Forensic - Paper 3

Offender profiling

Criminal profiling.

The practice of inferring the traits of a criminal from the details of their crime and the crime scene itself.

Police use it as an investigative tool to focus their efforts and zero in on likely suspects. 

High-profile murder cases = expert profilers work with law enforcement.

Profiling methods varies.

Building a profile involves a meticulous examination of the crime scene and evidence (including witness statements).

Helps generate educated guesses about the offender's likely characteristics.

Age, background, and occupation.

There are two main approaches: 

1. Top-down approach - start with a pre-established typology, work down to assign offenders to one of two categories.

2. Bottom-up approach - work up from evidence collected to develop a hypothesis about likely characteristics and background.
   

Top-down profiling

Data assimilation, crime scene classification, crime reconstruction and profile generation.

Offenders classed as organised or disorganised.

Used by FBI.

Modern offender profiling = FBI agents Robert Ressler and John E. Douglas from the Behavioural Science Unit. 

1970s = serial crimes surged across the US, these experts dedicated themselves to halting the escalating violence.

Conducted interviews with 36 sexually-motivated killers.

Accumulated valuable insights into the traits of individuals who perpetrate serious crimes.

Like sexual crimes and murders.

Data assimilation - The profiler reviews the evidence (crime scene photos, pathology reports).

Crime scene classification - Crime scene classified as either organised or disorganised.

Crime reconstruction - Hypothesis in terms of the sequence of events, behaviour of the victim.

Profile generation - Hypotheses related to the likely offender, e.g. demographic, physical characteristics, behaviour.

Organised crime

 

Approach = planned and controlled.

Weapons = may be brought to the scene.

Evidence = destroyed or removed that could link to them.

Victims (s) = attempts to control.

Offender = unknown to victim (s), socially and sexually competent, normal to high intelligence, angry or depressed.

Disorganised crime

 

Approach = unplanned and chaotic.

Weapons = improvised.

Evidence = left at the scene which could link to them.

Victim (s) = little attempt to control.

Offender = possibly known to victim (s), socially and sexually inept, low intelligence, anxious or psychotic.

Strength of organised offender

Supporting research - Canter et al. (2004).

Assessed 100 murders by 100 serial killers in the US for the presence of 38 characteristics identified as typical of either organised or disorganised offenders using a technique called ‘smallest space analysis’.

Organised characteristics was found to be typical of most serial killers.

Like a body left in an isolated spot or use of restraints

However, disorganised characteristics did not occur in a pattern that would allow the researchers to identify a type of ‘killer’.

This adds credibility to the idea of an organised offender, but not disorganised, suggesting top-down profiling lacks some usefulness.

Weakness of top-down approach

Generalisability issues with the original research sample when the FBI were creating the top-down approach.

The typology approach was developed using interviews with 36 killers in the US.

25 of which were serial killers.

The other 11 being single or double murderers.

Critics have pointed out that this is too small and unrepresentative a sample upon which to base a typology system that may have a significant influence on the nature of the police investigation.

Canter also argued that it is not sensible to rely on self-report data with convicted killers when constructing a classification system.

This reduces the credibility of top-down profiling.

Suggests bottom-up profiling may be the better option.

Weakness of top-down profiling

Theoretical flaw - based on outdated models of personality.

The typology classification system is based on the assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain consistent across situations and contexts.

Several critics have suggested that this approach is naive and is informed by old-fashioned ideas that see behaviour as being driven by stable dispositional traits rather than external factors that may be constantly changing.

This means the top-down approach, which is based on ‘static’ models of personality, is likely to have poor validity when it comes to identifying possible suspects and trying to predict their next move.

Weakness of top-down profiling

Theoretical flaw - some research has suggested that the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive.

There are a variety of combinations that occur at any given murder scene.

Godwin (2002) = in reality, it is difficult to classify killers as one or the other type.

A killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics, such as high intelligence and sexual competence, but commits a spontaneous murder leaving the victim’s body at the crime scene.

This suggests that the organised-disorganised typology is probably more of a continuum and the original theory lacks explanatory power.

Strength of top-down profiling

Another strength of top-down profiling is that it can be adapted to other kinds of crime, such as burglary.

Critics of top-down profiling have claimed that the technique only applies to a limited number of crimes, such as sexually-motivated murder.

However, Meketa (2017) reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states.

