P3: Forensic Psychology Flashcards
Describe Offender Profiling: The top-down approach
Offender profiling AIM: Narrow list of suspects
TOP-DOWN (US)
match crime/offender to pre-existing templates.
Organised/Disorganised
Based on idea criminal has a signature way of working(Modus operandi). Correlates to particular set of social/psychological characteristics.
ORGANISED:
-Evidence of planning, -High control, -High IQ, -Married?
DISORGANISED:
-Little planning, -Little control, -Low Q, -Failed relation history?
FBI PROFILE CONSTRUCTION:
1)Data assimilation(review evidence)
2)Crime scene classification(Organised/disorganised)
3)Crime reconstruction(Generate hypothesis of events/behavaiour)
4)Profile Generation(Generate hypothesis about offender)
Evaluate Offender profiling: The top-down approach
-IRL application: Best suited to crime scenes which reveal important info about suspect(rape/murder).Not Common offences(burglary)∴limited identifying skills
-Research Evidence(disorganised): Study= evidence for organised. Not disorganised ∴undermines whole classification system.Even tho its still used
-Temporal Validity: Based on assumption=offender motivation/behaviour=consistent across situation/context
Doesn’t take external factors(always changing into account) ∴poor validity=identifying/predicting next move
-Too simplistic: Should focus on motivation of killers not type ∵more detailed typologies conflicting.Not mutually exclusive
Describe Offender Profiling: The bottom-up approach
-Data driven. Offender profile emerges based on the data. AIM: generate pic of offenders characteristics, background… from evidence
-Statistical procedures detect patterns of behaviours.
Develops statistical database used for comparison ∴match features of crime/offence to info
CENTRAL CONCEPT:
-Interpersonal Coherence: The way an offender behaves at the scene may reflect behaviour in everyday life.
-Forensic awareness: Those subjected to police interrogation=mindful of covering tracks
GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING
-Crime mapping: Location of crime= infer home/base of operation ∴use with psych theory=hypothesis about modus operandi. -Types of offenders
-Marauder: Operates close to home
-Commuter: Travelled distance away fro residence
(Jeopardy Surface)=educated guess on next strike location
-Circle Theory: offending location=likely make circle. Offenders spatial decision-making can provide insight into nature of offence
Evaluate Offender Profiling: The Bottom-up Approach
+ Research Evidence(Geography profiling): 120 murder case US. Smallest space analysis=centre of gravity, offenders base in centre. Noticeable for marauders ∴spatial=key factor
+ Scientific Base: More objective/scientific VS Top-down(less hunches) ∵geo, biographical, psych data.Also includes suspect interviews
+Wider application: VS Top-down. Techniques(Smallest space analysis, principle of spatial consistency) ∴useful in theft to rape ∴More value vs top-down
-Mixed Results: Significant failure in past.From 48polices forces surveyed= useful info 83%, but only=accurate identification 3% ∴ effectiveness questioned
Describe Biological Explanations: Atavistic Form
Lombroso: Criminals=genetic throwbacks. Primitive sub-species biologically different to non-criminals. Laid foundation for modern offender profiling. -Examined 383 dead,3839 living criminals facial/cranial features from Italian convicts. FOUND: 40% of criminal acts accounted for by ppl with atavistic characteristics -Lacked evolutionary development. Savage/untamed nature=cannot adjust to society(innate tendency ∴criminals not at fault) ATAVISTIC FEATURES(Physiological markers) -Physical:-Narrow, sloping brow, -Strong jawline, -high cheekbones, - Facial asymmetry, -dark skin, xtra toes/fingers... -Emotional:-Insensitivity to pain, -Criminal slag, -Tattoos , -unemployment Particular features linked to types of criminal.e.g. Bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears= murderer Glinting eyes, swollen/fleshy lips = Sexual Deviants
Evaluate Biological explanations: Atavistic Form
+ Contribution to Criminology: Father of modern criminology. Shifted emphasis from moralistic to scientific disclosure. Heralded beginning of criminal profiling ∴ major contributions
- Racial undertones: Features identified=most likely among ppl of African descent. Description of uncivilised/savage supports Eugenic philosopheis ∴ controversial legacy. Intention=unclear
- Contradictory Evidence: 3000 criminals/non-criminals=no distinct group of unusual characteristics. But many ppl who committed crimes=lower IQ ∴limited support, but challenges central concept
- Causation issue: atavistic elements ≠ cause of offending. Influenced by poverty/diet ∴not induction of delayed evolution. Lombroso did later acknowledge criminals can be made/born tho
Describe Biological explanations: Genetic and neural explanations
GENETIC EXPLANATIONS
-Twin studies: 13MZ/17DZ, where 1 of twins spent time in prison.10MZ=co-twin also in jail. Only 2 for DZ.
