AQA Forensics

Three methods of measuring crime

1. Official statistics

2. Offender self-report

3. Victim surveys

Offender Profiling

Making a profile of the offender, including hypotheses on:

• age of perpetrator

• gender

• occupation

• background

Top Down - Classification

American Version

Organised vs Disorganised criminals

• O = Plan crime, high IQ, usually has functional family/job

• D = Spontaneous, low IQ, failed past rs, unemployed

Top Down - Constructing profiles

1. Data assimilation (photos/interviews)

2. Crime scene classification (type of crime)

3. Crime reconstruction

4. Profile generation

Top Down - AO3 strengths

Can be adapted

• Applied to burglary, 85% rise in solved cases in 3 US states through additional categories, wide application

Support for organised classification

• Analysis of 100 US murders, serial killers/murderers matching typology, increased validity for FBI

Top Down - AO3 Limitations

Weak evidence basis

• Analysis of 36 murders showed range of offenders aren’t included, hard to generalise, lack of standardisation

Hard to accurately classify

• Some killers don’t fall into either, there should be a continuum, lacks accuracy

Bottoms Up - Offender profiling

British Approach - by Canter

Analysing evidence at crime scene then forming offender profile, very quantitative and builds profile of routines/background/characteristics

Bottoms Up - Investigative Psychology

Applying statistical procedures and psychological theory to crime scenes

1. Interpersonal Coherence - How behaviour at scene reflects normal behaviour

2. Significance of time/place - links to where offender lives/works

3. Forensic Awareness - Contact with police, knowing how to cover tracks etc

Bottoms Up - Circle Theory

*Canter*

Commuter - Travels away from home to commit crime

Marauder - Operates near home

Modus Operandi

Offender’s methods

Bottoms Up - AO1 Strengths

Supporting evidence of profiling use

• Canter examined 66 sexual assault cases using circle theory, finding common patterns, shows case linkage as 2+ offences committed by same person

Support for geographical profiling

• Canter’s use of this method helped track down Duffy who killed and sexually assaulted multiple women in 80s, seen as a marauder

Bottoms Up - AO3 Limitations

Only works if person is already in database

• Case linkage depends on if they are in the system, crimes have to be reported and been solved to link, leading to crimes left unsolved

Geo profiling not sufficient by itself

• Reliant on data from police, 75% crimes not reported, may lack accuracy and may include other factors, not sufficient

Atavistic - Lombroso & his characteristics

Criminals were those lacking evolutionary development

• primitive sub-species (racist)

Characteristics:

• Narrow brows

• Strong jaw

• High cheekbones

• Dark skin

Atavistic - Lombroso’s types of offenders

1. Murderers - Bloodshot eyes, curly hair

2. Sexual Deviants - Swollen lips, glistening eyes

3. Fraudsters - Thin lips and reedy (tall/thin)

Atavistic - Eugenics (Galton)

Traits that are more desirable are found and multiplied through reproduction of those who have it, eradicating undesirable features through death

Atavistic - AO1 Strengths

Scientific

• Lombroso studied 300+ skulls, his theories had biological support and scientific evidence, high validity

Atavistic - AO3 Limitations

Racism

• Lombroso’s dark skin feature and calling offenders primitive sub species, may have linked to the eugenics movement from Hitler, with ideas being inherently racist and cant be generalised to modern day, racial prejudices

Difficulty of punishment

• As criminality is seen to be innate, behaviour cannot be helped, criminals cannot be penalised and justice system is based on free will, hard to punish offenders

Poorly Controlled

• Fails to account for other factors like poverty, childhood, employment, co-founding variables, reductionist

Biological (genetic/neural) - Genetic

• Twin studies (Lange) - 13 MZ twins, 17 DZ twins, one twin in each served prison time

• Adoption (Crowe) - Adopted kids with biological criminal parent has 50% risk of record by 18

• Candidate Gene - 800 Finnish offenders

  • MAOA gene controls dopamine/serotonin (aggression)

  • CDH13 gene responsible for ADHD/ substance abuse

  NOT REPLICATED, NO RELIABILITY

Biological (genetic/neural) - Neural

Many criminals = Antisocial personality disorder (APD)

• Raine - Reduced activity in prefrontal cortex of offenders

• Mirror neurons - APD criminals can swicth these off

Biological (genetic/neural) - Diathesis-stress model

Study - 13,000 Danish adoptees, supports both genetic and environmental

Biological (genetic/neural) - AO3 Strengths

Support for diathesis-stress

• Someone may have bio tendencies towards crime but need environmental triggers to become a criminal, supporting interactionist as genetics alone is reductionist, more generalisable

