PSYCHOLOGY: Forensics

What is the ‘Top-down’ approach to offender profiling?

Developed by FBI - ‘The American Way’

1. Data assimilation / input - evidence is reviewed

2. Decision process model - data is organised into meaningful patterns

3. Reconstruction - sequence of events is hypothesised

4. Classification - ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’

5. Profile generation - hypothesis related to likely offender

Also known as ‘Typology approach’

What are the some of the characteristics of a ‘organised’ offender?

• Planned

• Targeted victim (s)

• High intelligence

• Skilled occupation

• Watches media coverage of crime - may leave ‘clues’ / evidence of following coverage at crime scenes

What are some of the characteristics of a ‘disorganised’ offender?

• Unplanned

• Victims not targeted

• Low intelligence

• Socially awkward

• Poor employment history

• Doesn’t watch media coverage

Discussion of ‘Top-down’ approach?

• Not fully scientific - involves reliance on ‘hunches’ - but use of controlled methods - Snook et al - experiences of reading behaviours shown or ‘Barnum effect’ - generalising statements made to fit with offenders - PROBLEMATIC

• Effectiveness? - Copson - 184 US police officers questioned - 80% said operationally useful, 93% would use again - technique also offers how to deal with offenders following incarceration

• Appropriateness? - limited to use within serial rape or murder - not appropriate for all crimes

• Personality may not be ‘stable’ - assumes offenders have stable personality traits that directly influence their offending behaviour - view is outdated, as contemporary psychology recognises situational factors that may lead to offending behaviours i.e. not just a lack of education, intelligence, social competence etc.

What is the ‘Bottom-up’ approach to offender profiling?

Allows predictions to be made about the offender, which allows for data to be used to shape interviews later on

• A statistical database - large database of crimes are analysed to identify patterns and correlations in offender behaviour to help determine likelihood of recidivism of criminals

• Interpersonal coherence - the way in which an offender behaves at the crime scene mirrors their everyday behaviours

• Criminal career - how an offender’s criminal carer can influence and predict future criminal activities

What is ‘Geographical profiling’ for offending behaviour?

The analysis of spacial patterns of a series of crimes involving:

• Distance decay - crime frequency decreases with distance from offender location - ‘principle of least effort’

• Circle theory - by drawing a circle around crimes, a ‘centre of gravity can be established

What is a ‘Marauder’s centre of gravity’?

The centre of gravity is close to the offender’s home

What is a ‘Commuter’s centre of gravity’?

Centre of gravity is another geographical area the offender is familiar with i.e. place of work, family member’s house etc.

Discussion of ‘Bottom-up’ approach?

• Scientific - not ‘hunch’ based, use of methodology to determine centres of gravity + adaptive to each new offence, no ‘Barnum effect’

• Effectiveness? - Lundrigan and Canter - 120 murder cases in USA - use of bottom-up showed positive results - ‘centre of gravity’ found to be near offender locations

• Appropriateness? - Wide range of offences, including serial theft as well as more serious crimes

• Can be highly resource-intensive - requires large databases, specialised software and trained professionals to carry out efficiently

What is the ‘Atavistic’ approach in offender profiling and what characteristics are associated with this?

Suggestion that criminals and non-criminals are distinguishable with physical characteristics discerning them, examination of over 4000 criminals + 400 skulls, which included:

• Sloping brow (indication of low IQ)

• Pronounced jaw

• Facial asymmetry

• Flattened nose

• Dark skin (expanded further in discussion)

• Extra nipples, toes and fingers

What are the four kinds of ‘Somatotypes’ proposed by Kretschmer?

• Leptosome - tall and thin - petty thieves

• Athletic - tall and muscular - crime of violence

• Pyknic - short and fat - crimes of deception

• Dysplastic - mixed - crimes against morality (i.e. prostitution)

Discussion of ‘Atavystic’ approach?

• Not scientific - Yes, use of careful measurements and observable constructs to develop theory, but lack of non-criminal control group + Goring - 3000 criminals and 3000 non-criminals - no evidence of characteristics

• Socially sensitive - use of ‘dark skin’ / eugenics implications?

• Cause or effect? - facial and cranial difference may be developed as a result of drug abuse, not criminal behaviours BUT drug abuse may be a result of incarceration

• Impacts in wider Forensics - Eysenck’s ‘criminal personality’ also seeks to differentiate criminals and non-criminals

What is the genetic approach to offending behaviour?

• Twin studies - Raine - concordance rate of 50% in MZ twins compared to 21% in DZ - some genetic link, but also 50% left to account for environment

• Gene variants:

  • MAOA gene - ‘warrior gene’ - extreme aggressive behaviours

  • CDH13 gene - one variant shows 13 times more likely to have history of violent behaviour

• Epigenetics - genes are ‘switched-off’ due to environmental factors - Caspi et al - 12% young males with MAOA experience maltreatment in childhood, but 44% responsible for violent crimes

• Adoption studies - Crowe - adopted children with a mother with criminal record at 50%, compared to 5% - shows some genetic influence of criminality

Discussion of genetic approach?

