Forensics

Custodial sentencing

the convicted offender spends time in prison or a closed institution e.g. young offender’s unit

Aims of custodial sentencing

1. deterrence- unpleasant prison experience is designed to put individuals off from committing crimes.

   • general: broad message that crime will not be tolerated.

   • individual: prevents individual from reoffending due to their prison experience.

2. Incapacitation- taken out of society to prevent reoffending and protect environments.

   • depends on severity and nature of the offender

3. Retribution- society gets revenge as the offender suffers in proportion to seriousness of the offence, means they pay for actions, gives sense of justice.

4. Rehabilitation- helps offenders to reform and be better adjusted to society. Give opportunities to develop skills and training, access treatments and reflect.

Recidivism (reoffending)

within 1 year ~ 45%

US=60%

Norway=20% emphasis on rehabilitation and skills development

depends on the time period, age, crime committed

Evaluating custodial sentencing

Provides opportunity for training and treatment

• rehabilitation means offenders may become better people and go on to live a crime free life.

• many offenders receive an education and training to help them find employment upon release.

• offenders in college education programmes are 43% less likely to reoffend, fewer violent incidents.

→ hard to fund or resource.

Has negative psychological effect on prisoners

• imprisonment can be brutal and devastating.

• 9% higher suicide rates than general population.

• Young men in first 24 hours are most at risk.

• 25% men, 15% women- symptoms of psychosis.

→ many convicted have pre existing psychological and emotional difficulties (may be reason for crime). importation model- do not know if it is due to prison or just being locked away (confounding variable).

Individual differences means it is difficult to move general conclusions about effectiveness of custodial sentencing e.g. different prisons have different regimes, length of sentence, reason, any previous experiences.

‘School for crime’- offenders may learn to become better offenders. e.g. long term offenders may give younger inmates chance to learn tricks of trade, acquire criminal contacts. This undermines rehabilitation making reoffending more likely.

Psychological effects of custodial sentencing

1. stress and depression- suicide rates are considerably higher in prison than in the general population, as in self harm. Increases risk of developing psychological disorder.

2. institutionalisation- having adapted to norms and routines of prison life, inmates become so accustomed they can no longer function on the outside.

3. prisonization- prisoners socialised into adopting an ‘inmate code’ so behaviour considered unacceptable in the outside world may be encouraged/ rewarded inside.

Token economy system, behaviour modification in cus

Uses operant conditioning.

Give a token when a desirable behaviour is done e.g. avoiding confrontation, following rules, being tidy. These tokens are secondary reinforcers as can be exchanged for rewards e.g. cigarettes, food, gym, phone calls

Behaviours are hierarchical as some regarded as leading to greater rewards.

Disobedience/ non compliance results in a loss of tokens and privileges.

Reinforcement should outnumber punishments 4:1.

Needed for behaviour modification in custody to work:

• operationalisation of target behaviours.

• trained staff

• behaviour needs to be broken down to different parts.

  • objective/ measurable e.g. improved interactions= no touching, speaking politely

  • agreed in advance

• staff need to have full training in order to standardise procedures so all the prison staff are rewarding behaviours the same way. staff must also record when they have allocated tokens to track progress.

Evaluating behaviour modification in custody

Research support, Hobbs and Holt: introduced a token economy programme with groups of young offenders across 3 units, and 1 control. Significant difference in positive behaviour compared to non token economy group.

→ does depend on significant consistency from staff. when inconsistent or have lack of training, or when there is a high staff turnover- these benefits are lost.

Straight forward to set up and implement. No need for professionals as there would be for anger management. It can be designed and implemented by anyone. Cost effective and easy to follow up once methods of reinforcement have been set up.

Ethical issues- terms and conditions of behaviour modification are manipulative and dehumanising. Institutions make participation compulsory. can lead to withdrawal of privileges like exercise or contact with loved ones.

May not affect long term behavior: positive changes in behaviour that may occur in prison may quickly be lost when they are released. (no rewards in real life). More cognitive based therapies e.g. anger management may lead to more permanent change as tackles cause and effect. offenders may play along to get rewards with no actual changes in character.

Rewards needs to be suited individually which is hard to implement practically.

