Forensics - Advanced Information Flashcards
Discuss the top-down approach to offender profiling. [16 marks]
AO1 – 6 marks
- Offender profiling - behavioural and analytical tool intended to help investigators accurately predict and profile characteristics of unknown criminals.
- Originated in USA due to work carried out by FBI.
- Based on idea criminal have particular way of working (modus operandi) generally correlates with particular set of social and psychological characteristics.
- Based on witness accounts and evidence from the crime scene offenders classified into two categories.
- Organised offender shows evidence of planning, targets victim, tends to be socially and sexually competent with higher-than-average intelligence
- Or disorganised offenders show little evidence of planning, leave clues, tend to be socially and sexually incompetent with lower-than-average intelligence.
Discuss the top-down approach to offender profiling. [16 marks]
AO3
AO3 – CW, DW, DW
+/- Canter - evidence of distinct organised type. Analysed data of 100 USA murders using smallest space analysis where details examined with reference to 39 characteristics to be typical of organised and disorganised. Provides some support for approach. However, not case for disorganised type, no evidence for distinct disorganised type. Undermines classification system as questions validity.
- Too simplistic. Behaviours for types (O+D) aren’t mutually exclusive. E.g., crime scene can have combo of organised and disorganised characteristics. Suggests may not be valid way to categorise offenders. Led to other researchers to propose more detailed typological models like Holmes who said there were 4 types of serial killer
- Only applies to particular crimes. Best suited to crime scenes that reveal important details about suspect like rape, arson, and cult killings. Doesn’t help when crimes more common like burglary and destruction of property, the crime scenes reveal little information about offender. Reduces ability for method to be used to identify a criminal.
Discuss the bottom-up approach to offender profiling. (16 marks)
AO1 – 6 marks
- Profilers work up from evidence collected from crime scene to develop hypothesises about likely characteristics, motivations and social background of offender. Two types: Investigative psychology and geographical profiling
- Investigative Psychology - matches details from crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory.
- Aim to establish patterns of behaviour likely to occur across crime scenes. Helps develop statistical database so acts as baseline for comparison.
- Specific details can then be matched to reveal important details like personality, history, family background etc. May also reveal whether series of offences linked (committed by same person).
- Geographical profiling - based on principle of spatial consistency: that offender’s operational base and possible future offences revealed by geographical location of previous crimes.
- Can be used with psychological theory to create hypothesis about how offender thinking as well as modus operandi.
- Assumption repeat offenders restrict ‘work’ to areas familiar with. So, understanding spatial patterns provides ‘centre of gravity’ likely to include offender’s base. May also help guess where likely to strike next – ‘the jeopardy surface.
Discuss the bottom-up approach to offender profiling. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 – DW, DW, DW
+ Supporting for geographical profiling. Lundrigan and Canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers. Location of each body disposal site in different direction from previous, creating ‘centre of gravity’ indicating offender’s base. Supports Canter’s claim spatial information is key factor in determining base of offender. Therefore, be assumed it’s valid method of offender profiling.
- Some problems. E.g., in case of Rachel Nickell’s death original suspect ruled out at early stage as he was several inches taller than profile that was created based on approach. Suggests profiling may lead investigation in wrong direction if considered too literally. Therefore, may only be appropriate in helping narrow down list of potential offenders, rather identifying assailant.
+ Approach can be applied to wide range of offences. E.g., can be used in burglary and theft as well as more serious offences like murder and rape. Means it’s better than top-down which can only explain limited number of crimes like rape, arson, and cult killings. As result, bottom-up profiling may be more effective method of offender profiling.
Discuss investigative psychology and/or geographical profiling. Refer to evidence in your answer. (16 marks)
AO1 – 6 marks
- Investigative Psychology - matches details from crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory.
- Aim to establish patterns of behaviour likely to occur across crime scenes. Helps develop statistical database so acts as baseline for comparison.
- Specific details can then be matched against to reveal important details like personality, history, family background etc. May also reveal whether series of offences linked (committed by same person).
- 3 main features:
o Interpersonal coherence – way offender behaves at scene, including ‘interaction’ with victim, may reflect behaviour in more everyday situations.
o Time and place – may indicate where offender living/working.
o Forensic awareness – certain behaviours might reveal awareness of police techniques and experience. - Geographical profiling - based on principle of spatial consistency: that offender’s operational base and possible future offences revealed by geographical location of previous crimes.
- Can be used with psychological theory to create hypothesis about how offender thinking as well as their modus operandi.
- Assumption repeats offenders restrict ‘work’ to areas familiar with. So, understanding spatial patterns provides ‘centre of gravity’ likely to include offender’s base. May also help to guess where likely to strike next – ‘the jeopardy surface.
- Canter’s Circle Theory proposed two models of offender behaviour:
o The marauder – operates near home base
o The commuter – likely to have travelled a distance away from usual residence - Spatial decision making of offender can offer investigative team important insight into nature of offence. Planned/opportunistic? Can also reveal other features like mode of transport, employment status and age.
