forensic psychology Flashcards
what is offender profiling?
an investigative tool used by police to help predict and profile the characteristics of an unknown criminal
what is the aim of offender profiling?
to narrow the field of enquiry and list of suspects
what are the two methods of offender profiling?
-the top down approach
-the bottom up approach
define the top down approach:
a qualitative approach to offender profiling - starts with established
categorisation, individuals are
assigned to these types based on witness accounts and crime scene evidence
key features of the top-down approach:
-it’s based on police experience and
case studies rather than psychological theory
-it’s suitable for more extreme crimes (murder, rape and ritualistic crimes)
-originated in the USA due to FBI work
-murders or rape crimes are classified into either category: organised or disorganised
what are the two categories of the top down approach based on?
the idea that serious offenders have certain ways of working
study relating to top down typology:
hazelwood and douglas (1980)
aim of the hazelwood and douglas study:
to identify the major personality characteristics of serious offenders and how they differed from non-offenders
participants of the hazelwood and douglas study:
36 convicted serial killers in american prisons whose crimes had
sexual elements (including Charles Manson and Ted Bundy)
method of the hazelwood and douglas study:
lengthy unstructured interviews with information collected about the
crime scene
results of the hazelwood and douglas study:
information from the crime scene revealed that crimes were either
premeditated and planned or sudden and unrehearsed
conclusion of the hazelwood and douglas study:
-it was concluded that the crime scene could be used in the same
way as a fingerprint to help identify the murderer
-it was believed that the crime scenes revealed clear evidence of whether offences had been committed by ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’ offenders
which three aspects do organised and disorganised criminals differ on?
-behaviour towards victim
-crime scene detail
-characteristics of criminal
behaviour towards victim:
organised v disorganised
organised:
-victim targeted
-cntrols conversation
disorganised:
-victim selected at random
-crime unplanned
-avoids conversation
crime scene detail:
organised v disorganised
organised:
-weapon absent
-body hidden from view
-body moved from crime scene
artempts to clean up
disorganised:
-weapon present
-sexual activity after death
-body left in view at crime scene
characteristics of an organised criminal:
-high intelligence
-socially competent
-sexually competent
-skilled occupation
-watches media coverage of the crime
characteristics of a disorganised criminal:
-average intelligence or lower
-socially immature
-sexually incompetent
-poor work history
-lives alone
-lives close to crime scene
-little interest in their crime
stages of constructing an FBI profile:
1) data assimilation
2) crime scene classification
3) crime reconstruction
4) profile generation
data assimilation:
profiler reviews the evidence (crime scene photographs etc.)
crime scene classification:
organised or disorganised
crime reconstruction:
hypothesis of the crime
(e.g. sequence of events, behaviour)
profile generation:
hypothesis of the likely offender e.g. physical characteristics
Case One
A teenage victim was attacked in the morning on a secluded path that is very rarely used. She was seized from behind, dragged into some bushes, gagged and bound with duct tape, and sexually assaulted. The path cannot be seen from nearby roads, and can only be accessed from an estate on one side. The victim had unexpectedly spent the night at a friend’s house and had not used the path before.
Case 1 - disorganised because the attack seems more random and the victim a stranger. The victim was attacked on a secluded, rarely used path - this suggests that the attack may have been spontaneous and it was by chance that the victim was there.
Case Two
Between 1986 and 1988, seven attacks on elderly women took place in tower blocks in Birmingham. Women in their 70s and 80s, often infirm, were followed into the lifts by a stocky young man who took them to the top floor of the tower block. He would rape the women and then flee. Consistent patterns seemed to suggest the same man was responsible. In his interactions with the women he appeared confident and at ease. He made no attempt to disguise himself and forensic evidence was found on each occasion. Police eventually arrested Adrian Babb, an attendant at the local swimming pool, to which all of Babb’s victims were regular visitors.
Case 2 - organised because there are several victims and the description is the same for all of them. The victims have a similar profile in terms of age, the area of the attacks and what happens to them is consistent. This suggests the crimes have been planned. He was able to interact with them comfortably which suggests he is socially competent.
how do these cases show issues with top down profiling?
