Forensics

Question 1

What are the two definitions of crime?

Answer 1

• legal definition - an act that breaks the law, as distinct from an act that may cause moral offence
• normative definition - an act that causes offence to societal norms/values

Question 2

What are the strengths of the legal definition of crime?

Answer 2

• easy to identify criminal behaviour due to objectivity

Question 3

What are the limitations of the legal definition of crime?

Answer 3

• not necessarily reflective of morals
• can change over time e.g. homosexuality laws 2013
• universal concepts are still subject to cultural variations e.g. murder recognised universally but punishable by death only in some areas

Question 4

What are the strengths of the normative definition of crime?

Answer 4

• reflects a natural relationship between crime and morals

Question 5

What are the limitations of the normative definition of crime?

Answer 5

• no clear statement of crime (ambiguous)
• norms change over time but these dictate the definition of crimes
• cultures vary

Question 6

What are the ways of measuring crime?

Answer 6

• official statistics
• victim surveys
• offender surveys

Question 7

How do official statistics measure crime?

Answer 7

gov produces official crime statistics - e.g. in UK, Home Office produces this since 1805, based on police reports/incidents

• historical comparisons can be made to look at trends
• National Crime Reporting Standard (NCRS) 2002 records all reported incidents (incl. unreported)

Question 8

How can official statistics be evaluated?

Answer 8

• can collect large sets of data efficiently as police are already engaged in collection
• widely publicised and recognised methodology
• however not all crimes are officially reported, doesnt represent the ‘dark figure’ of crime
• data isnt collected for a specific purpose and may be subject to political bias

Question 9

How do victim surveys measure crime?

Answer 9

• asks a sample to identify any crimes committed against them over a fixed time period e.g. the crime survey repeats every year since 2001 with 50,000 households on the royal mail list of addresses, and interviewed with set questions

Question 10

How can victim surveys be evaluated?

Answer 10

• can access the ‘dark figures’ of crime (75%)
• however some crimes may still be unreported
• sample is small and selected randomly from royal mail list - therefore may not be representative
• no. of crimes reported per person is capped at 5 and self-report may have issues e.g. recollection of past events may be distorted, may have investigator effects/social desirability

Question 11

How do offender surveys measure crime?

Answer 11

• questioning offenders e.g. Offending, Crime and Justice Survey 2003-2006 aimed to increase knowledge on young people and criminal behaviour - particularly regarding drugs/anti-social behaviour

Question 12

How can offender surveys be evaluated?

Answer 12

• qualitative data use means rich detail
• however subject to issues with self-reports e.g. social desirability, may underplay criminal involvement - may be reluctant to give info that implicates another person
• however may be that offenders may be honest to use info to their advantage - OCJS report says participants were honest with answer

Question 13

What is offender profiling?

Answer 13

• method where investigators attempt to work out characteristics of an offender by examining the characteristics of the crime/crime scene

Question 14

What are the two approaches to offender profiling?

Answer 14

• top-down approach (intuitive-based, USA)

- bottom-up approach (science-based, UK)

Question 15

What does the top-down approach to offender profiling involve?

Answer 15

• also called typology approach
• intuition based, adopted by USA
• approach originates from FBI interviews with 36 serial murderers (1979), which identified major behavioural characteristics that could be used to classify future offenders and make predictions to likely characteristics - including establishment of organised (charming/intelligent/calm) and disorganised (lives alone/mentally ill/poor social skills) offender types
• 6 main stages (profiling inputs, decision process models, crime assessment, criminal profile, crime assessment, apprehension)
• starts with Profiling Inputs (analysis and general classification of the crime scene) - this is then used to make judgements about likely offenders fitting with crime characteristics (stage 3. Crime Assessment, including establishment of organised and disorganised offender types)
• often uses profiler’s prior knowledge and personal judgement
• ends in apprehension in which apprehended suspects trigger profile to be reviewed to check validity and revise process for future cases

Question 16

How can the top-down approach be evaluated?

Answer 16

• useful and supported by police (Copson questioned officers and found 82% thought technique was operationally useful, 90% would use again. offers different perspective, opening up new avenues of investigation, Scherer and Jarvis found it can prevent wrongful conviction)
• however original method used to create the classification is flawed (based on interviews with 36 US killers, such individuals are highly manipulative, likely to provide unreliable info and their approach may be different to typical offenders)
• Canter (2004) found classification of organised/disorganised had little basis in reality, analysed 100 US serial killers and found no clear division in the categories (more likely a continuum rather than two distinct categories), and little evidence of disorganised - Douglas suggests a 3rd ‘mixed’ category but this would lessen usefulness of the classification at all
• has potential to cause harm (e.g. wrong profiles may mislead investigations, Barnum effect may make any suspect fit the ambiguous descriptions in profiles e.g. Snook argues profilers do little more than psychics (not science based) - Alison et al found over 50% of police officers rated profiles as accurate but only half given real versions of offender characteristics (so officers often got profile wrong). in addition, smart offenders learn how profiles are constructed and deliberately mislead investigations)

Question 17

What does the bottom-up approach to offender profiling involve?

