Psychology - Forensics

AQA A-Level Forensic Psychology

Lombroso

argued criminals are born with an innate predisposition to behave anti-socially and they were therefore biologically different from non-criminals (more primitive form of human with more in common with evolutionary ancestors)

atavistic form

physical features that identify criminals e.g. heavy brow, large strong jaw, large ears, extra nipples or extra fingers/toes

(based on 4000 criminals and the skulls of almost 400 dead criminals)

STRENGTHS of Lombroso (x2)

1. credited for his contribution to criminology as hailed the ‘father of criminology’ → a more scientific explanation instead of a religious perspective of bad spirits etc.

2. idea of criminal types hasn’t gone away but becomes more sophisticated e.g. Eysenck - offender profiling

LIMITATIONS of Lombroso (x3)

1. lack of scientific rigor e.g. no control group = GORING = similar study on 3000 London convicts vs control and found no difference

2. HOOTON - compared 12 000 male US prisoners to a control group and although he found differences, not the same as the ones Lombroso identified (e.g. sloping forehead, protruding ears and narrow jaws)

3. causation issues as facial and cranial features are influenced by other factors e.g. poverty + AGNEW = appearance increases frustration + anger = offending behaviour

LANGE study

13 pairs of MZ twins and 17 DZ twins where one of the twins in each pair had served time in prison

30% of MZ twin and only 6% of DZ twins had a co-twin in prison

CROWE study

adopted children who had a biological parent with a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by 18 vs those without a convicted parent (5%)

FARRINGTON study

compared conviction rates of convicted men to their family members using interviews and criminal records of 411 males from nearly 400 families

75% convicted parents had a convicted child

TIIHONEN ET AL study

revealed abnormalities in two genes that could be associated to violent crime

MAOA (controlling serotonin and dopamine) + CHD13 (substance abuse and attention deficit disorder) = 13x more likely to engage in violent behaviour

STRENGTHS of genetic explanation (x2)

1. MEDNICK = studied over 13,000 Danish adoptees → when neither biological or adoptive parents had a criminal conviction = 13.5% BUT when one = 20% + BOTH = 24.5%

2. BRUNNER = 28 members of a Dutch family with a history of violence = abnormally low levels of MAOA in their brains, suggesting ‘warrior’ variant

LIMITATIONS of genetic explanation (x6)

1. cannot rule out the environment

2. MZ twins treated particularly similar as they look the same (increasing potential environmental effects)

3. concordance rates are not 100%

4. stress/experience before adoption could mean influences from the biological family cannot be ruled out

5. ONLY a predisposition which is moderated by the effects of the environment (diathesis-stress model)

6. dilemma for the legal system which assumes we take personal and moral responsibility for our actions (e.g. MAOA gene meant no death penalty in one case)

neural explanations of offending behaviour

refers to the explanation in terms of (dys)function of the brain and nervous system including the activity of brain structures and neurotransmitters

in the general US population, 8.5% reported a head injury vs 60% of those in US prisons

prefrontal cortex (PFC) + offending

• area of the frontal love which is located above the eyebrows at the front of the brain

• involved in regulating emotion + controlling moral behaviour so lowered activity = impulsiveness and loss of control

• RAINE = cited 71 brain imaging studies showing murderers, psychopaths and violent individuals have reduced functioning here

limbic system + offending

• central part of the brain which is regarded as a primitive area where emotions and motivations are controlled

• criminal psychopaths have problems accessing emotions and empathy leading to a lack of remorse or guilt + can be linked to the limbic system as means that lack of emotional reactions could lead to planned + organised offending behaviour

STRENGTHS of neural explanations of offending (x3)

1. RAINE = psychopaths had 18% volume reduction in amygdala and an 11% reduction in grey matter of the PFC vs control

2. CHARLES WHITMAN = shot 16 people at a university campus + post mortem revealed large brain tumour in the amygdala

3. PHINEAS GAGE = metal bolt through cheek into prefrontral brain area → went from being sober + quiet to a violent drunk

mirror neurons + offending

fire in response to a personal action and in response to an action of other people, allowing us to interpret other emotions

suggested criminal types can ‘switch off’ these mirror neurons meaning do'n’t feel empathy for others so don’t care about their pain

