Forensics

offender profiling

* when little evidence is available the police enlist forensic psychologist
* use prior knowledge and evidence to build a profile that outlines the type of person to have committed the crime

Top - down approach AO1

* FBI
* 1970s, data from 36 sexually motivated serial killers such as Ted Bundy and Charles Manson and compares to future crimes
* 4 stages:

data assimilation - reviews evidence

crime scene classification - organised (planned, few clues, control, targeted victim, high IQ, skilled occupation, married) or disorganised (random, unskilled, abused a child, alone, random victim, no plan, no control, lots of evidence)

crime scene reconstruction - hypothesis of how it occurred

profile generation - physical and behavioural characteristics

Top - down approach AO3

* RS - 100 murders, 39 characteristics matched organised, reliable. C//A: not disorganised, lowers generalisability as limited overall
* Limited sample - 36 killers glorified by the media so inaccurate data and portrayal, low validity, cant generalise to common offences such as robbery, no nomothetic law
* oversimplified - organised and disorganised crimes and offenders aren’t detailed enough, old fashion view, ignores external and internal factors such as visionary, mission, hedonistic and power - reductionist

Bottom - up approach AO1

* data driven, analysed to create profile


1. Investigative psychology: match behaviour to patterns on smallest space analysis program, acts as a baseline for future crimes to compare to

interpersonal coherence - way offender behaves indicates life

significance of time & place - if lives near

criminal characteristics - time repeated, any patterns

forensic awareness - involved with police before, covers clues


2. geographical profiling: plot location to figure out next one and where offender lives, input spatial data into computer system to produce a jeopardy surface map - qualitative and quantitative

circle theory - commuter or marauder proposed after railway rapist profile

Bottom - up approach AO3

* %%RLA%% - wide range of cases, useful in 83%, 48/52 police forces uses, generalisable. ==C/A:== only leads to 3% convictions, weak evidence, negative economic implications
* ==Flaws in the approach== - Rachel nickel stabbed 47 times and sexually assaulted but the wrong man was accused as the actual offender was ruled out for being ‘too tall’ - cant use as sole method as police over rely, negative ethical implications as led to another woman and 3 year old being killed
* %%Strength in the approach%% - more scientific as smallest space analysis is objective, better than top-down approach, scientific credibility. ==C/A:== interpretation of information is qualitative therefore subjective

Atavistic AO1

* Lombroso, 1876 - theory of criminology suggests that criminality is inherited, born a criminal, allows identification from way look
* Features: high cheekbones, long arms, insensitive to pain, large forward projecting jaw
* Murderer - long ears, bloodshot eyes, curly hair
* Sexual deviants - glinting eyes, swollen lips, projecting ears
* Fraudsters - thin lips
* Research: examined facial and cranial features of 383 dead and 3839 alive - 40% criminal acts accounted for
* Body type:

mesomorph - square and muscly - aggressive

endomorph - round and soft - tolerant

ectomorph - thin and fine - intelligent

Atavistic AO3

* ==Flaws in method== - no comparison group, bio reductionist as study with 3000 criminals vs 3000 non-criminals showed no evidence with regards to appearance, low reliability
* %%Shifted focus of crime%%- father of criminology moved from moralistic to idea it is inherited, biological explanations such as genetics and neural, revolutionised criminology
* ==Racial undertones== - many features found amount African descent, led to false accusation, provided criminals with an excuse, negative ethical implications, stereotypes & prejudice. %%C/A:%% now abolished. ==C/A:== 9 times more likely to be stopped and searched

biological explanation AO1

* Twins - 10/13 identical twins both been in prison vs 2/17 no identical
* 900 finish offenders - MAOA gene controls dopamine and serotonin results in aggression & CDH13 gene leads to drug abuse and ADD = 3x more likely to have history of violent behaviour
* Underactive prefrontal cortex - poor emotional response and logical decisions = impulsive, 11% less grey matter in antisocial personalities
* Mirror neurons - fire in response to others - emotional and social skills, offenders only felt empathy when asked to so suggests neural switch

biological explanation AO3

* RS - early studies show higher chance of cotwin in prison if identical. C/A: twin studies were poorly controlled as based on appearance and small sample so lacked scientific credibility and generalisability. C/A: now use genes so research only limited.
* RS - reviewed evidence/ meta analysis shows frontal lobe damage tended to lead to impulsiveness, emotional instability and inability to learn from mistakes , reliability, brain scans so scientific credibility. C/A: no cause and effect
* Bio deterministic - Stephen Mobley. C/A: legal system doesn’t accept as sole reason so limited RLA, negative economic implications. C/A: if was sole reason would have negative ethical implication to victim as provides excuse, 2009 Italy court reduced sentence of 1 year

