Forensic Psychology (Paper 3) Flashcards
Offender profiling
Two approaches in offender profiling: top down and bottom up
Top down approach
-Originated in USA from FBI
-Based off interviews with 36 serial killers
-Profilers start with pre-established typology
-They then work down and assign offender to one of these typologies
-Data is then compared to other criminals in data base to identify any types of patterns of people
Top down approach 4 stages
- Data assimilation
- Crime scene classification
- Crime reconstruction
- Profile generation
- Data assimilation
Data is collected from the scene- what information might we collect?
- Crime scene classification
-Profiler starts to make decisions and organises information
-Type of offender (organised, disorganised)
-Murder type (spree, mass, serial)
-Time (day, night, long)
-Location (where, public or private)
Organised offender
-Leave behind a crime scene that suggests pre planning, lack of spontaneity and selective victims
-Clean up behind them
Disorganised crime
-Highly likely to leave evidence behind such as fingerprints
-Lack of planning
-Spontaneous
- Crime reconstruction
-A profile is constructed with hypotheses about what happened during the crime
-Aim is to narrow down list of suspects
-Strategy to catch offender is developed, anticipating how they may respond to investigation
-Interview strategy decided
- Profile generated
Written report is made
-Match against existing data held
-Sketch of offender such as demographics, physical characteristics and behavioural habits
Research for top down approach
-FBI carried out structured interviews with 36 sec murdeeres such as Ted Buddy and Manson
-What led to offending?
-What early warning signs were there?
-What encouraged or inhibited offences
-Responses and analysis of crimes led to crimes being placed into organised or disorganised
Top down advantages
-Copson: 82% police officers interviewed said it was useful and 90% said they would use again
-There is evidence to support the existence of an organised offender type
Top down limitations
-Small sample size in research
-Low validity- based on 36 individuals through interview
-Low reliability- can’t trust criminals
-Can’t generalise, only applies to bizzare and extreme murders and crimes
Bottom up approach: David Canter
-British approach
-Starts with small detail to create bigger picture
-No assumptions, relies on computer databases
-Help show how and why variations in criminal behaviour occur
Bottom up method
-Starts with raw data about the crime and makes it way up to a conclusion about the criminal
-Assumes offender leave a psychological fingerprint of unique behaviour
-Identified similarities within behaviour of offenders and identifiable differences between offenders
Bottom: Research support
-John Duffy carried our 24 sexual attacks and 3 murders of women
-Canter analysed geographical details and evidence drew up a surprisingly accurate loophole
-Didn’t lead to Duffey arrest
Bottom up: investigative psychology
-Process where each crime is recorded on database
-Analysis of patterns of behaviour
-Details of new crimes are matched with this in order to develop hypothesis of likely characteristics
-People are consistent in their behaviour so therefore there will be links between how someone behaves when offending and behaviour in everyday life
Bottom up: geographical profiling
-Used to make assumptions about where and offender is likely to live
-Reveal the sled in location they chose as much as behaviour
Looks at where rather than who
-Offenders more likely to commit crimes near to where they live
Geographical profiling: circle theory
Canter and Larkin
-Propose offenders commit crimes within an imagined circle
-Two types of offender…
Marauder
-Commit crime within confined area
-Operates within awareness space
-Likely to have anchor point from where to operate
Commuter
-Commits crimes over large areas
-Crosses cultural and psychological bounariws
-Much harder to catch
Bottom up: Copson
-Surveyed 48 uk police forces
-75% said profiler advice been useful
-Only 3% said helped actually catch offender
-Used to narrow down suspects not find exact one
Bottom up evaluation
Strengths
-Helps target individuals that otherwise might not have been identified
-Statsitical basis makes it more reliable
-Can be applied to wide range of offences
Limitations
-Canter & Larkin found in 45 sexual assaults, 91% were marauders - this may suggest that this is too generic and may apply to too many people
-An imaginary circle is problematic and not very scientific
Historical explanation for offending: Atavistic form
-Evolutionary theory proposed by LOMBROSSO
-Focuses on evolutionary individuals and how those who become offenders may not have evolved as much as non offenders