The detection method retains the organised-disorganised distinction but also adds two new categories:

• Interpersonal (offender usually knows their victims and steals something of significance).

• Opportunistic (generally inexperienced young offender).

This suggests that top-down profiling has wider application than was originally assumed.

Bottom-up offender profiling

Aims to create a detailed profile of the offender.

Including their likely traits, routine behaviours, and social background, by systematically analysing crime scene evidence. 

Unlike the US top-down method, which starts with predefined categories, the UK bottom-up model is ‘data-driven’.

Meaning the profile develops through a thorough examination of the specific details of the crime.

This approach is also more closely rooted in psychological theory compared to the top-down method.

Associated with the work of David Canter.

Two key types of profiling that use the bottom-up approach are: 

• Investigative psychology 

• Geographical profiling

Investigative psychology

Interpersonal Coherence:

• An offender's behavior at the crime scene, particularly their interaction with the victim, can mirror their typical behavior in daily life.

• For example, some rapists seek dominance and humiliation, while others are more apologetic (Dwyer 2001).

• Potentially revealing broader patterns in their relationships with women.

Forensic Awareness:

• An offender's understanding of forensic evidence, police techniques, and how their crime scene actions can lead to their identification.

• This awareness is often heightened by prior contact with the police and criminal justice system, providing insights into evidence collection, analysis, and investigative procedures.

• As a result, experienced offenders may actively try to conceal their involvement and avoid leaving incriminating evidence.

Time and Place:

• Fundamental element in investigative psychology, particularly within the framework of geographical profiling.

• Analysing these spatiotemporal patterns can provide crucial insights into the behaviour and characteristics of the offender, most notably offering clues about their anchor point, which is often their residence or another significant base of operations.

Geographical profiling

David Canter proposed that offenders reveal aspects of themselves through their crime location choices.

This forms the basis of offender profiling known as crime mapping, which infers an offender's likely home base by analysing the geographic patterns of their crimes. 

Assumes that most offenders prefer to operate in familiar areas near their residence or frequented locations.

Research has indicated that many offenders have a limited crime range, sometimes as small as 2 miles.

Circle Theory (1993):

• Developed by Canter and Larkin in 1993, is a key component of geographical profiling.

• The core idea is that if you draw a circle encompassing all the known crime locations committed by a serial offender, the geographical spread of crimes can provide investigators with a ‘center of gravity,’.

• Indicating the most probable location of the offender's residence. 

Canter and Larkin identified two main types of offenders based on this theory: marauders and commuters.

Marauders = offenders who commit crimes within a relatively close proximity to their home base or a significant anchor point (e.g., workplace, social venue).

They may take this approach as they have a better understanding of targets and escape routes and the familiarity feels more comfortable.

Commuters = are offenders who travel a significant distance from their home base or anchor point to commit their crimes.

They ‘commute’ to a different area to offend and then return.

They may take this approach to avoid recognition or for target availability.

Individuals develop schemas that store information about their daily lives and experiences, including familiar routes and social networks. 

A central assumption = serial offenders tend to restrict their criminal activities to areas within their schema, places they know and understand.

Analysing the spatial pattern of their crimes = investigators can identify a center of gravity, which is the most probable area containing the offender's base of operations, often located centrally within the crime locations. 

Allows investigators to make educated predictions about potential future crime locations, a concept known as the jeopardy surface.

Investigators can also infer other aspects of their experiences, such as their interests, employment, and relationships, based on the geographical context of their offences.

Strength of investigative psychology

Supporting research - Canter and Heritage (1990).

Content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases.

The data was examined using the statistical technique smallest space analysis.

Identifies correlations across patterns of behaviour.

Several characteristics were identified as common in most cases such as the use of impersonal language and lack of reaction to the victim.

These characteristics will occur in different patterns in different individuals.

Understanding of how an offender’s behaviour may change over a series of offences, or in establishing whether two or more offences were committed by the same person.

This supports the usefulness of investigative psychology because it shows how statistical techniques can be applied.

Strength of geographical profiling

Supporting research - Lundrigan and Canter (2001).

Collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US.

Smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers.

The location of each body disposal site was in a different direction from the previous sites, creating a ‘centre of gravity’; the offender’s base was invariably located in the centre of the pattern.

The effect was more noticeable for offenders who travelled short distances (marauders).

