Forensic Psychology

Top down Approach

American approach in 70s, interviews with sexually-motivated killers

Match what is know about crime and offender to pre-made template / category of killer

Organised offender

High level of control and planning , leaves little/no evidence behind

Above average intelligent, sexually and socially competent

Disorganised offender

Little evidence of planning or control, spur of the moment / impulsive

Lower IQ, unskilled worker, sexually and socially incompetent

Constructing a profile

Assimilate all data

Classify the crime scene

Reconstruct crime scene

Generate profile / likely hypothesis

TOP-DOWN EVAL : Particular crimes

Best suited for scenes that tell information about the offender (Arson, rape, murder)

More common crimes (e.g. burglary) do not lend themselves to profiling, crime scene not as revealing

TOP DOWN EVAL: Outdated idea of personality

Based on assumption that all offenders show a pattern of behaviour, based on old-fashioned models of personality

Poor validity

TOP DOWN EVAL : No support for disorganised

Canter et al : Smallest space analysis 100 murders, details referenced to 39 characteristics that would determine organised or disorganised

Findings didn’t support the idea of disorganised offender

TOP-DOWN EVAL : Too simple

Cross over of models, how would you classify a high intelligence person that does spur of the moment murder

TOP-DOWN EVAL : Sample classification is based on

Too small a sample and is unrepresentative

25 serial killers cannot build an idea for whole of crime

Bottom-up approach

Data-driven profile, more grounded in psychology theory and analysis

Investigative psychology

Apply statistical procedures to analysis of crime scenes, develops a database for scene that can show details

Interpersonal coherence = Interaction with scene and victim, may tell police how offender relates to victim type specifically

Forensic awareness = If offender has awareness of police tactics, awareness of covering tracks

Geographical profiling

Location linked to crime scene to make inference about operational base of offender

Idea is that offenders would restrict work to area they are familiar with

Pattern forms with more offences

Canter Circle Theory

Marauder = Operate closer to home base

Commuter = Likely to travel a distance away

BOTTOM UP EVAL : Support for investigative psych

Canter and Heritage : Small space analysis of sexual assault cases

Correlations identified , e.g. lack of personal language and lack of reaction

Leads to understanding of offender and behaviour

BOTTOM UP EVAL : Support for geographical profiling

Lundrigan and Canter : Small space analysis of 120 murder cases

Spatial consistency of body disposal, offenders base was centre of disposal

BOTTOM UP EVAL: Objectivity

More objective and scientific

Investigate and geographical study can quickly produce accurate insights

BOTTOM UP EVAL : Wider application

Techniques used are more applicable to variety of crimes

BOTTOM UP EVAL : Mixed results

Cops on : Surveyed 48 police forces

83% judged it to be useful, only 3% said it lad to accurate identification

Atavistic form : Lombroso

Criminals were genetic throwbacks, lacking evolutionary development

Criminal behaviour is a natural tendency

Atavistic characteristics

Sloping brow, prominent jaw, high cheekbones

Murders: Bloodshot eyes, long ears Sexual deviants : glinting eyes, fleshy lips, projecting ears Fraudsters : Thin and reedy

Lombroso’s Research

Examined skulls of 383 dead criminals and 3939 living ones

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

ATAVISM EVAL : Contribution to research

Credited in moving crime research away from morals toward more credible and scientific field

Could be marked as beginning of criminal profiling

ATAVISM EVAL : Scientific racism

Many characteristics would be found among POC

His description would support many eugenic philosophies

ATAVISM EVAL : Contradictory evidence

Goring : 3000 criminals vs 3000 non criminals

Found no evidence to suggest facial and cranial characteristics differ

ATAVISM EVAL : Control of Lombroso

No control of non-criminal group

Didn’t account for other variables

ATAVISM EVAL : Causation

External factors can contribute to change in characteristics

Poor diet and poverty can delay physical development, contributing factors

Genetic explanations

Twin studies, adoption studies, candidate genes, diathesis stress model

Genetic : Twin studies

Lange : 30 MZ twins and 17 DZ twins, where one of the twins is is prison

MZ = 10/30 MZ had both been in prison

DZ = 2/17 DZ had both been in prison

Genetic: Adoption

Crowe : Adopted children whose bio parent had criminal record had 50% risk of developing criminal record by 18

