Forensic Psychology Flashcards
What is offender profiling?
Offender profiling refers to the process of using all the available information about a crime, a crime scene, and a victim in order to compose a profile of the, as yet, unknown perpetrator. It is a tool employed by police in solving crimes, as characteristics of the offender can be deduced from the characteristics of the crime scene. The aim is to narrow the field of inquiry and list of suspects.
Outline the top down approach to offender profiling
- it originates with the FBI and was created in 1970s
- it was developed as a way to solve extreme and bizarre murder / rape cases
- it relies on intuition and beliefs of profilers, and theories about offender types
- it looks data about the characteristics of the criminal and generalise this down to certain theories or typologies to make sense of that data
It starts with theories about the type of offender, and then these theories are applied to the crime scene.
How was the top down approach created?
- the FBI used in-depth interviews with 36 convicted sexual killers, including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson
- these interviews covered: what led to the offending, what early warning signs there were, and was encouraged or inhibited offences etc
- they also used information from the behavioural science unit
- they combined this with information from the scenes of the crime to produce the ‘typical’ criminal
- the FBI developed a classification system for serious crimes, such as murder or rape
- they classed perpetrators as ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’
- it starts with a classification of the crime scene, and then the profiler uses the information gained to make judgements about the likely offenders who would fit the circumstances
What were the four types of information Copson argued police needed from profilers?
- the type of person who commited the crime
- how great a threat they pose in the future
- to what extent the case is linked to others
- how the police should interview suspects
Profiles are mostly used for certain types of serial offences, such as rape, murder, arson, and kidnapping. The more offences there are in the series, the easier it is to see the consistencies in the offenders behaviour.
What are the two views on the main stages of the top down approach?
View 1:
Data assimilation -> Crime scene classification -> Crime reconstruction -> Profile generation
View 2 (Douglas et al):
Profiling inputs -> Decision process models -> Crime assessment -> Criminal profile -> Crime assessment -> Apprehension
Outline the main stages in the construction of a profile using the top down approach
Data assimilation / Profiling inputs:
Data is collected including:
- crime scene description
- background information on victim
- details of crime
Data assimilation / Decision process models
The profiler starts to make decisions about the data and organises it into meaningful patterns:
- murder type - mass, spree, serial
- time factors - long, short, day / night
- location factors
Crime scene classification / Crime assessment:
Based on data collected, the crime is classified as ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’:
- organised -> crime is planned, victim targeted, body transported from scene, limited / no forensic evidence, weapon hidden, fantasies acted out
- disorganized -> crime is unplanned, victim randomly selected, offender likely to engage with victim and sexual acts performed after death, forensic clues such as blood, semen, fingerprints, and weapon
Crime reconstruction:
Hypothesis in terms of:
- sequence of events
- behaviour of offender
- behaviour of victim
Profile generation / Criminal profile:
A profile is conducted constructed with hypotheses about the offender:
- background
- habitats
- beliefs
The aim is to narrow down the list of suspects, and a strategy to catch the offender is developed, including anticipating how they might respond to investigation, and an interview strategy is devised.
Crime assessment and Apprehension:
Crime assessment -> A written report is given to the investigating agency, such as the police, and people matching the profile are evaluated. If new evidence is generated and / or no suspect is identified, then the process goes back to step two.
Apprehension -> If a suspect is apprehended, the entire profile generating process is reviewed to check that at each stage, the conclusions made were legitimate, and consider how the process may be revised for future cases.
What factors are looked at when developing a criminal profile?
- previous offending history
- nature of offence
- timing
- site of offence
- body deposition
- significance of sexual acts
- pattern of injuries
- capture style
- victim/offender interaction
- choice of victim
- signature of offender, such as trophies or souvenirs
How does an organised offender commit a crime?
- victim is targeted
- controls conversation
- weapon absent
- body hidden from view
- body moved from crime scene
- attempts to clean up
How does a disorganised offender commit a crime?
