FORENSICS

Question 1

limitations of measuring crime

x4

Answer 1

victim surveys mixed support:
surveys include crimes not reported to the police e.g 2006/7 official stats showed 2% drop in crime but victim surveys showed 3% rise. BUT rely on accurate recall so might remember crime happening in current year but misremember due to trauma. inaccurate victim recall may therefore distort crime figures

offender surveys provde limited insight:
they gather info about how many people are responsible for a certain crime. but despite anonymity, responses may be unreliable as may conceal more serious crimes or exaggerate numbers. also, sampling technique of ‘risk’ factors may mean ‘middle-class’ crimes like fraud are under-represented

official statistics may underestimate crime:
suggested that so many crimes go unreported that only 25% of crimes are included in official statistics and the other 75% is the ‘dark figure’ of crime. several reasons: police mistrust, fear of reprisals etc. also, Farrington & Dowds found Nottinghamshire police more likely to record thefts under £10 than any other counties so spike in figures. police priorities and public mistrust may distort official figures

politics of measuring crime:
opposition parties use crime rates that make the government look bad and party in power use crime rates to show that crime is falling. crime statistics are compiled by an ‘objective’ body ONS but questions ove their validity. questions extent to which figures we are told by politicians and bodies can be trusted

Question 2

limitations of the top-down approach to offender profiling

x4

Answer 2

only applies to particular crimes:
approach is best suited to crimes that reveal important details about the suspect e.g rape. common offences don’t lend themselves to profiling as crime reveals little about the offender e.g burglary. therefore limited approach to identifying a criminal

based on outdated models of personality:
typology classification system based on assumption that offenders’ patterns of beh. are consistent across situations and cultures. Alison et al. argue its’ based on outdated personality models that see bhehaviour as driven by dispositional traits rather than by changing external factors (situation not type of person). poor validity when it comes to identifying suspects and/or predicting next move

little support for idea of ‘disorganised offender’:
Canter et al. used small space analysis of 100 US murders. each case was examined against 39 characteristics of organised and disorganised. found evidence of a distinct organised but not disorganised type, thus undermining the whole classification system.

issues in the way the typology approach was developed:
interviews were used with 36 killers in the USA which is a small and unrepresentative sample (25 serial and 11 single/double) to base a typology on. Canter argues it isn’t sensible to rely on self-report data with convicted killers when constructing a classification system. questions validity of appoach as methodological issues at the base of it

Question 3

strengths of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling

x3

Answer 3

evidence supports investigative psychology:
Canter & Heritage did a content analyisis of 66 sexual assaut cases using smallest space analysis and several characteristics were commonly identified e.g lack of reaction to victim. can lead to an understanding of how beh. may change over offences or establishing whether offences were committed by the same person. supports usefulness as shows how stats techniques can be applied

evidence supports geographical profiling:
Lundrigan & Canter collated info from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US. found offending base was invariably in the middle of the ‘centre of gravity’ of body disposal sites and effect more noticeable for marauders. supports Canter’s emphasis on spatial info determining base

wider application compared to top-down:
approach can be applied to a wider range of offences than the top-down approach. techniques such as smallest space analysis can be used in the investigation of crimes from burglary to murder. more valuable than top-down approach as an investigative technique

Question 4

limitation of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling

Answer 4

mixed results:
studies examining effectiveness of the approach have found mixed results. Copson surveyed 48 police forces about advice provided by profiler. judged useful in 83% f cases but led to accurat identification of offender in just 3% of cases. evidence questions effectiveness

Question 5

strength of atavistic form as a biological / historical explanation of offending beh.

Answer 5

Lombroso made a large contribution to criminology:
hailed as ‘father of modern criminology’ and is credited with shifting emphasis away from moralistic discourse to scienfitic discourse. theory heraldd as beginning of criminal profiling as he tried to describe how particular types of people are likely to commmit particular types of crime. major contribution to science of criminology

Question 6

limitations of the atavistic form as a biologoical explanation of offending beh.

x3

Answer 6

racial undertones of research:
many features described as atavistic and criminal are most likely to be found among poeple of African descent e.g dark skin and curly hair. also, the description of atavistic form as ‘prmitive’ and ‘savage’ lends support to eugenic philosphies at the time (certain groups shouldn’t be allowed to breed). racial undertones are a controversial legacy which overshadows his work

contradictory evidence:
Goring compared 3000 criminals to 3000 non-criminals and found no evidence that offenders are a distinct group wih unusual characteristics. he did suggest that many people who commit crime have a lower than average IQ, offering limited support for idea of criminal subspecies. evidence questions key element of theory that criminals differ in appearance

causation problem:
atavistic elements in facial appearance doesn’t mean it is a cause of offending. facial and cranial differences may be influenced by other factors e.g poverty (which would cause someone to commit crime) rather than an indication of delayed evolutionary development. issues with causation

Question 7

strength of genetic and neural explanations of offending beh.

