Forensic Psychology Flashcards
What is forensic psychology?
applying psychological principles to different stages of the criminal justice system. E.g. understanding the causes of criminal behaviour, considering how to deal with those who have committed crimes, identifying those who have committed crimes, interviewing offenders, and issues of EWT.
Aileen Wuornos: nature vs nurture
NATURE: Her father was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and her grandfather was an alcoholic.
NURTURE: Her mother abandoned her at 4, her grandfather physically and sexually abused her, her mother had her at 16, raped by a friend’s grandfather and got pregnant, 15 and homeless, and engaged in sexual activity with her brother.
Offender profiling: the top-down approach
what are the 6 stages of the top-down approach?
Douglas (2006) stated 6 main stages:
- profiling inputs
- decision process models
- crime assessments
- criminal profile
- crime assessment
- apprehension
Offender profiling: the top-down approach
Stage 1 of the top-down approach
Profiling inputs
Data is collected: the crime scene is described (photographs, sketches), background information of the victim (employment, habits, relationships), and details of the crime (weapon, cause of death, autopsy report). All information should be included even if it appears trivial. Possible suspects shouldn’t be considered, as it may bias the information collected.
Offender profiling: the top-down approach
Stage 2 of the top-down approach
Decision process models
the profiler starts to make decisions about the data and organises it into meaningful patterns. the following issues are considered:
- murder type: mass, spree, or serial
- time factors: did the crime take a short or long time, did it happen night or day?
- location factors: was the crime scene the same as the murder scene (was the person kidnapped?)
Offender profiling: the top-down approach
Stage 3 of the top-down approach
Crime Assessment
based on the data collected the crime is classified as organised or disorganised
- Organised type of offender: the crime tends to be planned, and the victim is specifically targeted. the body is often transported from the scene, the weapon is usually hidden, and violent fantasies may be acted out on the victim. Such offenders are usually high in intelligence, socially, and sexually competent. They usually lie with a partner, have a car in good working order, and follow their crimes in the media.
- Disorganised type of offender: unplanned crime, a random selection of victims. The offender is likely to engage very little with the victim, and sexual acts are performed on the body after death. The crime scene is likely to contain many clues such as blood and semen from the offender, fingerprints, and weapons.
Offender profiling: the top-down approach
Stage 4 of the top-down approach
Criminal profile
a profile is now constructed of the offender, which includes hypotheses about the likely background, habits, and beliefs of the offender. This description is used to work out a strategy for the investigation to help catch the offender. it’s important to anticipate how this person will respond to various investigative efforts, including how the offender might be interviewed if they were caught.
Offender profiling: the top-down approach
Stage 5 of the top-down approach
Crime assessments
a written report is given to the investigating agency (police) and the persons’ matching the profile are evaluated. If new evidence is generated, and/or no suspect is identified the process goes back to stage 2.
Offender profiling: the top-down approach
Stage 6 of the top-down approach
Apprehension
if a suspect is apprehended, the entire profile-generating process is reviewed to check that each stage the conclusions made were legitimate/valid and to consider how the process may be revised for future cases.
Top-Down approach: Evaluation
Is the method useful?: Copson 1995 questioned 184 US police officers, 82% said the technique was operationally useful, and over 90% said they would use it again. it may not identify the offender, but it provides officers with perspectives to look at, opens up new lines of investigation, and could prevent wrongful convictions.
The basis of the method is flawed: the organised/disorganised type of offender originated from data gathered from interviews with 36 of the most dangerous and sexually motivated murderers such as Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. The data was used to identify the key characteristics that would help police ‘read a crime scene’. this is problematic in itself as these individuals are highly manipulative and unreliable. they are not ‘typical’ offenders they tend to be extreme in their behaviour.
Distinguishing between organised and disorganised types of offender: Turvey 1999states the distinction between organised and disorganised is a false one. the descriptions are generalisations and use phrases such as ‘tends to be’. it could be that an offender is a mix of the two. Douglas 1992 proposed a third category called ‘mixed offender’ but others argue this then lessens the usefulness of the other two categories. David Canter 2004 provided evidence that the classification has little basis in reality. 39 aspects of serial killings in murders committed by 100 US serial killers were analyzed. Their analysis revealed no clear division between organised and disorganised types of offenders. instead, they found several subsets of organised-type crimes and little evidence for disorganised.
Offender profiling: the bottom-up approach
Investigative Psychology
Developed by David Canter in 2005. It is profiling based upon psychological theory and research. It involves 3 main features: interpersonal coherence, forensic awareness, and smallest space analysis
Offender profiling: the bottom-up approach
Interpersonal coherence
People are consistent in their behaviour and therefore there will be links with elements of the crime and how people behave in everyday life. At the same time, people’s behaviour changes over time and therefore looking at the differences in crimes over a 4-year-period might offer further clues.
Offender profiling: the bottom-up approach
Forensic awareness
Certain behaviours may reveal an awareness of particular techniques and past experience. For example, Davies (1997) found that rapists who conceal fingerprints often had a previous conviction of burglary.