-Adoption studies: Adopted kids with bio criminal parent=50% by 18yr. Without bio criminal parent=5%
-Candidate gene: 2 genes associated=violent crime
-MAOA: controls serotonin/dopamine linked to aggression.
-CDH13: linked to substance abuse/ADHD
High risk combo=13x likely=history of violent disorder
DIATHESIS-STRESS MODEL
Genetic predisposition, bio/psych trigger
NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
-Antisocial personality disorder(APD): neural difference? e.g.APD= lack of empathy, suffered by many criminals
-Less activity in prefrontal cortex=less emotion regulation. 11% reduction in grey matter for APD ppl
-Mirror Neurons: Suggested a neural switch that turns off/on empathy. Normal ppl= always on
Evaluate Biological Explanations: Genetic and Neural explanations
-Methodology(Twin-studies): Poor control, judgement of DZ/MZ twin based on appearance not DNA.Most twins reared in same environment ∴concordance rates due to nurture ≠ nature ∴confounding variables=lack validity
+Research support(Diathesis-Stress):13,000 Danish adopteesNo bio/adoptive parent=0conviction=adoptees conviction chance=13.5% 1 bio/adoptive=adoptees=20% Both parents= adoptees=24.5% ∴both factors influence
-Biologically reductionist: Criminality complex ∴reducing to bio Lvl=too simplistic(partial explanation) crime runs in family, so does mental illnesses.
-Biologically determinist: criminal gene conflicts with legal system. Only extreme cases= loss of free will ∴ raises ethical Q about what society does about those with suspected criminal gene ∴have limited choice.
Describe Psychological explanations: Eysenck’s theory
3 personality dimensions: Introversion-Extroversion (E)
Neuroticism-Stability(N) Psychoticism-Socialisation(P)
BIOLOGICAL BASIS
(Innate/based on inherited nervous system)
-Extraverts: Under active Nervous system ∴seek excitement/stimulation/engage in risk-taking
-Neurotic: High Lvls of reactivity in sympathetic nervous system(fight or flight) ∴ nervous/jumpy/difficult to predict
-Psychotic: Higher Lvls of testosterone ∴cold/unemotional/prone to aggression
Criminal Personality:Neurotic extravert/high psychoticism(ENP)
-Criminals behaviour=immature. Only concerned with immediate gratification ∴likely to act antisocially
-Role of socialisation: kids taught to delay gratification/more socially oriented. High E/N scores= nervous system make hard to learn ∴learn anxiety responses/antisocial impulses.
Eysenck Personality Inventory(EPI): test designed to measure personality along E/N dimensions
Evaluate Psychological Explanation: Eysenck’s theory
+Research Evidence: EPI scores of 2070male prisoners to control. Prisoners=Higher on E,N,P. But other studies =high only on P ∴doubt on psychological basis
-Mismeasurement of personality: cannot reduce personality to a score form EPI. Others says personality ≠stable entity.Adopt different personalities in different contexts ∴undermines idea of measurable personality
+Scientific: recognises personality=genetic basis. e.g.APD ∴can be criticised as bio reductionist/ determinist. Fits other bio approaches
-Temporal Validity: New 5 factor model. Dimensions of openness/agreeableness/conscientiousness ∴many different types of criminal exist as E/N=not only factors
Describe Psychological explanations: Cognitive Explanations
Kohlberg: Lvl of moral reasoning identifies decisions/ judgement about right/wrong. 3 STAGES: 1)Preconventional: Need to avoid punishment/gain rewards. Less mature, childlike reasoning(Criminal Lvl)
2)Conventional: Good boy/girl orientation,
Maintenance of social order
3)Postconventional: Individual rights,
Morality of conscience
Offenders= egocentric/less sympathy.
COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS
Faulty/biased thinking helps justify criminal behaviour.
-Hostile attribution bias: Violent offender= perceive ambiguous facial expressions as angry/hostile ∴disproportionate/violent response
-Minimisation: Downplaying significants of crime
e.g.Burglar=supporting my family=less guilt. Particularly common in sex offenders
Evaluate Psychological Explanations: Cognitive explanations
+Research Evidence(Lvls of moral reasoning): 11 moral-dilemma-related Q=Offenders=less mature moral reasoning Vs control.Maybe due to lack of role-play in childhood ∴poor moral development
+IRL application: Understanding Cognitive distortions =treatment(CBT=owning up). Reducing denial/ minimalisation correlated to reduced reoffending risk ∴evidence linked to effective rehab techniques
-Cultural Bias: 3rd Lvl(Postconventional) to be scrap ∵not natural stage of cognitive development(Based on Western culture). Revised Ver= Mature=guided by conscience n immature=guided by reward/punishment
-Descriptive, not explanatory(Cognitive explanations): Lacks explanatory power, only good at describing. Useful for predicting offending but no insight into why crime was committed originally
Describe Psychological Explanations: Differential Association
Differential Association Theory:
Set of scientific principles to explain offending.
-Crime is learned via interactions with significant others
2 factors criminality arises from:
-Learned attitudes towards crime
-Learning of specific criminal acts
-Pro-crime values VS Anti-crime values:
Whichever attitude outweighs, determines if they are pro-crime or anti-crime
Making Mathematical Predictions:
Maths=predict likelihood of committing a crime with knowledge of frequency, intensity, duration of exposure to deviant/non-deviant norms/values
-Both criminal techniques/attitudes are learned
-Reoffending due to socialisation in prison?
Prison inmates exposed to pro-criminal attitudes/ techniques.
Evaluate the Psychological explanations: Differential Association
\+Explanatory power: Account for crime in all sectors of society. Some crime clustered in working class ppl(e.g. White-Collar crime)corporate crime=middle class =deviant norms/values ∴understand types of crime well \+Contribution to criminology: Shifts emphasis from bio to dysfunctional social circumstances/environments ∴more desirable/realistic Vs Eugenics/punishment -Untestable concepts: Promise to bring mathematical framework/prediction power. Unclear how to measure anti/pro-criminal attitudes ppl exposed to. What point is criminality triggered ∴undermine scientific credibility -Overly Deterministic: Stereotypes ppl from impoverished background as unavoidably criminal. Ignores free will ∴environmentally determinist view
Describe Psychological explanations: Psychodynamic explanations
INADEQUATE SUPEREGO: morality principle= guilt for wrongdoing ∴id given free rein=not controlled=criminal behaviour(Pleasure principle)
WEAK SUPEREGO:
-Absence of same-sex parent during phallic stage= kid ≠internalise fully-formed superego=no opportunity for identification ∴criminal behaviour likely
DEVIANT SUPEREGO:
-kid internalises immoral/deviant values=offending behaviour.e.g.raised by criminal dad=wrong is okay
OVER-HARSH SUPEREGO:
-Crippled by guilt/anxiety ∴unconsciously driven to preform criminal acts to satisfy overwhelming need for punishment
MATERANL DEPRIVATION THEROY:
-warm/continuous relation with mum=good future relation/well-being/development ∴loss= affection-less psychopathy(lack of empathy)/increased likelihood of delinquency(illegal actions)
-44 JUVENILE THIEVES STUDY:
14/44 thieves= affection-less psychopathy.12 experienced prolong separation from mum(in first 2yrs)
VS control only 2=maternal deprivation ∴concluded maternal deprivation= affection less psychopathy/delinquent behaviour