This supports Canter’s claim that spatial information is a key factor in determining the base of an offender.

Weakness of bottom-up profiling

Effectiveness of data-driven profiling can be questioned as there are mixed results.

Some significant failures = Colin Stagg who was wrongly accused of killing Rachel Nickell in 1992 due to a profile created by Paul Britton.

Furthermore, Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police forces and found that the advice provided by the profiler was judged to be ‘useful’ in 83% of cases, but in only 3% of cases did it lead to accurate identification of the offender.

This reduces the credibility of offender profiling and its usefulness within a criminal investigation, potentially resulting in wasted police time or miscarriages of justice.

Weakness of geographical profiling

Theoretical flaw of geographical profiling is that it may not be sufficient on its own.

As with investigative psychology, the success of geographical profiling may be reliant on the quality of data that the police can provide.

Unfortunately, recording of crime is not always accurate, can vary between police forces and an estimated 75% of crimes are not even reported to police in the first place (criminologists often refer to this as the 'dark figure of crime').

Questions the utility of an approach that relies on the accuracy of geographical data.

Even if this information is correct, critics claim that other factors are just as important in creating a profile, such as the timing of the offence and the age and experience of the offender.

This suggests that geographical information alone may not always lead to the successful capture of an offender.

Biological explanation - atavistic form

Lombroso's theory of atavism

Popular in the late 1800s.

Controversial idea about why people offend. 

People were born criminals because they had physical features that were like those of our more primitive ancestors.

He called these features atavistic characteristics.

Men need 5+ features.

Women need 3+ features.

Throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution.

They were less evolved.

More likely to commit crimes because they couldn't adapt to modern society's rules.

Atavistic form - murderers

• Bloodshot / piercing eyes

• Hooked nose

• Strong jaw

• Prominent cheekbones

• Long arms

• Scanty beard

• Baldness

• Insensitivity to pain

• Tattoos

Atavistic form - Thieves

• Small face

• Wandering eyes

• Long, thin mobile fingers

• Scanty beard

• Flattened nose

• Expressive face

• Manual dexterity

Atavistic form - rapists

• Thick lips, protruding ears

• Long lower jaw

• Glittering eyes

• Crispy / curly hair

• Often a mix of murderer and thief features

Lombroso’s research

Method: 

Participants: 383 dead criminals and 3839 living criminals in Italy.

Procedure: Lombroso meticulously examined their facial and cranial features, noting the number of physical anomalies they had.

Results: 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic features.

Evaluation - supporting research

Lombroso examined the facial and cranial features of hundreds of Italian convicts, both living and dead, and concluded that there was an 'atavistic form'.

Concluded that these features were key indicators of criminality.

Lombroso examined the skulls of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living ones.

40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics. 

Provided him with what he considered credible evidence for his theory of atavistic form and its link to criminality.

Evaluation - methodological issues

Poor control and issues with causation. 

Lombroso did not compare his offender sample with a non-offender control group.

This could have controlled for an assortment of confounding variables that might have equally explained higher crime rates in certain groups of people.

For instance, research has demonstrated links between crime and social conditions such as poverty and poor educational outcomes (Hay and Forrest 2009) – links that would explain why offenders were more likely, for example, to be unemployed. 

This suggests that Lombroso's research does not meet modern scientific standard.

Evaluation - contradicting research

Goring (1913).

Set out to establish whether there was anything physically atypical about offenders.

After conducting a comparison between 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders he concluded that there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics (though he did suggest that many people who commit crime have lower-than-average intelligence). 

This challenges the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the population and are therefore unlikely to be a subspecies.

Evaluation - scientific racism

Links to eugenics.

Many of the features that Lombroso identified as atavistic (curly hair, dark skin) are most likely to be found among people of African descent.

In other words he was basically suggesting that Africans were more likely to be offenders, a view that fitted 19th-century eugenic attitudes. 

This suggests that some aspects of his theory were highly subjective rather than objective, influenced by racial prejudices of the time.

Evaluation - application to the science of criminology

Lombroso has been hailed as the 'father of modern criminology' – he himself coined the term 'criminology' (Hollin 1989).

He is also credited as shifting the emphasis in crime research away from a moralistic discourse (in which offenders were judged as being wicked and weak-minded) towards a more scientific position (that of evolutionary influences and genetics where individuals are not to blame).