STRENGTH of mirror neurons + offending

KEYSERS ET AL = only when criminals were asked to empathise with a person in a film experiencing pain did their mirror neurons activate suggesting a neural ‘switch’ that can be turned on and off

serotonin + offending behaviour

neuotransmitter that exerts a calming, inhibitory effect at normal levels, inhibiting the firing of the amygdala

low levels = individuals are less able to control impulsive and aggressive/offending behaviour

MAOA gene regulates metabolism of serotonin

STRENGTHS of serotonin + offending (x2)

1. KYES = lowering serotonin in vevret monkeys increases aggressive behaviour but raising serotonin reduced aggression and increased peaceable interactions

2. dogs referred to a veterinary hospital for aggressions were compared to a control = aggressive dogs had an average of 278 units of serotonin vs 378 for control

LIMITATION of serotonin + offending

non-human research measuring aggression rather than offending → undermines potential relevance of such evidence for offending (especially non-violent) behaviour in humans

Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality

trait theory

personalities are made up of traits or characteristics and they exist along dimensions

extraversion in Eysenck’s theory

extrovert = sociable, impulsive, aggressive and risk-taking

• CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR - thrill of committing a crime to satisfy their ‘under-active’ nervous system

introvert = more cautious and happy in their own company

neuroticism in Eysenck’s theory

high neuroticism = nervousness, anxiety and obsessiveness

• CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR - may be nervous and jumpy so driven to repeat behaviours until they become habitual in order to deal with it emotioanlly

• very reactive sympathetic nervous systems so react/get upset quickly

low = stable and calmer demeanour with a more carefree attitude

psychoticism in Eysenck’s theory

high = insensitive, unconventional, unempathetic and a lack of conscience

• CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR - no concern for others due to their lack of empathy

STRENGTH of Eysenck’s theory

EYSENCK + EYSENCK = compared large sample of male prisoners with a control → prisoners recorded higher scores in every dimension

LIMITATIONS of Eysenck’s theory (x4)

1. FARRINGTON = review of several studies and concluded offenders tended to score higher on psychoticism but not extraversion (instead it was self-reporting offenders) and neuroticism (= related to official offending)

2. research is generally inconsistent and samples rarely controlled in terms of type of crime (e.g. extraverts = crimes that raise adrenaline)

3. BARTON + HOLANCHOCK → studied hispanic + African-American offenders in a NY prison = less extraverted across all criminal types

4. personality cannot be reduced to a single score + no such thing as ‘stable’

Kohlberg’s stage theory applied to criminals

Kohlberg’s research

younger boys tended to perform at stages 1 and 2 whereas older boys at 3 and 4 (when measuring boys aged 7-16 involving moral dilemmas)

criminals are more likely to be classified at a lower stage (pre-conventional) as hinking about themselves instead of society

STRENGTH of Kohlberg’s theory

PALMER + HOLLIN → compared moral reasoning between non-offenders and convicts using a self-report that contains 11 dilemmas (related questions e.g. not taking things that belong to others etc.) = offenders showed less mature moral reasoning

LIMITATIONS of Kohlberg’s theory (x3)

1. ASKHAR + KENNY = compared moral reasoning of juvenile sex offenders + offenders of a different crime through asking about reasoning in context of their crime → BOTH had a pre-conventional level but showed higher levels for a context unrelated to their crimes

2. low predictive validity → not possible to predict how someone will behave based on how they respond to a questionnaire (low moral reasoning doesn’t automatically mean they will behave that way