- victim selected at random
- crime unplanned
- avoids conversation
- weapon present
- sexual activity after death
- body left in view at crime scene
Outline organised offender typologies
- above average intelligence
- in a skilled occupation
- socially/sexually confident, so married or cohabiting
- car in working order
- follow crimes in media
- crimes are planned, controlled in execution, and involve removal of evidence
- victim likely to be targeted stranger
Online disorganised offender typologies
- below average intelligence
- in unskilled work
- live alone
- have sexual problems / poor relationship with mother
- crimes are spontaneous, with little control, and evidence is left at crime scene
- victim likely to be known to offender
Evaluate the top down approach to offender profiling
A limitation of the top-down approach is it was developed using interviews with 36 killers in the US, 25 being serial killers and the other 11 being single or double murderers. This is too small and unrepresentative to base a profiling system that may have a significant influence on the nature of police investigations. Also, it is not sensible to rely on self report data with convicted killers when constructing a classification system. Therefore, this approach may have limited applications to the justice system.
A limitation of the top-down approach is evidence does not support the ‘disorganised’ offender. Canter et al, using a technique called smallest space analysis, analysed data from 100 murders in the USA. The details of each case were examined with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical of organised and disorganised killers. Although the findings did indeed suggest evidence of a distinct organised type, this is not the case for disorganised, which seems to undermine the classification system as a whole. Nevertheless, the organised/disorganised distinction is still used as a model for professional profilers in the US and has widespread support.
A limitation of the top down approach is it may be based on outdated models of personality. The typology classification system is based on the assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain consistent across situations and context. Several critics have suggested that this approach is naive and is informed by old-fashioned models of personality that see behaviour as been driven by stable dispositional traits rather than external factors that may be constantly changing. This means that the top-down approach, which is based on ‘static’ models of personality, is likely to have poor validity when it comes to identifying possible suspects and/or trying to predict their next move.
A limitation of the top down approach is the classification may be too simplistic. The behaviours that describe each of the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive; a variety of combinations could occur at any given murder scene. For instance, Godwin asks how police investigators would classify a killer with high intelligence and sexual competence who commits a spontaneous manner in which the victim’s body is left at the crime scene. This has prompted other researchers to propose more detailed typological models. For instance, Holmes suggests there are four types of serial killer; visionary, mission, hedonistic, and power/control, whilst Keppel and Walter focus more on the different motivations killers might have, rather than trying to determine specific types. This represents a challenge to the typology approach, because a criminal does not necessarily fit into one of these two categories, so this idea of two types of serial killer is flawed. Having four types of serial killer is possibly more useful, but then there may be more difficulty identifying a category, because a killer may have characteristics that belong to more than one type.
Outline the bottom up approach to offender profiling
- unlike the US top down approach, this is a British model that does not start with fix typologies
- it starts with raw data about the crime, and works up to a conclusion about the criminal that makes sense of that data
- it was pioneered by psychologists, including David Canter, in the 70s and 80s working with police
- it assumes that offenders leave a ‘psychological fingerprint’ of unique behaviour -> offenders will behave consistently across a series of crimes such as burglary, arson, rape, and murder
- it identifies consistencies within the behaviour of offenders and identifiable differences between offenders, based on actual behaviour
What are the three main features of the investigative psychology part of the bottom up approach
- Interpersonal coherence
- Forensic awareness
- Smallest space analysis
What is interpersonal coherence?
- people are consistent in their behaviour, therefore there will be links between how someone behaves when offending and behaviour in every day life (psychological fingerprint) e.g. some rapists want to control and humiliate, and others want a pseudo relationship
- established psychological theories, such as personality theories, theories of social interaction, and attachment theories, are all used to understand behaviour at the crime scene
- people’s behaviour changes over time, and looking at differences in serial crimes over the offending period will offer further clues
What is forensic awareness?
- certain behaviours may reveal an awareness of particular police techniques and past experience
- for example, Davis et al found that rapists who conceal fingerprints often had a previous conviction for burglary
What is smallest space analysis?
