Forensics

Top-down approach (4)

1. US
2. Infers personality + behaviour
3. Based on how a crime is committed
4. Fit into pre-existing categories

How was top-down developed? (3)

1. Interview data
2. Sexually motivated killers
3. & Investigative analysis from FBI

Organized crime scene (3)

1. Similar victims
2. Body is hidden
3. Clean crime scene

Organized offender (3)

1. Average to high intelligence
2. Socially competent
3. Skilled employment

Disorganized crime scene (3)

1. Evidence left behind
2. No use of restraints
3. Body in open view

Disorganized offender (3)

1. Low intelligence
2. Socially incompetent
3. Unskilled employment

Construction of profile (4)

1. Data assimilation - View the evidence
2. Crime scene classification - Pre-existing organized vs disorganized
3. Profile generation - Characteristics & motives
4. Crime reconstruction - Sequence of events

Top-down AO3 (4)

+ Widely used and cited in literature, applied to all sexually motivated murders
BUT not used for burglary

- Too simplistic, overlap?

- Outdated, crime behaviour ≠ everyday behaviour

- Based on self-report

Bottom up approach (5)

1. UK
2. Uses geo & cog psych
3. Objective statistical analysis
4. Unique profile
5. Match database of similar past cromes

3 important features

1. Interpersonal coherence
2. Forensic awareness
3. Smallest space analysis

Geographical profiling (4)

1. Schema = mental maps
2. Guess likely home
3. Guess location of other crimes
4. Inferences about personality

2 geographical models

1. Commuter (crime far)
2. Marauder (crimes within home area)

Bottom up approach AO3 (4)

+ R2S Canter, supported marauder, interpersonal coherence, and commuter using solved crimes

+ Useful for all types of offending

+ Objective and scientific vs speculation and hunches

- Failures e.g. Colin Stagg due to overreliance on profile

Overall profiling AO3 (3)

- RTC Holmes, only 17% of arrests aided by profiling, valid?

- RTC Copson, useful in 83% but convicted in 3%, overexaggerate the importance

- RTC Kocsis, chem students more accurate, biases in reliance = ineffective

Lombroso's atavistic AO1 (5)

1. Innate criminal personality
2. Primitive characteristics (sloping brow & prominent jaw)
3. Biologically distinct
4. Sub-types found if curly hair/bloodshot eyes
5. Genetically determined

Atavistic AO3

+ R2S Lombroso's study, compared skulls of dead and living criminals, 40% share features
BUT did not compare to non-criminals

- Supports racist views, curly hair, overshadow criminology, implications

- RTC Goring, compared criminals and non-criminals, no evidence they are bio distinct, evidence they are low IQ

- Cause and effect? Confounding variables e.g. poverty
BUT later writings Lombroso said only 1/3 of criminals inherit criminality, rest is due to environment

Genetic explanations AO1 (6)

1. Inherit a genetic predisposition
2. Candidate genes
3. MAOA (Warrior)
4. Lead to deffective serotinin & dopamine = substance abuse
5. Combination = 13x more likely violent
6. Diathesis stress

Genetic explanations AO3 (3)

+ R2S Mednick, adoption data from Denmark, neither parents = 13.5%, bio = 20%, both = 24.5%, support for bio, not 100% so environment too

- Spend time with biological parents first, environment or biology?

- Bio determinism, are they morally responsible?

APD & offending AO1 (1)

1. APD = vulnerable
2. Lack empathy = crimes

Neurotransmitters & offending (3)

1. Serotonin regulates mood
2. Dysfunction = agression
3. Criminal behaviour

Brain structure & offending (4)

1. Dysfunction of brain structure
2. Amygdala dysfunction = lack of control over emotions
3. Frontal lobe dysfunction = failure to partake in social behaviour & realize consequences of offending

Neural explanations AO3 (3)

+ R2S EEG investigations, slow-wave activity typical of brain immaturity
Raine reduced grey matter in the prefrontal cortex = poor decision making

+ R2S Scerbo and Raine, a meta-analysis of offenders, all had low levels of serotonin, causes offending

- Cause and effect? Abnormalities could be due to head injury but violence due to SLT

Biological explanations overall AO3 (3)

- Reductionist, ignore poverty and mental illnesses

- Deterministic, do they deserve punishment? Steven Mobley

- RTC Farrington, Risk factors e.g. poverty, ignores important social factors

Eysenck AO1 (5)

1. Certain personality traits
2. Depends on the nervous system we inherit
3. Questionnaire investigates extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism
4. Neurotic-extravert with high psychoticism = criminal
5. Socialisation - learn antisocial behaviour

3 aspects of personality (link NS)

Extraverts - underaroused = seek stimulation
Neurotics - over aroused = unstable
Psychotics - lack empathy

Eysenck AO3 (4)

+ R2S Eysenck, prisoners have high N&P&E across all age groups, bio basis

- RTC Farrington, high P but not N& E

- Cultural differences, Bartol found Hispanic & African American criminals scored less for extraversion, generalisable?

