Forensic Psychology Flashcards
Offender profiling
The process of predicting the characteristics of an offender based on the information available
What will a forensic psychologist use to build an offender profile?
Evidence gathered from the scene to build an offender profile
What does an offender profile outline?
The type of person likely to have committed the crime
What is an offender profile based on?
Prior experiences and it uses computer databases to analyse what is already known
The American approach of offender profiling
The top down of FBI approach relies on previous experiences of crimes
Hazelwood and Douglas
- Interviewed 36 serial killers and police officers in order to advance their theory
- They had a typology approach that offenders are mainly categorised by two types - organised and disorganised
Crime scene - Organised
- Crime is planned
- Shows self-control at the crime scene
- Leaves few clues
- Victim is a targeted stranger
- Attempts to control the victim
Offender - Organised
- Above average IQ
- Socially and sexually competent
- Married or co-habiting
- Experiencing anger/depression at time of offence
- Follows media coverage of crime
- Skilled occupation
Crime scene - Disorganised
- Little planning/preparation
- Little attempt to hide evidence at the scene
- Minimum use of constraint
- Random, disorganised behaviour
Offender - Disorganised
- Lives alone, near to crime scene
- Sexually and socially inadequate
- Unskilled occupation or unemployed
- Physically/sexually abused in childhood
- Frightened/confused at the time of attack
Top down profiling stages
1) Data assimilation - reviews evidence
2) Crime scene classification - organised vs disorganised
3) Crime scene reconstruction - hypothesis on sequence of events
4) Profile generation - hypothesis of likely offender
Evaluation of top down profiling 1 (particular crimes)
- A weakness of the top-down profiling is that it only applies to particular crimes
- It is best suited to crime scenes that reveal important details about the suspect e.g. weapon used
- More common offences, such as burglary do not lend themselves to profiling, as the crime scenes reveal little about the offender
- This means that it is not a useful approach in most crimes
Evaluation of top down profiling 2 (unreliable)
- The method is based on flawed data from interviews with 37 dangerous serial killers
- These individuals can be highly manipulative and unreliable
- This data was used to create the typology theory
- This means that the theory could be wrong
Evaluation of top down profiling 3 (outdated models of personality)
- It is based on outdated models of personality
- Typology classification is based on the assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivation that remain consistent
- Alison et al (2002) argue that behaviour is instead, driven by external factors that may be constantly changing
- This means that criminals may show organised and disorganised traits
Evaluation of top down profiling 4 (false dichotomy)
- It creates a false dichotomy, as there is more likely to be a continuum than two distinct categories of offender
- Canter et al (2004) analysed murders by 100 US serial killers, finding no clear distinction between the two types of offenders
- Instead they found several subsets of organised-type crimes, and little evidence for disorganised types
- This means that the disorganised type may not exist
The bottom-up approach
- British approach
- David Canter is the UK’s foremost profiling expert
- His bottom up approach looks for consistencies in offenders’ behaviour during the crime
- No initial assumptions are made about the offender
- The approach relies heavily on computer data bases instead and is much more scientific and objective than top down
HOLMES
Home Office Large Major Enquiry System
Investigative psychology
- Uses computer databases and Venn diagrams to look for similarities and differences in patterns between offences and offenders
- Interpersonal coherence
- Smallest space analysis
Interpersonal coherence
Assumes that people are consistent in their behaviour, so there will be correlations between the crime and their everyday life, although there may be changes over time
Smallest space analysis
A statistical technique which explores correlations between crime scene details and offender characteristics from large numbers of similar cases. Tries to link crimes together that may have the same offender.
Geographical profiling
A set of techniques for making inferences about crime and criminals from the location and timing of offences
Maradurer
They commit crimes within a defined radius of where they live. Link to circle theory
Commuter
They travel to another area to commit their crimes. This is a less common approach.
Circle theory
A circle drawn to encompass all the crimes in a series is likely to contain the offender’s base (Canter and Larkin, 1993)
Interpersonal consistency
The way an offender behaves at the scene, including how they ‘interact’ with the victim, may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations
Timing of offences
Information of the geographical location of crimes becomes more useful when combined with information about when offences occurred
Strengths of the bottom up approach
- It is scientific and therefore objective and more reliable
- It has a wider application than top down
- 45 UK police forces were surveyed and 75% said that the process was useful
Limitations of the bottom up approach
- Does not consider the role of personality in profiling
- Profiling cannot reliably identify and offender it can only narrow it down
- Only 3% of 45 UK police forces said that bottom up profiling actually helped to catch the offender
- Most offenders a Marauders so is there really a difference? What if their home doesn’t fall into the centre of the circle?
Genetic throwbacks
Lombroso believed that criminality is inherited. Criminal are genetic throwbacks meaning that they are uncivilised. This is evident in physical features.
Atavisitc features
According to Lombroso, individuals engaging in crime presented “atavistic” features. These atavistic or primitive features suggested that the criminals had not followed the usual evolutionary development other members of society had gone through.
