Forensic Psychology Flashcards
What is offender profiling?
Used to identify suspects
Determine most likely characteristics
Outline Top Down approach
FBI interviewed 36 sexually motivated killers to gain insight on patterns in behaviour and thinking
- based on intuition and deductive reasoning (not empirical data)
- appies theories and concepts to information at the crime scene
follows stages developed by FBI (see later)
data from interviws and crime scenes helped identify 2 catagories of offenders
- organised and disorganised
found these characteristics often related to their personal life and the crime scene
- helps identify characteristics
Characteristics of an organised offender
Personal life:
- intelligent - employed
- socially competent - have friends and relationships
Crime scene:
- no forensic evidence
- planned
- shows control
Characteristics of a disorganised offender
Personal life:
- unemployed/ low skilled
- behaves impulsively
- socially incompetent - few friends/ loner
Crime scene:
- forensic evidence
- unplanned
- shows no control
FBI stages in developing a profile
- Assimilating data - collecting all information from scene and victim
- Crime scene classification - organised or disorganised
- Crime scene reconstruction - recreate behaviour and actions of offender and victim
- Generate a profile - make judgement of possible physical and lifestyle characteristics
Strengths of Top Down
+ Copson, 90% senior officers would use it again
real world application
+ makes use of expertise
Based on intuition so utilises the experience of profilers to make judgments that a model couldn’t make - may be more accurate
Weaknesses of Top Down
- small sample size, can’t be generalised to all crimes, 36
- based on self report interviews, subjective and unreliable (likely to lie)
- temporal validity - interviews in 70s
- can’t be categorised into one of 2 categories, may be mixed - less valid/useful
Canter (2004) - Allison, 50% officers said profile was accurate when it was fake (distinctly different to actual offender)
Outline Bottom Up approach
developed by David Canter
- based on statistics and past cases rather then deduction
- uses data at scene as source of information to develop a theory (of offender)
investigative psychology - applying psychological research to investigations
- Interpersonal coherence - offender behaves consistently so crime scene reflects everyday behaviours
- forensic awareness - how well crimes were covered could indicate past convictions
geographical profiling - uses location as clues to offenders job, life etc
- circle theory - offenders commit crimes in certain radius of where they live (marauder) or where they know well (commuter)
Strengths of Bottom Up
+ emphasis on data, more scientific, uses more objective techniques
Less intuition
therefore more reliable
+ Canter and Larkin, support for circle theory in 45 sexual assults
+ Copson - 75% police officers said useful
Weaknesses of Bottom Up
- circle theory oversimplified
more useful for some crimes
- 85% murder
- 50% theft
effectiveness
- Copson - only 3% officers found it helped to actually identify offender
- Petherick - claimed geographical profiling encourages officers to look in wrong direction, may not always be certain radius
Less useful
issues with offender profiling
Holmes
in 192 cases using offender profiling
only 88 arrests made
profiling helped with 17% of these
only useful for limited range of crimes
- not useful for material gain eg theft
Biological approaches to offending behaviour
Lombroso - atavistic form
Genetic
Neural
Outline Lombroso
Linked physical characteristics to crime (those with features had innate criminal tendencies)
Criminals more likely to have atavistic features (primitive)
- strong jaw
- heavy brow
- large ears
Believed criminality came from primitive instincts that had survived evolution - ‘genetic throwback’
Strengths of Lombroso
+ highlighted role of biology
+ suggests interactions between biology and environment, highly influential
+ scientific for the time - studied criminals systematically with over 50,000
Weaknesses of Lombroso
- didn’t use non criminal control, features not unique to criminals
- ethnocentrism - problematic views on different races, believed they were born criminals (evolutionary throwback)
- unethical - prejudice towards those with characteristics
- reductionist - explains complex idea through physical characteristics, ignores environment
- biological determinism, innate and inherited, can’t be blamed
Genetic explanations for offending behaviour
Gene predispose individuals to criminal behaviour
- evidence from twin and adoption studies
Candidate genes found
- mutation of MAOA - causes abnormal serotonin levels (warrior gene)
- Brunner et al, violent male family members, inherited - all had MAOA
Evidence for genetic explanations
+ Raine, concordance rates in delinquent twins
- 52% MZ
- 21% DZ
+ Mednick, 14,000 adoptees
15% sons adopted by criminal families
20% biologically related to criminals became criminals
Shows genes more influential than environment
Neural explanations for criminal behaviour
Abnormal transmission of neurotransmitters
- serotonin - inhibitory neurotransmitter
- low levels linked to impulsive offending behaviour