- a statistical technique developed by Canter
- data about many crime scenes and offender characteristics are correlated so that the most common connections can be identified
Salfati and Canter analysed the co-occurrence of 48 crime scene and offender characteristics taken from 82 UK murder cases where the victim was a stranger. They identified 3 themes:
Instrumental opportunistic -> easiest opportunities taken to gain something
Instrumental cognitive -> plan to avoid detection and achieve aim
Expressive impulsive -> uncontrolled strong emotions, provocation by victim
- this led to the creation of databases such as CATCHEM which contains details of 4000 child murders and allows police to make statistical predictions about the killer
Outline geographical profiling
- Canter suggests that people reveal themselves in the location they choose as much as their behaviour
- geographical profiling analyses the locations of a series of crimes and considers where the crime was committed, the spatial relationship between the crime scenes, and how they might relate to where the offender lives
- profilers are concerned with where rather than who
- offenders are more likely to commit crimes near to where they live or where they travel to, as it is easier and less effort as they know the area
What is circle theory?
Circle theory, by Canter and Larkin, proposes that offenders commit crimes within an imagined circle. There are two types of offenders, Marauders and Commuters, and each of these types of offender has its own characteristics and describes the behaviour of an offender in a different way.
What is a Commuter?
- a mobile, dispersed, or geographically transient serial offender
- commit crimes over large areas
- crosses cultural and psychological boundaries
- most offences occur outside the offenders awareness space
- involves complex hunting strategies
- hunting area lacks a definable anchor point
What is a Marauder?
- a static, localised, or geographically stable serial offender
- commits crime within a confined area
- bounded by psychological barriers and landscape features
- operates within their awareness space
- likely to have an anchor point from which to operate
- offender’s haven lies within the distribution of crime sites
What is Criminal Geographic Targeting (CGT)?
- computerised system developed by Rossmo based on mathematical formula
- produces a 3D map called a jeopardy surface -> displaying spatial data related to time, distance, and movement to and from the crime scene
- the different colours indicate likely closeness to the crime scene
Evaluate the bottom up approach to offender profiling
A strength of the bottom approach is it has a scientific basis. Canter’s argument is that bottom-up profiling is more objective and scientific than the top down approach, as it is more grounded in evidence and psychological theory and less driven by speculation and hunches. With the aid of advanced artificial intelligence, investigators are able to manipulate geographical, biographical, and psychological data quickly to produce insights and results that assist in the investigation. Similarly, the field of investigative psychology has recently expanded to include such areas as suspect interviewing and examination of material presented in court, which supports its utility in all aspects of the judicial process.
One strength of investigative psychology is that evidence supports its use. Canter and Heritage conducted an analysis of 66 sexual assault cases. The data was examined using smaller space analysis, and several behaviours were identified as common in different samples of behaviour, such as the use of impersonal language and lack of reaction to the victim. Each individual displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviours, and this can help establish whether two or more offences were committed by the same person. This supports one of the basic principles of investigative psychology, which is that people are consistent in their behaviour. However, case linkage depends on the database, and this will only consist of historical crimes that have been solved. The fact that they were solved may be because it was relatively straightforward to link these crimes together in the first place, which makes this a circular argument. This suggests that investigative psychology may tell us little about crimes that have few links between them and therefore remain unsolved.
One limitation is that geographical profiling may not be sufficient on its own. As with investigative psychology, the success of geographical profiling may be reliant on the quality of the data that the police can provide. Unfortunately, recording of crime is not always accurate and can vary between police forces, and an estimated 75% of crimes are not even reported to police in the first place. This calls into question the utility of an approach that relies on the accuracy of geographical data. Even if this information is correct, critics claim that other factors are just as important in creating a profile, such as the timing of the offence and the age and experience of the offender. This suggests that geographical information alone may not always lead to the successful capture of an offender.
Offender profiling has mixed results. Despite the successes, there have been some significant failures, such as Rachel Nickell. Copson surveyed 48 police forces and found that the advice provided by the profilers was useful in 83% of cases, but only in 3% did it lead to accurate identification of the offender. Therefore, offender profiling may have limited applications.
Outline the atavistic form as a biological explanation of offending behaviour
In the 1870s Lombroso, an Italian criminologist, proposed the atavistic form as an explanation of offending behaviour.