Also, in trying to describe how particular types of people are likely to commit particular types of crime, Lombroso's theory in many ways heralded the beginning of offender profiling. 

This suggests that Lombroso made a major contribution to the science of criminology.

Biological explanation - genes

Twin study - lange 1930:

• Method - 13 pairs of monozygotic (MZ) twins and 17 pairs of dizygotic (DZ) twins where one had been imprisoned, significantly higher concordance rate for criminal behaviour in MZ twins (where both twins had been imprisoned) compared to DZ twins. 

• Results - 10 out of 13 MZ twin pairs showed concordance for criminality, whereas only 2 out of 17 DZ twin pairs did. 

• Conclusion - genetic factors played a predominant role in criminal behaviour, suggesting a strong inherited predisposition to crime.

Adoption study - crowe 1972:

• Method - comparing adopted children whose biological mothers had a criminal record with a control group of adopted children whose biological mothers did not. 

• Results - adopted children with a criminal biological mother had a significantly higher risk (around 50%) of having a criminal record by the age of 18 compared to the control group (only around 5%).

• Conclusion: - genetic factors transmitted from the biological mother played a significant role in predisposing individuals to criminal behaviour, even when raised in different environments.

Candidate genes - tiihonen et al 2014:

• Conducted a genetic analysis of almost 900 Finnish offenders to reveal abnormalities on two candidate genes that may be associated with violent crime.

• Individuals with this high risk combination were 13x more likely to have a history of violent behaviour. 

• However - this research is in its infancy and has, so far, not been replicated!

• MAOA - Controls dopamine and serotonin in the brain. Variations have been linked to behavioral traits like aggression and impulsivity, earning it the nickname ‘warrior gene’.

• CDH13 gene - Has been identified as a potential risk factor for various neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and substance abuse.

Diathesis-stress model:

• Explains offending behaviour as a combination of a pre-existing vulnerability (diathesis, e.g., genetic or psychological) and environmental stressors. 

• The diathesis makes someone more susceptible to crime, but stress triggers this predisposition.

• The stronger the diathesis, the less stress is needed.

• Diathesis = Faulty MAOA or CdH13 Gene.

• Stressor = Low socioeconomic status, criminal  role models (Parents/Peers), drug dependency

Evaluation for genetic - methodological flaws with twin study research

Researchers assume environmental factors are constant for twins raised together, implying similar environments.

'shared environment assumption' may apply more to monozygotic (MZ) twins than dizygotic (DZ) twins, as MZ twins look identical and are often treated more similarly, influencing their behavior.

Therefore, higher concordance rates for MZs in twin studies might simply be due to more similar treatment compared to DZ twins. 

As a result, we need to be careful when relying on twin study evidence in the explanation of offending behaviour.

Evaluation for genetic - methodological flaws with adoption studies

It is presumed that adoption studies, such as the Mednick et al. study, are a good way of separating nature and nurture.

If crime has a genetic component, then an adopted child should still experience the influence of the biological parent despite not living with them.

However, many adoptions take place when children are older, so they spend several years with their biological parents. 

In addition, many adoptees are encouraged to maintain contact with their biological family, meaning biological parents can exert an environmental influence.

Evaluation for genetic - diathesis-stress model is supported by the genetic explanation for offending.

A study of 13,000 Danish adoptees by Sarnoff Mednick et al. (1984) found that when neither biological nor adoptive parents had convictions, 13.5% of adoptees did.

This figure rose to 20% when either biological parent had convictions, and 24.5% when both adoptive and biological parents had convictions. 

This demonstrates that genetic inheritance plays an important role in offending, but environmental influence is also clearly important, supporting the diathesis-stress model of crime.

Evaluation for genetic - biologically reductionist

The theory suggests that if an individual possesses certain candidate genes (e.g., the MAOA "warrior gene"), they are predisposed to criminal behaviour.

This oversimplifies the intricate web of factors that contribute to offending and reduces complex behavioral patterns to a single, biological cause, ignoring other crucial influences such as socioeconomic status and deviant role models. 

Therefore, the genetic explanation is more useful when used within the diathesis-stress model.

Evaluation for genetic - biologically deterministic

The genetic explanation  suggests that offending behaviour is determined by inherited faulty genes which cannot be controlled by the person.

This would suggest a person should not be held responsible for any crimes they commit as they had no free will.