Lombroso’s study
- Investigated the facial and cranial features of Italian convicts both living and dead.
- After examining over 383 living criminals he concluded that 21% had one atavistic feature and 43% had at least five
- The majority of crimes were accounted for by atavistic characteristics
Strengths of Lombroso’s theory
- He is credited as shifting the emphasis in crime research away from moralisitc discourse, towards a more scientific realm
- He revealed that crime may not simply be as a result of free will (promotes fairness)
Limitations of Lombroso’s theory
- Theory has been discounted by Goring (1913) who compared 3000 criminals with 3000 non-criminals. He found no differences except for the fact that criminals were smaller and below average intelligence
- Lombroso had no control group
- He ignored the role of the environment - poverty, poor diet, manual labour could have caused these features
- He was accused of scientific racism e.g. dark skin, curly hair are linked to people of African heritage
- The issue of eugenics - selective breeding
Genetic explanations of offending behaviours
Suggest that genes or a combination of genes make a person predisposed to crime
Family studies (Offending behaviours)
- Osborne and West (1979)
- 40% of sons with fathers with criminal convictions had committed a crime before the age of 18, compared to only 13% of a control group
Twin studies (Offending behaviours)
- Lange (1930): investigated (MZ) and 17 non-identical (DZ) twins where one of them had served time in prison. Lange found that 10 of the MZ twins but only 2 DZ twins had a twin in prison. Lange concluded that genetic factors must play a role in offending
- High concordance for identical twins suggests genetics play a role but if offending was completely genetic you’d expect 100% concordance for MZ twins
Candidate genes (biological explanations of offending behaviours)
- Tiihonen (2014) studied 900 offenders in Finland and found that 2 genes may be responsible for criminality
- MAOA gene which controls serotonin and dopamine in the brain and is linked to aggressive behaviour
- The CDH13 gene which is linked to substance abuse and ADHD
- They estimate that 5-10% of all violent crime in Finland is due to abnormalities of this gene
Diathesis-stress model (biological explanations of offending behaviours)
Caspi (2002) used data from a study of 1000 people since their birth in the 1970s and found within men who had performed anti-social behaviour, 12% had low MAOA genes and had experienced maltreatment as babies. These 12% were responsible for 44% of violent convictions
Predictors for becoming a violent offender according to Raine
- Low resting heart rate
- Complications in birth
- Mother smoking/drinking
- Low function in pre-frontal cortex
Neural explanations of offending behaviours
- Some evidence suggests that the brains of criminals may be different to others
- There is a link to Antisocial Personality disorder (APD) which involves a reduction in emotional response and empathy
- Reduced volume in the amygdala means you a 4 times more likely to commit a violent crime
Prefrontal cortex (offending behaviours)
- Raine (2000): From brain scanning images there is evidence that those with APD have reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex which regulates emotional and moral behaviour
- There was also a 11% reduction in grey matter
Mirror neurons (Offending behaviours)
- Criminals with APD experience empathy sporadically
- Keysers (2011) found that only when criminals were asked to empathise did their mirror neuron activate which suggests they have a ‘switch’ to turn empathy on and off
Biological basis of personality traits - Eysenck
- Our personality traits are biological in origin and come about from the type of nervous system we inherit
- Therefore, all personality types - including the criminal personality type - have an innate, biological basis
Extraverts (Eysenck)
- Have an underactive nervous system which means they constantly seek excitement, stimulation and are likely to engage in risk taking behaviours
- Also tend not to condition easily and do not learn from mistakes
Neurotic (Eysenck)
Individuals tend to be nervous, jumpy and over-anxious, and their general instability means their behaviour is often difficult to predict
The criminal personality type
- Neurotic extravert - a combination of all the characteristics and behaviours described above for both neuroticism and extraversion
- In addition, Eysenck suggested that the typical offender will also score highly on measures of psychoticism - a personality type that is out of that is characterised as cold, unemotional and prone to aggression
The role of socialisation
- In Eysenck’s theory, personality is linked to criminal behaviour via socialisation processes
- Eysenck saw criminal behaviour as developmentally immature in that it is selfish and concerned with immediate gratification, they are impatient and cannot wait for things
- Eysenck believed that people with high E and N scores had nervous systems that made them difficult to condition. As a result they would not learn easily to respond to antisocial impulses and anxiety. Consequently, they would be more likely to act antisocially in situations where the opportunity presented itself
Evaluation of Eysenck’s theory of a criminal personality (supporting evidence)
- There is supporting evidence from Eysenck and Eysenck who compared 2070 male prisoners’ scores on the EPI with 2422 male controls
- They found that in all age groups the prisoners were higher than the controls on extraversion, neuroticism and pyschoticism
- This supports the theory because it is exactly how Eysenck described the criminal personality
- On the other hand, when Farrington reviewed the research in this area, he found that there was no difference in scores on extroversion and neuroticism
- This suggests that criminals do not have the personality Eysenck described
- So this disproves the theory