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
16
Q
Evaluate cog explanations
A
pros
-
research support
research has found link bw hostile attribution bias n domestic violence n sex offenders where they blame victims for provoking em. This shows support that cog distortions has role in offender behaviour -
Pos implications
suggests CBT can be used to correct offenders irrational thoughts n replace w rational. Adv cos can contribute to rehab or even prevent kids becoming future criminals. This increases value of cog explanation cos irl benefits
Cons:
-
Reductionist
Only considers cognitions eg Distortions/moral development. Fails to consider effects of the env or bio factors. Limited because offender behaviour, very complex, and instead a holistic view, considering different factors need to be considered to truly understand offender behaviour  -
Beta bias
Kohlberg’s research guilt of this. Study was done on males n assuming women have same stages of moral development incorrect as they more nurturing,caring n empathetic which could affect whether they commit crimes or not. Limited bcz assumes they same when not case n instead further research gotta be done to understand women’s cognitions to offender behaviour
17
Q
Differential association
A
-
Sutherland 1939 claimed person learns criminal behaviour if exposed to other criminals or have pro-crime attitude and they’ll be likelier to commit crime if surrounded by these ppl.
also claimed:
•criminal behaviour learnt same way as behaviour (modelled thru other ppl
• small grps likelier influential than big grps
• repeated exposure to pro-crime/criminals increases chance person learns criminal behaviour
• any1 can commit crime regardless of demographics
Pros:
-
Pos implications
suggests criminal behaviour learnt so can have irl applications where Gov n skls take effort to increase anti-crime attitudes instead of pro-crime. Strength cos combats crime -
Research support
many research cases found criminals have history of exposure to other family members that are criminals. This shows that offender behaviour is learnt
cons
-
env reductionist
assumes offender behaviour bcz of env n those around them. Fails to consider other factors eg bio or psychodynamic. Holistic view… -
incomplete theory
doesn’t explain why those who grew up w criminals or pro-crime ppl don’t commit crime. Individual differences gotta be considered to understand why ppl commit crime
18
Q
Psychodynamic explanation
A
- Freud Stating the kids go through psychosexual stages of development to avoid adulthood fixations
- This occurs during the time the superego develops (morality principle)
- It’s argued, offender behaviour may occur if there is a problem with the way the superego developed during the phallic stage(psychosexual development). 3 issues w superego that can explain offender behaviour:
-
Underdeveloped superego
lack of identification w same sex parents leads to inability up control ID’s desires so likely to commit crime -
Overdeveloped superego
Feels guilty so commits crime to be punished n May also create a build-up of pressure that causes outburst -
Deviant superego
if same-sex parent had deviant morals, then child internalises this too so increases chance of offending
maternal deprivation
Disruption of attachment between child and primary caregiver. Bowlby Propose, this would lead to issues with the embassy, emotionally more sense, suggested some people live, affectionless psychopathy if maternal dep occurs in critical period. It’s suggested this leads to unhealthy IWM which increases chances of offending without guilt n remorse
19
Q
evaluate psychodynamic explanation
A
Pros:
-
Research support
Bowlby 1944 found in his 44 thieves study that kids who experienced maternal dep in critical period likely develop affectionless psychopathy n increase chance of committing crime. Supports idea that distruptions in childhood has role in offender behaviour
Cons:
-
Overdeveloped superego maybe false
suggests ppl commit crime due to guilt n wanna be caught but doesn’t explain why majority of criminals commit crime n go thru great effort to not get caught. This questions accuracy of overdeveloped superego in explaining offender behaviour -
Psychic determinism
Proposes offender behaviour is explainable by childhood experiences n ignores that we have free will. this conflicts the justice system and suggest people that had negative childhood experiences will continue doing crimes and when this is not the case. This weakens psychodynamic explanation to offender behaviour
20
Q
Dealing w offender behaviour
A
- custodial sentencing
- behavioural modification (token ecos)
- anger management
- restorative justice
21
Q
custodial sentencing
A
aims :
-
Deterrence
experiencing directly or vicariously should deter ppl away from crime -
Confinement
reduce crime lvls by locking away criminals -
Rehabilitation
programmes that help re-integrate offenders into society -
Retribution
where the criminal “pays for” what they done n gives justice to the victims
Psychological effects of custodial sentencing:
-
Instituitionalisation
prisoners may become reliant on prison routine n struggle to live outside prison when released -
Mental health
according to Ministry of Justice survey, prisoners mental health worsens in prison than pre-prison
eg cos of threats/loss of liberty
Recidivism
relapse of criminal behaviour after being convicted. Used to determine how effective justice system is
22
Q
