Forensics

Question 1

Offending behaviour top down USA

Answer 1

AO1
Investigating tool police solve crime
Help reach hypothesis
American approach = top down
FBI interview 36 sexual motivated killed
Narrow Dow
Organised=plan type skilled no clue wife kids
Disorganised = clues unskilled history issues close to crime scene
Ted bundy law student caring prey young WM wear sling ask for help confessed 30
Richard Chase disorganised mental hospital opportunity no type mp effort to hide things blood on his face
Matching profile 4 stages FBI see data assimilation evidence crime scene classification crime reconstruction profile generation
AO3
#### ✅ Research Support
💡 Studies support the idea that serial killers fit into organised/disorganised types. Canter et al. (2004)** analyzed 100 US serial killer cases and found patterns matching the ‘organised’ type. suggests the FBI’s classification has some validity.

💡 Not all criminals fit neatly into one category—some show a mix of traits.
🔎 Canter et al. (2004) found evidence for organised killers but not disorganised ones. Other researchers suggest crimes exist on a spectrum rather than in two strict types.
❌ Why it matters: The system may oversimplify offender behaviour.

💡 Maurice Godwin (2002) found that crimes are not as neatly classified as the FBI suggests.
🔎 His analysis of murder cases showed organised and disorganised traits often overlap. further challenges the validity of the two-category system.

💡 Some argue the top-down method only works for violent crimes (e.g., murder, rape).Critics** say it is less useful for common crimes (e.g., burglary) where motives are different. approach lacks generalisability—but Meketa’s findings suggest it could be expanded.

💡 The FBI’s typology is based on interviews with just 36 criminals, including Ted Bundy.
🔎 Problems: The sample is small and unrepresentative. Interviews were self-reports—criminals may have lied or exaggerated. The basis of the top-down approach lacks scientific credibility.

💡 The approach assumes offenders have a fixed personality that is consistent across crimes. Critics** argue that behaviour changes depending on the situation (e.g., stress, drugs). Why it matters**: This makes profiling less reliable.

✅ Strengths: Some research support** for the ‘organised’ type. Meketa argues it has wider applications beyond violent crime**.

❌ Weaknesses:
- Maurice Godwin & Canter challenge the two-category system. Lacks scientific basis** (based on a small, biased sample). Oversimplifies criminal behaviour** (ignores mixed traits). Personality assumption may be flawed**.

Question 2

Offender profiling bottom up approach
British

Answer 2

AO1
David canter
Make analysis charatristics routine behaviour social background
No fixed tyres make a pattern behaviour data base
Data of crime matched to data base to get info other crimes
Time place forensic awareness
Interpersonal coherence now behave at crime scene interaction with victim
Dwyer 2001 rape max control other sorry
Where he lives works
How good at covering marks involved in police before
Geographic profiling = location linked other crime
Base of offender spatial consistency center gravity canter Larkin 1993
Maurder close transport commuter distance
John Duffy rape railway canter used to catch him
AO3
✅ Strengths (Supporting Evidence)**

1️⃣ Investigative Psychology Works
- Canter & Heritage: Analyzed 66 sexual assault cases. Found consistent patterns in offender behavior. Supports the idea that statistical analysis can identify criminal traits.

2️⃣ Geographical Profiling is Effective
- Lundrigan & Canter**: Studied 120 serial killers in the US.
- Found that crime locations formed a ‘centre of gravity’ near the offender’s base.
- Supports spatial consistency theory (criminals operate close to home).

3️⃣ Scientific & Objective
- Unlike the top-down approach, bottom-up relies on data & statistical analysis rather than intuition.
- Makes it more reliable & scientific.
❌ Weaknesses (Counterpoints & Criticism)**

1️⃣ Data Limitations & Flaws
- Relies on databases → if the data is incomplete or incorrect, results will be misleading.

2️⃣ Limited for Certain Crimes
- Meketa: Found geographical profiling works well for burglary but is less useful for violent crimes (e.g., murder, rape).
- Only tells us ‘where’ an offender might be, not ‘who’ they are.

3️⃣ Not Always Useful for Police
- Copson: Surveyed 48 UK police forces.
- Found that profiling was considered useful in 83% of cases but only led to arrests in 3%.
- Suggests it has limited practical value.

4️⃣ Ainsworth: Practical Limitations
- Profiling requires time, expertise & money → not all police forces can afford to use it.
- In reality, it may not always be feasible.