Discuss investigative psychology and/or geographical profiling. Refer to evidence in your answer. (16 marks)
AO3
yet to add.
Discuss Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality. Refer to evidence in your answer. (16 marks)
AO1 – 6 marks
- EPI measures ‘criminal personality’
- Proposed behaviour represented by two dimensions - Introversion/extraversion (E) & Neuroticism/stability (N)
- Eysenck later added a third dimension – psychoticism
- All personality types, including the criminal personality have innate, biological basis
- Extraverts have underactive nervous systems, so constantly seek excitement and stimulation
- Neurotic individuals tend to be nervous, jumpy, anxious, which means their behaviour is often difficult to predict
- The criminal personality is neurotic-extravert.
- Personality is linked to criminal behaviour via socialisation process
- Criminal behaviour = developmentally immature - selfish and concerned with immediate gratification
- Process of socialisation where children taught to be able to delay gratification and more socially oriented.
- Eysenck believed that people with high E and N scores had nervous systems that made them difficult to condition
- As a result of this, they wouldn’t learn easily to respond to antisocial impulses with anxiety.
- Consequently, would be more likely to act antisocially or criminally
Discuss Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality. Refer to evidence in your answer. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 – CW,DW, HB
+/- supporting evidence. Eysenck and Eysenck (77) compared 2070 male prisoners score on at EPI with 2422 controls ages 16 - 69. On all measures across all age groups prisoners scored higher than controls therefore accorded with predictions of theory. However, Farmington (82) reviewed studies and reported offenders scored high on P measures not I and N. Also, little evidence of consistent differences in EEG measures between extrovert and introvert therefore casts doubt on the psychological basis of Eysenck’s theory.
- idea of single criminal personality type too simplistic. Moffett 1993 found several types based on timing of first and how long Digman 1990 5 factor models suggest additional dimensions therefore multiple combs available
- Biological reductionism there’s overlap with APD search that suggests offenders a cold uncaring etc same limitations as genetic and neural explanations.
Describe and evaluate differential association theory as an explanation of offending behaviour. (16 marks)
AO1
- Proposes that, through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behaviour.
- Suggests that offending behaviour may be acquired in same way as any other behaviour (process of learning. Criminality arises from two factors: learned attitudes towards crime, and the learning of specific criminal acts.
- When a person is socialised into a group, they will be exposed to values and attitudes towards the law.
- Sutherland argues if number of pro-criminal (for) attitudes the person has, outweighs the number of anti-criminal attitudes, will go on to offend.
- A would-be offender would need to learn techniques for committing crime. May include how to break into someone’s house through locked window or how to disable a car stereo before stealing it.
- Suggests should be possible to mathematically predict how likely an individual will commit crime, if have knowledge of frequency, intensity, and duration they’ve been exposed to deviant and non-deviant norms and values.
Describe and evaluate differential association theory as an explanation of offending behaviour. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 – CW, HB, HB, HB
+/- Sutherland’s theory focuses on nurture side. Suggests behaviour learnt from those around us. Could therefore explain observation that offending behaviours runs in families. However, family offending could be explained by the genetic explanation i.e., criminality is inherited, as well as the child identifying with a criminal parent leading to the development of a deviant super-ego (psychodynamic approach). Limit’s ability of differential association theory to explain family criminality.
+ Accounts for why so many convicts released from prison go on to reoffend. Reasonable to assume whilst inside inmates will learn specific techniques of offending from other, more experienced criminals that they may put into practice upon their release. This learning may occur through observational learning and imitation, or direct tuition from criminal peers.
+ Differential association theory accounts for crime within all sectors of society. Can explain both working class crime such as robbery, as well as white collar crime such as fraud. Increases validity of explanation of offending behaviour as can be applied to all individuals.
- Not everyone who is exposed to criminal influences goes on to commit crime. Differential association theory does not account for this as it focuses on environmental determinism – that a behaviour will occur because of an individual’s environment. This explanation therefore does not account for free will and choice in whether to offend.
Discuss Kohlberg’s explanation of offending behaviour [16 marks]
AO1- 6 marks
- Kohlberg’s level of MR– understanding difference between right and wrong.
- Moral understanding – process individual draw upon own value system to determine whether action is right/wrong
- Objectified process - identifying different levels on answers to moral dilemmas (Heinz Dilemma)
- Group of violent to non-violent youths = significantly lower in moral development even after controlling for social background.
- Criminals more likely classified at preconventional level than non-criminal progressing to preconventional level & beyond.
- Preconventional – avoid punishment and gain rewards (less mature/childlike)
o Adults/teenagers commit crime to get away with it /gain rewards ($£) - Supported by idea offender are more egocentric and display poorer social perspective-taking than non -offending peers.
- Reasoning at higher levels = sympathising more and exhibit more conventional behaviours such as honesty, generosity, and non-violence.