Answer 7

support for diathesis stress model of crime:
Mednick et al. studied 13 000 Danish adoptees and crimianlity (operationalised as having one or more court convitions). adoptees who had convictions when neither bio or adoptive parents had convictions was 13.5%, when either set of parents did was 20% and when both parents did 24.5%. shows both genetic and environment influence criminality

Question 8

limitations of genetic and neural explanations of offending beh.

x3

Answer 8

methodological problems with twin studies of criminality:
Lange’s research was poorly controlled e.g judgements of MZ or DZ based on appearance not DNA testing. also, most twins reared in the same environment so concordance rates may be due to shared learning rather than genetics.methodological issues like confounding variables mean twin studies lack validity

methodological problems with adoption studies:
many children experienced late adoption so spent time with biological parents before adoption. also, lots of adoptees maintain contact with biological parents. therefore its difficult to assess nature and nurture impact the biological parents may have

explanations have social implications:
notion of ‘criminal gene’ presents dilemma as the legal system is based on premise that criminals have personal and moral responsibility for their crimes. only in extreme cases like mental illness can someone claim that they weren’t acting entirely of their own free will. ethical question about what society does with people who are suspected of carrying criminal genes and who therefore have a limited choice

Question 9

strength of Eysenck’s personality theory

Answer 9

supporting evidence:
Eysenck and Eysenck compared EPI scores of over 2000 male prisoners to a comtrol group of over 2400 non-criminal males. found prisoners scored higher on E,P and N. supports prediction of theory

Question 10

limitations of Eysenck personality theory

x3

Answer 10

contrary evidence:
Farrington et al. reviwed studies and found ofeenders scored higher on P but not E or N. also, little evidence of a consistent difference in EEGs (measures cortical arousal) between extraverts and introverts casting doubt on underactive nervous system. doubt about physiological basis of Eysenck’s theory

cultrual bias:
Bartol & Holanchock studied Hispanic and african american offenders in new york maximum security prisoners. all 6 groups (divided based on offence) were less E than non-criminal control group. may be due to sample being different cultural group than that represented by Eysenck so questions generalisability

mismeasurement of perosnality:
theory assumes its possible to measure personality but some argue we can’t reduce personality type to a ‘score’ from the EPI. some suggest there is no such thing as personality as a stable entity and that we adopt different personalities in different contexts. undermines concept of stable and measureable criminal personality

Question 11

strengths of cognitive explanations of offedning behaviour

x3

Answer 11

evidence supporting levels of moral reasoning:
Palmer & Hollin used a scale of 11 moral dilemma related questions and found offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than a non-offending control group. Blackburn also argues delinquents may show poor moral development due to lack of role playing in childhood. suggests role playing opportunities should be provided to develop moral reasoning

applications of cognitive distortions research:
understanding cognitive distortions helps treat criminal behavoiur e.g CBT helps offenders ‘face up’ to behaviour with a less distorted view of actions. studies suggest reducing denial and minimalisation in therapy is correlated with reduced reoffending risk and acceptance of crime is also a key feature of anger management. supported by successful therapies using cognitive distortions as a basis to treat criminals

minimalisation supported by Pollock and Hashmall:
found 35% of sample of child molesters argued crime they had committed was non-sexual and 36% stated the victim had consented

Question 12

limitation of cognitive explanations of offending behaviour

Answer 12

individual differences in levels of moral reasoning:
Thornton & Reid found those committing crime for financial gain were more likely to show preconventional reasong than those committing impulsive crimes. preconventional reasoning was also associated with offenders who believed they could evade punishment (supports theory). however emphasis placed on moral reasoning as a complete explanation for criminal behaviour may be misplaced

Question 13

strengths of differential association theory to explaining offending behaviour

x2

Answer 13

explanatory power:
theory can account for crime in all sectors of society and able to group prevalence of crime in certain groups like burglary clustered in working class communities but other prevalent in upper. also interested in corporate crime and how it may be a feature of middle-class groups who share deviant norms and values. helps our understanding of different types of crime and who they are committed by