evaluate custodial sentencing
A
cons:
-
ineffective deterrent
Prisoners may prefer routine of prison, eg regular breakfast, despite lack of freedom n chance of danger, than life outside prison due to the routine. As a result recidivism rates may increase which shows it’s not an effective deterrent -
Mental health issues
the ministry of justice survey showed mental health worsens in prison than before it. As a result, they may find it harder to re-integrate back to society so increases risk of recidivism. This shows not effective in reducing crime -
Costly&ineffective
ministry of justice showed cost of prison very high prisoner so bad for eco. It was found cheaper methods, eg court-ordered community service, is more effective in reducing recidivism rates. This shows custodial seneticimg should only be used for perhaps extreme offenders and different punishments should be used for small-scale crimes, which in turn saves p n reduces recidivism rates
23
Q
Behaviour modification (token eco)
A
- Programs in a prison, aiming to change prisoners behaviours Using operant conditioning
- Desirable behaviours identified and positive reinforcement is used to shape offenders behaviour
- A token is only given if a desirable behaviours displayed, which can then be exchanged for a reward
eg avoids fight so given token - token can also be removed if undesirable behaviour shown
Pros:
-
research support
Hobbs found young offenders improved their behaviour when token ecos used compared to control grp. Shows it’s useful in dealing w offender behaviour -
Low ecological validity
while the token eco may work in prison, possible prisoners won’t maintain desirable behaviour outside prison as they won’t receive a reward. This could increase chance of recidivism so questionable how useful it is in treating offender behaviour -
Play system
prisoners can easily play the system by displaying good behaviour in exchange for tokens. Dangerous bcz unclear if they acc changed n can display good behaviour to be released early which could then result in increased recidivism rates
24
Q
Anger management
A
- given to prisoners as a form of CBT to reduce recidivism/violence
- AIM:
is to change way they respond to situs that lead to anger to avoid violence - it was developed in 1970s n helps change behaviour by professing thru stages to identify: behavioural, cognitive n emotional patterns that need to change
stages:
Cog preparation
talking w therapist to identify triggers of anger n challenge if rational
Skills acquisition
taught coping strats eg relaxation techniques n thought stopping
Application practice
roleplay to test skills learnt n reflect on progress made
pros:
-
research support
Ireland 2004 found 92% improvement in behaviour of prisoners that received this compared to control grp. suggests effective way of dealing w prisoners
Cons:
-
Not useful for all offenders
hella offenders are non-violent
eg thief may steal without intent to physically harm
suggests only useful for violent offenders -
cant measure long term benefits
data for the effectiveness would be based on recidivism rates n this depends on whether a person is caught n confesses. Many could go uncaught so true measure of its usefulness is not known n reduces validity of research into the effectiveness of anger management
25
Q
Restorative justice
A
- involves offender coming f2f w victim along w a professional mediator to reach same closure as part of prisoners rehab n victims recovery
- Aim is to get offender to understand human consequences of their actions n allow victim to express feelings
Pros:
-
Research support
It was found offenders change their perspective about crime After engaging in restorative justice, and reduce the chance of recidivism. also victims mental bath improved
Shows restorative justice useful in dealing w offenders -
cost effective
cheaper than custodial sentencing so better for eco. Shows useful for eco, offender, victim so has multiple benefits -
Not applicable to all offenders
in some cases restorative justice maybe inappropriate
eg in domestic abuse case, it maybe opportunity for offenders to assert dominance on victim.
This can worsen offender behaviour further n only maybe useful for some offender cases not all. So instead of nomo approach assuming it works for everyone, idio approach would be better looking at the offender’s attributes n crimes n victims attributes
26
Q
Restorative justice
A
- involves offender coming f2f w victim along w a professional mediator to reach same closure as part of prisoners rehab n victims recovery
- Aim is to get offender to understand human consequences of their actions n allow victim to express feelings
Pros:
-
Research support
It was found offenders change their perspective about crime After engaging in restorative justice, and reduce the chance of recidivism. also victims mental bath improved
Shows restorative justice useful in dealing w offenders -
cost effective
cheaper than custodial sentencing so better for eco. Shows useful for eco, offender, victim so has multiple benefits -
Not applicable to all offenders
in some cases restorative justice maybe inappropriate
eg in domestic abuse case, it maybe opportunity for offenders to assert dominance on victim.
This can worsen offender behaviour further n only maybe useful for some offender cases not all. So instead of nomo approach assuming it works for everyone, idio approach would be better looking at the offender’s attributes n crimes n victims attributes