3. based on data from boys only so is gender bisaed = GILIGAN = women focus more on how an action affects others + males focus more on fairness and justice

cognitive distortions

errors or biases in people’s processing of information leading to faulty thinking (e.g. criminals interpreting other people’s behaviours incorrectly)

hostile attribution bias

misinterpreting the actions of others to assume they are being confrontational when they aren’t

interpret non-aggressive cues as being aggressive, triggering a disproportionate and often violent response

e.g. pointing at someone or spilling a drink

STRENGTHS of hostile attribution bias (x2)

1. SCHONENBERG + JUSTYE = presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions + significantly more likely to perceive them as angry than controls

2. HOLTZWORTH-MUNROE + HUTCHINSON = link to DV → showed men short descriptions of difficult marital situations and asked them to rate the woman’s behaviour in each vase = violent men more likely to think the woman was being negative

minimalisation

offender downplays their criminal behaviour (self-deception) as the offender doesn’t accept the full reality of the situation and so rationalises it

involves downplaying effects of crime, trivialising the acts and even attributing blame to the victim

e.g. stealing from a wealthy family as they ahve lots of money

STRENGTH of minimalisation

KENNEDY + GRUBIN = used offenders’ accounts of their offences and rated them for the amount of denial = majority of them tried to excuse their behaviour by blaming someone else, usually the victim, 30% denied any involvement at all and 25% believed the victim benefitted in some way

LIMITATIONS of minimalisation (x2)

1. not as useful in all crimes as evidence shows that the relationship between minimalisation and sex crimes is much stronger than for other crimes

2. cognitive explanations are criticised as bring descriptive rather than explanatory → ‘after the fact’ theories instead of being useful in predicting reoffending and explaining why the offender committed the crime in the first place

SUTHERLAND

offending behaviour is learned from the environment as people learn to be criminals through relationships and associations we form with the people around us

differential association

the fact that people’s associations are different as some people have more associations with those who believe that criminal activities are unacceptable while others associate more with those who see them as the norm

suggests it is mathematically possible to predict how likely it is that an individual goes on to commit a crime using knowledge of the frequency, intensity and duration of the exposure to deviant values

what does differential association involve

learned attitudes towards crime and learning specific criminal acts when involving significant others such as the family and peer group

1. pro-criminal attitudes = when a person is socialised into a group, they will be exposed to values and attitudes towards the law and if pro-crime attitudes outweigh the anti-crime ones, they will offend

2. learning criminal acts = the would-be offender also learns particular techniques for committing crime e.g. how to break into someone’s house or how to disable a car stereo before stealing it

STRENGTHS of differential associations (x3)

1. OSBORNE + WEST = criminal behaviour appears to run in families as when a father has a criminal conviction, 40% of sons had committed a crime by age of 18 vs 13% of those without a criminal father

2. AKERS ET AL = surveyed 2500 male and female adolescents to investigate drinking and drug behaviour = most important influence was peers + differential association, reinforcement and imitation combined to account for 68% of the variance in marijuana use and 55% of alcohol use

3. explanatory power = explains prevalence of crime in certain areas e.g. burglary is clustered around inner city, working class areas and ‘white collar’ or corporate crime in affluent areas

LIMITATIONS in differential association (x2)

1. individual differences - not everyone exposed to criminal influences go on to commit crime and so must be careful not to stereotype those from impoverished backgrounds as ‘unavoidably criminal’

2. NEWBURN = 40% of offences are committed by people under 21 which may be better explained by Eysenck’s theory rather than this

inadequate superego

BLACKBURN = if superego is deficient or inadewuate, criminal behaviour will occur as id is given ‘free rein’ and not properly controlled

weak superego

any issues during ages 4 and 6 (superego is developing) may make it develop sufficiently and so the ability to feel guilt and stop immoral behaviour is impaired

deviant superego

phallic stage (identification with the same sex-parent occurs and so child adopts his or her behaviour) meaning if parents behaviour is deviant, the child adopts similar behaviours and morals

harsh superego

excessively punitive and overly-harsh superego means the individual will be crippled by guilt and anxiety which may unconsciously drive the individual to perform criminal acts to satisfy the superego’s need for punishment

displacement

defence mechanism used to deal with the conflict between the id and superego

focus of strong emotion is expressed onto a neutral person or object, potentially explaining why innocent individuals are targeted as substitutes for real objects of anger/frustration