Offenders were seen by Lombroso as lacking evolutionary development; their savage and untamed nature meant that they would find it impossible to adjust to the demands of civilised society, and would inevitably turn to crime. As such, Lombroso saw offending behaviour as a natural tendency rooted in the genes of those who engage in it. Lombroso was proposing that offending behaviour was innate, and therefore an offender was not to blame for their actions.\
Lombroso argued that criminals have distinguishing physical features, which were the atavistic form. Particular physiological markers were are linked to particular types of offences. These are biologically determined atavistic characteristics, mainly features of the face and head, that make offenders physically different from the rest of us.
Outline Lombroso’s research into the atavistic form
Lombroso examined the facial and cranial features of hundreds of Italian convicts, both living and dead, and concluded that there was an ‘atavistic form’. Furthermore, he concluded that these features were key indicators of criminality. In all, Lombroso examined the skulls of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living ones, and concluded that 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics.
Give some examples of specific features Lombroso linked to specific crimes
Features of the thief = expressive face, manual dexterity, and small wondering eyes
Features of the murderer = cold, glassy stares, bloodshot eyes, and big hawk-like nose
Features of sex offenders = thick lips and protruding ears
Features of female offenders = shorter and more wrinkled, darker hair, and smaller skulls than ‘normal’ woman
Additional features = darker skin, additional nipples, fingers, and toes
Evaluate the atavistic form as a biological explanation of offending behaviour
Lombroso became known as the father of modern criminology. He was one of the first to study crime and criminals scientifically, and Lombroso’s theory of the born criminal dominated thinking about criminal behaviour in the late 19th and early 20th century. This was an important shift from the thinking which had dominated this field for thousands of years which had analysed crime in moral and religious terms, and therefore crime was not seen as a legitimate topic for scientific study. However, the research carried out by Lombroso lacked the rigour we now expect from scientific studies. He did not use a control group against which to compare his participants. Furthermore, Lombroso interpreted the presence of some physical characteristics as a cause of offending behaviour, but it could be argued that these traits might have interacted with social factors. According to Agnew, possessing these unpleasant physical characteristics might lead to unpleasant social interactions, which lead to frustration and anger, which in turn lead to offending behaviour.
A limitation of the atavistic form is the theory is deterministic. This theory implies that possessing particular innate physical characteristics is likely to lead to crime. It does not take into account the influence of free will and moral/religious values. This limits is usefulness as it cannot explain individual differences.
A limitation of the atavistic form is it is socially sensitive. Several critics, including DeLisi, have drawn attention to the distinct racial undertones within Lombroso’s work. Many of the features described by Lombroso are linked to skin colour and other traits associated with the concept of race, such as curly hair and dark skin, so it has been accused of scientific racism. Furthermore, this theory has been used to support eugenics. Eugenics is a philosophy argument that those who are born with genetic advantages should be allowed to breed for the good of society, but those who are born with genetic disadvantages should be eliminated to improve the genetic quality of the human population. Therefore, this theory may have had a negative negative impact on many regular people perceived as possessing these features.
Another limitation of the atavistic form is evidence contradicts the link between atavism and crime. Goring set out to establish whether there was anything physically atypical about offenders. After conducting a comparison between 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders, he concluded that there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics. This challenges the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the population and are therefore unlikely to be a subspecies.
Outline twin and adoption studies relating to genetic explanations of criminality
Mednick:
Mednick studied 14,000 Danish adoptees and found that when neither the adoptive nor the biological parents had convictions, the rate of conviction in the child was 13.5%, but if either of the biological parents had convictions, the rate increased to 20%. When both adopted and biological parents had convictions, the rate of conviction of the children was 24.5%. However, no relationship was found between the type of crime committed by the biological parents and the adopted child.
Crowe:
Crowe found that adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by the age of 18, whereas adopted children whose biological mother didn’t have a criminal record only had a 5% risk.
Ishikawa & Raine:
They carried out a meta-analysis of twin studies and found a concordance rate of 44% for MZ and 21% for DZ twins for criminality.
Grove et al:
Grove et al carried out a study of 32 sets of MZ twins reared apart and separated soon after birth, away from their biological family. He found a correlation of 0.41 for antisocial behaviour in childhood and 0.28 in adulthood.
