forensics Flashcards
the top down approach
A tool to help investigators to accurately predict likely offenders.
american approach
US- result of work by FBI in 1970s
drew upon data from in-depth interview
categorised into organised or disorganised
data from crime scenes match they can predict patterns
this could be used to find the offender
collect data about a murder characteristics of the murderer the crime scene and then decide on the category the data best fit
organised and disorganised type of offender
Organised offender- Evidence of planning, targets victim, tends to be socially and sexually competent with higher-than-average intelligence.
Disorganised offender- Little evidence of planning, leaves clues, tends to be socially and sexually incompetent with lower-than-average intelligence.
constructing an FBI profile
(1) Data assimilation- profiler reviews evidence
(2) crime scene classification- organised or disorganised
(3) crime reconstruction- hypotheses of events and behaviour of the victim
(4) profile generation- hypotheses related to the likely offender
research support
strength- support for a distinct organised category of offender
100 US murders each committed by a different serial killer
technique called smallest space analysis
this analysis revealed that there does seem to be a subset of features of many serial killings which matched the FBI typology for organised offenders.
suggest that a key component of the FBI typology approach has some validity
counterpoint
many studies suggest that the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive.
difficult to classify killers as one or the other type
a killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics such as high intelligence and sexual competence but commit a spontaneous murder leaving the victim’s body at the crime scene
suggesting that the organised disorganised typology is probably more of a continuum.
wider application
strength- adapted to other kinds of crimes eg burglary
critics claim that it only applies to a limited number of crimes eg sexually motivated murder
reports that top down profiling has recently been applied to burglary leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states.
add in two other categories- interpersonal- know the victim and steal something of significance and opportunistic- inexperienced younger offenders
suggest that top-down profiling has wider application than was originally assumed
flawed evidence
limitation- evidence that it is based on
FBI profiling was developed using interviews with 36 murderers in the US
25 were serial killers
other 11 being single or double murderer
24- organised
12- disorganised
sample is poor- FBI didn’t select a random or even a large sample and didn’t include different kinds of offender
no standard questions and not comparable
doesn’t have a sound scientific basis
personality
limitation- based on behaviour consistency may not always lead to successful identification of an offenders
based on behaviour consistency-
serial offenders have characteristic ways of working
referred as leaving their signature on the victim
level of violence or souvenir
questions the idea of behavioural consistency- personality drives behaviour
behaviour is driven more by situation than personality
eg people are not aggressive but in certain situations
behavioural patterns tell us little about the behaviour in everyday life
profiling method based on behavioural consistency may not always lead to successful identification of an offender.
bottom up approach
Profilers work up from evidence collected from the crime scene to develop hypotheses.
british
instead the profile is data driven and emerges as the investigator engages in deeper and more rigorous scrutiny of the details of the offence
more grounded in psycho
investigative psychology
Establishes patterns of behaviour forming a statistical ‘database’.
Interpersonal coherence- Offender’s behaviour at crime scene reflects their everyday behaviour and thus is a clue.
Forensic awareness- Individuals who have been the subject of police interrogation before ‘cover their tracks’.
geographical profiling
The location of crimes is a clue, crime mapping based on psychological theories of offender’s behaviour in relation to their home base.
Canter’s circle theory- Marauders operate close to home, commuters operate further afield.
spatial decision- important insight into the nature of the offence eg planned or opportunistic
revealing other important factors about offenders
evidence for investigative psychology
strength- evidence supports its use
66 sexual assault cases
data was examined using smallest space analysis
several behaviours were identified as common in different samples eg impersonal language
each individual displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviour and help establish whether two or more offences were committed by the same person
supports basic principle of investigative psychology that people are consistent in their behaviour
counterpoint
case linkage depends on the database and this will only consist of historical crimes that have been solved.
the fact that they were solved may be because it was relatively straightforward to link these crimes together in the first place
suggesting that investigative psychology may tell us little about crimes that have few links between them and therefore remain unsolved
evidence for geo profiling
strength- evidence to support
120 murder cases involving serial killers
smallest space analysis reveals spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers.
the offender base was invariably located in the centre of the pattern. the effect was more noticeable for offenders who travelled short distances
supports the view that geo info can be used to identity an offender
geo info insufficient
limitation- may not be sufficient on its own
the success of geo profiling msy be reliant on the quality of data that the police can provide
recording of crime is not always accurate can vary between police forces and estimated 75% of crime are not even reported to police in the first place.
calls into question of utility of an approach that relies on the accuracy of geo data
other factors are just as important for creating a profile eg timing, age, experience
geo info alone may not always lead to the successful capture of an offender
mixed result
limitation- little practical value
mixed history
regarded different ways by police forces
some positive- 48 police departments found advice useful in 83% of cases
some negative- 3% cases lead to accurate identification of the offender
colin stagg case
chemistry students produced more accurate offenders profiles on solved murder cases than experienced senior detectives
little practical value
may focus police investigations
new lines of enquiry
but leads to identification of the offender falls short
eysenck’s theory
Three dimensions combine to form personality: introversion–extraversion (E), neuroticism–stability (N), psychoticism–sociability (P).