Differences in brain functioning
- less activity in prefrontal cortex - linked with regulating emotion and moral behaviour
- leads to impulsiveness
Evidence for neural explanations
+ Raine, PET scans
Murderers shows reduced activity in prefrontal cortex
Associated with regulating emotion
Shows dysfunctional brain processing in criminals
+ Seo et al, low levels of serotonin
Predispose people to aggression and crime
Weaknesses of genetic explanation
- no study found 100% concordance rates, must involve other factors
- biological determinism
- reductionist
- Caspi - those with MAOA gene only became violent if mistreated in childhood
Interactionist approach
Weaknesses of neural explanation
- biological determinism
- reductionist
- correlation doesn’t mean causation
Strengths of genetic and neural
+ research support
+ Raine, Mednick and Brunner
+ can be tested scientifically, more reliable
Psychological explanations for offending behaviour
Eysneck’s theory - personality types
Cognitive explanations - distortion and moral reasoning
Differential association theory
Outline Eysnecks theory
Explained criminal behaviour by personality types
Determined through personality questionnaire
- high score = criminal personality
Suggested a genetic predisposition to certain types but environmental factors too
Personality dimensions:
neuroticism vs stability
- neurotics less emotionally stable and more unpredictable
extroversion vs introversion
- extroverts seek new experiences and stimulation
psychotisism (how vulnerable to psychotic breakdown)
- high = aggressive, more criminal
Evaluation of Eysnecks theory
+ influential
+ considers biological and psychological factors = holistic
+ Dunlop - extra version and psychotisism good predictors of delinquent behaviour = useful
- lacks reliability, data from self report questionaire
only uses closed question = limited data - reductionist - personalities change between situations, don’t just fit into catagories
- doesnt explain why = incomplete
Outline cognitive approach (distortions)
Suggests criminal have cognitive distortions
- irrational thought patterns causing a distorted view of reality
- minimisation, playing down seriousness of offences - rationalise actions, alleviate guilt
- hostile attribution bias, misinterpreting others actions, believing other have hostile intentions, out to get them - leads to perceive threats that don’t exist, aggression
- blaming others
Outline cognitive approach (moral reasoning)
Criminals could have different levels of moral reasoning
Kohlberg - develops in stages as we age
Found 3 stages to moral reasoning
Allen - criminals have lower levels of moral reasoning
- pre-conventional stage (right behaviour is that of own interest)
- don’t have moral principles to prevent crime
+ supported by Allen
Strengths of cognitive explanations
+ Yochelson and Samenow
Criminals share common thinking patterns and errors
+ Kennedy and Grubins - interviewed sex offenders, only 1/3 believed they’d harmed victims (minimisation)
+ Dodge - aggressive children more likely to misinterpret others action
(HAB)
+ Allen
Criminals have lower levels of moral reasoning, don’t progress through stages
Weaknesses of cognitive explanations
- rely on inference (machine reductionism)
can’t directly observe thoughts so assumptions made, less objective and scientific
Therefore only a partial explanation, others better? (Eg DAT) - reductionist
may be due to biological factors
Outline differential association theory
Criminal behaviour + attitudes learnt through interactions with other deviant individuals
biggest influence from closest relationships
Explains why minor criminals may reoffend - learn more methods in prisons
Teach people:
specific criminal acts
- learn best techniques and methods through interactions
Pro criminal attitudes
- learn motivations and attitudes to offending
- taught it isn’t negative but desirable
- more pro-crime attitudes = more likely to offend
Strengths of differential association theory
+ accounts for all types of people
+ Short
Questionnaire on children on delinquent behaviour
Found correlation between behaviour and association with other criminals
+ Reiss and Rhodes - boys in friendship triads more likely to show criminal behaviour if other members were offenders
Weaknesses of differential association theory
- doesn’t consider individual differences, not everyone influenced
- reductionist, doesn’t consider biological (eg Mednick and Raine)
- correlational data, doesn’t mean it’s the cause
- prejudice against children of criminal
+ but could prevent crime as could help at risk youths
Outline psychodynamic explanations
Freudian - children go through phalic stage, identify with same sex parent = superego develops
- suggests criminals have issues with superego
Use defence mechanisms unconsciously to justify criminal behaviour
Eg rationalisation - rich people deserve to be robbed, more than everyone else
- displaced aggression, creates antisocial behaviour
- triggering stimuli might release repressed anger - aggression
Bowlby: maternal deprivation = affectionless psychopathy (lack of emotion and empathy)
- therefore ‘primed’ to be criminals, according to Bowlby
Weak superego
