Forensic Psychology Notes
Defining and Measuring Crime
Crime: An illegal act punishable by incarceration or other punishment after a legal trial.
Historical Issues:
What was considered a crime historically (e.g., homosexuality illegal in the UK until 1967) may not be today.
Cultural Issues:
An act considered acceptable in one culture (e.g., smacking a child) may be illegal in another (e.g., UK's 2004 Child Protection Act).
Measuring Crime:
Official Statistics:
Crimes reported to and recorded by the police; published annually by the Home Office.
Susceptible to concealing the 'dark figure' of crime (75% unreported).
Farrington and Dowds (1985): Changes in police recording policies (e.g., thefts under £10) can affect official statistics.
Victim Surveys:
50,000 randomly selected households self-report crimes committed against them; published annually by the Crime Survey for England and Wales.
Less likely to conceal the 'dark figure' of crime due to self-reporting.
Suffer from methodological problems like 'telescoping' (victims misremembering when the crime occurred due to trauma).
Offender Surveys:
Randomly selected cohort of criminals report types and frequency of crimes committed.
Recorded by The Offender Crime and Justice Survey.
Useful for governmental organizations for understanding crime patterns and informing prevention strategies.
Data may be distorted due to offenders exaggerating or under-exaggerating crimes.
Offender Profiling: The Top-Down Approach
Uses a pre-established typology and the FBI method to categorize offenders as organized or disorganized.
Profile Generation (4 steps):
Crime scene classification
Crime reconstruction
Data assimilation
Profile generation
Organized Offenders:
Socially and sexually competent.
Plan crimes, unlikely to leave body or clues.
Specific victim 'type'.
Attacks carried out in a surgical manner.
Disorganized Offenders:
Socially and sexually incompetent.
Leave body and clues (blood, hair) at the crime scene.
Attacks appear random, no specific target.
Occur close to their home or operational base ('marauders').
Aims to reduce the list of suspects.
Limitations:
Only suitable for crimes with visible characteristics (rape, sadistic murder).
Ineffective for burglary or financial fraud.
Oversimplification: Offenders may not fit neatly into organized or disorganized categories.
Keppel and Walter (1999): Studying motives may be more useful.
Canter et al (2004): Evidence supports organized offender type, but not disorganized.
Smallest space analysis of 100 US murders showed disorganised offenders cannot be distinctly identified from organised offenders.
Offender Profiling: The Bottom-Up Approach
Uses no pre-established typology; develops a profile through crime scene and eyewitness analysis.
Hallmarks: Investigative psychology and geographical profiling.
Investigative Psychology:
Crimes recorded onto a database, new crimes matched to develop hypotheses about the culprit's characteristics and motivations.
Emphasis on scientific methods and statistical analysis.
Importance of time and place, interpersonal coherence (how offender treats victim reflects real-life interpersonal functioning).
Geographical Profiling:
Offender has an operational base, inferred through mapping crime locations.
Locations form a circular shape; 'centre of gravity' is the operational base.
Jeopardy surface analysis can predict future crimes.
Based on the assumption that offenders have a consistent modus operandi.
Canter and Larkin (1993): Offenders classified as marauders or commuters.
Copson (1995): Offender profiles led to successful identification in only 3% of cases, but were useful 83% of the time.
Advantage: Reliance on scientific methods and statistical analysis.
Lundrigan and Canter (2001):
Smallest space analysis of 120 serial murder cases identified spatial consistency traits.
Spatial consistency traits included jeopardy surface and centre of gravity.
Biological Explanations: Atavistic Form
Lombroso's theory: Criminals are 'genetic throwbacks' unsuited to civilized society; identified by atavistic characteristics (facial and cranial features).
Atavistic Characteristics: long ears, dark skin, extra toes/nipples, curly hair.
Certain features associated with certain crimes.
Murderers: bloodshot eyes
Fraudsters: reedy lips
Sexual deviants: glinting eyes
Lombroso studied cranial features of 383 dead and 3839 alive criminals; 40% of crime explained by atavistic characteristics.
DeLisi (2012): Branded Lombroso's theory as racist.
Suggests particular races are more predisposed to crime due to common atavistic traits.