However, our justice system is based on the notion that we all have responsibility for our actions.

Only in extreme circumstances (e.g. mental disorder), is an individual judged to lack responsibility. 

The identification of possible biological precursors to crime complicates this principle and raises social sensitivity issues.

Neural explanation for offending

Evidence suggests there may be neural differences in the brains of criminals and non-criminals.

Much of the evidence in this area has investigated individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (APD) formerly referred to as psychopathy.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD):

• Condition marked by a persistent pattern of disregarding and violating the rights of others from childhood/early adolescence into adulthood.

• Deceitfulness, impulsivity, irritability, recklessness, irresponsibility, and a lack of remorse.

• Often with a history of breaking rules and legal problems.

Raine et al 200:

• Did research on the APD brain using numerous brain-imaging studies.

• Found - reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex.

• PFC = regulating emotional behaviour.

• 11% decrease in grey matter volume in the PFC of those who had APD compared to control group.

Keysers et al 2011:

• Mirror neurons.

• Recent research indicates that individuals with APD possess the capacity for empathy, though it manifests less consistently than in others.

• Revealed that their empathy response (mediated by mirror neurons) only activated when explicitly instructed to empathise, such as with someone in pain depicted on film.

• Don't lack empathy entirely but may have a neural "switch" for it, unlike the more consistently active empathy in neurotypical brains.

  
  

Evaluation for neural - research linking PFC and crime

Kandel and Freed (1989) reviewed evidence of frontal lobe damage (including the prefrontal cortex) and antisocial behaviour.

People with such damage tended to show impulsive behaviour, emotional instability and an inability to learn from their mistakes.

The frontal lobe is associated with planning behaviour. 

This provides credibility to the idea that brain damage may be a causal factor in offending behaviour.

Evaluation for neural - highly reliable and scientific from research support

Kandel & Freed (1989) reviewed findings from multiple studies that employed objective measurement techniques and standardised research protocols to assess frontal lobe damage and associated behaviours, such as measurements of brain lesions and deficits on neuropsychological tests. 

This therefore provides a comprehensive and empirically-supported argument for a link between neural factors and antisocial behaviour.

Evaluation for neural - theoretical flaw of correlation

Farrington et al. (2006) studied a group of men who scored high on psychopathy (APD).

These individuals had experienced various risk factors during childhood, such as being raised by a convicted parent and being physically neglected.

It could be that these early childhood experiences caused APD and also some of the neural differences associated with it. 

This suggests that the relationship between neural differences, APD and offending is complex and needs to be explored further.

Evaluation for neural - biologically reductionist

The theory suggests that if an individual possesses certain neural differences such as reduced activity in the PFC, they are predisposed to criminal behaviour.

This oversimplifies the intricate web of factors that contribute to offending and reduces complex behavioral patterns to a single, biological cause, ignoring other crucial influences such as socioeconomic status and deviant role models. 

Therefore, the neural explanation is more useful when used within the diathesis-stress model.

Evaluation of neural - biologically deterministic

This explanation suggests that offending behaviour is determined by neural differences in the brains of offender which is out of their control.

This would suggest a person should not be held responsible for any crimes they commit as they had no free will.

However, our justice system is based on the notion that we all have responsibility for our actions.

Only in extreme circumstances (e.g. mental disorder), is an individual judged to lack responsibility. 

The identification of possible biological precursors to crime complicates this principle and raises social sensitivity issues

psychodynamic explanation

All psychodynamic explanations originate from the work of Sigmund Freud. Although Freud did not address the issue of criminality himself, other researchers have attempted to apply some of his key concepts to offending.

The two psychodynamic explanations we will explore: 

1. Blackburn’s idea of the inadequate superego

2. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory

inadequate super ego - black burn

An imbalance among the three components of personality can explain offending behaviour, particularly when the impulsive desires of the id are not sufficiently regulated.

Blackburn (1993) argued that if the superego is somehow deficient or inadequate then criminal behaviour is inevitable because the id is given ‘free rein’ and is not properly controlled. 

weak superego:

Cause: If the same-sex parent is absent during the phallic stage, the child cannot internalise a fully-formed superego as there is no opportunity for identification.