bio basis
bio origin
types of nervous we inherit
innate bio
extravert- underactive nervous system
seek excitment stimulation more likely to engage i risk taking behaviour
neurotic- high levels of reactivity in the sympathetic nervous system, quick to respond- nervous jumpy general instability= difficult to predict
psychotic- higher levels of testosterone unemotional and prone to aggression
criminal personality
Mostly neurotic-extraverts: emotionally unstable and overreact (neuroticism) + need arousal and enjoy danger/risk (extraversion). Also high P (aggressive, lack empathy).
role of socialisation
offending behaviour as developmentally immature- selfish and immediate gratification
socialisation- more able to delay gratification and more socially oriented
Neurotic-extraverts do not condition easily so do not learn to respond to antisocial behaviour by becoming anxious, as most people do.
measuring the criminal personality
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire measures E, N and P to determine type, then linked to other variables.
research support
strength- evidence to support the criminal personality
compared 2070 prisoner scores with 2422 control on the EPQ
all age sampled
prisoners recorded higher avg than control
agrees with the predictions of the theory that offenders rate higher than avg across the three dimensions
counterpoint
meta-analysis
relevant studies and reported that offenders tend to score high on measures of psychoticism but not for extraversion and neuroticism
inconsistent evidence of difference in EEG measures
cast doubt on theory
some central assumptions of the criminal personality have been challenged
too simplistic
limitation- idea that offending is explained by personality tests alone
the distinction between offending behaviour that occurs in teens only and that which continues into adulthood,
personality traits alone- poor predictor of how long offending behaviour would go on for
persistence in offending- result of a reciprocal process between personality trait and environmental reactions to those triats
more complex picture than suggested
offering behaviour is determined by an interaction between personality and environment
cultural factors
limitation- cultural factors are not taken into account
criminal personality may vary according to culture
studied Hispanic and African American offenders in max prison NY
divided into 6 groups based on offending history and nature of the offence
all 6 groups were less extravagant than non-offender control group
the sample was a very different cultural group from eysenck
how far the criminal personality can be generalised and suggest it may be a culturally relative concept
measuring personality
limitation- personality may not be static
built on the possibility to measure personality
usefulness of EPQ based on potential for real-world application- see how it differs from the rest of the pop
early criminal traits could be recognised
however personality type may to be reducible to score
too complex and dynamic to be quantified
people in different mods and personalities all at once
not tapping into the persons essence or revealing stable criminal traits
undermines any claims eysenck made about being able to identify natural criminal using the EPQ as personality may not be static
levels of moral reasoning
moral development
higher stage= more sophisticated the reasoning
many studies have suggested that offenders tend to show a lower level of moral reasoning
group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral development than non violent youths even after controlling for social background
links with criminality
offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level
non-offenders- conventional level and beyond
pre-convention- need to avoid punishment gain rewards less mature childlike reasoning
offenders are more self centred and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non offending peers
higher levels tend to sympathisers more with the rights of others and exhibit more conventional behaviour eg honesty generosity non violence
stage one
pre conventional
stage 1 punishment orientatied
rules are obeyed to avoid punishment
stage 2 instrumental orientation or person gain
rules are obeyed for person gain
stage 2
conventional
stage 3 good person orientation
rules are obeyed for approval
stage 4 maintenance of social order
rules are obeyed to maintain social order
stage 3
post conventional
stage 5 morality of contract and individual rights
rules are challenged if they infringe on the right of others
stage 6 morality of conscience
individuals have a personal set of ethical principles
research support
strength- link between level of moral reasoning and crime
comapred moral reasoning in 332 non offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the socio moral reflection measure short form contains 11 moral dilemma questions
offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non offender group
consistent with predcictions
types of offence
limitation- depend on offence
people who committed crimes for financial gain were more likely to show pre conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes eg assault.
pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crime in which offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishing
doesn’t apply to all forms of crime
thinking vs behaviour
limitation- understanding moral behaviour is more useful as not everyone who has criminal thoughts will act on them
insight to the mechanics of criminal mind
offenders- more childlike and self centred when it comes to moral judgement than law abiding majority
offender struggle with perspective of others- may explain the lack of empathy that drives them to commit crime
however moral thinking isn’t the same as moral behaviour
use of moral dilemma poor predictor of real life behaviour
low external validity
moral reasoning is more interested likely to be used to justify behaviour after its happened than before
understanding moral behaviour may be more useful as not everyone who has criminal thoughts will act on them.
differential association theory
We learn pro-offending or anti-offending values/attitudes through different people we associate with.
scientific basis
Sutherland wanted to identify the conditions that cause crime when they are present but not when they are absent.