Adopted children where bio parents didn’t have criminal record had 5% risk

Genetic: Candidate genes

Tiihonen et al: Genetic analysis of 900 offenders, found 2 genes associated with violent crime

MAOA = Controls dopamine and serotonin

CDH13 = Linked to substance abuse and ADHD

In sample, those with both genes were 13 times more likely to have history of violent crime

Genetic : Diathesis Stress model

If genetics have influence, it is moderated by environment

Tendency to criminal behaviour comes from combination

Neural explanations

Prefrontal cortex

Mirror Neurons

Neural : Prefrontal cortex

Raine: Antisocial personalities have reduced PFC activity

Raine : 11% reduction in volume of grey matter of PFC for APD individuals

Neural : Mirror neurons

Keysers et al : When offenders asked to empathise, their empathy reaction activated, shown in mirror neurons

Suggests APD individuals can empathise but as a neural switch, controllable

GENETIC EVAL : Twin studies

Early study = poor control and poor judgements related to zygosity

Confounding variable = Environment

GENETIC EVAL : Diathesis stress support

Mednick et al : 13,000 adoptees

Neither bio or adoptive parents had convictions = 13.5% chance adoptee had conviction

Either bio or adoptive parents had conviction = 20% chance

Both bio and adoptive had convictions = 24.5% chance

GENETIC EVAL : Issue with adoption studies

Some children get adopted later on, spend more time with bio parents or maintain contact with bio parents

GENETIC EVAL : Biological reductionism

Reducing it to genetic level may be inappropriate

Other factors run in family (emotional instability, poverty) and its hard to separate the factors

GENETIC EVAL : Biological determinism

Legal system is based on personal and moral behaviours of crime

Raises ethical issues about what society does with those genetically disposed

Eysenck’s Theory

Behaviour can be represented along two dimensions

Introversion/ Extraversion

Neuroticism/ Stability

Biological basis for Eysenck

Personality is based in biological and nervous system, personality, and criminal personality, has biological basis

Extraverts = Underactive nervous system, seek stimulation

Neurotics = Nervous and over-anxious

Eysenck : Criminal personality

Neurotic-extrovert = Requires stimulation, anxious, over excited

Would score highly in psychoticism = cold, unemotional, prone to aggression

Eysenck : Socialisation

Saw criminal behaviour as developmentally immature, concerned with immediate gratification

Nervous systems are difficult to condition, they are more likely to act antisocially/ inappropriately

Measuring criminal personality

Eysencks Personality Inventory

EYSENCK EVAL : Supporting evidence

Eysenck and Eysenck : 2422 controls, 16-69, measures of psychotism, neuroticism and extraversion

Prisoners record higher scores than control

Farmington : Offenders score highly for P, not E and N

Little evidence with EEG measures between introverts and extraverts , casts doubt

EYSENCK EVAL : Single criminal type

All criminals cannot be explained by one personality type

Out of step with modern personality theories, suggesting more dimensions to scale

EYSENCK EVAL : Cultural bias

Bartol and Holanchock : Hispanic and African-American in max security prison, divided into 6 groups based on criminal history and their offences

All 6 groups less extrovert than non-criminal control

Study sample is more culturally diverse, questions generalisability

EYSENCK EVAL : Biological basis

Overlap with personality and APD research (ability to empathise and express emotion)

Suffers same weaknesses as biological theories

Kohlberg and Moral Reasoning

The higher stage, the more moral reasoning displayed

Uses Heinz dilemma to base theory

Found a group of violent youths had lower moral development than non-violent youths

Morality and Criminality

Offenders more likely to be pre-conventional level, need to avoid punishment and gain reward

