forensics

Question 1

offender profiling def

Answer 1

investigative tool that aims to narrow the field of inquiry and list of likely suspects
analysing evidence, generates hypotheses about probable characteristics of offender

Question 2

top down approach

Answer 2

also called typology approach
matching what is known about the crime and offender to a pre-existing template
murderers or rapists classified into organised or disorganised

Question 3

organised offender characteristics

Answer 3

• evidence of planning the crime
• targeted victim
• high degree of control during crime
• little evidence left
• above average IQ
• socially and sexually competent
• usually married

Question 4

disorganised offender characteristics

Answer 4

• little evidence of planning
• crime scene reflects impulsive nature of attack
• body usually still there - little control
• lower than average IQ
• socially and sexually incompetent
• tend to live alone and close to where offence took place

Question 5

top down approach: constructing an FBI profile - 4 stages

Answer 5

data assimilation - profiler reviews evidence

crime scene classification - either organised or disorganised

crime reconstruction - hypotheses in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of victim etc

profile generation - hypotheses related to the likely offender

Question 6

top down approach eval

Answer 6

• only used for high profile cases => where there are obvious visible characteristics (eg rape and sadistic murder), so unlikely to be effective for burglaries or middle class crimes. therefore top down approach may only be effective for offender profiling of ‘blue-collar’ crimes, lacks generalisability

Question 7

modus operandi def and eval

Answer 7

it’s the core assumption of profiling
- theory of personality : criminals often operate in a similar way because we assume personality is consistent ‘stable personality’ meaning it doesn’t change (patterns in crimes leads to who did it)

eval:
- outdated model of personality => based on stable dispositional traits rather than external factors that constantly change

Question 8

bottom up approach to offender profiling

Answer 8

uses no pre established typology, develops profile via analysis of crime scene and EWT

investigative psychology => each crime is recorded onto a database, details are matched with this database to develop hypotheses about likely characteristics, motivations and social demographic. (much greater emphasis on scientific methods and statistical analysis)
emphasises time and place as well as interpersonal coherence => suggests how the criminal treats the victim reflects their functioning in real life

geographical profiling => suggests each offender has an operational base that can be inferred through mapping locations of previous crimes. forms circular shape with operational base at the centre, can also be used to predict future crimes.

all based on assumption that the way offenders carry out crimes are constant (same modus operandi)
- can be classed as marauders (close to operational base)
- or commuters (far away from operational base)

Question 9

evaluating bottom up approach

Answer 9

• not always accurate => Copson found it only led to successful identification 3% of cases. however was useful 83% of the time so therefore may be best used to narrow field of enquiry rather than be the primary method of offender identification

+ relies on scientific methods => and statistical analysis, to establish correlations between variables and offender characteristics. unlike top down which is over simplistic

Question 10

atavistic form

Answer 10

historical approach to offender profiling by Lombroso (1876)

offenders are ‘genetic throwbacks’ or primitive sub-species ill-suited to conforming to modern society roles (he called them ‘savage and untamed nature’)

Lombroso is credited as moving criminology into a more rigorous scientific realm, and his ideas may well have laid the foundation for modern offender profiling techniques

he studied cranial features of 383 dead and 3839 alive criminals, approximately 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by atavistic characteristics

Question 11

evaluating atavistic form - Goring

Answer 11

contradictory evidence Goring 1913 => 3000 criminals and 3000 non criminals he concluded there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics. questions key element of theory that criminals are different in appearances. it had a control group unlike Lombroso. HOWEVER it is old research so validity can be questioned as early research often lacked adequate control over EV and CVs.