Link to criminal behaviour: This results in a reduced sense of guilt and an inability to effectively regulate the impulsive desires of the id, resulting in individuals acting on their selfish or aggressive urges, such as theft or violence.

deviant superego:

Cause: When the child identifies with a parent who has criminal values, the child internalises these morally unacceptable standards.

Link to criminal behaviour: They are likely to engage in criminal behaviour that aligns with their deviant values. They may feel guilt if they fail to adhere to these criminal norms, which can explain why some individuals raised in criminal families or subcultures may perpetuate criminal behaviour.

over-harsh superego:

Cause: This can be due to harsh or authoritarian parenting, where the child experiences severe punishment and internalises an overwhelming sense of guilt.

Link to criminal behaviour: This could results in criminal behaviour in two key ways: guilt reduction and moral justification

Guilt reduction: The individual may unconsciously seek out punishment to alleviate the overwhelming feelings of guilt. Committing a crime and getting caught could be a way to externalise and resolve this internal conflict, as the punishment serves to reduce the chronic guilt.

Moral justification: The intense guilt and self-loathing might lead the individual to rationalise their criminal behaviour as a form of deserved punishment or as a way to lash out against the perceived unfairness of their own internal world. They might feel they are inherently bad anyway, so engaging in criminal acts is consistent with their self-image.

girls and the inadequate superego

An implicit assumption is the idea that girls develop a weaker superego than boys having not experienced castration anxiety, so are under less pressure to identify with their mothers, so their superego - and consequently their sense of morality - is less fully realised. Therefore, they could be more prone to criminal behaviour than males.

evaluation - research evidence

Goreta conducted a Freudian-style analysis of ten offenders referred for psychiatric treatment. In all those assessed, disturbances in Superego formation were diagnosed. Each offender experienced unconscious feelings of guilt and the need for self-punishment. Goreta explained this as a consequence of an over-harsh Superego, the need for punishment manifesting itself as a desire to commit acts of wrongdoing and offend. 

This evidence seems to support the role of psychic conflicts and an over-harsh Superego as a basis for offending

evaluation - GRAVE

low sample size.

There were only 10  offenders referred for psychiatric treatment.The results from this small group of offenders about their unconscious feelings of guilt and the need for punishment has limited generalisability as the findings are unlikely to apply to the wider offender population. 

These flaws with this research therefore reduces the support it provides for the inadequate superego as an explanation of offending behaviour.

evaluation - methodological flaws

 unfalsifiable concepts that cannot be empirically tested.

 These abstract, unmeasurable constructs (e.g., unconscious guilt, superego strength) cannot be directly observed or quantified, making empirical testing impossible. Research into the superego often relies on subjective interpretations from case studies rather than objective data, preventing definitive scientific validation or refutation. 

This lack of empirical testability hinders the scientificity of the psychodynamic theory of offending behaviour.

evaluation - gender bias

The theory claims females are more likely to commit crimes than males as they inherently have weaker superegos. However, rates of imprisonment show that the opposite is more likely to be true as in the UK about 20 times more men are in prison than women. 

This suggests there is alpha bias at the heart of Freud's theory and means it may not be appropriate as an explanation of offending behaviour.

maternal deprivation theory - bowlby

Bowlby’s (1944) theory of maternal deprivation argued that the ability to form meaningful relationships in adulthood was dependent upon the child forming a warm, continuous relationship with a mother-figure during the critical period. 

Failure to establish such a relationship during this period (3-5 years of age) means a child is likely to experience a number of damaging and irreversible consequences in later life. 

Affectionless Psychopathy

Lack of guilt and empathy, often linked to antisocial behaviour due to absent internal emotional controls and healthy relationships.

Aggression

Behaviour intended to cause harm, occurring in reactive (impulsive, angry) or proactive (planned, goal-oriented) forms

Delinquency

Antisocial or illegal behaviour by juveniles, ranging from minor to serious offences

bowlby’s 44 thieves study

Bowlby (1944) supported his claims with his own investigation of 44 juvenile thieves. 

He found through interviews with the thieves and their families, that 14 displayed affectionless psychopathy traits, with 12 of these having experienced prolonged early maternal separation, compared to only two such experiences in a non-offender group. 

Bowlby concluded that maternal deprivation caused affectionless and delinquent behaviour in the juvenile thieves.

evaluation - research evidence

Bowlby found through interviews with the thieves and their families, that 14 displayed affectionless psychopathy traits, with 12 of these having experienced prolonged early maternal separation, compared to only two such experiences in a non-offender group. Bowlby concluded that maternal deprivation caused affectionless and delinquent behaviour in the juvenile thieves.