Basis behind anger management

cognitive factors trigger emotional arousal which precedes aggressive acts.

anger can be particularly quick to surface especially in situations perceived to be anxiety inducing or threatening. → anger is then reinforced by feelings of control.

anger management is a form of cognitive behaviour therapy- by learning what triggers you, you can learn techniques to resolve conflicts.

positive outcomes, KEEN

researched progress in young offenders aged 17-21 in a nationally recognised anger management programme.

do 8 2 hour sessions (7 in 2 weeks, and then 1 a month later)

→ this increased awareness of anger management difficulties and led to better self control.

3 steps of anger management

calm people

should avoid

angry people

1. cognitive preparation- reflect on past experiences, consider typical patterns of anger, to then identify triggers and work out whether their interpretation is irrational e.g. may think just a look is confrontational so the therapist helps to break this automatic response.

2. skills acquisition- introduced to a range of techniques and skills to help them deal with anger-provoking situations more rationally and effectively.

   • cognitive- positive self talk to stay calm

   • behavioural- assertiveness training to communicate effectively to help it become an automatic response

   • physiological- through relaxation training or meditation to control one’s emotions.

3. application process- practice skills in controlled environment. role play involving offender and therapist reenacting scenarios that may have led to anger/violence in the past. requires a commitment to see scenario as real, and bravery from therapist to wind up offender. if done successfully they then receive positive reinforcement.

evaluation of anger management

benefits may outlast those of behaviour modification as tries to tackle cause of offending. by understanding the cognitive processes that trigger anger and the offending behaviour, while behaviour modification only deals with surface behaviour and not processes that drive it. gives new insight to understand cause and allow them to manage themselves outside of prisons.

→ follow up studies tend not to support this assumption. little evidence it reduces recidivism long term. application is a role play so not realistic of possible triggers in a real world situation.

takes an eclectic approach as addresses thoughts, behaviour and applying. anger is complex but this recognizes the elements.

anger management is expensive- requires services of highly trained specialists who are used to dealing with violent offenders . prisons may not have resources or funds (change takes time meaning more money). prisoners also need to be cooperative and committed not apathetic.

may depend on individual factors. HOWELLS- participation in anger management programme had little overall impact when compared to a control group with no treatment.

→ significant progress made by offenders who showed intense levels of anger before the programme, or who were open to change and highly motivated (treatment readiness)

anger may not actually cause offending. LOZA: used range of psychometric measures and found no difference in levels of anger between offenders classed as violent and non violent.

restorative justice council

independent body who establish clear standards for restorative justice.

• support both survivors and specialist professionals.

• also prevent and manage conflict in schools, children’s services, workplaces, hospitals and communities.

• shows it is flexible, but means overall impact/progress is hard to measure

background of restorative justice

• made more about offender committing crime against victim rather than state.

• therefore the victim needs to feel compensated

• reparation: offender needs to repair harm they have cause e.g. pay for both physical and psychological damage, repair property and survivor’s confidence/ self esteem

• can be a alternative or extra to prison and reduce sentence

process of restorative justice

trained mediator supervises meeting- either face to face or remote.

other community members may get involved

survivor confronts offender and explains how incident affected them

offender can then comprehend consequence of actions

healing and empowerment

evaluating restorative justice

evidence suggests restorative justice does have positive outcomes.

• restorative justice council, did 7 year research project: 85% of survivors report satisfaction and 60% feel better, 78% would recommend.

→ can lead to survivors being ‘used’ to rehabilitate offenders rather than being helped themselves.

does lead to decrease in recidivism: meta analysis of 10 studies, STRANG

• compared offenders who experienced restorative justice to those just in prison

• significantly less likely to reoffend (especially for violent crimes).

• BAIN: 24 published studies- lowered recidivism rates with adult offenders who had 1-1 contact.

offenders may abuse system

• restorative justice hangs on offenders interventions being honorable. want to make amends as genuinely regret hurt caused. may actually do it to avoid punishment and victim may do it for revenge. → reduces positive outcomes

not always cost effective

• requires trained professionals

• high drop out rate, wasting time and money

→ every £1 on restorative justice saves £4 due to reduced reoffending so good value in the long run.

top down offender profiling

developed in the US by the FBI in the 1970s using data from interviews with 36 sexually motivated murderers like Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.