Same sex parent absent (in phalic stage)
Can’t identify with them
Superego underdeveloped
- can’t make them moral, listen to id
Deviant superego
Same sex parent deviant
Learns deviant morals and values
Superego has poor morality
Leads to offending behaviour
Over harsh superego
Superego harsh so causes them to feel extreme guilt
Feel they should be punished
Leads to criminal behaviour as punishment
Caused by parents being overly harsh
Evaluation of psychodynamic explanation
+ Bowlby’s 44 juvenile thieves - higher levels of affectionless psychopathy in theives
- hard to test scientifically, consider unconscious processes
So less reliable and valid
Lacks falsifiability - psychic determinism - behaviour determined by unconscious mind due to childhood experiences, offenders not responsible
- evidence for biological
- ethical issues - discrimination against children with single parents
Ways of dealing with offending behaviour
Custodial sentencing
Token economies
Anger management
Restorative justice
Aims of custodial sentencing (5)
- Punishment (aims to reduce reoffending)
- Rehabilitation
- Protects public
- Deterrence (discourage others, vicarious reinforcement)
- Retribution (atone for wrongdoing)
effects of custodial sentencing
mental health issues
- emotional distress
- high rates of depression and suicide (men 3.7x more likely to commit suicide in prison)
- shown by Zimbardo, effects of imprisonment
reinforces criminal behaviour
- differential association theory
= high recidivism rates (70% young offenders reoffend in 2 years)
de-individuation
- shown by Zimbardo, loss of identity
- could be positive eg rehabilitation
positives of custodial sentencing (prisons)
+ can for fill aims - eg protects public
+ positive psychological effects - rehabilitation (reduce reoffending, CBT, employment etc)
negatives of custodial sentencing (prisons)
- prison increases likelihood of reoffending - interacting with other criminals
70% young offenders reoffend within 2 years - Prison Reform Trust - 46% adults reconvicted within a year of release, ineffective
- other methods may be better - eg community service, keeps social life
- negative psychological effects
what is recidivism?
repeating an undesirable behaviour after punishment (reoffending)
Prison Reform Trust - 46% adults reoffending within 1st year out
reducing this has good economic impacts
outline token economies in prisons
behaviour modification method based on operant conditioning - behaviourist treatment
rewarded for good behaviour - reinforce
punished for bad behaviour - discourage
rewarded with tokens to spend on rewards (secondary reinforcers)
Removed for undesirable behaviour
strengths of token economies
Hobbs and Holt - effective
- aim to decrease inappropriate behaviour in adolescent offenders
- 4 groups and 1 control
- average 27% increase in desirable behaviour, no change in control
+ based on scientific evidence
Behaviourism, focus on observable and empirical data
weaknesses of token economies
- Kirigin et al
-short term effects
reduced rates of undesirable behaviour during, rates returned after - lacks ecological validity
- individual differences - not effective for all offenders, some unable to control behaviour/ not respond to conditioning
outline anger management
therapeutic programme used on violent criminals
assumes violence caused by anger
- aims to help them control anger
- encouraged to monitor own behaviour for patterns and changes, more self aware
how is anger management done? (3 stages)
Cognitive preparation
- help patient identify triggers
Skill acquisition
- teach patients strategies for reducing anger eg deep breathing
Application practise
- role play
- allows patient to rehearse situations and controlling anger
strengths of anger management
reland
- aggression level of 50 inmates measured before and after course
- improvement in 92%
+ more long term and transferable to real life then other treatments - such as token aconomkes
weaknesses of anger management
- Howells et al
no significant difference in anger before and after - not helpful for all offenders - not all crimes caused by anger
- requires trained therapists, limited availability in prisons, less useful
what is the restorative justice system?
aims to make amends to victims
repair damage they caused, restore situation to before it happened
Based on communication between victim and offender - understand and take responsibility for consequences
Aims
- reduce recidivism (more than prisons)
- allow for atonement
- also helps victim feel less like a victim
strengths of restorative justice
+ Smith Report 2007 - many advantages
reduced PTSD in victims
both offender and victim more satisfied
+ UK Restorative Justice Council
14% reduction in reoffending after - economic benefits (cheaper in long run then prisons)
weaknesses of restorative justice
- can’t be used on all offenders
not all take responsibility or admit
can’t be used for murder, can’t undo action - not all victims will agree
- ethical issues for offender (extreme blame and guilt) and victim (feel worse after)
Explanations
Biological:
- Lombroso
- genetic
- neural
Psychological:
- Eyesneck
- Differential association theory
- Cognitive - distortions and moral reasoning
- Psychodynamic - superego