This shows a correlation between maternal deprivation and offending behaviour.

evaluation - GRAVE

methodological flaws with this research due to generalisability issues with the sample and a high risk of researcher bias.

Bowlby's 44 Thieves Study, exclusively from 1930s-40s UK, has limited generalisability as its findings on maternal deprivation may not apply across different cultures, socioeconomic backgrounds, or eras due to varying child-rearing practices. Furthermore, Bowlby's pre-existing hypothesis and dual role in interviewing and diagnosis introduced a high risk of researcher bias, potentially swaying interpretations. 

These flaws with this research therefore reduces the support it provides for the inadequate superego as an explanation of offending behaviour.

evaluation - bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis is deterministic

The theory claims that early deprivation almost guarantees future offending and there is no choice in this outcome as it is environmentally determined, however many children who experience deprivation do not become offenders as is claimed. This is also a very pessimistic view of human nature and indicates that morally we cannot hold people responsible for their crimes as this was not their choice but a factor out of their control

This deterministic view of crime is therefore directly opposed to the way the justice system works to hold offenders to account and be held responsible for their actions

evaluation - bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory is oversimplified

considered an oversimplification of the complex factors contributing to offending behaviour. 

Forensic psychology now favours a holistic approach, recognising that social, economic, and biological factors all play a role in criminal behaviour, not just a single early childhood experience. 

This suggests that Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis to explain offending behaviour is reductionist and does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of reason for criminal behaviour.

cognitive explanations

There is often a lot of talk about the ‘criminal mind’ which cognitive explanations try to explain. 

Two key explanations are: 

1. Level of moral reasoning 

2. Cognitive distortions

level of moral reasoning

Moral reasoning involves individuals applying their personal value system to assess the rightness or wrongness of an action. Kohlberg endeavoured to provide a more objective framework for understanding this process by creating distinct levels of moral reasoning, based on the justifications people offered for their choices in hypothetical moral dilemmas, such as the ‘Heinz dilemma’.

Many studies have suggested that criminals tend to show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-criminals, being more likely to be classified at the preconventional level (stages 1 and 2), whereas non-criminals have generally progressed to the conventional level and beyond. 

This assumption is supported by studies which suggest that offenders are often more egocentric (self-centred) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non-offender peers. 

Kohlberg et al. (1973), found that a group of violent youths were significantly lower in their moral development than non-violent youths - even after controlling for social background.

kohlberg’s model

Level I - Preconventional Morality

Stage 1

Punishment orientation 

- Rules are obeyed to avoid punishment

Stage 2

Instrumental orientation or personal gain 

- Rules are obeyed for personal gain

Level II - Conventional Morality

Stage 3

‘Good boy’ or ‘good girl’ orientation

- Rules are obeyed for approval

Stage 4

Maintenance of the social order

- Rules are obeyed to maintain the 

  social order

Level III - Postconventional Morality

Stage 5

Morality of contract and individual rights

- Rules are obeyed if they are impartial; democratic rules 

  are challenged if they infringe on the rights of others

Stage 6

Morality of conscience

- The individual establishes their own rules in accordance 

  with a personal set of ethical principles

evaluations - research evidence

Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio moral Reflection Measure Short Form (SRM-SF) which contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions such as not taking things that belong to others and keeping a promise to a friend. The offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offender group. 

This is consistent with Kohlberg's predictions, providing credibility to his theory of levels of moral reasoning.

evaluations - GRAVE

One of the problems of Palmer and Hollin (1998)  research supporting  Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning wa the method used to collect data 

Using the Socio moral Reflection Measure Short Form (SRM-SF) which contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions is open to biased  responses that the offenders may have given to look better,  possibly demonstrating social desirability bias. 

This would question the validity of the findings from this study 

These flaws with this research therefore reduces the support it provides for levels of moral reasoning as an explanation of offending behaviour

evaluations - alternative explanations

Gibbs revised version of Kohlberg’s theory.  

This comprised of  two levels of reasoning: mature and immature. In the first level, moral decisions are guided by avoidance of punishment and personal gain; in the second level, by empathy, social justice and one's own conscience. These stages are equivalent to Kohlberg's preconventional and conventional levels. 

