Forensics Flashcards
top down approach
Offender profiling - likely hypothesis
American approach - 36 murderers
Organised and disorganised
Constructing an FBI profile
Research support - Canter (SSA)
Counter - Godwin - overlaps
Wider application - burglary
Flawed evidence - 36 interviews
Bottom up approach
Investigative psychology
Geographical profile
Evidence for investigative psychology - SSA showed consistent behaviour - case linkage
Counter- database only had solved crimes
Evidence for geographical profile - 120 serial killers ‘circle of gravity’
Geographical information insufficient-
75% unreported
Historical approach- atavistic form
Historical approach-genetic throwbacks
Biological approach - innate
Atavistic form - high cheek bones
Offender types - blood shot eyes (M)
Lombrosos research- 4000 convicts (40%)
Lombrosos legacy- moralistic->scientific
Counter: racist - African - eugenics
Contradictory evidence- no difference 3000
Nature or nurture - poor diet
Genetic and neural explanations
Twin and adoption studies- 50% adoptees if mother offends
Candidate genes - MAOA and CDH13
Diathesis stress model- triggered
Issues with twin evidence- MZ
Support for diathesis stress-13.5,20,24.5
Prefrontal cortex - 11% less grey matter
Mirror neurons - only when asked show empathy
Biological determinism and the law
Intervening variables- neglect can cause APD and neural difference
Eysencks theory to explain offending
Personality theory - 3 dimensions
Biological basis - extra,intra, psycho
Criminal personality-
Role of socialisation- immature
Measuring criminal personality
Research support - high scores compared
Counter- high on P not E or N
Too simplistic- adult brain vs child ,
EPQ too simple - reductionist
Cognitive explanations of offending
Moral development - Kohlberg
Link with criminality - pre conventional level
Research support - less mature
Types of offence - more for white collar crime , not impulsive
Hostile attribution bias
Minimalisation
Real world application- CBT
Types of offence - non contact sex offenders
Differential association theory for explaining offending
Scientific basis
Offending as learnt behaviour
Socialisation in prison - school
Shift of focus- from bio and weakness
Counter - Risks of stereotyping
Wide reach- working class and white collar
Difficulty testing - operationalisation
Psychodynamic explanation for offending
Indequate superego-weak,deviant,over-harsh
Maternal deprivation - 44 thieves - Bowlby
Research support- 10 offenders show superego disturbance and self punishment- over harsh
Counter: rebellious children from harsh parents
Gender bias - girls have weaker super ego as no castration anxiety alpha bias
Other factors- correlation ≠ causation
Custodial sentencing for dealing with offending
Aims of sentencing- 4
Psychological effects of sentencing 3
Recidivism- 45% after 1 year
Psychological effects- 9x suicide
Counter point- pre-existing
Training and treatment - rehabilitation
School for crime
Behaviour modification in custody
Behaviourist principles
Token economy
Designing token economy
Research support - for young offenders
Counter- poor training= less benefits
Easy to implement - no specialist professionals - cost effective
Little rehabilitative value - not permanent
Anger management for dealing with offending
CBT
Three stages
Positive outcome for young offenders
Better then behaviour modification
Counter- not realistic to real world
Anger and offending- non violent crimes
Expensive - highly trained, commitment and time
Restorative justice for dealing with offending
Changing emphasis - against individual
Key features of the programme
Sentencing and restitution
Restorative justice council
Needs of the survivor
Using survivor
Recidivism- less
Remorse- use RJ to avoid punishment