Both these cases illustrate a key problem with top-down profiling
because, even though they had many characteristics of one type of
offender, there were anomalies
(e.g. take Case 1, the duct tape must have been taken to the crime
scene, which suggests he may have planned the attack, hence an
‘organised’ feature, although taken as a whole the case was categorised
as disorganised)
(in case 2, forensic evidence was found at the scene, which may be
indicative of a ‘disorganised’ crime scene as organised criminals tend to
cover their tracks)
criticisms of top down profiling:
-the categories only apply to particular crimes
-the classification is too simplistic and two categories is too restrictive
-the original sample used to develop top down profiling was not representative
ao3 / criticism - the categories only apply to particular crimes
P - top down profiling is best suited to crime scenes that reveal details about the suspect (e.g: rape, torture)
E - more common offences such as burglary do not lend themselves to profiling because the crime scene doesn’t reveal much about the offender
L - this makes this a limited approach for identifying a criminal
ao3 / criticism - the classification is too simplistic and two categories is too restrictive
P - the classification is too simplistic and two categories is too restrictive
E - canter et al. argued that it was overly simplistic to reduce the types
of criminal to only two / having only 2 categories is very reductionist as it is likely that criminals do not fit neatly into either category
→ this makes the prediction of their characteristics difficult
L - this suggests that top-down profiling’s focus on intuition
or “hunch” rather than objective methods, could lead to bias in
interpretation of the evidence
↳ this is a problem because it reduces the scientific basis of top-down profiling
ao3 / criticism - the original sample used to develop top down profiling was not representative
P - the original sample used to develop top down profiling was not representative
E - the approach was developed using interviews with 36 killers in the US – 25 were serial killers, the other 11 were single/double murderers
↳ this is an extreme small and unrepresentative sample to base
a profiling system that may have a significant influence on the nature of police investigation on
it’s also not sensible to rely on self-report data from convicted killers when constructing a classification system (could be invalid, untrue)
L - this means that top down profiling may not be very applicable
what is the bottom-up approach?
profilers use evidence collected from the crime scene to develop a picture of the offender (their likely characteristics, motivations and social background)
how does the bottom up approach differ from the top down approach?
-unlike the US top-down approach, the British bottom-up- approach is ‘data driven’
-it doesn’t begin with fixed typologies, it develops a profile as the investigator learns more about the crime
what are two concepts within the bottom-up approach?
-investigative psychology
-geographical profiling
what is investigative psychology?
a form of bottom-up profiling that matches details from the crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory
who developed investigative psychology?
david canter (2004)
why did david canter criticise the bottom up approach?
his criticism wad partially motivated by a desire to see offender profiles built on objective data rather than an “intuition” based approach
what is the aim of investigative psychology?
to establish a statistical ‘database of information which can be used as a baseline for comparison
how can a database be used for investigative psychology?
-specific details of an offence, or related offences, can then be
matched against the database to reveal important details about
the offender, their personal history, social background etc
-using computer databases and a programme called Smallest Space
Analysis, patterns are identified and it is possible to see if a series
of offences are linked
what are the three ideas central to the investigative psychology approach?
-interpersonal coherence
-the important of time and place (geographical profiling)
-forensic awareness can reveal criminal characteristics
what is interpersonal coherence?
the idea that the way an offender acts at the crime scene and with their victims may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations
example of interpersonal coherence:
-degrees of violence used in serious crimes, especially rape, may
reflect how the criminal treats other women in his non-criminal life
-for example, whilst some rapists want to maintain maximum control and humiliate their victims, others are more apologetic – this might tell police something about how the offender relates to women more generally
what is forensic awareness?
forensic awareness may reveal details of the offender
→ offenders who show an awareness of forensic investigation (e.g. by covering their tracks) will probably have committed a crime before and been through the criminal justice system
how are the time and place of a crime significant?
time and place may give clues as
to where the perpetrator may live or work
what is geographical profiling?
an investigative technique that uses the locations of a connected series of crimes to work out where an offender most likely lives, or bases their activities from (crime mapping)
what can geographical profiling do when used in conjunction with psychological theory?
it can help create a hypothesis about how the offender thinks and their modus operandi (a particular way of doing something)
what assumption does geographical profiling underpin?
the assumption that offenders will restrict their ‘work’ to areas they are familiar with → m understanding the geographical pattern of their behaviour will provide a ‘centre of gravity which is often the offenders base
what did canter’s circle theory propose?
two models of offender behaviour
what are the two models of offender behaviour?