Chandler: Offenders are more ego-centric and display poor social perspective-taking

Preconventional Morality

S1 : Rules obeyed to avoid punishment

S2 : Rules obeyed for personal gained

Conventional Morality

S3: Rules obeyed for approval

S4: Rules obeyed to maintain order

Postconventional Morality

S5: Rules obeyed if impartial, democratic rules free to be challenged if they infringe on rights

S6: Individual establishes own set of rules in accordance to personal ethics

Cognitive Distortions

Errors or bias in information processing

Hostile attribution bias

Propensity for violence associated with tendency to misinterpret others actions

Hostile attribution bias studies

Schonenberg and Justye: 55 violent offenders shown ambiguous facial expression, compared to control, offenders more likely to perceive images as angry

Dodge and Frame: Showed children ambiguous provocation incidents, children identified as aggressive interpreted it as hostile

Minimalisation

Attempt to deny or downplay seriousness of offence

Minimalisation studies

Barbaree: 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied committing offence, 40% minimalists the harm they’d done

Pollock and Hashmall: 35% of sample of child molesters argued crime was non-sexual, 36% said victim consented

LEVELS OF MORAL EVAL: Evidence

Palmer and Hollin: 210 female non-offenders, 122 male non offenders and 126 offenders, given 11 moral decisions

Delinquent group show less mature moral reasoning than non-delinquent

LEVELS OF MORAL EVAL: Alternative theories

Gibbs: Mature and immature reasoning, mature and immature

Mature = Morality guided by avoidance of punishment and personal gain, Immature = Guided by empathy, social justice and conscience

Argued post-conventional should be abandoned as it is culturally biased

COG DISTOR EVAL: Applied research

Rehabilitation of sex offenders with CBT, encourages them to face what they have done and develop less distorted view

Studies suggest lower denial and minimalisation in therapy highly correlated with reduced risk of reoffending

LEVELS OF MORAL EVAL: Individual differences

Moral reasoning may defend on offence

Thornton and Reid: Crimes of gain more likely to have pre-conventional morality

Langdon et al: Intelligence is a better predictor of criminality than moral reasoning

COG APPROACH EVAL: Descriptive not explanatory

Describes mind of an offender well, doesn’t explain why they offend

After the fact theories, could help prevent reoffending, doesn’t help explain why commit the crime in the first place

Differential Association

Theory proposes the you learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour

Differential Association : Learned behaviour

Acquired the same as other processes through learning, occurs through interaction with others

Two factors : Learned attitudes to crime and learning specific act

Differential Association : Pro-Criminal attitudes

Socialisation = Exposed to attitudes and values

If pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime attitudes , individual will offend

Differential Association : Learning criminal acts

May learn particular techniques

Accounts for ‘breeding’ of crime in social groups and why people reoffend

May be through observation, imitation or direct teaching

DIFF ASSO EVAL : Explanatory power

Accounts for crime across society

Recognises the occurrence of certain crimes in certain wealth categories

DIFF ASSO EVAL : Shifts focus

Draws attention to dysfunctional society not a dysfunctional individual

More realistic, less eugenics focused

DIFF ASSO EVAL : Hard to test

Doesn’t set up a scientific framework

How do you measure attitudes to crime, hard to know urge to offend is triggered

DIFF ASSO EVAL : Family support

Re-offending behaviour occurs within family

Mednick et al : Boy with criminal adoptive parents and non-criminal bio parents were more likely to offend than boys with non criminal bio and adoptive parents

Psychodynamic : superego

Superego works on morality principle, punishes ego through guilt for wrongdoings

Psychodynamic : Types of superego

Weak SE = Same-sex parent absent in phallic stage, cannot internalise a fully formed superego. Makes behaviour more likely

Deviant SE = Superego internalises immoral values, leads to offending

Over-harsh SE = Excessively harsh superego crippled by guilt, unconsciously drives them to commit criminal acts to satisfy superego’s need for punishment