Offender profiling: the bottom-up approach
Smallest space analysis
This is a statistical technique developed by Canter and used on the Railway Rapist/murder case. Data about many crime scenes and offender characteristics are correlated so that the most common connections can be identified. Canter (1999) analysed the co-occurrence of 48 crime scenes and offender characteristics taken from 82 UK murder cases: where the victim was a stranger. They were able to identify 3 underlying themes:
-Instrumental opportunistic: instrumental refers to using murder to obtain something or accomplish a goal. Opportunistic means the offender took the easiest opportunities.
-instrumental cognitive: a particular concern about being detected and therefore more planned
-expressive impulsive: uncontrolled, in the heat of strong emotions, may feel provoked by the victim.
Offender profiling: the bottom-up approach
Investigative Psychology
Evaluation
-Canter’s first attempt at this profiling with the Railway rapist/murder case was successful. Cospon (1995) further supports this by surveying 48 UK police forces using investigative profiling and found that 75% of the police officers questioned said the profilers advice had been useful. However, only 3% said the advice had been helped to identify the actual offender, but most had said they would use the profiling method again. Therefore, the benefit it brings is worthwhile.
-the bottom up approach is considered to be more scientific than the top down approach as it uses objective statistical techniques and computer analysis. However, there is an issue as the techniques are only as good as the data that is inputted into them, and the underlying assumptions that are used to work out links between the data items. The data used to drive such systems often links to offenders that have been caught and so tell us little about patterns of behaviour related to unsolved crime. How do we know the computer formula used is correct? Consequently, the bottom up approach has the potential to be objective and scientific but in practice it can be biased.
Bottom-up approach: Geographical profiling
Canter believed that people do not just reveal themselves through the crimes they commit but through the locations they choose. Geographical profiling is concerned with where the crimes took place rather than who committed it. It makes anew that oddness are likely to commit a crime near where they live or where they habitually travel to because it involves the least effort. Thus the location of a crime can be a prime clue in an investigation. Geographical profiling analyses the locations of a connected series of crime and considers where crimes were committed, the spatial relationships between different crime scenes and how they may relate to an offenders place of residence.
It involves circle theory and criminal geographical targeting CGT.
Bottom-up approach: Geographical profiling
Circle Theory
Canter and Larkin (1993) proposed that most offenders have a spatial mind-set, they commit their crimes within a kind of imagined circle.
Marauder: the offenders home is within the geographical area in which crimes are committed
Commuter: the offender travels to another geographical area and commits crimes within a defined space around which a circle can be drawn.
Bottom-up approach: Geographical profiling
Criminal geographical targeting (CGT)
This is a computerised system developed by Kim Rossmo and based on Rossmo’s formula. The formula produces a three dimensional map displaying spatial data relating to time, distance, and movement to and from crime scenes. This map is called a jeopardy surface. The different colours indicate likely closeness to the crime scene.
Bottom-up approach: Geographical profiling
Evaluation
-Canter and Larkin (1993) studied 45 sexual assaults and showed support for the circle theory by distinguishing between marauders and commuters. However 91% of the offenders were classed as marauders - if most offenders are marauders, then the classification doesn’t seem particularly useful. Petherick (2006) identified a number of flaws with the circle theory. If a persons home base is not actually the centre of the circle, this means the police may look in the wrong place. Also representing ranges in terms of circles is over simplistic and in cities the patterns may form an ellipse or some other shape.
-Rossmo (1999) supports geographical profiling in that even if it doesn’t solve the crime, it does provide useful information that can help the police to prioritise their resources. However, one issue is that it cannot distinguish between multiple offenders in the same area and also the method is simply limited to spatial behaviour and not any personality characteristics. Consequently, some have argued it is no different to police putting pins on a map to represent where crimes have been committed. Rossmo worked for many years for the Vancouver Police Department and introduced geographical profiling, but he was dismissed and they stopped using his methods as they didn’t feel it enhanced policing outcomes.
-the real life case of Rachel Nickell. Nickell was stabbed to death on Wimbledon Common in 1992 whilst walking with her young son. Forensic Psychologist Paul Britton created a profile which led to the identification of Colin Stagg. After a lengthy process to convict Colin, it became clear the actual murderer was Robert Knapper. He had been ruled out because he was taller than the picture given in the profile. This therefore raises the question of is profiling trustworthy?
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Historical approach
What is the historical approach?
a general approach to explaining behaviour has been to identify different personality types based on physical characteristics. The historical approach is known as the atavistic form and this is where an explanation for criminal behaviour suggests that certain individuals are born with a criminal personality and this is innate. a throwback to earlier primate forms. Cesare Lombroso wrote ‘The Criminal Man’ in 1976 which stated that offenders possessed similar characteristics to lower primates and this could explain their criminality. Writing around the same time that Darwin published his theory of evolution, Lombroso drew on this to suggest that criminals are essentially throwbacks to an earlier species. In total, 18 different atavistic characteristics have been identified that make up the atavistic type. the basic assumption is that the innate physiological make-up of the person causes them to become a criminal. In later editions of his book, Lombroso also linked different features to different types of crime.