-the marauder
-the commuter
how does the marauder act?
the criminal operates in close proximity to their home base
how does the commuter act?
someone who is likely to have travelled a distance away from their usual residence
what is the pattern of offending likely to form?
circle around their usual place of residence, the more offences, the more apparent this becomes
the value of geographic information:
geographical gives vital insight into the nature of the offence: was it planned or opportunistic, what ‘mental maps’ exist for this person i.e. access and mode of transport, employment status, approximate age?
strengths of bottom up profiling:
-there is evidence support for investigative psychology from canter
-canter’s profile has been useful in real life
-there is evidence to support geographical profiling
-a strength of the approach is its scientific basis
ao3 / strength - there is evidence support for investigative psychology from canter
P - there is evidence support for investigative psychology from canter
E - canter and heritage conducted a content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases → the data was examined using the smallest space analysis (a computer program that identifies correlations across patterns of behaviour)
↳ several characteristics were identified as common in most cases (e.g. use of impersonal language and lack of reaction to the victim)
↳ this could help to establish whether 2 or more offences were committed by the same person
L - this supports the usefulness of investigative psychology because it shows how statistic techniques can be applied
ao3 / strength - canter’s profile has been useful in real life
P - canter’s profile has been useful in real life → it resulted in the arrest of john duffy & subsequently the arrest of his accomplice
E - using evidence, canter put together a profile of the “railway killer”, this included both personality and geographical characteristics
↳ canter’s profile suggested that the criminal had a poor history with women, violent sexual history, forensic awareness, was in his mid to late twenties, was a semi-skilled labourer & had railway knowledge
↳ these characteristics matched the profile of john duffy (29, separated from his wife - abusive to her during their marriage, criminal record,
made efforts to remove evidence of himself from the bodies of his
victims, was a carpenter & worked for the railways, living centrally to the clusters of crimes committed)
L - canter’s theory has also been applied to historical cases and still
manages to measure up →
this proves the credibility of canter’s profiling
ao3 / strength - there is evidence to support geographical profiling
P - there is evidence to support geographical profiling
E - lundrigan & canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the USA / smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers: the location of each body disposal site was in a different direction from the previous ones, creating a ‘centre of gravity’
↳ the offender’s base was located in the centre of the pattern, the effect was more noticeable for marauders (travelled short distances)
L - this supports canter’s claim that spatial information is a key factor in determining the base of an offender
ao3 / strength - a strength of the approach is its scientific basis
P - a strength of the approach is its scientific basis
E - canter argues that compared to the top-down approach, bottom-up profiling is more objective, scientific, less driven by hunches and more grounded in evidence and psychological theory
↳ it uses geographical, biographical and psychological data to assist an investigation
L -this use of statistics and theory has removed intuition & human terror of the profiler from the process, which is argued to make it more reliable than the top down approach
criticisms of the top-down approach:
-there are mixed results for profiling
ao3 / criticism - there are mixed results for profiling
P - there are mixed results for profiling
E - copson surveyed 48 police forces and found that the advice provided by the profiler was useful in 83% of cases, but in only 3% did it lead to accurate identification of the offender
↳ kocsis found that chemistry students produced a more accurate
profile on a solved murder case than experienced detectives
L - this evidence questions the effectiveness of the bottom-up
approach
comparisons of the top-down and bottom-up approach:
US ( top-down) vs UK (bottom-up)
based on qualitative data (top-down) vs based on quantitative data (bottom-up)
subjective - based on speculation, hunches & police experience (top-down) vs objective - based on statistical data analysis links SSA (bottom-up analysis)
reductionist (top-down) vs holistic (bottom-up)
quick (top-down) vs slow (bottomup)
overall criticisms of offender profiling:
-not an exact science
-could direct sources away from other lines of enquiry
-offender profiling is only suitable for certain crimes
what are the biological explanations of offending behaviour?
