Forensics

Question 1

Limitation of Custodial Sentencing
- applying SLT

Answer 1

Latessa and Lowenkemp (2006) concluded that placing low-risk offenders with high-risk offenders make it more likely that the low-risk individuals will re-offend.

Question 2

token economy in prisons

Answer 2

involves reinforcing desirable behaviour with a token that can be then exchanged for some kind of reward.
e.g., own clothes, TV etc

Question 3

Supporting evidence for token economy in prisons

Answer 3

Hobbs and Holt (76) introduced token economy with three delinquent behavioural units. A fourth acted as a control. Significant differences in positive behaviour compared to control groups.

Question 4

Define Anger Management

Answer 4

a system that can be administered both within and outside an institution. The focus is on cognitive thinking that may influence offending behaviour…
involves identifying signs which trigger anger and learning techniques to calm down.

Question 5

Outline the Top-Down Approach

Answer 5

US method of offender profiling
Involves classifying offenders as ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’ using FBI data on 36 sexually motivated killers

scene and other evidence are analysed to generate hypotheses about the probable characteristics of the offender.

Question 6

disorganised offenders are characterised by:

Answer 6

little evidence of planning (spontaneous offence), low IQ, unemployed, history of failed relationships,

Question 7

organised offenders are characterised by:

Answer 7

evidence of planning, may have a ‘type’, above average IQ, skilled profession, usually married w/ children

Question 8

4 stages of FBI profile construction

Answer 8

1. Data Assimilation - review of evidence
2. Crime Scene Classification - organised or disorganised
3. Crime Reconstruction - generation of hypotheses about the behaviour and events
4. Profile Generation - generation of hypotheses about the offender (e.g., physical characteristics, background)

Question 9

limitation of the top-down approach
- canter et al (2004)

Answer 9

Evidence was flawed.
Canter argues that FBI agents did not select a large or random sample, nor other types of offender.
no standard interview qs, each interview was different
approach does not have a scientific basis

Question 10

Outline the bottom-up approach

Answer 10

UK approach to offender profiling
Profile is ‘data-driven’, and relies on statistical analysis of crime-scene evidence and analysis based on psychological concepts e..g, interpersonal coherence.

uses geographical profiling - location, maurader, communter types, and circle theory

Question 11

what is interpersonal coherence

Answer 11

central concept in investigative psychology and the bottom-up offender profiling.
refers to how offender behaves at the scene and interacts with the victim…may reflect their behaviour in everyday life.

Question 12

what is circle theory?

Answer 12

Canter and Larkin (1993) proposed Circle Theory which suggests that the pattern of offending locations is likely to form a circle around the offender’s usual residence, this becomes apparent the more offences that there are. The offenders spatial-decision making can provide insight into the nature of the offence

Question 13

Canter and Larkin (1993) two models of offender behaviour:
(bottom-up)

Answer 13

marauder - operates close to their home base

commuter - likely to have travelled a distance away from their usual residence when committing a crime

Question 14

Limitation of the bottom-up approach
- geographical profiling

Answer 14

geo profiling alone may not be sufficient
recording of crime is not always accurate; An estimated 75% of crimes are not reported to the police. Even if crime data is correct - other factors e.g., timing, age and experience of the offender matter according to Ainsworth (2001) Suggests geo info alone may not always lead to the successful capture of the offender.

Question 15

Lombroso suggests criminals were…

Answer 15

‘genetic throwbacks’ - a primitive subspecies that were biologically different from non-criminals. this is the atavistic form

Question 16

Outline Atavistic Form

Answer 16

Biological/Historical explanation of offending.
Lombroso (1876) argued that offenders lacked evolutionary development
Offending behaviours are innate tendency, and offender subtype can be identified by physiological ‘markers’ - these are atavistic characteristics which are biologically determined.

Question 17

cranial characteristics of atavistic form

Answer 17

narrow sloping brow, high cheekbones, prominent jaw, facial asymmetry.

Question 18

physiological markers linked to particular types of crime
(atavistic form)

Answer 18

murderers - bloodshot eyes, curly hair, and long ears,
sexual deviants - glinting eyes, swollen and fleshy lips.

Question 19

Lombroso’s research

Answer 19

examined the facial and cranial features of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living ones.
concluded that 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by people with atavistic characterisitcs.

Question 20

contradicting evidence for atavistic form
(Goring)

Answer 20

evidence contradicts the link between atavism and crime;

Goring (1913) compared 3000 non-offenders and 3000 offenders and found no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial features;

he suggested instead that many people who commit crime have lower than average IQ,

challenging the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the pop.

Question 21

limitation of atavistic form
- racist

Answer 21

many of the features Lombroso identified as ‘atavistic’ (curly hair, dark skin), are most likely to be found among those of African descent, fitting 19th-century eugenic attitudes.

suggests the theory is rooted in racist ideals and is therefore more subjective - influenced by racist prejudices.

Question 22

strength of Lombroso’s theory
- changed criminology.

Answer 22

Lombroso shifted emphasis in crime research away from moralistic to scientific.

theory heralded offender profiling in describing how types of people are likely to commit particular types of crime

suggests that Lombroso made a major contribution to the science of criminology.

Question 23

three genetic explanations of offending behaviour

Answer 23

twin and adoption studies
candidate genes
diathesis-stress model

Question 24

Outline Christiansen (77)
- twin study explaining offending

Answer 24

Christiansen (77) studies over 3500 twin pairs in Denmark, finding a concordance for offending behaviour of 35% for MZ males and 13% of DZ males supporting a genetic component in offending

Question 25

Outline Crowe (72)
- adoption study explaining offending

Answer 25

Crowe (72) found that adopted children with a biological mother (offender) had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by 18. Adopted children with a biological mother (non-offender) only had a 5% risk.

Question 26

candidate genes explaining offender behaviour

Answer 26

genetic analysis of 800 offenders by Tilhonen et al (2015) suggests two genes are asociated with violent crime:
MAOA regulates serotonin and linked to aggressive behaviour
CDH13 linked to substance abused & ADHD

Question 27

differential association theory was proposed by…..

Answer 27

Sutherland (39) who suggested that offending is learned through the relationships and associations we form with the people around us.

Question 28

two prerequisites for a person to develop into an offender (diff association theory)

Answer 28

1. learning a set of values and attitudes that support offending
2. learning specific behaviours / committing crimes.

Question 29

supporting evidence for differential association theory (Farrington)

Answer 29

Farrington (2006) longitudinal study of 411 males found that some of the main risk factors for criminality were criminal families and poor parenting

Question 30

supporting evidence for differential association theory (Osbourne and West)

Answer 30

Osbourne and West (82) found that where a father had a criminal conviction, 40% of sons had one by age 18, compared to 13% of sons of non-criminal fathers.

Question 31

limitation of differential association theory
- individual differences

Answer 31

the theory does not account for individual differences. For example, does not explain how a child exposed to a criminal family never has a criminal conviction. so its too deterministic…presents the issue of self-fulfilling prophecies!!

Question 32

limitation of differential association theory
- difficulty in testing

Answer 32

Sutherland placed great scientific emphasis on his theory, but his concepts are unspecific and difficult to test. He doesn’t operationalise attitudes and values and he doesn’t specify how much pro-criminal values need to outweigh anti-criminal values to create an offender….the theory is unscientific!

Question 33

strength of differential association theory
- refreshing explanation

Answer 33

refreshing explanation to offending because it places blame on the environment rather than solely on the individual…therefore extreme policies such as eugenics are rightfully not an option to deal with offending behaviour.