Eysnenck psychological explanation AO1

* Behaviour represented along 2 dimensions:

introversion - extraversion

neuroticism - stability

added psychotism later

= PEN model, tested on EPI scale to determine personality type

* personality origin - socialisation, criminals are immature, selfish so concerned with immediate gratification.
* Higher E&N scores are harder to condition so unable to teach via socialisation to delay gratification - leads to criminality such as theft
* extravert - underactive NS, need excitement
* neurotic - nervous, jumpy, anxious - hard to predict

Eysenck psychological explanation AO3

* modern research suggests PEN model is ==oversimplified== - more dimensions such as openness, agreeableness and consciousness. Personality is also not fixed and changes based on situation so can’t solely explain offending, reductionist
* %%RS%% - Eysenck compared 2070 prisoners vs 2422 control males, all ages prisoners scored higher on PEN model, large sample, reliability, generalise, internal validity. ==C/A:== researcher bias and androcentric gender bias
* ==conflicting evidence== - Hispanic and African American prisoners in NY were grouped based o nature of offence and history, all 6 groups scored less extravert than non criminals, culture bias, low reliability

Psychodynamic explanation AO1

* Inadequate superego:

weak - same sex parent is absent so cant internalise or identify

deviant - immoral/deviant values

overharsh - feels guilt and anxiety so need for punishment eases if commit crime

* Defence mechanisms:

displacement

sublimation - strong ID, impulse expressed in socially accepted way

rationalisation - behaviour explained in rational way

* Bowlby: no primary attachment = affectionless psychopathy

44 thieves study

Psychodynamic explanation AO3

* ==conflicting evidence== - girls develop weaker superego due to electra complex so don’t identify with mum - would expect girls to commit more crimes but men:female = 95%:5%
* ==conflicting evidence for overharsh ego== - most criminals go to extreme lengths to cover crimes to avoid punishment, doesn’t reflect how criminals think and act, low reliability and external validity
* ==Flaws in the concept== - based on unconscious so untestable = pseuodscience. C/A: bowlby tried to establish cause and effect through use of a control group. C/A: small sample, researcher bias, confounding variables may have occurred as all war orphan so trauma could have caused affectionless psychopathy

Kohlberg cognitive explanation AO1

1. Level of moral reasoning - own value system, objectively measure moral understanding, 72 Chicago boys (10-16) in which 58 were followed after 3 years for 20 years were given dilemma question to see different justifications

level 1 preconventional morality - punishment and personal gain

level 2 conventional morality - social approval

level 3 postconvential morality - complex justification, weighs up moral outcomes

criminals such at level 1, child-like, focuses on rewards/punishes


2. cognitive distortions- faulty, irrational ways of thinking

hostile attribution bias - misreads actions/intentions

minimalisation - downplays or denies seriousness of crime

Kohlberg cognitive explanation AO3

* %%RS%% - individuals who commit crime for personal gain are found to more likely be in pre-convential morality stage, RLA, reliability. ==C/A:== cant apply to unreasoned crimes, no nomothetic law
* %%RS%% - among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all, and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim.
* %%RS%% - 210 female innocent, 122 innocent males, 126 convicts used to socio-moral reflection measure short form and convicts showed lower moral reasoning, internal validity, reliability, scientific credibility, large sample, generalisable


* ==Conflicting evidence== - post conventional should be removed as based on western concepts and norms. Proposed a revised version of Kohlberg's theory compromised of mature and immature, culture beta bias

Differential association theory AO1

* Sutherland - learn values, attitudes, techniques and motivations for criminal behaviour through association and interaction
* set to create set of scientific principles to explain all offending and offenders - both blue and white collar crime
* learn attitudes: pro criminal attitudes outweigh anti criminal attitudes
* calculate: frequency, intensity and duration of exposure
* how learn: specific techniques enable them to commit crime - explain re-offending as learn in prison

Differential association theory AO3

* Applicable to wide range of crimes - white and blue collar, RLA. C/A: cant apply to serious and impulsive crimes
* Led to future developments - introduced dysfunctional social circumstances and environments rather than the individual, holistic, better than Lombroso as this allows intervention.
* RS - Offending runs in families, 411 working class boys (8-50), 41% convicted once. C/A: androcentric bias. C/A: only looks at social and environmental factors. parent convictions could be genetics, eysenck’s explanation for risk taking and superego - can’t establish cause and effect

custodial sentencing AO1

* spending time in prison or closed institution


1. Deterrence - unpleasant experience

general - broad message to society

individual - prevent some individuals from reoffending


2. Incapacitation - take offender out of society to protect public
3. Retribution - society enacts revenge and makes offender suffer ‘eye for an eye’.
4. Rehabilitation - develop skills/training to help them access treatments for addiction, gives them a chance to reflect