Gibbs argued that Kohlberg's post-conventional level should be abandoned because it was culturally biased (towards 'Western' culture) and did not represent a 'natural' maturational stage of cognitive development. 

evaluation - theoretical flaw

individual differences. 

Thornton and Reid (1982) suggests it depends on the type of offence. They found that people who committed crimes for financial gain (e.g. robbery) were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes (e.g. assault). Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment. 

This suggests that Kohlberg's theory may not apply to all forms of crime.

cognitive distortions

Cognitive distortions are flawed thinking patterns, representing errors in how people process information. 

Research suggests a link between these distortions and how criminals interpret others' behaviour and rationalise their own actions. 

Two examples of cognitive distortions relevant to crime are: hostile attribution bias and minimalisation.

hostile attributions bias

Attributions are the inferences we make when observing someone's actions, for example, assuming someone likes you if they smile. A hostile attribution bias is a tendency to interpret others' behaviour negatively. 

Evidence indicates that violent individuals often misinterpret others' actions, perceiving confrontation or aggression where none exists. They may misread non-aggressive cues, triggering disproportionate violent responses. Hostile attribution bias is strongly linked to aggressive criminal behaviour.

Schönenberg & Justye (2014)

Schönenberg and Justye examined how they interpreted ambiguous facial expressions. They presented 55 incarcerated antisocial violent offenders and a control group with images of faces showing blends of anger, happiness, and fear. The key finding was that the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive ambiguous facial expressions containing even subtle elements of anger as hostile, compared to the control group. This suggests that a tendency to misinterpret nonverbal cues, particularly those related to anger, may contribute to aggressive behaviour in susceptible individuals.  

The roots of this behaviour may lie in childhood. Dodge and Frame (1982) showed children a video clip of an ‘ambiguous provocation’ (where the intention was neither clearly hostile nor clearly accidental). 

Children who had been identified as ‘aggressive’ and ‘rejected’ prior to the study interpreted the situation as more hostile than those classed as ‘non-aggressive’ and ‘accepted’.

minimalisation

Minimalisation is the act of denying or reducing the perceived seriousness of an offence, sometimes described as using 'euphemistic labels' for behaviour (Bandura, 1973). 

For example, burglars might say they are 'doing a job' or 'supporting their family' to downplay their crime.

Barbaree (1991) 

Barbaree's study focused on denial and minimisation among incarcerated rapists. He found that a significant proportion of the 26 rapists interviewed employed these cognitive distortions. Specifically, 54% denied committing the offence at all, while a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to their victims. This research highlighted the prevalence of denial and minimisation as cognitive strategies used by sexual offenders to reduce their perceived responsibility and the severity of their actions. The findings have implications for the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders, as addressing these distortions is often considered crucial for progress.

evaluations - research evidence

 Schönenberg & Justye (2014) found that 55 incarcerated antisocial violent offenders were significantly more likely than a control group to interpret ambiguous facial expressions, especially those with subtle anger, as hostile. 

This indicates that misinterpreting nonverbal cues, particularly anger, may contribute to aggressive behaviour, providing credibility to this cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.

evaluations - GRAVE

One problem with  Schönenberg & Justye (2014) research study into  cognitive distortions is the low sample size

The sample size was only  55 incarcerated antisocial violent offenders 

This suggests that we may not be able to fully generalise the results about misinterpreting nonverbal cues leading  to the wider population of aggressive offenders.

These flaws with this research therefore reduces the support it provides for cognitive distortions as an explanation of offending behaviour.

evaluations - theoretical flaw

individual differences. 

Howitt and Sheldon (2007) suggests it depends on the type of offence after they gathered questionnaire responses from sexual offenders. Contrary to what the researchers predicted, they found that non-contact sex offenders (accessed sexual images on the internet) used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders (had physically abused children). Those who had a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification. 

This suggests that distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders.

evaluations - practical applications with minimalisation

For example, the focus on reducing incidence of minimalisation in anger management therapy.

In anger management therapy individuals are taught to identify and challenge these self-deceptive thought patterns, fostering acceptance of their crimes and developing empathy for victims. This cognitive restructuring is crucial for effective rehabilitation, as evidenced by studies linking reduced denial to lower reoffending rates.

This demonstrates the practical value of understanding and addressing cognitive distortions in criminal behaviour.