-

Question 3

Biological explanations

Answer 3

AO1
Atavistic form lombroso
Genetic different
Lack evolutionary development cant adjust to civilised society
Physical marks face head strong jaw high cheeks dark skin extra limb
Murder= Curley hair long ears sex swollen lips fraud thin lips
Lombroso 383 dead 3839 alive 40% had these
AO3
- Positive Contributions:
- Lombroso’s theory had a significant impact by shifting criminology away from a moralistic perspective (where criminal behavior was seen as evil or sinful) to a more scientific approach.
- He is credited as the ‘father of modern criminology’ for promoting the idea that criminal behavior could have biological roots.
- His work suggested that criminals were biologically distinct from non-criminals, emphasizing the need to study crime scientifically.
- By suggesting that offenders might not be morally responsible for their actions (due to biological determinism), Lombroso encouraged more humane treatment of offenders.

• Criticism and Counterpoints:
  
  • Scientific Validity: Critics, such as Matt DeLisi (2012), argue that Lombroso’s theory is flawed and unscientific. His research was heavily biased, with racial undertones and stereotypical assumptions.
  • Causal Issues: The identified atavistic features (e.g., sloping brows, large jaws) are now recognized as signs of poor nutrition or social deprivation rather than indicators of criminality.
  • Subjectivity: Lombroso’s methods lacked rigorous scientific control. His observations were highly subjective, relying on his own judgments rather than standardized criteria.
  • Contradictory Evidence: Later research found that there was no consistent link between physical appearance and criminality. Studies showed that criminals varied significantly in their features, and many people with ‘atavistic’ traits were law-abiding citizens.
• Modern Implications:
  
  • While his theory has been discredited in terms of scientific accuracy, Lombroso’s work was valuable for encouraging research into biological factors in criminal behavior.
  • His influence paved the way for modern forensic psychology, even though his specific conclusions are now outdated.

Question 4

Genetic and neural explanations

Answer 4

AO1
- 2 could be connected criminal have gene structural abnormality of Brain
-Criminal inherit gene twin studies Christiansen 1977 3500 twins Denmark CR for offender behaviour 35% identical MZ 13%non DZ show inherited
-adoption studies Crowe 1972 adopted child whose actual mum had criminal record risk 50% to have one
- candidate gens jari et al 800 Finnish offenders 2 genes MAOA CDH13 ONE SERATIONIN OTHER substance abuse attention deficit hyperactivity disorder found 5-10% all serve violent crime related with them
- diathesis stress model as seen sxhizorina same for offending combination role models genes environment Mexico
Neural
- prefrontal cortex reduced Eton empathy rain et al brain imagery reduced activity 11% grey matter less than control social personality disorder
- mirror neurons active during activity help understand intention emotion normally switched on kesysers et al have to turned on

A03
Issues with Twin Evidence:
Twin studies commonly used to support genetic explanations, but rely on assumption identical twins (MZ) non-identical twins (DZ) share equally similar environments.Critics argue assumption flawed because MZ twins may experience more similar environments than DZ twins (e.g., being treated more alike due to identical appearance).
the higher concordance rates for MZ twins could be influenced by environmental similarity rather than genetics alone. Not 100cr

Support for the Diathesis-Stress Model:
Mednick et al. (1984) studied 13,000 Danish adoptees and found that: 13.5% of adoptees whose biological parents had convictions (but adoptive parents did not) became criminals. 20% when both biological and adoptive parents had convictions.suggests that genetic factors play a significant role, but environmental factors are also crucial, supporting the diathesis-stress model (where biological vulnerability interacts with environmental stressors).

Nature and Nurture (Adoption Studies):
Adoption studies,by Mednick et al., are valuable because they separate genetic influences from environmental ones.
However, these studies are not flawless — some adoptees still spend time with their biological parents before adoption or may be placed in environments similar to their family background. weakens the claim that adoption studies provide a ‘pure’ separation of genetic and environmental influences. Biologically reductionist

Candidate Genes Evidence:
Tiihonen et al. (2015) of 895 Finnish offenders identified two genes linked to criminal behavior:MAOA gene (linked to aggressive behavior through serotonin regulation).CDH13 gene (linked to substance abuse and ADHD).study found that 5-10% of all severe violent crime in Finland could be attributed to these genetic abnormalities.

Brain Evidence (Neural Explanations):
Brain imaging studies provide strong evidence for the link between the frontal lobe and criminal behavior.Raine et al. (1997) found that individuals with reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex (responsible for impulse control) are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior and poor emotional regulation Kandel and Freed (1989) found that damage to the prefrontal cortex is linked aggressive behavior impulsiveness, reinforcing the idea that brain dysfunction can impair self-control.