Outline the role of the MAOA gene in in criminality
The MAOA gene has been associated with violent crimes. Dysfunction of this gene leads to abnormal levels of serotonin in the brain. Low levels of serotonin are involved with impulsivity, aggression, and lack of control. The variations may have more impact on males, because they only have one copy of the X-chromosomal gene while females have two copies, one of which will be the H variant in most cases. Only about 1/3 people in western populations have the low activity form of a MAOA.
Outline the role of the CDH13 gene in criminality
A Finnish study by Tiihonen et al with 900 offenders found evidence of low MAOA activity and also low activity from the CDH13 gene. They estimated that 5-10% of violent crime in Finland is due to abnormalities in the MAOA and CDH13 genes. The CDH13 gene has been linked to substance abuse and ADHD. Furthermore, individuals with both the MAOA and CDH13 genes were 13 times more likely to have a history of violent behaviour.
Outline the diathesis stress model
If genetics do have some influence on offending, it seems likely that this is at least partly moderated by the effects of the environment. A tendency towards offending behaviour may come about through the combination of genetic predisposition and biological or psychological trigger, such as being raised in a dysfunctional environment or having criminal role models.
Evaluate genetic explanations for criminality
One limitation with using twin studies as genetic evidence is the assumption of mutually similar environments. It is assumed by researchers studying twins that environmental factors are held constant, because twins are brought up together and therefore must experience similar environments. However, the shared environment assumption may apply much more to MZ twins than DZ twins, because MZ twins look identical and people tend to treat them more similarly, which in turn affects their behaviour. Therefore, higher concordance rates for MZ twins may simply be because they are treated much more similarly than DZ twins.
There is support for the diathesis stress model of crime. A major study of over 13,000 Danish adoptees was conducted by Mednick et al. The researchers defined criminal behaviour as being in possession of at least one court conviction, and this was checked against Danish police records for each of the adoptees. When neither the biological nor adoptive parents had convictions, the percentage of adoptees that did was 13.5%. This figure rose to 20% when either of the biological parents had convictions, and 24.5% when both adopted and biological parents had convictions. This data suggests that, although genetic inheritance plays an important role in offending, environmental influence cannot be disregarded, which is support for the diathesis stress model of crime.
It is presumed that adoption studies are a good way of separating nature and nurture. If crime has a genetic component, then an adopted child should still experience the influence of the biological parent, despite not living with them. However, many adoptions take place when children are older, so they spent several years with their biological parents. In addition, many adoptees are encouraged to maintain contact with their biological family, so biological parents exert an environmental influence. Therefore, adoption studies may not separate nature nurture to the extent they claim to.
Outline the role of brain structure in criminality
Firstly, many criminals report having had some kind of brain injury. In general, 8.5% of the US population have had a brain injury, compared to 60% in US prisons. Therefore, brain differences may be due to nurture or nature.
Prefrontal cortex:
Raine cited 71 brain imaging studies showing murderers, psychopaths, and violent individuals have reduced functioning in the prefrontal cortex; the area of the brain that is involved in regulating emotion and controlling moral behaviour in general. Lower activity in this area is associated with impulsiveness and loss of control. Raine also found a reduced volume of grey matter in this region in the brain in individuals with antisocial personality disorder.
Limbic system:
This is a set of subcortical structures, including the amygdala, that are linked to emotion and motivation. In another study, Raine et al studied murderers who were found not guilty by reason of insanity. Compared with matched controls, they found abnormal asymmetries in the limbic system of murderers, especially in the amygdala; there was reduced activity on the left and increased activity on the right. The amygdala is the most important part of the limbic system for many emotions, including aggression. The reactivity of the amygdala is a good predictor of aggression.
Outline the role of neurons in criminality
Mirror neurons:
Research suggests that offenders with APD can experience empathy, but they do so more sporadically than the rest of us. Keysers found that only when offenders were asked to empathise did their empathy reaction, which is controlled by mirror neurons in the brain, activate. This suggests that APD individuals are not totally without empathy, but they have a neural switch that can be turned on and off, unlike the normal brain which has the empathy switch permanently on.