• murder categorised into either organised or disorganized crimes.

• known as modus operandi- based on both social and psychological characteristics

future data from crime scene can be matched to characteristics of category, then predict more to find the offender

difference between an organised and disorganised killer

organised

• evidence of having planned the crime in advance

• victim deliberately targeted as the offender has a ‘type’ they seek out

• above average intelligence

• professional occupation

• social and sexually competent

• married with kids

disorganised

• little evidence of planning (spontaneous)

• crime scene reflects impulsiveness e.g. body left at scene, little control on offender’s part

• live alone and near crime scene

• lower than average IQ

• unskilled work/ unemployed

• history of sexually dysfunctional/failed relationships

constructing an FBI profile

1. data assimilation- profiler reviews the evidence e.g. crime scene photos, witness reports

2. crime scene classification- organised or disorganised

3. crime reconstruction- hypotheses of sequence of events, behaviour of victim

4. profile generation- hypotheses related to the likely offender e.g. demographic background, physical characteristics

evaluating top down approach to offender profiling

support for distinct organised category of offender

• CANTER: conducted analysis of 100 US murders each committed by different serial killers

• smallest space analysis: identifies correlations across different samples of behaviour. used to assess occurrence of 39 aspects of serial killing

• e.g. torture, restraint, attempt to conceal, type of murder weapon

• analysis showed there is features which matched FBI’s typology showing it is valid

→ many studies show organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive. hard to classify killers as a type (may have combinations of characteristics or be a continuum)

can be adapted to other crimes like burglary despite some arguing it can only be used for a limited number of crimes. recently applied to burglary leading to an 85% increase in solved cases in 3 states.

• as well as organised and disorganised it adds:

  • interpersonal: stealing something of significance

  • opportunistic- just whatever (usually done by young offender)

Based on flawed evidence qas no sound basis. They used interviews on 36 murders (25 were serial, 11 were single or double). 24 of them were organised and 12 were disorganised. This was a poor sample as not large or random. The interview had no standard set of questions meaning answers could not be compared.

Typologies are based on outdated models of personalities

• assume offender’s motivations and behaviours are consistent across situations and contexts

• behaviours are not always driven by dispositional traits but constantly changing due to external factors.

• therefore approach lacks validity in identifying offender.

evaluating the bottom up approach to offender profiling

evidence for investigative psychology

• canter and heritage: analysis of 66 sexual assault cases. examined using small space analysis.

• several behaviours identified as common in different samples of behaviour e.g. impersonal language.

• individuals had characteristic patterns of behaviours to see if 2 or more offences were the same person.

→ case linkage depends on the data base which will only consist of historical solved crimes. therefore has little on crimes with no links.

evidence for geographical profiling: CANTER + LUNDRIGAN collected data from 120 murders in the US. The location of where the body was disposed created a centre (spacial consistency) leading to a base/home.

geographical profiling may not be sufficient on its own

• success depends on quality of data police can provide. recording of crimes is not always accurate due to DFOC.

• approach relies on geographical data too much e.g. type of offence, age, weapon- also matters

only 3% of cases lead to accurate identification

has led to innocent people being wrongly accused e.g. Rachel Nickell murder. Stagg was wrongly imprisoned for 13 months. He just fitted the profile and walked his dog nearby. therefore too reliant on offender profiling as other evidence and leads were ignored which could have led to right conviction nearer.

offender profiling, bottom up

david canter- generates picture of offender e.g. characteristics, social background, behaviour

analyse evidence at crime scene (data driven)

bottom up- investigative psychology

use statistics alongside theory

• establish patterns of behavior that are likely to happen across crime scenes to make database for baseline.

• specific details of offence can be matched and reveal details about offender e.g. personal history, family background

interpersonal coherence: way the offender behaves and how they interact with the victim

time and place

forensic awareness e.g. how well they cover their tracks

bottom up: geographical mobility

uses information about location of linked crimes to make inferences of where the home/ base of offender is.