Intervening Variables:
David Farrington et al. (2006) highlights the complex interplay between biological and social factors. His longitudinal study identified risk factors such as:Low school achievement Poor parenting Poverty environmental factors may interact with biological vulnerabilities, contributing to criminal behavior. the view that no single factor — biological or environmental — is solely responsible for offending.

Mirror Neuron System:
Keysers et al. (2011) revealed that individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) often experience reduced activity in their mirror neuron system.However, when individuals were asked to empathize actively, their mirror neuron system responded normally. suggests that empathy can be activated, implying that APD traits may be influenced by both biological and environmental factors.

Biological Determinism:
Genetic and neural explanations raise concerns about free will and moral responsibility.
If criminal behavior is biologically determined, it challenges the notion that individuals consciously choose to offend, potentially affecting how society views justice and punishment.
While biological predispositions may increase vulnerability, environmental factors are often key in shaping behavior — suggesting criminality is rarely inevitable.

Question 5

Psychological explanations : eysenks theory

Answer 5

AO1

Hans Eysenck proposed that personality is biologically based and can be measured using three traits:
- Extraversion (E) – Outgoing, seeks excitement due to an underactive nervous system.
- Neuroticism (N) – Emotionally unstable, anxious, overreacts to threats due to an overactive nervous system.
- Psychoticism (P) – Aggressive, impulsive, lacks empathy (linked to high testosterone).

According to Eysenck, criminals tend to score high on all three (PEN).

• Personality traits are inherited.
• Extraverts – Underactive nervous system → Seek stimulation through risky behaviours.
• Neurotics – Overactive sympathetic nervous system → Unstable emotions, prone to overreacting.
• Psychotics – High testosterone → Aggressive, unemotional.

• High PEN scores = More likely to commit crime.
• Poor socialisation → Struggle to learn right from wrong → More likely to be impulsive and engage in criminal acts.

• Criminal behaviour develops due to poor socialisation.
• Children usually learn to delay gratification and follow rules, but high PEN individuals don’t learn this effectively.
• They are more difficult to condition and don’t fear punishment as much as others.

• Eysenck developed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) to measure PEN scores.
• Found that criminals typically score higher on P, E, and N than non-criminals.

AO3

✅ Research support – Eysenck & Eysenck (1977) compared 2070 prisoners to 2422 non-criminals using the EPQ → Prisoners scored higher on P, E, and N.
✅ Other studies found similar results, but some show only P is significantly linked to crime.

❌ Too simplistic – Crime is complex; personality alone can’t explain it. Other factors (e.g., environment, peer influence) also matter.
❌ Issues with measurement – Self-report methods like the EPQ may not be reliable (people can lie).
❌ Cultural bias – Research by Bartol & Holanchock (1979) found Hispanic & African-American offenders scored lower on E than non-criminals → Suggests theory may not apply to all cultures.

Question 6

Cognitive explanations for offending

Answer 6

AO1
Look for origins of offending in mind
Kohl berg theory of moral reasoning criminal have lower level
Process which person draws conclusion what is right what is wrong own value system
Kholeberg et al 1973 found group violent youth low moral development
Non offenders high pre conventional
Avoid punishment to get reward
Less mature
Getaway chandler 1973 more egoistic congestive distortions
Irrational negative
See ambitious satiation dangrious aggressive Scholberg + jusyte 55 violent offenders more likely to see emotionally ambiguous as dangerous
Minimisation dont take seriously band USA Kennedy + grubin sex offenders
AO3
#### Level of Moral Reasoning

• Research Support:
  
  • Palmer and Hollin (1998): Used SRM-SF questionnaire, found offenders had lower moral reasoning than non-offenders.
  • Kohlberg (1973): Offenders typically at pre-conventional level → motivated by punishment and reward rather than ethical principles.
• Type of Offence:
  
  • Thornton and Reid (1982):
    
    • Violent offenders (e.g., robbery) → More likely at the pre-conventional level.
    • Financial criminals (e.g., fraud) → Often at a higher moral reasoning level.
  • Suggests Kohlberg’s theory doesn’t apply to all types of crime.
• Evaluation Extra: Thinking vs Behaviour
  
  • Krebs and Denton (2005): Found that moral reasoning is often used after committing a crime to justify actions. Suggests moral reasoning may not cause crime, but be a consequence of it. Moral reasoning focuses on thought processes but ignores external factors (e.g., upbringing, environment).