- Bio determinism, no control, less culpable?

Level of moral reasoning AO1 (4)

1. Pre-conventional level
2. A need to avoid punishment and gain rewards
3. Commit crimes = reward & get away
4. Egocentric and poor social perspective

Level of moral reasoning AO3 (2)

+R2S Palmer and Hollin, delinquent lower moral reasoning

- Cannot explain all offending, Reid - not apply to violent crimes, only good for crimes with a chance of avoiding punishment, other explanation?

Cognitive distortions definition (4)

1. Faulty
2. Biased
3. Irrational ways of thinking
4. Perception = inaccurate

Hostile attribution bias (3)

1. Ambiguous situations = threat
2. Violent crimes
3. Misread others' intentions

Minimalisation (4)

1. Downplay seriousness
2. Reduced guilt
3. Offend again
4. E.g. serial killers

Cognitive distortions AO3 (4)

+ R2S Minimalisation Pollock, 36% sex offenders said victim consented, 35% "just affection"

+ R2S Schonenberg, violent perceive emotionally ambiguous as angry and hostile, tendency to misinterpret

- Describes what criminal mind is like but not why offenders commit crimes

+ Prac apps, CBT, less distorted view, reduces risk of reoffending

Interaction leads to... (4)

Leads to learnt:
1. Values
2. Attitudes
3. Techniques
4. Motives
For offending behaviour

Differential association theory AO1

1. Norms learnt through associations
2. Different surroundings = diff associations = diff norms
3. Learn techniques & rationalise due to people around them
4. Pro-criminal attitudes> = acceptable
5. Punishment can change
6. Response of families = continue/stop

Differential association theory AO3 (4)

+ R2S Farrington, 41% of children in a deprived area in London had 1 conviction, 50% of crimes by 5% with most risk factors

+ Shift to nurture, importance of socialisation, environmental influences changed
BUT env determinism, socialize with group = their values

+ Explanatory power, middle-class = white-collar crime, working class = burglary, exposed to these crimes

- Hard to objectively measure attitudes, lacks scientific rigour

Inadequate superego Blackburn (3)

1. Weak superego = no same-sex = no internalization of moral code

2. Deviant superego = immoral parent = internalize deviant moral code

3. Over-harsh superego = demanding of guilt = seek crome to be punished

Gender differences in superego (4)

1. Girls don't experience castration anxiety
2. Less pressure to identify
3. Internalization of moral code to lesser extent
4. More prone

Inadequate superego AO3 (3)

- Androcentric, less ratio of female to male prisoners, hypothesise about girls without exploring further

- Alt exp e.g. socialization

- Unconscious concepts, cannot be falsified, no evidence

Maternal deprivation AO1 (3)

No continous attachment in critical period:
1. Delinquency
2. Affectionless psychopathy
3. Intellectual retardation
No feeling & low intelligence = offending

Maternal deprivation AO3 (3)

+ R2S Bowlby's 44 thieves, prolonged separation = offending

- No cause and effect, cannot manipulate ethically, extraenous variables e.g. poverty, valid?

- Did not distinguish between privation (more damaging) and deprivation

Aims of custodial sentencing (4)

1. Retribution - payback
2. Rehabilitation - get better = lower recidivism
3. Incapacitation - protect public
4. Deterrence - general & individual

Recidivism (5)

1. Reoffdening rates
2.MoJ 2013, 57% of prisoners with reoffend within a year of release
3. Custodial sentencing aims to reduce
4. Objective way to measure the effectiveness of prisons
5. Many EVs e.g. poverty which affect recidivism rates

Aims of custodial sentencing AO3 (3)

\- High recidivism, does not rehabilitate or deter, does not meet it aims

\
\- RTC Davies and Raymond, reviewed it, custodial sentences are given to appease the public and do not deter, esp for drug addiction, alternatives = lower recidivism