-a historical approach
(lombroso’s atavistic form)
-genetics and neural explanations
when did lombroso propose atavistic form?
in the 1870s
what does lombroso’s atavistic theory suggest?
that some people are born with a criminal personality due to lacking
evolutionary development (criminals were genetic throwbacks)
what are genetic throwbacks?
a primitive sub species that is biologically different from non-criminals
why did lombroso believe that criminals offended?
he believed that offender lack evolutonary development, their savage nature meant that they can’t conform to the rules of modern society and as instead, turn to crime
how did lombroso believe that offenders were distinguishable from non-offenders?
there were physical features which offenders had, which indicated they were less developed in an evolutionary sense than non-offenders
how did lombroso’s theory link to darwin’s theory of evolution?
lombroso combined his ideas with darwin’s theory of evolution to imply that offenders were more primitive and therefore not completely responsible for their criminal actions
how did lombroso refer to the physical features identified in criminals?
as atavistic
which features did lombroso state to be atavistic?
-narrow, sloping brow
-strong prominent jaw
-high cheekbones
-facial asymmetry
-dark skin
-the existence of extra toes, nipples or fingers
what did lombroso state that the physical characteristics of murderers were?
bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears
what did lombroso state that the physical characteristics of sexual deviants were?
glinting eyes, swollen/fleshy lips and projecting ears
what did lombroso state that the physical characteristics of fraudsters were?
thin lips
which behavioural traits did lombroso believe that criminals possessed?
criminals are insensitive to pain, use criminal slang, have tattoos and are unemployed
what is eugenics?
the idea that genetically “unfit” people should be prevented from breeding
how could lombroso’s theory be seen as supporting the eugenics movement?
-he suggests that criminals are ‘born’ (an inherited trait) with particular criminals displaying certain
physical anomalies or characteristics
-if society wanted to reduce crime ,. then theories of genetic
superiority or people who are believers in the Eugenics movement
could call for policies in which whole groups of peoples should be
eliminated from the genetic stock of the world in order to prevent
crime / or castration of those said to be habitual criminals in order
to prevent them producing more children who,later would be criminals.
strengths of lombroso’s theory:
-lombroso’s theory led to further psychological theory, especially in the field of crime
-lombroso’s theory is supported by evidence from lombroso’s study (1876)
ao3 / strength - lombroso’s theory is supported by evidence from lombroso’s study (1876)
P - lombroso’s theory is supported by evidence from lombroso’s study (1876)
E - lombroso aimed to identify physical features among criminals, which set them apart as offenders based on biological principles / he examined the features and measurements of nearly 4,000 criminals, as well as the skulls of 400 dead criminals
↳ some common findings from Lombroso’s investigation included sloping brows, high cheekbones, pronounced jaw, large ears
L - he found that 40% of the criminal acts could be accounted for by the atavistic characteristics that he had identified
↳ this suggests that these characteristics indicate that such people were more primitive in an evolutionary sense.
ao3 / strength - lombroso’s theory led to further psychological theory, especially in the field of crime
P - lombroso’s theory led to further psychological theory, especially in the field of crime
E - lombroso was hailed as the ‘father of modern criminology’. he shifted crime research towards a more scientific focus and kick started the beginnings of criminal profiling / the idea that criminals could be studied in order to create links and patterns, was a unique and insightful perspective
↳ his list of characteristics enabled a fairly objective measure
L - so, despite the flaws in his research, Lombroso had an influence on forensic psychology
criticisms of lombroso’s theory:
-lombroso’s methods were poorly controlled
-there have been negative implications of Lombroso’s work
ao3 / criticism - lombroso’s methods were poorly controlled
P - lombroso’s methods were poorly controlled
E - a criticism of Lombroso’s research is that he did not use a control group in his research; therefore, although he found physical trends amongst his substantial group of offenders, he was not comparing them to a group of ‘normal’ control
↳ it may be more likely that these physical features are coincidental and can be found amongst any people group of that size
L - this means that Lombroso’s work and therefore atavistic form theory does not meet modern day scientific standards
ao3 / criticism - there have been negative implications of Lombroso’s work
P - there have been negative implications of Lombroso’s work
E - deLisi (2012) drew attention to the uncomfortable racial undertones in lombroso’s work /
many features outlined as atavistic (e.g. curly hair/dark skin) are most likely found in african descent
↳ lombroso completed his work at the same time as the ‘eugenics movement’ (the idea that some social and cultural groups are genetically more ‘fit’ than others)
↳ the idea that atavistic characteristics were evidence of an uncivilised, primitive, sub-
species seems to support the eugenics philosophy
L - there have been negative implications of Lombroso’s work for minority groups
