Forensics Flashcards
1
Q
Offender profiling
A
Investigation tools Used by professionals to catch criminals. profiling offenders narrows down a list of traits police should focus on to find a suspect.
2 types approaches to profiling:
- top-down
- bottom-up
2
Q
Top-down approach
A
- Originates in 1970s, FBI where they conducted many interviews w 36 sexually motivated serial killers To understand/collect specific details about their behaviour,crimes n crime scenes, so a database of common traits could be developed
- Databases were used to find patterns in the samples’ behaviours and create templates of offenders: Framework of typical offender behaviours!that could be used to make assumptions about current offenders
- (top-down basically uses precious findings to make sense of current crimes n create a profile feds should focus investigation on)
- templates include distinction bw organised/disorganised offenders n distinctions made after crime scene analysis occurred
Organised offenders:
•crime plannned
•lil evidence left behind
•no weapons/bodies
•closely obo media to c the investigation on case
•average/high intelligence
•likely employed
•likely experienced inconsistent discipline in childhood
disorganised offenders:
•victim random
•evidence left (semen,blood,fingerprints, body)
•spontaneous crime
•likely unemployed
•below average intelligence
•likely experienced harsh childhood punishment
3
Q
Evaluate top-down approach
A
Pros:
-
High eco validity
Because it was created it, FBI so templates used to profile offenders are shaped around investigations. Strength cos rooted in real practice n can likely be generalised current investigations -
Impact on crime scene analysis
There is a symbiotic relationship between profilers n crime scene analysts, and they both have positive influence on each other. crime scene are increasingly more aware of what needed by profilers to support development of profile. This advbcz suggests the top-down approach helps catch offenders are more than one way
Cons:
-
Low pop valid
As it’s based on a very specific sample of offenders (murders/rapists) Interviews were focused on extreme offenders, so not representative of a wide spectrum of criminals. This means the top-down approach is limited to use, and is only useful for rapists and murderers, not common crimes eg theft/fraud -
Hindrance to feds
can argue it is dangerous, if too much emphasis is put on offender profiles, which could result in the Police focusing on profile and sacrificing other avenues that maybe useful. Thought there’s use to offender profiling, it shouldn’t be overly relied upon and should be used to help investigations, not lead it
4
Q
Bottom-up approach
A
- Modern approach to profiling created by Canter 1990. It revolves around data analysis, geographical profiling an investigative psychology to build a profile based on facts, not hunches
- Assumptions are only made after crime scene data is scrutinised n comparisons have been made to similar crimes with data has been recorded
Investigative psychology A strand of the bottom up, profiling that focuses on the key areas of analysis to build a profile of an offender:
-
Forensic Awareness-
Using the evidence left behind to determine if an offender has any education regarding crimes scenes or investigations
eg no evidence suggests knowldge of leaving no evidence -
time n place
can help understand the lifestyle of offender
eg if in morning then likely unemployed -
Criminal career
Can infer from the crime scene if an offender has experience of crimes -
Interpersonal coherence
Analysing the behaviour of an offender can help understand that offenders behaviour in day-to-day life
eg way offender communicates with the victim can indicate treat displayed irl -
Criminal characteristics
Data will allow investigators to make assumptions about Offenders demographics eg age/sex
Geographical profiling
Refers to the analysis of time and location to identify patterns of an offender and allow profliers to determine if the offender is a commuter/marauder which allows profilers to est jeopardy circle (Area likely to contain next crime scene based on patterns found)
5
Q
Evaluate bottom-up approach
A
Pros:
-
useful in catching offenders
Canter 1986 Use this to provide a profile for the railway rapist who killed/sexually assaulted women in London railway stations. when convicted 12/17 characteristics proved to be accurate showing the bottom up approach is used in fighting crime -
Scientific approach to profiling
Uses data and assumptions r data driven, so the approaches objective. In contrast, with the top down approach is not data reliant and based on templates from extremely offenders. also bottom-up useful for making profiles on wide range of crimes unlike top-down. increases the value of the bottom-up approach
Cons:
-
Hindrance to feds
can argue it is dangerous, if too much emphasis is put on offender profiles, which could result in the Police focusing on profile and sacrificing other avenues that maybe useful. Thought there’s use to offender profiling, it shouldn’t be overly relied upon and should be used to help investigations, not lead it -
Low validity
relies on self-reports of police involved in investigations.