Biological (genetic/neural) - AO3 Limitations

Bio Determinism

• Criminal genes = issue of free will, suggests criminals can’t be punished due to innateness, so interactionist is most accurate

Adoption study issue

• Danish adoptees, when neither bio or adoptive parent were criminals = 13.5%, 20% when either bio or adoptive, 24.5% when both, difficult determining nature/nurture as some adopted later

Twin studies issue

• Researchers assume twins have identical environment, some grew up in same house, concordance rate due to same experiences, not accounting for other factors, reduces validity

Eysenck’s Theory (Psychological) - Types of personality

1. Introversion - Jittery

2. Extroversion - Outgoing, talkative

3. Neuroticism - Emotionality

4. Stability - Good emotional control

   ADDED

5. Psychoticism - Aggression

6. Socialisation - Tough minded and non conformist

Eysenck’s Theory (Psychological) - EPI

Personality is innate

Eysenck’s Personality Inventory

• Highly extroverted and neurotic = high chance of criminality

• Genetics + lack of conditioning = criminality

Eysenck’s Theory (Psychological) - AO3 Strengths

Biological support

• Links to Raine’s theory of APD and different cognition, takes into account bio and psycho approaches, high validity of EPI

Eysenck’s Theory (Psychological) - AO3 Limitations

Individual Differences

• Personality types can change with time, as person matures, personality may be adapted and not static, reduces temporal validity

Cultural Bias

• Bartol - Hispanic/Afro-Amer offenders = less extraverted than control group, can’t generalise EPI to all

Not just one type of criminal

• Each has range of personality / motives, EPI can’t tell us about other criminals, reduces validity

Cognitive Explanations - Kohlberg’s Stages

1. Preconventional Morality (obey for personal gain)

2. Conventional Morality (obey for approval/social order)

3. Postconventional Morality (obey for ethics, rights, conscience)

Cognitive Explanations - Levels of moral reasoning (Kohlberg)

PP given dilemmas

• Results = Violent youth had less morality

• Supports Chandler (1973) - criminals are egocentric and have poor social skills

Cognitive Explanations - Cognitive Distortions

Hostile Attribution Bias - Violent people misread facial expressions as hostile

Minimalisation - Downplay offence

• 54% rapists deny harm to victim

• 35% child molesters deny as being affectionate/hug

  • links to defence mechanism (psychodynamic)

Cognitive Explanations - AO3 Strengths

Support for Kohlberg

• compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 offenders, link between morality and criminality, reliability

CBT Application

• reduced minimalisation associated with reduced risk of reoffending, challenges offenders’ thinking, practical value

Cognitive Explanations - AO3 Limitations

Stages can’t explain all crime

• People committing crime for financial gain more likely to show preconventional, morality depends on crime, Kohlberg’s theory doesn’t apply to all crimes

Depends on type of offence

• Non-contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortion than contact, not all CD used in same way, can’t generalise to all

Differential Association - Definition

Offenders learn through interactions with people, learning techniques and values.

Differential Association - Sutherland’s 7 Propositions

1. criminal behaviour is learned

2. Learned in interactions

3. occurs only within intimate social groups

4. learning includes techniques and motives

5. learned from legal codes as favourable/not

6. Becomes criminal due to excess of favourable violations (get away with)

7. vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity

Differential Association - Farrington’s Cambridge Study

• longitudinal, 411 working class males in LDN, 8-10 factors included poverty and poor parenting

• age 8-50

• 41% had at least one conviction

SUPPORT = 1/3 prisoners in UK also had relatives there

Differential Association - AO3 Strengths

Changed focus of offending explanations

• moved emphasis away from bio and explains offending as interactions, social circumstances allow for realistic solution and practical app of token economies

Accounts for all crime types

• burglary clustered within city and working class comms, white collar crimes seen to be middle class and so it’s not only lower classes committing offences, having temporal validity

Differential Association - AO3 Limitations

Problems of stereotyping

• Risk of stereotyping those from crime-ridden backgrounds ‘unavoidable offenders’, rules out free will and so doesn’t account for people that can choose not do offend despite influences (LoC)

Difficult to test predictions of behaviour

• Aimed to provide scientific basis but some concepts not testable and can’t be operationalised, reducing scientific credibility