\
\+ Opportunities for treatment, teach them skills they can use on the outside, AMT reduced anger significantly, can rehabilitate and reform

Psychological effects of custodial sentencing (2)

1. Negative behavioural and psychological
2. Caused by time in prison

Stress and depression (2)

* Prison = neg mental health
* 4x higher suicide rates

Institutionalisation (5)

* Accustomed to prison life
* Deindividuation
* Conform to their social role
* Pro-criminal attitudes
* Hard to cope with life

Prisonation (3)

* School of crime - socialization
* Young inmates learn techniques and rationalisation
* More recidivism

Psychological effects of Sentencing AO3 (5)

\+ R2S Zimbardo, conform to role, helpless, deindividuated, hard to function outside

BUT overstated influence?, only 1/3 of guards were sadistic

\
\- R2C Richer, prisoners rebelled against guards, dependents on personality type

\
\- Other factors, length of sentence, reason for incarceration, experience within prison, someone with a short sentence for speeding is less likely to develop depression, should not generalise

\
\- Cause and effect? are problems due to imprisonment or did they have them before (caused their crimes)

\
\+ Prac apps, Norwegian prisoners separate in conditions similar to real life, prevents prisonisation and institutionalisation

Aims of behaviour modification (2)

1. Manage offenders during their sentence
2. Reduce recidivism upon release

Operant conditioning (4)

1. Primary reinforcer = reward
2. Secondary reinforcer = token
3. Maladaptive behaviour can be modified
4. It can be replaced with desirable using tokens

Process of beh modification (6)

1. Desirable behaviour identified and broken down
2. A baseline measure of desirable beh created
3. All who come into contact reward that behaviour using a token
4. This can be exchanged for a material good
5. Learn desirable
6. Extinguish undesirable

^selective reinforcement

Behaviour modification AO3 (4)

\+ R2S Cullen and Seddon, young offenders reinforced using tokens began to display more positive behaviour, can help manage offenders during their sentence

\
\- Little rehabilitation value, rewarded for things they would not be rewarded for outside of prison, only useful to manage offenders within prison

\
\- Token learning, only addresses surface behaviour, encourages passive learning, no actual change in behaviour, will not rehabilitate

\
\+ Easy to implement, administered by everyone, cost-effective and available unlike AMT

Anger management therapy (5)

1. Offenders commit crime because they can’t control anger
2. Form of CBT
3. Manages prisoners within sentence
4. Respond more appropriately
5. Control anger

Stages of therapy - CSA (3)

1. Cognitive preparation - recognise feelings of and situations that trigger anger
2. Skills acquisition - cope with anger provoking e.g. self-talk - cognitive restructuring = more rational thoughts
3. Application practice - reenact situations in non-threatening environment, transfer techniques to real-life

Anger management therapy AO3 (3)

\+ R2S Ireland, anger management = 92% reduction in anger on 1 measure

Furthermore, matched pairs = higher internal val

BUT only 3 days, short-term change?

\
\+ More effective than beh mod, treats the root cause, changes cognition, not superficial behaviour, enables offenders to manage their problems, permanent change

\
\- Limited long-term effectiveness, relies on artificial role play, does not continue outside prison, no prac apps

Restorative justice (4)

1. Make amends to victim
2. Victim plays an active role
3. Offender takes responsibility
4. Used for personal crimes e.g. hit and run

Process of restorative justice (4)

1. Meetings with a trained mediator
2. Practical reparation/financial restitution
3. Offender sees consequences = lower recidivism
4. Victim has a say = reduced PTSD

How can restorative justice be used (3)

1. Alt to cust sent - for young offenders
2. Addition to cust sent
3. Preparation for release

Restorative justice AO3 (4)

\+ R2S Sherman and Strang, meta-analysis on restorative justice compared to custodial, recidivism reduced for personal crimes, PTSD reduced and victims were satisfied, positive outcome to victim and offender

BUT publication bias?

\
\- Not always successful, offenders need to show remorse, sign up to avoid prison?, does not always rehabilitate

\
\- Expensive, skilled mediator, highly trained staff, limited, not cost-effective, difficult to implememt

BUT reduced recidivism by 50%, lower overall cost, no prison and trial costs

\
\- ‘Soft option’, does not get tough on crime, no incapacitation or retribution, see their loved ones

BUT these aims are not effective in reducing recidivism, this is better and can reduce institutionalisation