Top-down approach (4)
How was top-down developed? (3)
1/58
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Top-down approach (4)
How was top-down developed? (3)
Organized crime scene (3)
Organized offender (3)
Disorganized crime scene (3)
Disorganized offender (3)
Construction of profile (4)
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Outdated, crime behaviour ≠ everyday behaviour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)
3 important features
Geographical profiling (4)
2 geographical models
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)
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)
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)
Neurotransmitters & offending (3)
Brain structure & offending (4)
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)
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)
Level of moral reasoning AO3 (2)
+R2S Palmer and Hollin, delinquent lower moral reasoning
Cognitive distortions definition (4)
Hostile attribution bias (3)
Minimalisation (4)
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:
Differential association theory AO1
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)
Weak superego = no same-sex = no internalization of moral code
Deviant superego = immoral parent = internalize deviant moral code
Over-harsh superego = demanding of guilt = seek crome to be punished
Gender differences in superego (4)
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:
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)
Recidivism (5)
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)
Stress and depression (2)
Institutionalisation (5)
Prisonation (3)
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)
Operant conditioning (4)
Process of beh modification (6)
^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)
Stages of therapy - CSA (3)
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)
Process of restorative justice (4)
How can restorative justice be used (3)
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