Psychodynamic explanation - Types of superego

Blackburn (1993)

1. Weak SE - absent same sex parent in phallic stage

2. Deviant SE - If child’s background were criminal, get wrong morals

3. Over Harsh SE - Feels guilty so seeks punishment through crimes

Custodial Sentencing - Aims

1. Deterrence - Put criminal off committing again

2. Incapacitation - To protect society, the bigger the threat the longer the time

3. Retribution - Revenge through suffering

4. Rehabilitation - To reform, provide skills and reflections (cognitive - have to be willing)

Custodial Sentencing - Psychological Effects

1. stress/depression - suicide higher in prison than general population

2. institutionalisation - adapting to life in prison (SPE - shows effects of prisons and roles)

3. Prisonisation - Adopting inmate code to conduct

Recidivism

Likelihood of reoffending

• Norway = 20% only 3,993 offenders

Custodial Sentencing - AO3 Strengths

Allows for rehabilitation

• Model sates that prisons should provide opportunity for learning skills and reflection, able to give back to society, showing many benefits of rehabilitation

Custodial Sentencing - AO3 Limitations

Alternatives to CS

• Governments can exaggerate benefits of prisons to win votes, alts not tested but include anger management and counselling

Not all rehabilitation works

• many programmes don’t address real issue, prisoners have to be WILLING, not practical for all

Psychological effects outweigh benefits

• Suicide rates 15x higher esp for young single men, 25% women and 15% men experience psychosis (link to SPE), creates more fragility

Behavioural Modification - Token economies

Operant Conditioning

• Rewards desirable behaviour, token is the secondary reinforcer, what the prisoner wants in exchange of token is primary reinforcer

Behavioural Modification - Miltenberger’s 7 components of token economies

1. Target behaviours

2. Type of tokens used

3. Reinforcers identified (exchanged for)

4. Reinforcement schedule (continuous schedule)

5. Exchange criterion - prices

6. Time/place - what exchanged and where

7. Response cost - penalty

Behavioural Modification - AO3 Strengths

Supporting token economies

• 3 of 4 groups using token economies showed positive behaviour, significant changes, similar study showed similar results = reliability

BM is an easy setup

• Appeal rests on it’s easy administering, compared to anger management is easier, cost-effective

Behavioural Modification - AO3 Limitations

Long term effects of TE

• within 3 years of release, offenders are less likely of recidivism, after 3 years = no difference between reoffending and control, so not effective

Must be consistent

• benefits lost if staff isn’t consistent due to lack of staff training or staff turnover, so training is needed, behaviour not always successfully modified

Anger Management - CBT (Novaco) stages (CPSAAP)

1. Cognitive Preparation - find triggers, therapist points out irrational thoughts

2. Skill Acquisition - Allows them to take control of situation and reflect

3. Application Practice - role playing and positively reinforced with rewards

Anger Management - Support

Keen 2000

• offenders 17-21 given course and showed more self control after

Ireland 2004

• Compared Am to control through self report

• 92% showed improvement

• 48% showed improvement in self reports

Anger Management - AO3 Strengths

Reduces Recidivism

• Hunter/Hughes - analysed behaviour post AM, crime recurrence decreasing, having positive outcomes, practical value

Anger Management - AO3 Limitations

Little evidence supporting less recidivism

• Blackburn - AM has noticeable short term effects but not long term, with roleplay not showing real life triggers, doesn’t reduce reoffending

Success depends on individual factors

• PP had little effect but had major effect on those with intense anger, offenders must be WILLING to partake, success depends on want to change and rates of anger

Restorative Justice - Foundational principles

1. Repair harm

2. people most affected should be part of resolution

3. Responsibility of govt to maintain order and community to build peace

Restorative Justice - Braithwaite’s steps

1. Active Involvement

2. Offender accepting responsibility

3. Explaining impact of crime

4. Victim to ask questions

5. Active involvement

RJ - A03 strengths

Needs of victim/survivor met

• 85% satisfied with process, 60% felt closure

Recidivism

• Offenders experiencing RJ less likely to re-offend, less recidivism with one-to-one contact than community involvement

RJ - AO3 limitations

Survivors used

• Survivors may be used to rehabilitate offenders and help them reduce sentence length (exploit) and so not genuine or valid

Abusing system

• offenders’ intentions may not be honest, minimising faults or even taking pride in relationship with victim, essentially making victim feel worse, so can’t draw accurate conclusions