Sutherland’s overall contribution to criminology:
took the emphasis away from biological accounts e.g Lombroso and from those that pointed to individual weakness or immorality. the theory draws attention to dysfunctiona social circumstances and environments and that they may be more to blame than dysfunctional people. more desirable approach as more realistic solution to problem of crime instead of eugenics or punishment

Question 14

limitations of differential association theory as an explanation for offending behaviour

x2

Answer 14

overly determinist explanation:
not everyone exposed to criminal influences commits crime and theory may stereotype people from impoverished backgrounds as ‘unavoidably crininal’. suggests exposure to pro-criminal values is enough to produce offending and ignores that some may choose not to offend despite influences. may be environmentally determinist

alternative explanaitons;
suggested family attitudes are crucial in determining whether someone turns to crime which is supported by studies showing criminality to run in families. however, evidence that it runs in families could be explained by a genetic influence rather than by environmental or nurture influences. hard to raw conclusions from data about crime running in families

Question 15

limitations of the psychodynamic explanation of offending behaviour

x4

Answer 15

gender bias:
assumes girls develop a weaker superego than boys as they don’t experience castration anxiety associated with the Oedipus complex so have less need to identify with heir mothers. therefore suggests females are more prone to criminal behaviour but this isn’t supported by evidence of the prison population. serious flaw in psychodynamic explanations of beh.

contradictory evidence:
little evidence that children raised without same-sex parent are less law-abiding as adults which contradicts weak superego argument. also, if children raised by deviant parents commit a crime, it could be due to influence of genetic or socialisation not a deviant superego. implausible that criminaliy reflects unconscious desire for punishment as offenders go to great lengths to conceal their actions to avoid punishment

within Freudian theory mean applications to crime are not open to empirical testing. in absence of supporting evidence, arguments such as inadequate superego can only be judged on face value and not scientific worth. regarded as pseudoscience and contributes little to understanding of crime

problems with Bowlby’s research:
accused of researcher bias because his expectations may have influenced the responses of his interviews as already knew if thieves had affectionless psychopathy or not. Koluchova found deprivation effects are not inevitable and some cases of very severe deprivation have had good outcomes if child has good aftercare. undermines evidence used to support psychodynamic explanations

Question 16

limitations of custodial sentencing

x4

Answer 16

psychological effects:
Bartolsuggested prison can be ‘brutal and devastating’ e.g suicide rates among offenders is 15x higher and young single men in first 24 hours of confinement at most risk. Prison Reform Trust found 24% of women and 15% of men report symptoms of psychosis. custodial sentencing far from effective in rehabilitating the individual, particularly those vulnerable

effect of individual differences:
prison time in damagaing for many but cannot assume all offenders react to prison in the same ways as different prions have different regimes so experiences vary. length of sentence, reason for incarceration and previous prison experience affect reactions and some offenders may also have pre-existing vulnerablilities. so difficult to make general conclusions about effectiveness of custodial sentencing on every prisoner in every prison

prisons can become ‘universities for crime’:
alongside legitimate skills they may acquire, they undergoa more dubious ‘education’. differential association theory suggests time spent with hardened criminals may give younger inmates the chance to learn more advanced criminal techniques making it more likely they will reoffend when they leave. undermines attempts to rehabilitate prisoners

alternatives to custodial sentencing:
Davies & Raymond in a review of custodial sentening concluded that govn. ministers often exaggerate the benefits of prison in a bid to appear tough on crime. researchers suggest prison does little to rehabilitate offenders of deter others and alternatives such as restorative justice allow employent and family contact to be maintained. alterantives may help rehabilitation process thus helping to reduce reoffending rates

Question 17

limitation of psychological effects of custodial sentencign

Answer 17

Malot and Fromader surveyed 102 australian male offenders and found they often felt unsupported outide of prison without access to treatment, resources and services. suggests no more that offenders can feel institutionalised and instead reoffend to re-enter an organised environment for them

Question 18

strengths of psychological effects of custodial sentencing

x3

Answer 18

supported by Zimbardo’s stanford pirson experiment. one prisoner was released after 36 hours due to uncontrollable anger and crying, his thinking became disorganised and at risk of depression. 3 more priosners developed similar symptoms and were released on successive days. had chosen ppts who were stable thus supported psychological effects of prison