Bowlby’s MDH + offending

the ability to form meaningful relationships in adulthood was dependent on a continuous and warm connection with a mother figure so failure to do this = damaging and irreversible consequences (e.g. affectionless psychopathy) that could lead to a lack of guilt + empathy

STRENGTHS of psychodynamic explanations of offending (x3)

1. BOWLBY 44 thieves = 32% but none of controls had affectionless psychopathy whilst 86% of these had repeated early separations

2. recognises importance of childhood in development and the role of emotional factors (e.g. how anxiety and/or feelings of rejection may contribute to offending) so positive contribution

3. FARRINGTON = longitudinal study of 400 boys + conclusion most important risk factors were family history of criminality (genetics/differential association), risk-taking personality (Eysneck), low school attainment, poverty and poor parenting (psychodynamic)

LIMITATIONS of psychodynamic explanations of offending (x4)

1. BOWLBY = not causal findings as separation was not manipulated (natural experiment) so could be other causes e.g. problems in the home which caused the separation

2. little empirical evidence for superego as it is unfalisifiable so cannot say it causes criminal behaviour

3. other explanations e.g. deviant parent leading to a deviant superego could also be genetics or differential association

4. lacks explanatory power e.g. concept of the over-harsh superego seeking punishment cannot be explained by the fact most criminals attempt to conceal their crimes and avoid punishment

offender profiling

the offenders behaviour at the crime scene reflects something about them as a person (not who committed the crime but can suggest personality and demographic characteristics they are likely to possess

‘top-down approach’

US

evidence from the crime scene is compared to patterns from previous crimes, imposing a big picture (typology) onto the crime scene

extensive interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers were carried out suggesting offenders can be classified into different types according to several factors including murder type (e.g. serial, time and location)

how is the profile for the ‘top-down’ approach constructed?

1. using data from the crime scene, such as photographs, pathology reports

2. the crime scene will be classified as organised or disorganised

3. the crime scene may be reconstructed in terms of a hypothesis of the sequence of events

4. a profile is then generated with the likely characteristics of the offender

organised

behaviour toward victim

• targeted

• offender controls the conversation

crime scene

• weapon absent

• body hidden

• cleared up at the scene

characteristics of offender

• high intelligence

• socially and sexually competent

• monitors media coverage of the crime

• possibly married/has children

disorganised

behaviour towards

• victim selected at random

• offender avoids conversation

crime scene

• weapon present

• body in view

• many clues left (fingerprints, semen)

characteristics of offender

• average intelligence

• socially immature and sexually incompetent

• lives/works close to the scene

• live alone

STRENGTH of ‘top-down’ approach

COPSON → interviewed 184 US police officers and noted that 82% of them said the technique was useful and 90% said they would use it again

LIMITATIONS of ‘top-down’ approach (x4)

1. CANTER ET AL = content analysis of 100 murderers → no evidence for a disorganised type of offender, suggesting not useful if the offender isn’t organised

2. too simplistic as criminals do not necessarily fall into either (TURVEY = more likely that the types are two extremes of a continuum + DOUGLAS = 3rd type is a mixed offender which undermines this classification)

3. limited usefulness as can only be used in crimes where the crime scene reveals details abut the suspect e.g. rape but not others etc. burglary

4. questionable validity as it was based on data from a small sample of the most dangerous and sexually motivated murderers (self-report)

‘bottom up approach’

generate a picture of the offender through systematic analysis of evidence from the crime scene

‘data driven’ and emerges as the investigator engages in deeper and rigorous scrutiny of the details of the offence

investigative psychology (x3)

1. interpersonal coherence = behaviour is consistent across situations and so the way the offender behaves at the scene may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations e.g. some rapists humiliate their victims showing how they relate to women more generally