-Proposes offenders appear to have a atavistic form which has impacted their ability to become part of society
Physical traits of atavistic form
-Term coined by lombrosso to describe physical traits found in common offenders
-Includes: Strong Jaw line, Heavy brow, Large ears, Dark hair, Thin lips
LOMBROSSO key study
Aim- Identify distinguishing physical features among male criminals which set them apart as offenders
Method- Examined features and measurements of nearly 4000 criminals and skulls of 400 dead ones
Results- 40% of those examined had atavistic features
Conclusion- these characteristics indicated that such people were more primitive in an evolutionary sense - such individuals were not responsible for their actions as it was down to their innate, inherited physiology
Atavistic evaluation
Strengths
-LOMBROSSO brought science to crime
-Used evidence to support theory
-Kaplan suggested that those with different features will fave exclusion from society therefore leading to low self esteem
Limitations
-Correlation does not mean causation
-Lack of control during Lombroso’s experiment - didn’t pay the same attention
to criminals and those outside of prison
-Determinism - is there no free will on whether an individual commits an offence
Psychodynamic explanation of offending
-Psychodynamic explanation of offending is centred around the role of the unconscious mind and childhood development
-Assumes disruption to attachment during early years of life and unresolved crisis in psychosexual stages of development are leading causes of offending behaviour
The ID and EGO
ID- ‘I want’ pleasure principle
EGO- Rational part of personality that attempts to satisfy ID needs
SUPERWEGO
-Concept proposed by Freud
-Known as morality principle
-Responsible for morals and right or wrong and guilt
-Influenced by parents during phallic stage
Weak Superego
-If the same sex parent is absent during the phallic stage, the child cannot internalise a fully formed superego as there is no opportunity for identification
-Fail to internalise the moral values of the same sex parent
-Would make immoral or criminal behaviour more likely
Harsh superego
-May develop if the same-sex parent is overly-harsh
-Identify with the same sex parent
-Feel unable to ‘live up’ to the parents
standards
-An individual is crippled by guilt and anxiety
and commits crime in order to satisfy the superego need for punishment
Deviant superego
-If the superego that the child internalises has immoral or deviant values it could lead to offending behaviour
-The child internalises the morals of criminal or deviant same-sex parent
-A boy that is raised by a criminal father is not likely to associate guilt with wrongdoing
Maternal dep
-Predicts that if an infant is deprived of a
mother or mother figure during the critical period then there will be serious consequences
-These consequences include depression, affectionless psychopathology
Bowlby 44 thieves
Aim: To see if early separations (deprivation) were associated with behavioural disorders. In particular, Bowlby defined a particular disorder, affectionless psychopathy, to describe individuals who have no sense of shame or guilt
Method: 88 children from 5-16 examined. 44 of these children were thieves 14 of the thieves were classified as affectionless psychopaths. Bowlby interviewed the children and their families
Result: 86% of AP experienced early and prolonged attachment separations. Only 17% of the other thieves had experienced such separations. 4% of the control group had experienced frequent early separations.
Conclusion: These findings suggest a link between early separations and later social maladjustment. Maternal deprivation appears to lead affectionless psychopathy and antisocial behaviour
Psychodynamic evaluation
Strengths
-The only explanation for offending behaviour that deals with the role of emotional factors
-This research had implications for prevention of delinquency - trying to prevent delinquency before it’s too late
Limitations
-Many children grow up without same-sex parents and the vast majority do not turn to crime
-The idea of the over-harsh superego & wanting to be punished does not add up - many criminals go to great lengths not to be caught and punished
-Correlation not causation
Eysencks criminal personality
-Psychological personality types
-Within this theory it says that our personality is innate and has a biological bias
-Personality is genetic, we inherita type of nervous system that predisposes us to offending
-He highlights the ‘criminal personality’
Personality characteristic
-Personality varies along three dimensions
-Neurotic, Extravert and Psychoticsm
-Criminal personality theory has considerable links with biological explanations as they view behaviour of criminal based off their nervous system