Serotonin:
Researchers suggest that low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin may predispose individuals to impulsive aggression and criminal behaviour. Low levels mean a lack of inhibition, by the prefrontal cortex, of impulsive aggressive urges. Dopamine hyperactivity may enhance this effect.
Noradrenaline:
Both very high and very low levels of this neurotransmitter have been associated with aggression, violence, and criminality. High levels of noradrenaline are associated with activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the fight or flight response, and thus are linked to aggression. Noradrenaline also helps people react to perceived threats, so low levels would reduce this ability.
Evaluate neural / biological explanations of criminality
One strength of the neural explanation is support for the link between crime and the frontal lobe. Kandel and Freed reviewed evidence of frontal lobe damage and antisocial behaviour. People with such damage tended to show impulsive behaviour, emotional instability, and an inability to learn from their mistakes. The frontal lobe is associated with planning behaviour. This supports the idea that brain damage may be a causal factor in offending behaviour.
Biological explanations for criminality are biologically reductionist. Criminality is complex; explanations that reduce offending behaviour to a genetic or neural level may be inappropriate and overly simplistic. Crime does appear to run in families, but so does emotional instability, mental disorder, social deprivation, and poverty. This makes it difficult to disentangle the effects of genes and neural influences from other possible factors. It is also the case that whilst there is often a difference in concordance rates between MZ and DZ twins, MZ pairs do not show 100% concordance. Low concordance rates in genetic studies suggest that genes play a minimal part in the development of that particular characteristic, such as criminal behaviour. If genes are solely responsible, than a concordance rate for MZ twins would be 100%. These low concordance rates suggest a diathesis stress model may be more appropriate to explain criminal behaviour. Genes may create a vulnerability or predisposition towards criminal behaviour, which is then combined with stressors and experiences in the environment, which acts as a trigger for criminal behaviour.
Biological explanations for criminality are determinist. In the field of criminality, the notion of a ‘criminal gene’ present something of a dilemma. Our legal system is based on the premise that criminals have personal and moral responsibility for their crimes, and only in extreme cases, such as a diagnosis of a mental disorder, can someone claim they were not acting under their own free will. This raises ethical questions about what society does with people who are suspected of carrying criminal genes, and what implications this may have for sentencing. This presents society with an ethical dilemma, as it means perhaps we should incarcerate people with criminal genes before they’ve committed crimes because they have the potential to do so in the future. Or, it may mean we prevent them from reproducing, as the Eugenics movement would suggest. Or, if criminals are imprisoned and found to carry this gene, perhaps they shouldn’t be released. Therefore, this determinist view presents society with an serious ethical dilemma.
What did Eysenck propose?
Eysenck proposed that behaviour could be represented along two dimensions; introversion/extraversion and neuroticism/stability. The two dimensions combined to form a variety of personality characteristics or traits. Eysenck later added a third dimension, which is psychoticism.
What is the biological basis of Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality?
According to Eysenck, our personality traits are biological in origin and come about through the type of nervous system we inherit. Thus, all personality types, including the criminal personality type, have an innate biological basis. Extraverts have an underactive nervous system, which means they constantly seek excitement, stimulation, and are likely to engage in risk-taking behaviours. They also tend not to condition easily and do not learn from their mistakes. Neurotic individuals tend to be nervous, jumpy, and overanxious, and their general instability means that behaviour is often difficult to predict.
Outline the link between the criminal personality and socialisation process
- According to Eysenck’s theory, personality is linked to criminal behaviour via socialisation processes
- Eysenck saw criminal behaviour as developmentally immature, because it is selfish and concerned with immediate gratification
- The process of socialisation is one in which children are taught to become more able to delay gratification and more socially oriented
- This is accomplished primarily through classical and operant conditioning. For example, when children act in immature ways, they are punished, and through this process they learn to associate antisocial behaviour with unpleasant consequences and anxiety. If this is successful, thinking about behaving antisocially produces anxiety, so the person avoids doing it
- According to Eysenck, people with high extraversion and neuroticism scores have a nervous system which makes them difficult to condition. This means they do not learn easily to respond to antisocial impulses with anxiety, which makes them more likely to act antisocially when the opportunity presents itself