* Psychological effects:


1. stress and depression - suicide, self harm higher in prisons
2. institutionalised - adapt to norms and routines in prison, struggle to cope in real world
3. prisonisation - behaviour that is encouraged and rewarded in prison may be unaccepted in real work, prisoner’s socialised into ‘inmate code’

custodial sentencing AO3

* %%RS%% - zimbardo, 5/12 prisoners had mental breakdowns, negative ethical implications. ==C/A==: artificial, low external validity. ==C/A:== BBC study replicated showed no psych effects
* ==Can’t apply to all prisons== - different regimes and routines, not all same effects, aims to generalised, best to take idiographic approach and look at inmates individually.
* ==Conflicting evidence for rehab== - differential association, learn skills to reoffend, 24% adults and 31% under 18s in 2021
* %%RS for rehab%% - prisoners have numeracy and literacy skills of 11 year old, lack skills for 96% jobs. In prison can access education and training - Dutch prisons have half reoffending rates and positive economic implications

Anger management AO1

* Anger quick to surface in threatening situation, need to stay in control
* techniques need for identifying when going to lose control and how to resolve conflict without anger


1. Cognitive preparation - offender reflects on past, considers pattern of behaviour, learn to identify issues and triggers. Therapist makes clear response is irrational
2. Skills acquisition - offenders introduced to skills to help deal with anger provoking situations rationally

cognitive - positive self talk

behavioural - training into communication

physiological - relaxation/meditation


3. Application practice - offenders given opportunity to practice new skills in controlled environment. Roleplay with therapist, positively reinforced to implement all learnt

Anger management AO3

* %%Used to support wide range of individuals%% as includes cognitive, behavioural and social levels - holistic. ==C/A:== limited application as not all crimes motivated by anger, can’t produce nomothetic law, can’t be used as sole method. Also makes some offenders more dangerous as increases capacity to manipulate situations through control and achieve specific goals.
* %%Practical application%% - tackles faulty thoughts and gives insight into actions so allows self-managements out of prison, long term, lowers reoffending, positive ethical and economic implications. ==C/A==: little evidence for long term as lacks realistic aspect due to artificial role play. ==C/A:== expensive, £100-£150 per inmate and requires specialist , may prisons lack resources, negative economic implications. ==C/A:== cant apply to those who are uncooperative and apathetic

Token economies AO1

* Behavioural modification


1. desirable behaviour identified
2. broken down into smaller, manageable steps so offender can follow
3. all those who come into contact with prisoner will reward them with token
4. token can we swapped for reward in prison shop/ family contact - non compliance results in punishment

Token economies AO3

* %%RS%% - TE groups show more desirable behaviour than control group, after 2 years less likely to reoffend. ==C/A:== not long term as after 3 years the rates of recidivism reversed, isn’t a solution as in real world immediate gratification doesn’t exist. reductionist as only focuses on initial behaviour rather than the reasons behind it, reoffending more likely, holistic method such as anger management is better
* %%Practical application%% - easy and cheap, can apply to all, positive economic. ==C/A:== heavily relies on staff so effectiveness can be lost, although training would be better but would reduce its cost effectiveness.
* ==Ethical issues== - offenders not given option about participating so withdrawal of family contact is questionable and can lead to psych effect and causes prisoners to resent and refuse to participate

Restorative justice AO1

* Voluntary from all parties
* supervised meeting by trained mediator
* confront offender and offender can reflect
* rehab
* Restorative justice council establish standards
* schools, hospitals, work, communities and prison
* __Aimed outcome:__


1. rehab for offenders as can understand impact of crime
2. benefits wider society - £50,000 per prisoner, per year
3. victims perspective - reduce sense of victimisation, gives a voice and power, understand offender

Restorative justice AO3

* ==Lack of support from public== - not favoured, negative ethical implications as custodial sentencing preferred - 24% reoffending. Detrimental effects on victims of rape, domestic violence etc. %%C/A:%% 85% victims satisfied with meeting and 78% recommend it
* ==Limited application== - relies on offender feeling remorse, only reduces reoffending by 14% suggests offenders use it as an escape. Victims may also seek revenge, doesn’t work for all so cant generalise as a sole method
* %%Practical application%% - degree of flexibility, covers wide range of settings and can be adapted to individual needs, idiographic, better than custodial sentencing as considers all parties.