• spacial consistency: people commit crimes within geographical space

create hypothesis about thought process

use age, employment, nature of offence

will restrict work to geographical familiar area and create a centre of gravity (jeopardy surface)- the pattern of offending creates a circle around the home. (canter’s circle theory)

canter’s circle theory

• marauders

• commuters

Biological explanation, the atavistic form-

historical approach (lombroso)

• criminality is inherited so criminals were genetically different o non criminals.

• genetic throwbacks to a primitive sub species of the early stages of human evolution.

• savage and untamed nature means criminals find it impossible to adjust to demands of civilised society so inevitably will turn to crime.

the atavistic form, lombroso’s research

meticulously examined 400 dead criminals and 4000 alive ones.

40% of criminal acts were accounted for by people who had atavistic features.

atavistic features

physiological markers in the face and head

• prominent jaw

• dark skin

• low sloping forehead

• existence of extra toes

• high cheekbones

• larger ears

murderers: bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears

sexual deviants: glinting eyes, fleshy lips, protruding ears

evaluating the atavistic approach

research suggests that there may be a real link between facial features and criminality

• Zhang and Wu, the university of China: used ID photos of 1856 men, half of whom had previous criminal convictions and ran through the AI programme

• correctly identified 83% of criminals while only misidentifying 6% of innocent men.

• shows certain facial features may be associated with criminal behaviour. modern scientific support that biological features can be informative in predicting offending behaviour showing study has validity.

has been accused of scientific racism

-many of the facial and cranial features he linked to criminality e.g. dark skin, curly hair is more common in people of African descent.

therefore his research reflected 19th century eugenics/racist attitudes unfairly stereotyping minority groups.

lombroso’s methods of investigation were poorly controlled

• did not compare the offender sample with a non offender control group so was therefore lacking a baseline to compare to in whether atavistic features were actually more common in criminals.

• could have been confounding variables which impacted criminality e.g. extent of poverty.

cannot establish cause and effect

• even if a criminal does have atavistic features we cannot say that these caused offending behaviour.

• facial and cranial features may be influenced by factors such as poor diet and poverty rather than evolutionary development so reduces the explanation.

basis of genetic explanation for criminality

offenders inherit a gene/ combination of genes that predisposes them to commit a crime e.g. could control neurotransmitter levels.

twin studies

• LANGE

• CHRISTIANSEN

and evaluation

LANGE- investigated 13 identical and 17 non identical twins. MZ twins had much higher concordance rate for criminality. 10/13 had both been in prison compared to 2/17.

CHRISTIANSEN: MZ twins had concordance rate of 35% compared to 13% of DZ twins for criminality.

Lange’s study was poorly controlled and used appearances to work out if twins were DZ  or MZ rather than DNA testing.

Small unrepresentative sample size

concordance not 100% so must not be just genetic

Major confounding variable that most twins are reared in the same environment so hard to separate influence of nature from nurture.

candidate gendes

• TIIHONEN

and evaluation

TIHONEN: studied 900 Finnish violent offenders

MAOA: controls dopamine and serotonin and is linked to aggressive behaviours.

CDH13: linked to substance abuse and ADHD

→ 13x more likely to have a history of violent behaviour

criminal gene presents a dilemma as the legal system is based on the premise that criminals are personally responsible and have free will. creates ethical questions of sentencing those with genes. e.g. Mobley: shot someone in the neck and was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. tried to use genes as defense. (arguing it was deterministic)

→ however 1/3-1/2 of all men have it and not all commit crime showing there is choice involved

Diathesis stress model

• MEDNICK

• JIM FALLON

and evaluation

genetic vulnerability+stress

MEDNICK- studied 13,000 adoptees. most likely to have committed crime when both biological and adopted parents had convictions (25%) showing importance of both nature and nurture.

e.g. Jim Fallon- had MAOA gene and brain structure of psychopath but not criminal as had loving and happy childhood.

made complicated as many children experience late adoption so are still heavily influenced by biological parents or still are in contact with them.

mednick only studied petty offences

basis of neural explanation for criminality

offenders have dysfunction in their brain (structure and neurotransmitters) and nervous system that causes them to commit crime.

