Forensic Psychology

Question 1

Strengths of the top-down approach to offender profiling

Answer 1

• Supporting evidence Grant and McCrary used top down approach to develop a profile of a man responsible for the murders of several prostitutes in the late 1980s. Profile was a close match of the actual offender.
• Based on evidence as organised and disorganised offender profiles were developed by the FBI from interview and data from 36 US murderers including Ted Bundy.

Question 2

Weaknesses of the top-down approach to offender profiling

Answer 2

• Limited application as it can only work for some types of crimes e.g rapists and murderers that reveal information about their character and so for these crimes the top-down approach may be useful. However, crimes such as burglary do not typically reveal any idiosyncratic details about the criminal and so bottom-up approaches are likely to be more useful.
• Overly simplistic as it’s likely many offenders won’t fit neatly into either category. E.g a high IQ person could commit a spontaneous and unplanned murder in a fit of rage. However, high IQ is a characteristic of the organised profile, but a spontaneous crime is characteristic of the disorganised profile and so sticking too rigidly to these offender profiles could lead to inaccurate profiling.
• Conflicting evidence as study compared the accuracy of profiles created by 6 US-trained profilers using top down approach and profiles created by control groups for a sexual assault case. Profiles created by the trained profilers were no more accurate than profiles created by the control groups.

Question 3

Strengths of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling

Answer 3

• Supporting evidence
  Investigative psychology.
  Bottom-up profiling methods to develop a profile of the ‘Railway Rapist’ – responsible for several rapes and murders of women near railway stations in south-east England in the 1980s.
  his profile turned out to closely match the details of the offender, John Duffy, who was found guilty of these crimes.

Geographical profiling
Canter and Larkin (1993) tested the circle hypothesis by studying the locations of sexual assaults committed by 45 British serial offenders. They found that 39 of the 45 offenders (87%) lived within the circle predicted by the circle hypothesis, suggesting it is valid.

Another study plotted the locations where 120 serial killers disposed of bodies and analysed this data using a statistical technique called smallest space analysis. The researchers found the killers’ homes tended to be in the centre of the plotted area where they disposed of bodies, which supports the validity of geographical profiling.

• Wider range of applications
  Bottom-up approach can be applied to a much wider range of crimes.
  For example, most burglaries are similar in method and so a top-down approach won’t reveal much about the offender’s profile. However, geographical profiling only requires the locations of the crimes, and so this bottom-up approach can be applied to basically every type of crime.
• More scientific
  The bottom-up approach relies on objective and measurable data (e.g. plotting geographic locations of crimes), uses mathematical tools (e.g. statistical analysis), and is often based on psychological theory (e.g. interpersonal coherence).

Question 4

Weaknesses of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling

Answer 4

• Conflicting evidence surveyed 184 UK police officers. Although 83% of the police surveyed said the profiles were ‘useful’, just 3% of profiles created by trained profilers resulted in identification of the offender. This suggests bottom-up profiles are not particularly useful in practice.

Question 5

Strengths of the atavistic form explanation of criminal behaviour

Answer 5

• Historical significance. Prior to Lombroso, explanations of criminal behaviour tended to be religious (e.g. bad spirits, Satan, etc.) or moralistic (e.g. weak-mindedness). In appealing to evolutionary reasoning, Lombroso’s approach shifted the discussion towards more scientific explanations. This paved the way for more scientific explanations of criminal behaviour, such as genetic factors.

Question 6

Weaknesses of the atavistic form explanation of criminal behaviour

Answer 6

• Methodological concerns as Lombroso did not use a non-criminal control group to compare his measurements of criminals against. Without comparing the features of criminals against the features of non-criminals, it is impossible to say whether criminals do actually have distinctive features that differentiate them from non-criminals as Lombroso claimed.
• Alternative explanations. Criminals may have distinctive facial structures due to other causes rather than having evolutionarily primitive (atavistic) biology. For example, if someone is ‘ugly’, this could cause other people to treat them badly and this bad treatment could cause a person to engage in criminal behaviour. This would be an environmental explanation.
• Ethical concerns: Lombroso’s atatvistic form explanation is socially sensitive because it could lead to stereotyping and discrimination based on the way a person looks.