Forensic psychology Flashcards
Cesare Lombroso
Analysed the features of 383 dead Italian convicts and 3839 living Italian convicts. Identified a range of physiological markers, like dark skin, sloping brows and a lack of pain sensitivity that was indicative of crime called the atavistic form. Concluded 40% of offenders expressed this atavistic form.
● Historical Explanations
Christiansen (1977)
Reviewed 3500 twin pairs’ offending behaviour in Denmark. For MZ twins, the CR was 35%, compared to the CR of 13% for DZ twins
● Twin studies for biological explanations
Crowe (1972)
Having biological parents engaged in crime led to a 50% chance of having a criminal record by age 18 compared to 5% without criminal parents.
● Adoption studies for biological explanations
Tiihonen et al. (2014)
Analysed the genomes of 800 offenders. Identified consistent abnormalities on the CDH13 and MAOA genes.
The former affects impulsivity, increasing substance abuse and gambling engagement. The latter leads to a build up of serotonin and dopamine that stimulates aggressive behaviour.
5-10% of violent serial crime in Finland is attributed to these genes
● Genetic Studies for biological explanations
Raine et al.
In those with antisocial personality disorder, an 11% reduction of grey matter in the prefrontal cortex was found as well as reduced activity in the same location.
Results in symptoms of low empathy, poor emotional responses, impulsivity and thrill-seeking behaviour.
● Neural Studies for biological explanations
Keysers et al.
Those with ADP can selectively choose when to activate the mirror neurones involved in the empathy response, making their empathetic response sporadic and controllable.
This is compared to neurotypical people, whose mirror neurones for empathy are constantly active.
● Neuronal studies for biological explanations
Mednick et al. (1984)
Studied 13,000 adoptees in an adoption study. The chance of a child gaining a conviction was 13.5% if both parents were non-offenders, 20% if biological parents alone were offenders an 25% if both were offenders. They concluded inheritance plays a role alongside environment.
● Support for the Diathesis stress model {Eval}
Genetic Study Flaws (Twin Studies and Adoption Studies)
In twin studies, MZ twins are likely to share their upbringing more closely than DZ twins. This could be the cause of the CR difference between them rather than genetics.
In many adoptions that aren’t from very early childhood, adoptees have contact with biological parents, preventing true separation of biological influences from environmental. This means that only adoptions where no contact with relatives occurs can be used to establish relative biological influence.
● Negatives of genetic studies {Eval}
Kandel & Freed (1989)
Brain damage can be a cause of offending behaviour. Identified an inability to learn from mistakes, emotional instability and impulsive behaviour that came with frontal lobe damage and has been correlated with antisocial and criminal behaviours.
● Evidence for neural explanations {Eval}
Farrington et al. (2006)
+ Rauch et al. (2006)
Identified multiple risk factors for crime in males who scored highly in psychopathy (i.e. raised by criminal parents, physical neglect).
Rauch argues these factors could still lead to frontal lobe abnormalities/damage, such as from trauma.
● Evidence against neural explanations {Eval}
Eysenck & Eysenck (1977)
+ Farrington et al. (1984)
Cross-compared EPQ scores from 2017 male offenders against 2422 male controls. Across all age groups, offenders scored higher in extroversion, neuropathy and psychoticism.
Farrington’s meta analysis contradicts this, finding higher scores in inmates only in psychoticism. EEGs have also found little difference in cortical arousal of extroverts/introverts, questioning Eysenck’s biological bases.
● Debating Eysenck’s theory {Eval}
Realistic Solutions & Stereotyping (Sutherland DAT)
Sutherland introduced an approach distinct from moral or biological origins for criminality, pinning the blame on deviant social circumstances and environments rather than deviant people. This was the first theory to suggest a realistic solution to criminality.
This pinning of blame still leads to stereotyping, particularly those from lower class backgrounds. The theory suggests that exposure to pro-crime attitudes alone leads to criminality, listing these people as “unavoidable offenders” and ignoring those who do not offend from these groups.
● Evaluating Sutherland {Eval}
Farrington et al. (2006) [DAT]
Identified family criminality and risk-taking behaviours as risk factors to offending behaviour. Since socialisation occurs from birth, this could suggest a genetic component or a social one, and thus Sutherland fails to properly discount deterministic perspectives.
● Nature Vs. Nurture in DAT {Eval}
DAT’s Wide Reach
Sutherland also explained crime patterns in affluent areas, coining the term “White Collar” crime. These can be explained as a result of deviant norms and values local to middle class groups.
Therefore, DAT has high explaining power in all sectors of society
● Applying DAT {Eval}
Wood & Suzuki (2016)
RJPs aren’t as survivor focussed as it appears. Sometimes they become distorted, using the survivor as a tool to rehabilitate the offender, not focussing on the victim’s needs, therefore failing to meet both parties’ needs.
● Evidence against RJP’s positive outcomes {Eval}
Shapland et al. (2008)
Conducted a 7 year research project on behalf of the restorative justice council. Identified that…
● 85% of survivors reported satisfaction with the process
● 60% reported it had given them closure and the ability to move on
● 2% reported it had made them feel worse
● Evidence for RJP’s positive outcomes {Eval}
Bartol & Holanchock (1979)
The pair studied Hispanic & African-American offenders scores on the EPQ across 6 groups stratified based on offences and offending history. All 6 groups scored lower on extroversion than non-offenders, suggesting the criminal personality isn’t generalisable and is culturally relative.
● Cultural Bias in Eysenck’s Theory