Unscientific:
Dated methodology lacked statistical analysis and a control group.
Sample was entirely Italian, findings may not be significant without comparison to a control group.
Hollin (1989): Lombroso considered 'the father of criminology'.
Biological Explanations: Genetic and Neural Explanations
Genetic Explanations:
Focus on heritability and candidate genes.
Christiansen et al (1977): Concordance rates of 33% for MZ twins and 12% for DZ twins.
87 MZ twins, 147 DZ twins.
Mednick et al (1984): Interaction between environment and genetics produces criminality.
Tiihonen et al (2014): Abnormalities in MAOA and CDH-13 genes (related to neurotransmitters) increase the likelihood of becoming criminal by 13-fold.
Neural Explanations:
Focus on individuals with antisocial personality disorder (APD).
Raine et al (2000): Criminals have lower volume and activity (11% reduction) in the prefrontal cortex.
Keysers et al (2011): Criminals appear to have a 'neural switch' to turn empathy on or off.
Methodological issues with twin studies:
Assumes the only difference between twins is the amount of genetic information they share.
MZ twins sharing the same environment may explain higher concordance rates.
Mednick et al (1984): Strong support for the diathesis-stress model.
Analysed court convictions of 14,427 adoptees finding adoptees sharing same biological father with criminal record and siblings adopted separately into different homes, were concordant for convictions.
Katz et al (2007): Biological reductionism is a problem.
Links between criminal families, pro-criminal attitudes, lack of education, economic difficulties, etc.
Psychological Explanations: Eysenck’s Theory
Specific criminal personality (neurotic-extravert) measured across dimensions (neurotic-stable, extravert-introvert, psychoticism).
Links with biological explanations: criminal behaviour due to the nervous system activity.
Extraverts have an underactive nervous system.
Personality and nervous system activity affect the extent of socialization.
Those with a (criminal) neurotic-extravert personality are unable to perceive antisocial behaviour as undesirable.
Personality measured using the EPI (Eysenck’s Personality Inventory).
Mischel (1988): EPI takes on a reductionist approach.
Trait-based personality measurement might not represent a complete and accurate view.
Bartol and Holanchock (1979): Theory may suffer from cultural bias.
Hispanic convicts were found to be less extravert compared to non-criminals.
Digman’s Five Factor Model: Oversimplification of criminal classification.
Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience.
Cognitive Explanations for Offending Behaviour
Kohlberg's Theory:
Three universal levels of moral reasoning characterized with certain logic: pre-conventional level (punishment orientation), the conventional level (maintenance of the social order) and the post-conventional level (morality of contract and individual rights).
Chandler (1973): Criminals have an immature reasoning ability corresponding to pre-conventional level.
Cognitive Distortions: Dysfunctional thought processing.
Hostile Attribution Bias (HAB):
Schönenberg and Justye (2014): Offenders view emotionally ambiguous situations as hostile.
When 55 violent offenders were exposed to pictures of facial expressions which were neither clearly hostile nor clearly neutral, the overwhelming majority viewed the images as aggressive or hostile.
Dodge and Frame (1982): May be the result of being a ‘rejected’ and ‘aggressive’ child.
Minimalisation:
Pollock and Hasmall (1991): Common among sex offenders, a coping mechanism for guilt involving underexaggerating the significance of their crimes.
In their sample, an astounding 35% of child molesters attempted to justify their crimes as non-malicious and simply being a way of showing their affection, while 36% did not accept committing a crime at all as they perceived the child as consenting!
Thornton and R.L.Reid (1982): Cognitive theories may not explain all crimes.
Intelligence may be a more important factor, as suggested by Langdon (2010).
Gibbs (1979): Reframed Kohlberg's stages as mature and immature reasoning.
Cognitive therapies, such as CBT, may reduce recidivism rates in sex offenders.
Psychological Explanations: Differential Association Theory
Sutherland’s (1924) Differential Association Theory: Crime is a learned behaviour described by social learning theory.
Individuals learn attitudes towards crime and skills to carry out crimes.
If exposure to pro-criminal attitudes is greater than anti-criminal, the individual is likely to become criminal.
