FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY evaluations Flashcards
EVALUATION OF TOP-DOWN APPROACH (summary)
- Only applies to certain crimes
- Too simplistic
- Lack of theoretical foundation
EVALUATION OF TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Only applies to certain crimes
- This method of profiling can only really be used in crimes of murder and rape.
- More common offences such as burglary don’t work as well as the crime reveals very little about the offender.
- Restricts the applicability of top-down approach
- In comparison to geographic profiling (part of bottom-up) which looks at the pattern of crime rather than the crime type, making it more versatile.
- This means that it can be argued to be a limited approach to identifying a criminal and that perhaps other methods may have higher practical application.
EVALUATION OF TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Intuitive BUT lacks theoretical foundation
- Top-down approach could be seen as a more intuitive approach to offender profiling
- HOWEVER, it often relies on the expertise of the profiler which is problematic due to issues with subjectivity.
SNOOK et al:
- Argues that profilers do little more than psychics do.
- The ‘believability’ of profiles based on top-down can be explained in terms of the Barnum effect
- Barnum effect = an ambiguous description can be made to fit any situation, such as in horoscopes.
- In a list of 20 statements about a person, 10 will often be correct or nearly correct and so profiles often appear to be ‘right’.
- This is an issue as this form of profiling has the potential to cause harm because profiles may mislead investigations if they are wrong.
EVALUATION OF TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Too simplistic
- Only two categories of a criminal is very simplistic (organised + disorganised)
- CANTER: used Small space / MDS analysis of 100 serial killer’s murders (US) classified as organised and disorganised.
- 2/39 behavioural aspects that were plotted co-occurred in organised offenders.
> Body concealment (70%)
> Sexual activity (75%)
> BUT most behaviours co-occurred <50% of crimes committed - Suggesting no pattern and no distinction between organised or disorganised killers.
- Making predictions of their characteristics difficult.
- It is likely there will be more types, and the distinction is too restrictive.
- Therefore the simplicity questions the accuracy of the top-down profiling.
EVALUATION OF BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (summary)
- Wider application
- Scientific basis
- Supportive evidence for geographical profiling
EVALUATION OF BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Scientific bases
( could be used to fix top-down = lacks theoretical foundation)
- Statistical analysis: means investigators are able to use biographical, geographical and psychological data to produce a profile.
- SO, Bottom-up profiling can be seen as more objective and scientific than the Top-down approach
- Because its more grounded in evidence and psychological theory, and less driven by speculation and hunches.
- This enhances the scientific credibility of offender profiling and so could be argued to be a stronger method for offender profiling.
EVALUATION OF BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Evidence supporting geographical profiling
LUNDRIGAN AND CANTER:
- 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the USA.
- Smallest space analysis: revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers.
- Location of each body disposal site was in a different direction from the previous, creating a ‘centre of gravity’.
- Meaning the offender’s base was always located in the centre of the pattern.
- Effect even more noticable for offenders who travelled short distances (marauders).
- SUPPORTS Canter’s claim that spatial information is a key factor in determining the base of an offender.
EVALUATION OF BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Mixed results
All evidence so far seems to support bottom-up over top-down. However, although it may be an improvement ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE BEST TECHNIQUE ITSELF.
- Despite the successes that the Bottom-up approach there have been some significant failures.
- Rachel Nickell case - initial police investigation of the crime resulted in the arrest in controversial circumstances of an innocent man, who was later acquitted.
- Studies examining effectiveness of offender profiling have shown mixed results:
> e.g. COPSON: surveyed 48 police forces
> Found that the advice provided by the profiler was judged to be ‘useful’ in 83% of cases.
> BUT in only 3% did it lead to accurate identification of the offender.
EVALUATION OF EYSENCK’S CRIMINAL PERSONALITY (summary)
- Supporting evidence for the theory
- Criticising evidence for the theory
- Nature and nurture
EVALUATION OF EYSENCK’S CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Supporting evidence for the theory
- EYSENCK compared 2070 male prisoners’ scores on the EPQ with 2422 male controls.
- Subdivided into age groups, ranging from 16 - 69 years.
- On measures of psychoticism, extroversion and neuroticism (across all age groups) prisoners recorded higher scores than the control group
- Thus supporting the link between personality types and criminal behaviour.
EVALUATION OF EYSENCK’S CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Criticising evidence for the theory
- FARRINGTON et al: reviewed several studies and reported that offenders tended to score high on P and N measures but not E.
- HOLLIN: similar pattern of findings with offenders generally showing higher P and N scores but not necessarily higher E scores.
- Therefore, evidence doesn’t fully support Eysenck’s theory for ALL THREE traits.
- Not clear why the relationship between E and offending is so inconsistent.
- One possibility is that E scales actually measure two things: sociability and impulsiveness
- Criminality may only be associated with impulsiveness but not sociability.
- Therefore, this research puts into question the effectiveness of Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).
EVALUATION OF EYSENCK’S CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Nature and nurture
- Balance between the roles of nature and nurture.
- Acknowledges the role that genetics and the nervous system play in relation to personality and offending behaviour
- ALSO considers how personality traits, specifically high E and N traits, make it difficult for these individuals to be socialised so that they respond to antisocial impulses with anxiety.
- STRENGTH: of the theory in comparison to other explanations, such as the genetic and neural explanations and the differential association theory, as these theories only attempt to explain offending behaviour from one perspective.
EVALUATION OF LEVEL OF MORAL REASONING THEORY (summary)
- practical application
- Gender bias
- Issue with causation
EVALUATION OF LEVEL OF MORAL REASONING THEORY
Practical applications
- Understanding how low moral reasoning is associated with offending behaviour can be useful in shaping intervention or treatment programmes.
- For example, treatment programmes in prisons could incorporate ways to increase offenders’ level of moral reasoning
- This may help to reduce reoffending.
- Could be particularly useful for young offenders.
- Thus a strength of levels of moral reasoning theory is its strong practical application.
EVALUATION OF LEVEL OF MORAL REASONING THEORY
Gender Bias
- Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample
- Causing an androcentric bias as the stages reflect a male definition of morality
> GILLIGAN: argued that there are gender differences in moral development
suggested women focus on how actions affect other people and men consider fairness and justice.
Given, the varying rates of crime between men and women it may be the case that men and women differ in terms of their moral development which Kohlberg fails to take into account