Cognitive Distortions**

• Real-World Application:
  
  • Used in rehabilitation programs to challenge distorted thinking: CBT for sex offenders** helps them recognise and reduce minimisation. Shows cognitive distortions can be practically applied to reduce reoffending.
• Type of Offence:
  
  • Not all criminals show cognitive distortions. Howitt and Sheldon (2007):** Found sexual offenders used minimisation to shift blame onto victims. Some crimes (e.g., fraud) involve calculated thinking, not distortions.
• Evaluation Extra: Descriptive or Explanatory?
  
  • Describes criminal thinking but doesn’t explain its origins. Doesn’t consider biological or social influences on criminal behaviour. Cognitive distortions alone can’t fully explain crime, other factors matter.

Question 7

Psychological explanations differential association theory

Answer 7

AO1
EDWIN Sutherland 1939 SLT of crime learning behaviour from associations contacts find scientific principles present
Nearest dearest model techniques attitudes
Socialisation in prison reoffend
AO3
#### Shift of Focus:
- Strength: Moved focus away from biological explanations of crime, instead highlighting how social factors influence offending.
- Sutherland (1947): Explained why crime clusters in certain groups, as attitudes and values are learned through social interactions.
- More realistic than biological theories, as it accounts for different environments and experiences rather than assuming people are born criminals.

• Risk of stereotyping → Suggests exposure to criminals will lead to crime, but not everyone exposed commits offences.
• Ignores individual free will → Some resist negative influences and choose not to offend.
• Difficult to measure pro-criminal attitudes → Cannot quantify how much exposure is “enough” to lead to offending.

• Strength: Can explain a variety of crimes, including:
  
  • White-collar crime (Sutherland, 1949) → Highlights how crime isn’t limited to lower-class groups but also occurs among professionals.
  • Corporate and organised crime → Learned techniques and justifications passed down in criminal networks.

• Limitation: Hard to scientifically test the influence of pro-criminal attitudes.
• Causal problem → Cannot prove whether exposure to crime causes offending, or whether criminals seek out like-minded people.
• Subjectivity in measuring attitudes → No clear way to define what counts as “pro-criminal” or measure its effect.
• Weakens scientific credibility → Makes it difficult to apply in research.

• Sutherland’s View: Emphasised the role of the family and social environment in shaping criminal behaviour.
• Ignores biological influences (e.g., genetics, brain structures).
• Counterpoint: Some research suggests criminal behaviour runs in families due to genetics, not just social learning.
• Real-World Impact: Supports interventions that focus on changing social influences rather than biological treatment.

Question 8

Psychodynamic

Answer 8

AO1

AO3

• Strength: Evidence supports the link between offending and the Superego.
• Goreta (1991) found that ten offenders referred for psychiatric treatment all had disturbances in Superego formation.
• Unconscious guilt and a need for self-punishment led to offending, suggesting an over-harsh Superego.
• Supports the idea that psychic conflicts contribute to criminal behavior.
• Counterpoint:
  
  • The inadequate Superego theory lacks strong support.
  • If the theory were correct, harsh, punitive parents would raise guilt-ridden children.
  • Instead, research (Kochanska et al., 2001) shows these children are more likely to be rebellious and lack guilt.
  • This challenges the idea that a strong internal parent leads to excessive guilt.

• Limitation: Freud’s theory is gender-biased (alpha bias).
• Assumes girls develop a weaker Superego due to less intense identification with their mother (compared to boys with their father).
• If true, women should offend more than men, but in reality, men are far more likely to be imprisoned.
• Hoffman (1975) found no significant gender differences in morality, and when differences appeared, girls were often more moral than boys.
• Suggests Freud’s theory is not an accurate explanation of offending behavior.

• Limitation: Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory is based only on an association, not causation.
• Lewis (1954) found that maternal deprivation was a poor predictor of future offending.
• Other factors, such as poverty, could better explain the link between childhood separation and later crime.
• Suggests maternal deprivation may contribute to offending but is not the sole cause.

• Strength: First theory to link early childhood experiences to moral development and offending, now a widely accepted idea in criminology.
• Highlighted the emotional basis of offending, which is often ignored in other theories.
• Limitation: Many key psychodynamic concepts (e.g., the unconscious, Superego) can’t be empirically tested.
• Without scientific evidence, these explanations rely more on subjective interpretation than objective validation.