Morgan 2003 Profiles helped police catch perpetrators, but also when the police were given fake profiles, they said it’s still useful. Listening to Uncle Imran’s of this approach is plagued with validity issues so people skeptical of its usefulness 
6
Q
Bio explanation to offender behaviour
A
assumes offender behaviour due to physiology not env
- Historical approach/Atavistic form
- Genes n neural explanation
7
Q
Historical approach/Atavistic form
A
- lombroso 1876 1st first to offer theory, abt why people commit crime. He used his medical experience to conduct investigations into the skulls/physiology of deceased criminals in Italian prison.
- 4000 criminals were investigated along w 400 criminal skills. He concluded there’s common traits amongst all criminals (traits aka Atavistic form):
Strong jawline, monobrow, heavy brow, large ears, thin lips, extra toe/nipple, dark hair, curly hair - he criminals were primitive n didn’t physically evolve enough to fit into society n can’t control behaviour since born this way
8
Q
Evaluate Historic approach/atavistic form
A
cons:
-
Mixed research evidence
Goring 1913 tried replicate the findings of lombroso w prisoners in ldn but found no link bw atavistic form n criminal behaviour. This reduces reliability of Lombroso’s findings n perhaps results are only w italian prisoners so low pop validity -
Bio determinist
By saying criminal behaviour is due to atavistic form, of which one has no control over n no regard is given to free will, can have consqeunces
eg it’ll contradict justice system where person can blame bio so no accountability n suggests even if convicted/punished, they’ll do again cos can’t help their bio -
Bio reductionist
Too focused on nature side of debate by stating offender behaviour due to physiology n no consideration for nurture factors like env eg social pressure. Limits historic approach n instead holistic approach considering other factors more creditworthy eg stress
Pros:
-
1st theory
despite all that, it was first scientific attempt to understanding why ppl commit crime n used large sample of prisoners. Means he played a key role in beginning to understand criminal behaviour w intent to counter it.
9
Q
Genetic
A
- geneticists propose offender behaviour caused by shared genetic mutations ina family and having these mutations mean individuals predisposed to commit crime
- supports:
Price et al 1956 found violent criminals have XXY chromosome which increases testosterone which increases aggression- shows genetics link to behaviour - Twin studies are also used to c if genes plays role in offender behaviour. concordance rates bw MZ n DZ twins are used n if offender behaviour genetic, then the higher the concordance rate would be bw the MZ n DZ twins
Pros:
-
Raine 1993 found 52% w MZ n 21% w DZ showing there’s a link bw offender behaviour n genetics
COUNTER:
concordance rates not 100% w MZ meaning other factors involved in if one commits crime or not eg stress. Limits genetic explanation n instead interactionist approach using diathesis stress model would be more creditworthy -
Scientific
methods eg genetic testing/PET scans are used in bio explanations n they’re highly objective bcz no bias. Means replicable n falsifiable. Increases reliability of bio explanations to offender behaviour cos can be retested n better than other approaches eg psychodynamic
Cons:
-
Bio determinism
implies offender behaviour due to bio processes n no free will over if offends or not. socially sensitive consequences cos can blame bio so no accountability n will contradict justice system eg if punished this basically says they’ll do it again cos can’t control it which isn’t necessarily case. Weakens bio explanation to offender behaviour -
Bio reductionism
Assumes offender behaviour only due to bio factors n no consideration for other factors eg env stress n how that’ll influence criminal behaviour. holistic view more suitable in understanding offender behaviour
10
Q
Neural explanation
A
Neurochemistry:
-
Noradrenaline
linked to offending bcz part of fight/flight response where impaired decision-making can increase -
High dopamine
linked to arousal/reward-seeking behaviour therefore implies crime -
Serotonin
implicates to offender behaviour bcz responsible for mood regulation n impulsiveness so increased impulsiveness can lead to criminal behaviour
Brain structure:
- may play role in offender behaviour. Limbic system contains amygdala which processes emotional info. Research found small amygdala linked to lack of empathy in offenders which can explain lack of guilt/remorse when doing crimes
- Prefrontal cortex regulates impulsivity n associated w offender if damaged or underdeveloped
Pros:
-
Scientific
methods eg genetic testing/PET scans are used in bio explanations n they’re highly objective bcz no bias. Means replicable n falsifiable. Increases reliability of bio explanations to offender behaviour cos can be retested n better than other approaches eg psychodynamic
Cons:
-
Bio determinism