2. time and place = where the perpetrator lives/works

3. forensic awareness = an offender that leaves a scene “clear” and devoid of evidence may suggest they have committed a crime before so have knowledge of the criminal justice system or be aware their data may be on file

geographical profiling

covers the location and timing aspects of a crime, giving important clues about the living habits of the offender (makes sense offenders are more likely to commit a crime near where they live or habitually travel as less effort)

ROSSMO

‘crime mapping’ → make inferences about where an offender is based using the location of linked crime scenes

assumes serial offenders restrict it to specific areas that they are familiar with meaning understanding the spatial pattern provides a ‘centre of gravity’

CANTER + LARKIN

‘circle theory’ = offenders commit crimes within a circle around their usual residence

1. marauder = operates close to their home base (likely if the pattern of offences suggest a detailed knowledge of the area)

2. commuter = travels to another area and commits crimes within a defined space

STRENGTHS of bottom-up approach (x4)

1. CANTER = ‘railway rapist’ - 70% characteristics were accurate

2. LUNDRIGAN + CANTER = 120 murder cases involving serial killers + analysis found spatial consistency in their behaviour (location of body disposal was a different direction from previous, creating a centre of their base)

3. more scientific as use objective statistical techniques + computer analysis

4. play a large part in helping police narrow down suspects and focus resources more efficiently

LIMITATIONS of bottom-up approach (x3)

1. case study so hard to generalise e.g. case of Rachel Nickell where Colin Stagg was convicted due to close fit of profile BUT it was Robert Napier (revealed by forensic evidence)

2. COPSON = although advice provided by the profiler was judged to be useful in 82% of cases, it was only in 3% did it lead to accurate identification

3. only as good as the data inputted + only useful when it is a serial offender

custodial sentencing

an offender is punished by serving time in prison or some other closed institution e.g. young offender’s institute or a psychiatric hospital

aims of custodial sentencing (x4)

1. deterrence = unpleasant experience puts off individuals from engaging in offending behaviour as sends a message it will not be tolerated (behaviourist principle of punishment)

2. incapacitation = removed the offender from society so they can’t reoffend again (protecting the public) + is dependent on severity and nature of offence

3. retribution = revenge = offender should pay for their actions (proportional to the seriousness of the crime)

4. rehabilitation = offenders should be better adjusted and ready to take their place in society when they are released so given opportunity to develop skills and have access to treatment programs for drug addictions etc.

recidivism

reoffending following a punishment including the same or another crime

STRENGTH of custodial sentencing

rehabilitation offered is the main benefit as if they can become better people, then they can enjoy a crime-free life when released (training can increase possibility of employment, treatment programs can decrease likelihood of recidivism etc.)

LIMITATIONS of custodial sentencing (x2)

1. high rates of recidivism suggest it doesn’t work → 46% of adults are re-convicted within one year of release and 67% for under 18s (may be due to institutionalisation as prisoners get used to being in prison with their basic needs met)

2. training ground for crime due to differential association theory → prisoners are exposed to more people with pro-criminal attitudes making it more normal + tips to be more successful = LATESSA + LOWENKAMP = placing low-risk offenders with high-risk offenders makes it more likely the low-risk offenders reoffend

psychological effects of custodial sentencing (x3)

1. negative effects on mental health = sense of helplessness, anxiety about new + frightening environment + sense of hopelessness abut future = ABRAHAMSN = causes depression (which may be expressed in self-harm) = most at risk - young men in their first 24 hours of imprisonment

2. becoming instituionalised - adapted to norms and routines of prison life, inmates may become dependent and so not function on the outside = ZIMBARDO

3. deindividuation = loss of individual identity → increased aggression + loss of personal responsibility for our actions leading to inhumane treatment e.g. ZIMBARDO

STRENGTHS of psychological effects of custodial sentencing (x4)

1. BARTOL = reports suicide rates in prisons have been increasing and are almost 9x higher than the general population

2. Prison Reform Trust = 25% women and 15% of men in prison reported symptoms of psychosis (e.g. SZ)

3. ZIMBARDO = mental health of one participant deteriorated so much they had to withdraw from the study even though he knew it wasn’t real + was temporary