Prefrontal cortex

• RAINE

and evaluation

people with antisocial personality disorder (reduced emotional responses, lack of empathy), have reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex where emotions are regulated. compared to controls they had an 11% reduction in grey matter which is involved in emotions.

research is just correlational so there is no clear way to show cause and effect, just more likely. abnormalities may be due to environmental factor making them more likely to be a criminal e.g. effects of trauma from early childhood. 

Kandel and feed: damage of prefrontal cortex led to impulsive behaviour, emotional instability and an inability to learn from mistakes. therefore is a factor in offending behaviour.

Mirror neurons

• KEYSERS

and evaluation

when criminals were asked to empathise with a person depicted on a film experiencing pain their empathy reaction did activate (showing they were using mirror neurons). suggests that criminals are not without empathy but their neural switch can be turned on and off- in a normally functioning brain it is permanently on.

researchers are inferring activity in mirror neurons from brain scans only showing individual brain regions. some scientists do not believe they exist.

Neurotransmitters

• Serotonin, SCERBO + RAINE

• Dopamine: COUPPIS

serotonin- meta analysis on 30 pieces of research in antisocial adults ad kids finding low levels of serotonin (mood and impulses).

dopamine- do certain criminal behaviours in order to get increase and seek out again to feel rewarded (pleasure).

reductionist- just looking at neurotransmitters does overlook other important factors. 

→ hard to disentangle all possible explanation-more straightforward. 

Eysenck’s personality test

types of behaviours

criminal behaviours

Proposed behaviour could be represented along 2 dimensions. Introversion-extraversion, neuroticism-stability (and psychoticism)

certain personality types are more likely to commit crime as crave excitement and struggle to see consequences of behaviour.

→ extravert → neurotic → psychotic

extraversion/introversion: extravert is sociable but becomes bored easily if there is a lack of stimulation. introverts are reliable and in control of their emotions. 

neuroticism/ stability: neurotics are anxious and often irrational. stable are calm and emotionally in control. 

psychoticism: cold, uncaring and aggressive personality. 

Biological basis of Eysenck’s theory

personality traits are biological in origin and come through type of nervous system we inherit (have innate, biological basis)

extraverts: underactive nervous system so want excitement and take part in risk taking behaviours. difficult to condition and do not learn from their mistakes.

neurotic: high level of reactivity in sympathetic nervous system. respond quickly to situations of threat or aversive stimuli. heightened emotions e.g. nervous, over anxious. hard to predict and condition. 

psychotic: high testosterone, unemotional and aggressive. 

Role of socialisation in Eysenck’s theory

process of socialisation involves children being taught to delay gratification and be more socially orientated.

accomplished through conditioning. acting in immature ways → punishment

therefore associate antisocial behaviour with feelings of anxiety (e.g. even thinking about it) so avoid acting antisocially.

people with high extraversion and neuroticism have nervous systems making them difficult to condition.

• do not associate antisocial impulses with anxiety

• more likely to act antisocially

• developmentally immature, selfish and concerned with immediate gratification.

Evaluating Eysenck’s theory

supporting evidence for Eysenck’s theory. compared 2070 male prisoner scores with 2422 non criminal male controls. group were subdivided into age groups ranging from 16-69 years. prisoners scored high on extravert, neurotic and psychotic. 

→ Farrington meta analysis: offenders tended to score high on P but not E or N. 

Eysenck measured criminal personality using psychological test

• personality is not stable or fixed, it changes depending on the situation and who we are with. 

• hard to accurately measure. more complex than scores on just 3 dimensions. 

• subject to social desirability bias: respondents may lie to avoid appearing uncaring or anxious. 

• Mofit: persistence in offending behaviour from adolescence is a reciprocal process between individual personality traits and environmental reactions to these traits. 

Culturally biased. Eysenck’s theory was based on study with 700 soldiers suffering from neurotic disorders at a hospital. other research found that hispanic and african american offenders in prison in new york score lower on extraversion than a non criminal control group. therefore generalisability is limited as the sample used was not culturally diverse. 

biologically deterministic- suggests criminal personality is innate and based on the nervous system we inherit, could be argued criminals were not acting on free will which creates implicates for the CJS.