implies offender behaviour due to bio processes n no free will over if offends or not. socially sensitive consequences cos can blame bio so no accountability n will contradict justice system eg if punished this basically says they’ll do it again cos can’t control it which isn’t necessarily case. Weakens bio explanation to offender behaviour -
Bio reductionism
Assumes offender behaviour only due to bio factors n no consideration for other factors eg env stress n how that’ll influence criminal behaviour. holistic view more suitable in understanding offender behaviour
11
Q
psychological explanations to offenders behaviour
A
- Eysenck’s theory
- cognitive explanations
- differential association theory
- psychodynamic explanation
12
Q
Eysenck’s theory
A
- Eysenck stated criminal behaviour is more likely, if someone has a specific combination of personality traits And these personality traits are biologically predisposed so perso has roots in nature
- Eysenck devised a self-report tool that would measure on scale extroversion neuroticism n psychoticism to determine if someone has criminal personality or not. (aka EPI- Eysenck’s personality inventory):
Extraversion-Introversion:
measures amount of sensations a person sought. (bio extraversion linked to arousal lvls in brain)
Neuroticism-stability
measures emotional activity expressed inna individual (bio linked to limbic system)
Psychoticism
measures morals,guilt,remorse Experienced by individual (bio influenced by hormones eg test)
- claimed any perso type could be explained by high/low measures of these 3 combos
- stated criminals have ‘PEN’ perso (high of each 3) n more likely commit crime than someone w another perso type
- claimed these 3 combos is why ppl commit crime n PEN persos engaged in crime cos of risk-taking behaviours from extraversion, impulsiveness from neuroticism n lack of remorse bcz of psychoticism
13
Q
evaluate eysenck’s theory
A
pros:
-
Research support
Eysenck used his EPI on 2000 prisoners n found they scored high on all 3 compared to control grp.
COUNTER:
evidence for extraversion/neuroticism was mixed suggesting only some of his theory correct -
Pos implications
Claiming personalities lead to crime could lead to changes in parenting skills on the school strategies to prevent high levels of neuroticism/psychoticism. Criminal behaviour to be prevented n detect who maybe criminal in future
cons:
-
Hard determinism
Assumes I’m another possibility is a biological origin and cannot change. Limited because it suggests we have no free really if we get into crime or not. This reduces accountability and conflicts justice system, where people should be remorseful and punished but the theory states that they won’t be remorseful and will continue to do crime -
Reductionist
Despite stating personality determines if someone offends, and linking it to biology, it’s reductionist as claims personalities predisposed n cannot be ‘built up’ eg by env. limits their bcz no account for environmental factors, eg maternal deprivation on whether someone offends or not
14
Q
Cog explanations:
Cog distortions
A
Piagget 1932 proposed Children develop cog skills as they grow up and their thghts alter w maturity.
Recently, cog psychs considered cog distortions n problems w morality development to be cause of offender behaviour.
It’s stated criminals have common cog distortions (think irrationally so have altered view of reality):
-
Minimisation
cog bias that minimises guilt by Underplaying severity. Done to rationalise behaviour
eg
thief steals from shop n caught n says wasn’t that bad cos victimless crime -
Hostile attribution bias
explaining/justifying behaviour by putting blame on someone else
eg
offender says victim disrespected them so they hurt them -
Differential association
learning criminal behaviour from someone else or having pro-crime attitude
eg
kids that grew up in high crime env likely to c antisocial behaviour as norm than normal behaviour
15
Q
Cog explanations:
Moral development
A
- Kohlberg Stated criminals have different levels of moral development compared to non-criminals
- He proposed moral development correlates with age and might be stunted in offenders
- To investigate moral development, he created the moral dilemma paradigm (featured dilemma qs about person committing crime n p(s) gotta say who’s right/wrong)
- from this research proposal stages of moral development n suggested some people will never reach final stages so likelier to commit crime
-
Pre-conventional morality
up to 9yo where right n wrong depends on outcome of behaviour
• behaviour punished/rewarded
• multiple views about right n wrong recognised -
Conventional morality
most teens. morality internalised from others n society
•gain approval by following rules
•increased awareness of law so compliance increases -
post-conventional morality
adults. idea that justice governs behaviour
• own principles develop n break rules that don’t comply w principles
• follow laws believe are just n disobey unjust