Bartol suggested prison can be ‘brutal and devastating’ e.g suicide rates among offenders is 15x higher and young single men in first 24 hours of confinement at most risk. Prison Reform Trust found 24% of women and 15% of men report symptoms of psychosis. 1/3 of European inmates had contemplated suicide and 14% had high levels of PTSD

Liem and Kunst interviewed 25 released criminals who had served an average of 19 years and identified post-incarceration syndrome. included symptoms of PTSD, instiutionalised personality traits and alientaion BUT atypical sample as had spent a very long tim in prison and committed more serious crimes

Question 19

strength of behaviour modification in dealing with offending behaviour

Answer 19

individually tailored programmes can be effective:
Field et al. examined a token economy programme for young people with behavioural problems and found it was generally effective but a number didn’t respond. later placed them on a special programme where rewards were more frequent and immediate which led to more positive results. effectiveness can be maximised when rewards and frequency suit the individual

Question 20

limitations of behaviour modification in dealing with offending behaviour

x3

Answer 20

little rehabilitative value:
Blackburn argued positive changes in prison may be lost on release. law-abdiding behaviour isn’t alway reinforced on the outside, especially not with rewards and rewards offender receives from breaking the law may be more powerful e.g respect and money. limited in the long-term value

ethical issues:
conditions of behaviour modification are regarded as manipulative and dehumanising by some and participation is often obligatory rather than optional. offender who decides not to comply with scheme may lose privileges that they would otherwise have e.g contact with love ones, due to withdrawal of tokens. questions morality and fairness of token economy systems

learning is only superficial:
the programmes encourage passive learning and focuses on surface behaviours only. in contrast anger management is much more active and reflective. can simply play along with the token economy systems to access rewards but this leads to little change in their overall principles. not useful in long term and individuals quickly regress back to their former behaviour

Question 21

strengths of anger management in dealing with offending behaviour

x2

Answer 21

supported by evidence:
Keen et al. studied progress of young offenders who took part in an anger management programme over 8 2hour sessions. initially there were difficulties with offenders not taking it seriously. but by the end offenders reported an increase in awareness of anger and capacity for self-control

tries to tackle causes of behaviour:
rather than focusing on superficial surface behaviour like behaviour modificication, anger management addresses the thought processes underlying offending behaviour. may give offenders new insight into the causes of their criminality enabling them to discover ways of managing thmelves outside prison. more likely than behaviour modification to lead to permanent behaviour change and lower rates of recidivism

Question 22

limitations of anger management in dealing with offending behaviour

x2

Answer 22

little evidence for long-term effectiveness:
Blackburn found follow-up studies tended to show that anger management has a definite short-term effect but there’s little vidence that it reduces recidivism in the long-term. this may be due to application phase relying heavily on artificial role play which may not reflect all possible real-life anger triggers. questions effectiveness of programmes

anger may not be the cause of offending:
theories of anger often assume a straightforward causal relationship between anger and offending but assumption may be false. Loza & Loza-Fanous found no differences in levels of anger between violent and non-violent offenders. this suggests that anger management programmes may be misguided or even damaging as provide offenders with justification of their behaviour

Question 23

strength of restorative justice in dealing with offending behaviour

Answer 23

diversity of programmes:
flexibility in the way they can be used and carried out such as face-to-face and over written letter etc (unlike custodial sentencing) and also covers a wide range of possible applications e.g schools and prisons. positive in the sense that schemes can be adapted and tailors to needs of individual and situation

Question 24

limitations of restorative justice in dealing with offending behaviour

x3

Answer 24

reliance on offender showing remorse:
success may rest on the extent to which the offender feels remorse for their actions as some may sign up only to avoid prison or get a reduced sentence. equally, the victims themselves may have an ulterior motive e.g to seek revenge or retribtuion of their own. may not lead to positive outcomes when both the participants don’t have the best intentions

not always cost-effective:
Shapland et al. concluded that every £1 spent on RJ programmes would save the criminal justice system £8 through reduced reoffending (other estimates are much more conservative). however, requires input of a skilled and experienced individual to act as a mediator to prevent conflict but hard to come by so expensive and also programmes have a high dropout rate as offender and/or victim lose their nerve. may not be the best and most cost-effective solution

seen as ‘soft option’:
may reduce recidivism rates and be cheaper than running overcrowded prisons but doesn’t receieve public support. regarded by many as a soft option which is echoed by politicians keen o appear ‘tough on crime’. despite its effectiveness, poltical will to use restorative justice is not always there