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Historical approach
Empirical evidence
Lombroso based his theory on his own research using post-mortem examinations of criminals and studying the faces of living criminals. He made precise measurements of skulls and other physiological characteristics - this is known as anthropology. during his career, he examined over 50,000 bodies, in one study of 383 convicted Italian criminals, he found that 21% had just one atavistic trait and 43% had at least five.
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Historical approach
Atavistic form characteristics
asymmetry of face
more than usual number pf fingers and toes
ears of unusual size: small or big
excessive length of arms
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Historical approach
Environmental Influences
Lombroso later recognised it was unlikely that only one factor would be the cause of criminality. he proposed that inherited atavistic form interacted with a person’s physical and social environment. this is still a deterministic view because it suggests that factors such as nature or nurture, outside a person’s control determine whether they become a criminal or not. Consequently, Lombroso, in later editions of his work, identified 3 types of criminals which moved away from the atavistic form being the only explanation for criminality.
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Historical approach
3 types of criminals according to Lombroso
born criminals: the atavistic type, ‘throwbacks’ identifiable from their physical characteristics
insane criminals: suffering from mental illness
criminaloids: a large general class of offenders whose mental characteristics predisposed them to criminal behaviour under the right circumstances i.e certain physical/social environments.
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Historical approach
somatotypes
there were a number of other historical approaches to criminal approaches to criminal types, some of them based on body shape or somatotypes (body shape). one of them was proposed by Kretschmer (1921) who suggested there were 4 types
Leptosome or asthenic: tall and thin (petty thieves)
Athletic: tall and muscular (crimes of violence)
Pyknic: short and fat (crimes of deception and sometimes violence)
Dysplastic or mixed: more than one type (crimes against morality such as prostitution)
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour: Historical approach
Evaluation
Many people have praised lombrosso’s work and have claimed him to be the founder of modern criminology. Prior to his work, crime was studied but not the criminal, it was also the belief that crime was a choice which could be fettered if punished. Lombroso believes in less harsh treatment for criminals and a more humane view that both biology and environment may remove the option of free will. He believed that an evidence based approach was required and he tried to achieve this through his empirical observations and detailed measurement. Despite his method now being open to criticism, he raised the possibility of scientifically studying the criminal mind.
Lombroso’s work lacked adequate controls. for example, he paid much more attention to studying prisoners, than non-prisoners, however if he had paid more attention to non-prisoners he would have found just as many non-prisoners as prisoners with the same characteristics. In 1913, Goring compared 3000 convicts with a group of non-convicts, finding no difference expect the convicts were slightly smaller.
Lombroso’s work is also open to gender bias. In 1893, he wrote a book with his daughter outlining his ideas about female criminality. Without directly studying women, he made the andocentric claim that women were less evolved than men, more naturally jealous and insensitive to pain, they were passive, low in intelligence, and had a maternal instinct - all of those which neutralised their negative traits and meant they were less likely to be criminals. Those who were criminal according to Lombroso, had masculine characteristics which were beneficial to a man, but created a monster in a female.
Biological explanations for offending behaviour: Genetic explanations
Raine (1993) provides simple evidence to link genetics to offending behaviour. Through studying twins, MZ & DZ he found a concordance rate of 52% for MZ twins and their delinquent behaviour compared to a concordance rate of 21% for DZ twins.
Brunner (1993) researched in more detail to find a specific gene. During the 1980s, he researched 28 male members of a Dutch family who had histories of violent and impulsive crimes such as rape, arson, and attempted murder. He tested the DNA of these men and found they shared a particular gene which could be used to explain their behaviour. This defective gene led to the men producing abnormally low levels of the enzyme monoamine oxidise A (MAOA). MAOA regulated the metabolism of serotonin in the brain and low levels of serotonin are associated with impulsive and aggressive behaviour. Although there has been no individual gene for aggression identified, it is believed there is a gene that is defective, can lead to abnormally low levels of MAOA being produced which in turn can lead to criminal behaviour.
In 2015, a finish study by Tiihonen looked at 900 offenders and found evidence of low MAOA activity and consequently low activity from the CHD13 gene. They estimated that 5-10% of all violent crime in Finland is due to abnormalities of these 2 genes.
Epigenetics proposes the idea that genes are switched on or off by epigenomes which have in turn been affected by environmental factors (mistreatment during childhood). epigenetics will look at how this environmental factor links to genetic factors. Capsi (2002) used data from a longitudinal study in New Zealand that had followed about 1000 people from when they were babies in the 1970s. Capsi assessed their antisocial behaviour at age 26 and found that 12% of those men with low MAOA genes had experienced maltreatment when they were babies but were responsible for 44% of violent crimes. Therefore, the environmental factor of maltreatment had led to changes in the body’s cells that act like a switch to turn on or off certain genes. We call this the diathesis-stress model.