Psychodynamic : Maternal deprivation

Failure to establish bond causes damage, can lead to affectionless psychopathy

More likely to engage in delinquency

FREUD EVAL : Gender bias

Girls under less pressure tot identify with mothers, so super ego and morality is less developed

No supporting evidence, Hoffman : girls tended to be more moral than boys

SUPER EGO EVAL : Contradictory evidence

Little evidence that children without same-sex parent are less law-abiding (super-ego should be lesser developed)

Children with pro-crime parents, their offending could be down to genetics

PSYCHODYNAMIC EVAL : Unconscious ideas

Lack in falsifiability , not open to empirical testing, therefore judged by face value

Regarded as pseudo-scientific

PSYCHODYNAMIC EVAL : Causation not correlation

Lewis : 500 young people, maternal deprivation was poor predictor for future offending

Doesn’t indicate a causal link between deprivation and delinquency

Aims of custodial sentencing

Deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation

Aims of sentencing: Deterrence

Put off individual or society from offending behaviour

General : Send a broad message that crime isn’t tolerated

Individual : Prevent individual from repeating same crime

Aims of sentencing : Incapacitation

Taken out society to prevent reoffending to protect public

Sentencing depends on severity of crime

Aims of sentencing : Retribution

Enacting revenge by making offender suffer, should pay for their actions

Aims of sentencing : Rehabilitation

Objective should be to reform, Gould leave prisoner well-adjusted

Prisons should provide programmes for addiction

Psychological effects of custodial sentencing

Stress and depression

Institutionalisation

Prisonisation

Effects of prison : stress and depression

Suicide rates and self-harm higher in prison

Stress leads to increase risk of psychological issue at release

Effects of prison : Institutionalisation

Adapting to norms and routines of prison life

No longer able to function on outside

Effects of prison : Prisonisation

Socialised into adopting inmate code

Behaviours that are unacceptable outside may be rewarded

Recidivism

Ministry of Justice = In 2013, 57% of offenders reoffend within a year of release

Norwegian = Penal institutions more open and place greater emphasis on rehab

PSYCH EFFECTS EVAL : Supporting evidence

Bartol: Last 20 years, suicide rates risen to 15X higher than general population

Prison Reform Trust : 25% women and 15% men report symptoms of psychosis

PSYCH EFFECTS EVAL : Individual differences

Cannot be assumed all offenders react the same

Length of sentence, reason for prison and previous experiences act as mitigating factors

Pre-existing psychological damage may effect, may be reason for imprisonment

PSCYH EFFECTS EVAL : Alternatives to custodial sentencing

Government try to exaggerate benefit of prison to appear touch on crime

Other methods can be suggested as more beneficial for offender and society

Behaviour Modification

Behaviourist principles

Token Economy

Changing Behvaiour

Behaviourist principles

Human behaviour is learned and can be unlearned

Aim to reinforce obedient behaviour and punish disobedience

Token economy

Based on operant conditioning , reinforce desirable behaviour in exchange for reward

Tokens are secondary reinforcement, derive value from association with reward

Non-compliance results in tokens and privileges being withheld

Changing behaviour

Desired behaviour is identified and broken down to steps

Behaviour is reinforced and measured against the baseline

Research example of token economy

Hobbs and Holt

Hobbs and Holt

Introduced token economy into 3 units of young delinquents (4th acted as control)

Significant difference in positive behaviour to control

BEHAVIOUR MOD EVAL : Easy to implement

Ease to introduction, no need for specialised professionals

Cost effective and easy to follow with established procedure

BEHAVIOUR MOD EVAL : Consistency

Bassett and Blanchard : Benefits lost when staff applied techniques inconsistently

Can be due to lack of training or high staff turnover

BEHAVIOUR MOD EVAL : Low rehab value

Positive changes lost outside of prison, establishes conduct within prison

Not likely to extend outside of custodial settings

May receive rewards for breaking law e.g. group status