• Scientific - based off objective evidence i.e. genetic links like MAOA or CDH13 - adds credibility to explanation

• Gene-environment interplay - cannot fully be genetic, i.e. adoption at 50%, MZ twins at 50%, environment must be accounted for

• Implications for treatment - programs should not be aimed at ‘treating’, but instead coping mechanisms - deterministic approach

• Socially sensitive - if genetics are the ‘cause’, can it be excused as they could not help their actions?

How does brain structure influence offending behaviour?

• Prefrontal cortex - links to dysfunction within offenders, leading to poor self-control, increased aggression and difficulty anticipating consequences - Raine - 71 brain imaging studies showing reduced activity in prefrontal cortex + 11% reduction in volume of grey matter in group with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD)

• Limbic system - responsible for aggression, pleasure seeking and sexual urges - Raine et al - murderers found not guilty on reasons of insanity (NGRI) had abnormal asymmetries in their brain, especially the amygdala with reduced activity in both the left and right side

• Brain injury - Harmon - 8.5% of US population have a brain injury compared to 60% in prisons - suggestion of physical differences linked to offending behaviour

How do neurotransmitters / hormones influence offending behaviour?

• Noradrenaline - linked with fight or flight activation - in excess, can lead to ‘aggressive’ behaviour if the offender thinks they are under threat

• Dopamine - addiction and substance abuse, correlated often with offending behaviour

• Testosterone - links to aggression and high levels often associated with violent offending

• Low levels of serotonin - Seo et al - suggest may be linked with impulsive aggression i.e. lack of inhibition

Discussion of the Neural approach?

• Scientific - use of objective and observable evidence i.e. fMRI scans (Raine) - adds credibility to explanation

• Implications for treatment - offender may not be ‘responsible’ for offences, so programs at changing i.e. cognitions may be pointless and ineffective

  • Furthermore, socially sensitive - can offenders be held responsible for offending behaviour if it is ‘uncontrollable’ / determined?

• Type of offence - aggression and violence-based crimes are best explained by this, not organised or carefully planned crimes (another approach may be more appropriate for those)

• Pp groups - most research conducted on animals for testosterone, thus has limited applicability to humans

What combination of personality traits follows Eysenck’s ‘criminal personality’ and how can it explain criminality?

Extraversion and Neuroticism

People with high E and N scores don’t respond to antisocial situations with fear / anxiety - they instead are impulsive (craving excitement) and are thus less fearful of punishment

What characteristics are under Extraversion?

Lively, sociable, impulsive and active

What does Extraversion mean?

A biological need for high levels of environmental stimulation

What level of arousal do extraverts have and what result does it have on behaviour?

Low levels of arousal in the ANS (autonomic nervous system)

Extraverts therefore seek out high stimulation to fuel their excitement

True or false: ‘Extraverts are easily conditioned’

False - extraverts do not learn well from previous experiences as introverts, thus punishment has less of an effect on future behaviour

What are characteristics under Neuroticism?

Emotional instability, anger, anxiety and irritability

What does Neuroticism mean?

How stable or changeable a person’s nervous system is, neurotics being more ‘reactive’ and ‘volatile’

How does being more neurotic have an affect on behaviour?

Instability of emotions leads to higher experiences of negative emotional stages, such as anger or anxiety

What biological basis is there for levels of Neuroticism and how does it influence behaviour?

Links to the sympathetic NS (nervous system) and one’s response to fight or flight situations

More likely to detect ‘threats’ in a situation i.e. more nervous, jumpy or over-anxious - could account for ‘fight’ response, leading to aggression and violence-base offences

What are characteristics under Psychoticism?

Aggression, risk taking, irresponsibility and impulsivity

What affect does a high level of Psychoticism have on behaviour?

Lack of empathy - more likely to engage in anti-social behaviour, due to lack of perceived / felt consequences

Discussion of Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality?

• Scientific - use of EPI (Eysenck’s Personality Inventory) - well-established and rigorous, thus objective - improves credibility of theory

• Implications for treatment - offender may not be ‘responsible’ for offences, so programs at changing i.e. cognitions may be pointless and ineffective

  • Furthermore, socially sensitive - can offenders be held responsible for offending behaviour if it is ‘uncontrollable’ / determined?

• Longitudinal research shows personality traits and offending behaviour change over lifespan i.e. offending peaks in adolescence and drops at adulthood BUT E and N do not follow the same pattern - thus, personality alone cannot account for offending behaviour

• Cultural variations of criminal personality - Holanchock - Hispanic and African American offenders in maximum security New York prison were less extraverted than control group - Extraversion is not a reliable factor alone as an explanation for offending behaviour