Question 12

evaluating atavistic form

Answer 12

• gives scientific backing to racism => just because people have certain atavistic features doesn’t mean they are or are destined to be a criminal. if these features are present in many people in a culture then they could be treated unfairly
• unscientific => dated methodology, didn’t use statistical analysis or a control group from another culture, entire sample was Italian. we don’t know how significant the results are as there is no control group or random allocation controlling confounding effects of participant variables

Question 13

biological explanations for criminal behaviour: genetic

Answer 13

heritability and role of candidate genes

Christiansen et al 1977 => concordance rates of 33% for 87 MZ twins and 12% for 147 DZ twins. suggests moderate genetic basis of criminal behaviour
- however not 100% concordance for MZ so interaction between genes and environment produces outcome => diathesis stress model

candidate genes suggested by Tiihonen et al => abnormalities in the MAOA and CDH-13 genes coding for serotonin and dopamine. increases likelihood of becoming a criminal by 13x

Question 14

biological explanations for criminal behaviour: neural

Answer 14

focus on individuals with APD, common amongst criminals
Raine et al => criminals have a lower volume and activity level (11% reduction) in the prefrontal cortex, responsible for logical thinking and decision making. supports the idea that criminals find it hard to regulate emotions so make irrational decisions

Keysers et al => found criminals have a ‘neural switch’ which they can use to turn their empathy on or off. mirror neurons - if they see empathy in others they can do it too. this may explain why and how criminals lack empathy to their victims

Question 15

evaluating biological explanations of criminal behaviour

Answer 15

• twin studies used to show genetic basis of behaviour but this ignores other variables. eg their environments are probably very similar compared to normal siblings which may explain why MZ concordance is higher. suggests causal conclusions about genetic basis of criminality have incorrectly been reached

+ Mednick et al diathesis stress model support => analysed court convictions of 14,427 adoptees with adoptive and biological parents. concluded siblings adopted separately into different homes tended to be concordant for convictions, especially if they shared a father with criminal behaviour. supports idea criminality is only likely to be an outcome if genetic susceptibility is paired with environmental stressors.

• biological reductionism => other risk factors associated with criminality run in families eg a high frequency of exposure to pro-criminal attitudes, a lack of educational opportunities, and economic deprivation. so it is important not to stereotype children from criminal families as ‘criminal’ as this makes them more likely to adopt the idea

Question 16

psychological explanations for criminal behaviour- Eysenck

Answer 16

specific criminal personality (neurotic-extrovert) which is measured across 2 dimensions initially, with the 3rd dimension added later
biological approach as it views behaviour as being due to nervous system activity => extroverts have an underactive amygdala so are always looking for new stimulation, explaining their impulsive nature
neurotic-extrovert personalities are unable to perceive antisocial behaviour as negative or undesirable
=> personality measured using EPI (eysenck personality inventory)

Question 17

evaluating EPI

Answer 17

• reductionist approach to assessing and measuring personality => personality traits are unlikely to all be accounted for using only 3 dimensions. these traits are also likely to change depending on who we interact with, therefore not always stable. therefore may not offer an accurate account of personality
• cultural bias => sample drawn from western culture. Bartol and Holanchock found Hispanic convicts were less extrovert compared to non-criminal control group. lacks generalisability as not universal

Question 18

cognitive explanations for offending behaviour - Kohlberg 3 levels

Answer 18

Kohlberg => suggested 3 universal levels of moral reasoning
1. pre-conventional level => doing what is right to avoid punishment, or personal gain/self-interest

2. conventional level => maintaining societal order, considering societal laws and living up to expectations and roles to be a good girl/boy
3. post-conventional level => social contract = doing what is right even if it’s against the law, valuing human life

Question 19

cognitive explanations for criminals

Answer 19

• Kohlberg says they’re more likely to be at the preconventional level of the model
• less mature and childlike reasoning, therefore adults at this level may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards eg money or respect

Question 20

support for Kohlbergs model

Answer 20

Chandler 1973 => suggests offenders are more egocentric and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non-offenders

they don’t exhibit conventional behaviours like honesty, generosity and non violence

Question 21

Kohlbergs story => Heinz

Answer 21

Heinz wife was dying from cancer.
chemist made drug to save her but charged 10x the money it cost to make the drug, way more than Heinz can afford.
Heinz could only raise half the money, chemist refused because he wants to make money from it.
Heinz then broke in and stole the drug.