4. CHEESEMAN = aggressive incidents in prison were caused by the need to relieve stress

token economy system

based on operant conditioning whereby desirable behaviours (such as avoiding confrontation, following prison rules) are reinforced through receiving tokens (secondary reinforcers) that are exchanged for a reward e.g. extra food or phone call to a loved one

undesirable behaviours may result in tokens being taken away (punishment)

may involve a hierarchy of clearly specified target behaviours

STRENGTHS of token economy systems (x2)

1. HOBBS + HOLT = young offenders would exchange tokens for drinks, sweets, games or activities off site each week → social behaviours increased by 27% during experimental period vs 0% in control

2. easily implemented and cost effective as no need for specially trained staff

LIMITATIONS of token economy systems (x3)

1. COHEN + FILLIPCJAK = juvenile delinquents were less likely to reoffend after one year whereas 50% of men in a maximum security institution reoffend (RICE) = individual differences in success

2. short-term benefits only (when in prison) BUT little benefit long-term once released as no influence on recidivism (doesn’t target the underlying cause)

3. unethical as seen as manipulative + dehumanising + obligatory to all

anger management

type of CBT where the offender is encouraged to change the way they think and hence their behaviour so that methods are developed that bring about conflict-resolution without the need for violence

method of anger management (x3)

1. cognitive preparation = offender must reflect on past experience and identify situations that act as triggers to anger and whether or not the interpretation of the event is rational (or if hostile attribution bias)

2. skill acquisition = offender is taught various skills to help manage their anger e.g. cognitive (positive self-talk to encourage calmness), behavioural (training in communicating more effectively) + physiological (relaxation and meditation)

3. application practice - opportunity to practice skills e.g. role play (successful negotiation will be rewarded)

STRENGTHS of anger management (x2)

1. IRELAND = baseline measure using a self-report assessed pre-intervention anger + then 8 weeks after 12 one-hour sessions = SIGNIFICANT improvements in group as a 92% reduction in anger levels in at least one measure vs 0% in control

2. tackles the cause of offending by addressing the underlying thought process (= more permanent change)

LIMITATIONS of anger management (x3)

1. HOWELLS = meta analysis showing reduction in anger but not a statistically infrequent one

2. BLACKBURN = little evidence showing reduces recidivism in long term as application stage relies on artificial role play that doesn’t reflect real-life triggers

3. only applicable if crime motivated by anger e.g. inappropriate for fraud + requires offender being motivated and engaging in the process

restorative justice

repairs the harm done by an offender rather than punishing them

victim encouraged to take an active role and the offender is required to take responsibility and face up to what they have done

method of restorative justice (x3)

1. supervised meeting (usually face to face) is organised with a trained mediator in which the victim is given the opportunity to confront the offender + explain how it affected them (see consequences of their actions)

2. offenders may offer concrete compensation e.g. money for damages or psychological compensation e.g. showing feelings of guilt

3. helps victim feel less powerless as have had a voice + may understand the offender by listening to their account (reducing victim’s sense of being harmed)

STRENGTHS of restorative justice (x3)

1. MIERS = majority of victims happy with the outcome

2. SHERMAN + STRANG = reviewed 20 studies and all showed a reduction in re-offending (11% vs 37% in control)

3. less expensive than custodial sentencing (restorative justice council claims reduced re-offending means £8 is saved for every £1 spent on process through reduced court costs + greater police efficiency etc.)

LIMITATIONS of restorative justice (x4)

1. self-selection bias = both parties must be willing (works well for some but not all)

2. not all crime e.g. feminists and ‘Women’s Aid’ call for its ban on domestic violence cases as imbalance of power in the relationship

3. high levels of attrition as both victim and offender may find it hard to complete so drop outs occur

4. MIERS = some participants cynical about the offenders’ sincerity and motivations for taking part e.g. to reduce their sentence and others said it made them uncomfortable