Frequency and intensity of exposure to criminal attitudes is difficult to measure objectively.
Determinist approach (increased exposure = criminal) may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.
Environment, not the individual, is to blame.
Psychological Explanations: Psychodynamic Explanations
Blackburn (1993): Three types of inadequate superegos are associated with criminality.
Deviant superego: The child internalizes abnormal moral standards from their criminal parents.
Weak superego: Present due to a lack of identification with the same-sex parent.
Over-harsh superego: the child craves punishment due to being accustomed to such a feeling because the child had grown up with over-harsh parents.
Dysfunctional superego leads to the id exercising control and demanding instant gratification.
Based on Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation.
Suggested the absence of a mother-figure or mother-substitute during the critical period of attachment formation (the first 2 years of life) would result in irreversible emotional and intellectual consequences, namely affectionless psychopathy and mental retardation.
Lewis (1959): Contradicts Bowlby's findings.
Lewis (1959) found that maternal deprivation during childhood was not indicative or a reliable predictor of the likelihood of becoming criminal in the future, nor were maternally deprived children at a significant disadvantage in terms of forming close relationships during adulthood.
Hoffman (1975): Theory suffers from gender bias.
Freud's psychodynamic approach, girls should be at greater risk of becoming criminal because they suffer from penis envy!
Concept of superego is unfalsifiable and pseudoscientific, according to Popper’s criterion of falsification.
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Custodial Sentencing
Aims:
Deterrence (society and individuals)
Incapacitation (protect public)
Retribution (eye for an eye)
Rehabilitation (training and treatment)
Effects: stress, depression, institutionalisation, prisonisation.
Constantino et al (2016): 7.5% of women and 6.3% of men in prison suffer from depression.
High recidivism rates due to retribution and monotonous prison life.
Ministry of Justice: 57% will reoffend within a year after release.
Prison does not affect each individual in the same way.
Prisoners have opportunities for learning and training.
Sex offenders partake in compulsory CBT schemes.
Violent offenders partake in anger management schemes.
Token economy systems or restorative justice in return for decreased prison length.
Custodial sentencing may be influenced by political motives (Davies and Raymond, 2000).
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Behaviour Modification in Custody
Token economies based on operant conditioning (reinforcement).
Reinforcement increases the likelihood of desirable behaviors.
Tokens (secondary reinforcers) are exchanged for rewards (primary reinforcers).
Hobbs and Holt (1976) Significant increase in the displaying of desirable behaviours for criminal male juveniles in the Alabama school who employed token economies.
Addresses the proximal cause of offending, not the distal cause.
Ethical concerns (Moya and Achtenburg, 1974): Compulsory participation and denial of rights.
Flexible (can change according to the aims of each institution) and easy to implement.
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Anger Management
Novaco (1975): Focuses on identifying and dealing with the emotions which precede anger.
Three stages:
Cognitive preparation: offenders identify and rationalize the patterns of emotion which occurs before, during and after aggression.
Skills acquisition: therapist teaches communication skills, breathing techniques, meditation, and positive self-talk.
Application practice: offender applies the new techniques or skills in a real-life situation and their positive behaviour , is then positively reinforced by the therapist, during a role play.
Keen et al (2000): The majority of prisoners who partaken in the National Anger Management Package were able to control their anger to a greater extent and were more aware of such anger.
Loza and Loza-Fanous (1999): Assumption that violent offences are caused by an inability to control anger may be wrong.
Limited effect in real-life situations.
Incorporates theories and skills from various psychological approaches therefore not an oversimplification.
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Restorative Justice
Braithwaite (2004): Emphasis on giving the survivor a voice and showing the offender the emotional consequences of their behaviour. Also focus is placed up on positive outcomes.
Offenders show remorse; apologies made; damages paid.
Guidelines set by the Restorative Justice Council.
Latimer et al (2005): RJ was significantly more effective than traditional nonrestorative approaches in victim and offender satisfaction, restitution compliance and reducing recidivism.
Schemes may take a naïve approach because they assume that the offender and survivor will always show remorse when participating.
Criticized by feminists in domestic abuse cases.
Flexible and easy to implement in prisons, psychiatric institutions and schools.