist
E/E: This means that the lowest level of explanation is being used to explain a complex behaviour, and by focusing on biology alone, other influences are ignored or minimised. By focusing on genetics, there is no acknowledgment that childhood trauma or social learning may influence behaviour.
L: This is a limitation because the spectrum of offender behaviour is wide, and the motives people have for committing crime are complex, which means that a holistic theory is needed if we are to truly understand why people offend, and how to prevent it in the future.
CC: Taking a reductionist approach allows for a more straightforward approach that helps researchers take a scientific approach to investigating the explanation.
73
Strength of genetic explanations of offending behaviour: scientific methods
P: high scientific credibility
E/E: Genetic testing and PET scans are just two of the ways in which biologists investigate the causes of offending behaviour. These methods are highly objective and falsifiable, meaning that it is possible for other researchers to prove or disprove them.
L: This is a strength because it means that research and theories derived from biology are more accurate and credible than the work from other approaches, such as psychodynamic and cognitive theories, which focus on largely untestable concepts.
74
Supporting evidence for Neural explanations of offending behaviour: Raine (1997)
E: Raine conducted a PET study and found an 11% reduction in grey matter volume in the prefrontal cortex in people with APD compared to control group. There is indication that offenders (specifically violent offenders) have abnormal brain function when compared to normal controls. As there is largely reduced activity, it would suggest that the brains of offenders are slowly and perhaps unable to make the swift decisions to react appropriately in certain situations.
E: For example, the frontal lobes are linked to planning behaviour, therefore the decreased prefrontal cortex activity may indicate that offenders are unable to consider the consequences of their actions and control their behaviour.
75
Supporting evidence for Neural explanations of offending behaviour: Kandel and Freed (1989)
Kandel and Freed looked at frontal lobe damage and anti-social behaviour and found that there was a tendency for such individuals to exhibit emotional instability, a failure to consider the consequences of their actions or to adapt their behaviour in response to external cues. These traits would seemingly be a result of impaired functioning in the frontal lobes, a region responsible for planning behaviour. This suggests that the damage/abnormalities in the frontal lobe may cause criminality.
76
Biological determinism of neural explanations of offending behaviour
It’s suggested that offending behaviour is biologically determined since the argument follows that such an individual is determined by an internal factor, in this case brain structure. For example, a post-mortem was conducted on Charles Whitman, who murdered his wife, mother and 13 fellow students at the University of Texas, and it was found that Whitman’s brain had a tumour the size of a walnut pressing on his amygdala. This concluded that the cause of his sudden extreme violence could’ve been due to the tumour, since the amygdala has been linked to aggression and emotion regulation. Therefore, this suggests that criminals cannot be held responsible for their crimes since they are unable to control their biology, which goes against the legal justice system where criminals take responsibility for their actions and suggests there’s little point in strategies in reducing crime or rehabilitating offenders.
77
Limitation of the neural explanation of offending behaviour: Intervening variables
P: research is often correlations and cannot display a cause and effect relationship.
E/E: Brain abnormalities could be causing the criminal behaviour but it would also be possible that criminal behaviour may have led to a reduction in brain activity. Alternatively, various life experiences (intervening variables) may have led to both a reduction in brain activity and criminal behaviour.
L: Therefore, it is difficult to establish a cause and effect relationship.
78
Biological reductionism of neural explanations of offending behaviour + CC
Researchers look at the way a brain region might contribute to offending behaviour, but they are overlooking other important factors such as how social factors/ the environment might have an influence on offending behaviour.
However, taking a reductionist approach allows a more straightforward investigation to be conducted as it would be almost impossible to disentangle all the possible explanations and their interactions and investigate them scientifically. Therefore while reducing complex behaviour to its simplest form does require researchers to overlook key factors, it is also essential for good scientific practice.