Question 22

cognitive explanations for offending : cognitive distortions => hostile attribution bias AND minimalisation

Answer 22

HAB => viewing emotionally ambiguous or non-threatening situations as hostile and threatening.
when 55 violent offenders were exposed to pictures of facial expressions that weren’t clearly hostile, the majority viewed them as aggressive

minimalisation => used as a coping mechanism for guilt, under-exaggerating the significance of their crimes and emotional consequences suffered by the victims.
35% of child molesters tried to justify their crimes as non-malicious, and 36% didn’t accept committing a crime at all

Question 23

eval of cognitive biases

Answer 23

+ real life application => sex offenders are especially susceptible to minimalisation to justify their crimes, so CBT tackles this and results in reduced recidivism rates. offers a refreshing alternative to prison, offers opportunities to learn and rehabilitation

Question 24

psychological explanations for offending: differential association theory

Answer 24

Sutherland suggests crime is a learned behaviour, explained using social learning theory where ‘role models’ are criminal peers.

suggests it’s possible to accurately predict the likelihood that an individual will become criminal based on their exposure to pro or anti criminal attitudes

=> observer learn general attitudes toward crime as well as skills and knowledge required to carry out specific crimes

if frequency and intensity of exposure to pro-criminal attitudes is greater than anti-criminal, then highly likely the individual will become criminal

…talk about frequency, duration, intensity

Question 25

Farrington et al 2006 study to support Sutherland

Answer 25

longitudinal survey on 411 boys => began when they were 8, living in a deprived inner city area of south london. (associating with criminals)

41% were convicted at least once between 10-50.
average conviction between 19-28 and included 5 convictions.

most important childhood risk factors at 8-10 were family criminality, daring or risk taking, low school attainment, poverty and poor parenting.

Question 26

evaluating Sutherland

Answer 26

• hard to objectively measure frequency and intensity of exposure to criminal attitudes, any conclusions drawn lack validity. most likely self report which presents validity issues in itself

Question 27

psychodynamic explanations for criminality

Answer 27

unconscious conflicts rooted in early childhood, determined by interactions with parents drive future criminal behaviour

Blackburn 1993 => 3 types of inadequate superego (formed at the end of the phallic stage) contains the child’s internalised sense of right and wrong from their same sex parent

• deviant superego => child internalises abnormal moral standards from criminal parents. eg doesn’t associate guilt with wrongdoing
• weak superego => if same sex parent is absent, lack of identification. makes immoral behaviour more likely
• overharsh superego => child is brought up in harsh environment, end up being crippled with guilt and anxiety. unconsciously drives you to commit crime to satisfy superego’s need for punishment.

based on Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation that leads to affectionless psychopathy

Question 28

evaluating psychodynamic explanations

Answer 28

• 44 thieves study contradiction => Lewis 1959 found maternal deprivation wasn’t indicative or a reliable predictor of likelihood of becoming a criminal in the future. he also found maternally deprived kids weren’t disadvantaged in forming close relationships in adulthood
• gender bias => in line with Freud, girls should be at greater risk of criminality because they have penis envy, so their superego hasn’t been internalised as much as boys. however statistical evidence shows more men are offenders
• unfalsifiable

Question 29

4 aims of custodial sentencing

Answer 29

deterrence: put people off committing crimes
incapacitation: protecting public from the criminal
retribution: eye for an eye in accordance to severity
rehabilitation: opportunity for training and treatment to reduce rates of recidivism

Question 30

effects of custodial sentencing

Answer 30

stress
depression => 7.5% women, 6.3% men
institutionalisation => impairs offenders ability to readjust to normal life beyond prison walls
prisonisation

Question 31

custodial sentencing ao3

Answer 31

• prison doesn’t affect everyone the same way => eg the extent of effects depends on dispositional traits, length of prison sentence, previous experiences, type of prison eg maximum security. this means custodial sentencing can be more or less effective for certain people, so shouldn’t be viewed as universally effective at dealing with all types of offending behaviour

+ prisoners surrounded by opportunities for learning and training => eg sex offenders have compulsory CBT schemes to reduce effects of their minimalisation and therefore recidivism.

• Smith et al => meta analysis of over 100 studies looking at r/ship between reoffending, length of sentence and use of prison vs non custodial sentences. found recividism rate was no lower in prison than non custodial sentencing, and that longer prison terms did not lower the risk of reoffending