forensics Flashcards
offender profiling
a tool to help investigators to accurately predict likely offenders
american approach (top down)
offenders are assigned to one of two pre existing categories based on witness accounts and crime scene evidence
organised offender
evidence of pre planning, targets victim, socially and sexually competent and higher than average IQ
disorganised offender
little evidence of planning, leaves clues, socially and sexually incompetent and lower than average IQ
4 steps to constructing an FBI profile
data assimilation
crime scene classification
crime reconstruction
profile generation
top down approach strengths
- research support from Canter- showed that the typology approach has some validity
- it can be applied to other crimes such as burglary- has wider applications than just murder
top down approach limitations
- (counterpoint) Godwin 2002- it is hard to classify offenders into one category as they may show contrasting characteristics- typology is more of a continuum
- it is based on evidence from 36 sexually motivated murderers- small sample and cannot be generalised
bottom up approach
profilers work up from evidence collected at crime scene to develop a hypothesis
investigative psychology
establishes patterns of offending behaviour forming a statistical database
interpersonal coherence
offender’s behaviour at a crime scene reflects their everyday behaviour
forensic awareness
individuals that have been interrogated by police before will 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
canter’s circle theory
marauders operate close to their home
commuters operate further afield
bottom up approach strengths
- (of investigative psychology) Canter and Heritage found that 66 sexual assault cases displayed that the offender showed similar behaviour in crime to real life
- (of geographical profiling) Lundrigan and Canter used small space analysis for 120 murder cases and found that the residence was at the centre
bottom up approach limitations
-(counterpoint) case linkage depends on the database and previously solved crime. May not be helpful for crimes with no links
- (of geographical profiling) may not be sufficient on its own as crimes aren’t always reported and recorded correctly. This info alone may not lead to capture pf offender.
historical approach
criminals are genetic throwbacks , primitive subspecies from non criminals
biological approach (atavistic form)
offending behaviour is innate, a natural tendency that the criminal cannot help and so shouldn’t be blamed
atavistic form
cranial features include narrow sloping brow, strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones and an asymmetric face
offender types (atavistic form)
murderers had bloodshot eyes, curly hair and long ears
Sexual deviants had glinting eyes, fleshy lips and projecting ears
Fraudsters has thin lips
Lombroso’s research
Analysed the facial and cranial features of 383 dead and 3839 living Italian criminals. Concluded that 40% of criminal acts can be explained by atavistic traits
atavistic form strengths
- brought science to the study of crime- Based his ideas on empirical observations and detailed measurements
-revealed that crime may not be as a result of free will- a genetic component to it
]atavistic form limitations
- DeLisi (2012) argues that his legacy is not positive as he used science to support eugenic principles (scientific racism)
-Lack of control- he did not give the same attention to non- prisoners as he did for prisoners when studying atavistic form
twin studies
Christiansen (1977) concluded that concordance rates for offending behaviour are
35% MZ
13% DZ
adoption studies
Crowe (1972)- 50% risk of criminal record for adopted children whose biological mother has a criminal record
Candidate genes
MAOA gene controls serotonin, links to aggression
CDH13 gene links to drug abuse and ADHD
diathesis stress model
offending behaviour is due to inherited factors and environmental influences
neural explanations
differences in brains in offenders and non offenders- research focuses on antisocial personality disorder
prefrontal cortex
Raine (2000) people with APD have reduced prefrontal activity
mirror neurons
Keysers (2011) people with APD showed empathy but only when asked to, neural switch on and off