designed to separate between people who become offenders and those who don’t
offending as a learned behaviour
- interactions with significant others values most and spends most time with eg family or peers
- mathematically predict how likely it is that an individual will commit offences
Offenders learn attitudes towards offending
exposed to values and attidues towards the law
pro crime outweigh anti crime- will offend
specific offending acts or techniques.
learn techniques for committing offences
socialisation in prison
Reoffending is high because prisoners associate with each other and learn techniques through imitation and direct tuition.
more experienced offenders teach less skills which they use when released
shift of focus
strength- changed the focus of offending explanations
moving the emphasis away from early bio accounts
and from offending= product of individual weakness or immorality
draws attention to deviant social circumstances and environments more to blame for offending than deviant people
more desirable- more realistic solutions to offending instead of eugenics or punishment
counterpoint
DA runs the risk of stereotyping people from impoverished crime ridden backgrounds
theory tends to suggest that exposure to pro crime values is sufficient to produce offending
ignores people may choose to not offend despite such influences
not everyone exposed will go offende
wide reach
strength- accounts for offending within all sectors of society
some types of crime eg burglary clustered within certain inner city working class- also the case that some are clustered amongst more affluent groups in society white-collar- a feature of middle class social groups who share deviant norms and values not just lower classes who commit offences and principles can be used to explain all offences
difficulty testing
limitation- difficult to test predictions of DA
provided scientific mathematical framework within offending can be predicted- must be testable
prob- concepts cant be tested- not operationalised
hard to see how the number of pro crime attidues a person has or been exposed to could be measured
built on the assumption that offending occurs when pro crime outnumber anti crime
we cant know when the urge to offend is relaised and the offending career triggered
doesn’t have scientific credibility
psychodynamic explanations of offending
inadequate superego
if the superego is somehow deficient then offending behaviour is inevitable- ID is given free rein and not properly controlled
Superego formed out of phallic stage when Oedipus/Electra conflict resolved, but offending more likely when Superego is inadequate.
Weak Superego- Child does not identify with same-gender parent (may be absent), so does not internalise moral code, no ‘conscience’.
Deviant Superego- Child internalises an immoral Superego from e.g. criminal father, no guilt about offending.
Over-harsh Superego- Child identifies with very harsh same-gender parent, overwhelming guilt and anxiety, offends to satisfy Superego’s need for punishment.
the role of emotion
Inadequate Superego allows primitive, irrational, emotional demands (the Id) to guide moral behaviour.
acknowledges to role of anxiety and guilt in the development of offending behaviour
lack of guilt is relevant to understanding offending behaviour
theory of maternal deprivation
Bowlby: offending caused by failure to form close attachment bond with mother-figure in first two years leading to affectionless psychopathy- lack of guilt empath and feeling for others.
shown in 44 juvenile thieves study
14/44 showed personality and behavioural characteristics of affectionless psychopathy
12/14 experienced prolonged separation
research support
strength- link between offending and superego
10 offenders referred for psychiatric treatment
all assessed- disturbances in supeego were diagnosed
each offender experience unconscious feelings of guilt and the need for self punishment
consequences of an over harsh supergo
need for punishment manifesting itself as a desire to commit acts of wrongdoing and offend
support the role of psychic conflict and over harsh superego as a basis for offending
counterpoint
central principles of inadequate superego theory are not supported
if correct
expect harsh parents to raise children who constantly experience feelings fo guilt and anxiety
evidence suggest the opposite is true
parents who rely on harsher forms of discipline tend to raise children who are rebellious and rarely express feelings of guilt or self criticism
calls into question the relationship between a strong harsh internal parent and excessive feelings of guilt within the child
gender bias
limitiation- theory is gender biased
girls develop weaker superego than boys
bc identification with the same gender parent is not as strong
girls dont experience intense emotion associated with castration anxiety therefore are under less pressure to identify with their mothers
their superego is less fully realised
implication- women should be more prone to offending than men
rates of imprisonment show the opposite is true
1: 20 women :men in prison
study children required to resist temptation found any evidence of gender differences
if so- girls tended to be more moral than boys
there is alpha bias - not appropriate as an explanation of offending behaviour
other factors
limitation- only based on an association between maternal deprivation and offending
analysed data from interviews t
500 people
maternal deprivation= poor predictor of future offending
if link- children who have experienced frequent or prolonged separation from their mothers and offending in later life not causal
other links- growing up in poverty
maternal deprivation may be one of the reason for later offending but not the only
contribution
limitation- lack of credible scientific basis
first to link early experiences in childhood to moral behaviour and offending
draws attention to emotional basis ignored by other explanations eg bio
emphasis on the role of guilt and anxiety in the development of a criminal career
not open to empirical testing
lack of supporting evidence- only judged at face value > scientific worth
core principles don’t meet the scientific criterion of falsifiability
practical value is limited
have contributed but lack credible scientific basis