Discuss Kohlberg’s explanation of offending behaviour [16 marks]
AO3
AO3 – DW, DW, HB, HB
+ Support for LOM & offending. Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared 210 non-offending (F), 122 non-offending (M) and 126 convicted offenders using Socio-Moral Reflection Measure-Short Form. Offending group = less mature MR than non-offending. Consistent. Blackburn (1993) – poor development due to lack of role-playing opportunities in childhood so should ∴ provide such opportunities to develop MR
- Alternative theories for MR. Gibbs (1979) – revised version – mature and immature = preconventional and conventional. Removed post conventional - culturally bias to Western culture - not representative of ‘natural’ maturational stage development. + Piaget - that child-like. (criminal) reasoning is egocentric giving empathy and concern for need of others and children get older.
- LOM may depend on offence. Thornton and Reid (1982) - people who committed financial gain crime (robbery) likely show pre-conventional MR than convicted of impulsive crimes (assault) where any kind of reasoning tended not to be evident. Suggests LOM only explain certain crimes, e.g., where offenders believe good chance of evading punishment.
- Langdon (2001) - intelligence better predictor than MR. People with very low intelligence less likely to commit crime despite showing lower levels of MR. Contradicts Kohlberg’s theory suggesting they’d be more likely if in preconventional level.
Describe and discuss cognitive explanations of offending. Refer to at least one other explanation of offending in your answer. (16 marks)
- Cognitive distortions faulty, biased, and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, other people, and the world inaccurately and usually negatively. Are errors/biases in people’s information processing system.
- Have been linked to way criminal’s interpret behaviour of others and justify own actions.
- Hostile Attribution Bias
o Tendency to judge ambiguous situations/ actions of others as aggressive and/or threatening when they may not be. Offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (e.g., being ‘looked at’) and this may trigger a disproportionate, often violent response.
o Schönenberg and Justye (14) presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. Violent offenders significantly more likely to perceive images as angry or hostile than matched control.
o Roots may lie in childhood. Dodge and Frame (1982) showed children a video clip of an ‘ambiguous provocation’ (where intention neither clearly hostile nor clearly aggressive). Children identified as ‘aggressive’ and ‘rejected’ prior to study interpreted situation more hostile than those classed as ‘non-aggressive’ and ‘accepted’. - Minimalisation
o Type of deception involves downplaying significance of an event/ emotion. Common strategy when dealing with guilt. (‘euphemistic label’).
o Burglars may describe themselves as ‘doing a job’ or ‘supporting my family’ as a way of minimising seriousness.
o Studies suggest individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to minimalisation.
o Pollock and Hashmall (1991) reported that 35% of a sample of child molesters argued their crime was non-sexual (just being affectionate), 36% claimed the victim had consented.
Describe and discuss cognitive explanations of offending. Refer to at least one other explanation of offending in your answer. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 – DW,CW,HB
+ Cognitive distortions as an explanation of offending behaviour has practical application. The dominant approach in rehabilitation of sex offenders is CBT. It encourages offenders to ‘face up’ to what they have done and establish less distorted views of their actions. Studies suggest that reduced incidence of denial and minimalisation in therapy is highly correlated with a reduced risk of reoffending and is a key feature of anger management.
- This explanation of offending behaviour can be thought of as descriptive rather than explanatory. The cognitive approach can describe the criminal mind. For example, it can show how hostile attribution bias can lead to offending behaviour. However, the theory does not explain why or how the cognitive distortions occur in the first place.
+ Studies suggest that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to minimalisation. Barbaree (1991) found among 26 imprisoned rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim. This suggests that the cognitive distortion of minimalisation is involved in offending behaviour.
Describe and evaluate psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour (16 marks)
AO1 – 6 marks
Inadequate superego
- Freud did not address the issue of criminal behaviour, but other researchers have applied his key concepts. Both explanations abide by Freudian principle that the roots of behaviour are formed in childhood.
- Superego - end of phallic stage when the Oedipus or Electra complex resolved. Works on morality principle and exerts influence by punishing ego through guilt for wrongdoing and rewards with pride for moral behaviour.
- Blackburn (1993) argued if superego deficient/ inadequate then criminal behaviour inevitable as id has free rein and not controlled
- Type of Inadequate Superego Explanation Link to Criminal Behaviour
o Weak superego - an absence of same sex parent in phallic stage. Child can’t identify with same sex parent. Superego not fully formed, and child has a lack of understanding of difference between right and wrong. Superego doesn’t punish through feelings of guilt. Child will show criminal/immoral behaviour as superego doesn’t hold them back.
o Deviant superego - child identifies with same-sex parent, but parent is immoral/has immoral standards of behaviours. Child internalises morals that aren’t acceptable. Child doesn’t see criminal behaviours in same way as others and won’t associate guilt and criminal behaviour.
o Over-harsh superego - healthy superego is firm + has rules of acceptable/ unacceptable behaviours, but if broken, the superego forgiving. The over-harsh superego, not forgiving, so increases guilt for wrongdoing. Child will unconsciously seek opportunities to reprimanded to reduce sense of guilt leading to criminal behaviour to satisfy the superego’s need for punishment.