Answer 17

• UK data-driven approach, based on scientific theory and research
• use of two key approaches: investigative psychology and geographical profiling
• investigative psychology developed by Canter to show how/why variations in criminal behaviour occur, belief that how criminals behave during crimes reflect how they behave every day - therefore analysing behaviour during an offence reveals patterns into their lifestyle. (3 features: interpersonal coherence, forensic awareness, smallest space anamysis)
• geographical profiling - Canter suggests info about location/timing may allow for predictions e.g. linking offences, offender characteristics, why some areas attract crime. (2 features: crime mapping, circle theory)

Question 18

What processes are involved in investigative psychology in the bottom-up approach to offender profiling?

Answer 18

• investigative psych involves 3 features:
• interpersonal coherence (seeking correlations in behaviours i.e. consistent characteristics and how behaviours could evolve)
• forensic awareness (whether behaviours at crime scene reveal awareness of police techniques)
• smallest space analysis (analysis to find correlating behaviours, 3 underlying themes identified: instrumental opportunistic (murder at easy opportunity to gain something), instrumental cognitive(concern of being detected), expressive impulsive)

Question 19

What processes are involved in geographical profiling in the bottom-up approach to offender profiling?

Answer 19

methods incl:

• crime mapping (people’s activities usually confined to limited areas, therefore offences may also be limited in geographical area, use of computerised system to produce jeopardy surface that details probability of the offender’s residence based on time/movements)
• circle theory (suggests most offenders commit crimes in imagined circle: marauders live in area where crimes are committed, commuters travel away to commit crimes)

Question 20

How can the bottom-up approach to offender profiling be evaluated?

Answer 20

• more scientific as uses objective statistical techniques and computer analysis e.g. CGT - however data in such systems is related only to solved cases therefore says little about behavioural patterns related to unsolved cases, formulas used to create programs may be incorrect e.g. jeopardy surface based on Rossmo’s formula which has been criticised - so approach has potential to be objective/systematic but is inevitably based on practice
• geographic profiling is successful (cannot solve crimes specifically but used to prioritise house-to-house searches/identify areas where DNA should be collected
• however cant distinguish between multiple offenders in same area and limited to spatial behaviour, will not work without accurate data on offences e.g. if there are inconsistencies in how locations are recorded by police it may make maps incomplete, or large amounts of gathered data may make it difficult to know what to include when constructing a crime map)
• circle theory is successful (Carter and Larkin 1993 supported their model by distinguishing marauders and commuters - but 91% were classified as marauders, thus usefulness of classification is questioned if majority fall into one category, in addition is is an oversimplistic view of a circle as in cities patterns may form other shapes/forms)

Question 21

What are the different psychological explanations of offending?

Answer 21

• differential association
• personality factors
• cognitive factors
• psychodynamic theory

Question 22

How does the differential association theory (DAT) explain offending behaviour?

Answer 22

• explains criminal behaviour in terms of social learning
• DAT concerned with:
• what is learned - pro-criminal attitudes, types of ‘desirabile/acceptable’ crime, methods of carrying out crime
• who it is learned from - family/friends, influence of community attitudes
• how it is learned - through direct/indirect operant conditioning, observing role models and praise for carrying out crime
• Sutherland devised 9 key principles, incl. criminal behaviour is learned not inherited, through association with others, this association with intimate personal groups, learning techniques/attitudes, this learning is directional i.e. for or against crime, an offender is made if favourable attitudes outweigh unfavourable, criminal behaviour learned the same as any other, just ‘need’ is not enough to explain crime as most ‘need’

Question 23

What are the strengths of the differential association theory of offending?

Answer 23

• has real world implications (has changed views on the origins of criminal behaviour by considering social factors, causing shift away from blame culture - this led to huge implication on learning environments ie children can undergo positive educational environment, state responsibility to provide appropriate resources. also identification of white-collar crime made gov accountable to recognise such crime as any other)
• research support of Osborne and West who found 40% of male offenders have fathers with criminal convictions (ie children associate with fathers that teach criminal behvaiours - however there may be genetic factors at play e.g. gene for criminality - however US research 1979 found adolescents convicted of drug crime had peers as most influential factor with 68% variance in behaviour)

Question 24

What are the limitations of the differential association theory of offending?

Answer 24

• problems with methodology as based on correlations between data figures, therefore cannot establish causal relationship with accuracy - e.g. it could be that those with criminal tendencies choose to associate with like-minded individuals (rather than tendencies being a product of the association)
• doesnt account for all types of crime (and doesnt account for why variations in crime occur, may only explain petty crime. however this makes up the majority of crime. in addition, doesnt explain why most offenders are under 21)
• diathesis-stress may be a better account for crime as suggests social facotrs (as mentioned in DAT) trigger a predisposition for crime