Forensics

Forensic psychology is the application of scientific knowledge and methods to help answer legal questions. It is the intersections of psychology and law.

Offender Profiling: Top-Down Approach

Offender profiling is an investigative tool that aids the identification of an unknown criminal by building a likely identity based on crime scene evidence. There are two main approaches: Top-Down and Bottom-Up.

Top-Down Approach

The Top-down approach uses pre-existing knowledge about criminal behaviour and personality to create a profile of the offender. Different investigative techniques are used to create characteristics of who the offender most likely is. The top-down approach categories offenders into organised or disorganised criminals, by carefully looking at the crime scene, drawing conclusions from the evidence, and the victim themselves. This method is typically used for more extreme cases such as Ted Bundy.

Origin

Aim: The US FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit wanted to better understand the patterns of behaviour in offenders.

Method: The FBI conducted extensive qualitative interviews with 36 sexually-motivated serial killers. The aim of these was to gather specific details about their behaviours, crimes, and crime scenes so that a database of common characteristics could be developed. The database is used to analyse patterns and trends in the offenders’ behaviour to create templates of offenders.

Results: The database analysis led to clear distinction between two types of offenders: organised and disorganised. Following crime scene analysis, offenders can be categorised to help police focus their investigation.

Organised and Disorganised

Characteristics of Organised Criminals

• Tries to conceal evidence

• Victim is specifically targeted

• Body is transported away.

• Skilled profession

• High intelligence

• Married with children

Characteristics of Disorganised Criminals

• Spontaneous, spur of the moment

• Messy, no effort to conceal evidence

• Random victim

• Unskilled profession or unemployed

• Below average intelligence

• Sexual dysfunction and failed relationships

Constructing an FBI profile

1. Data Assimilation

   Profiler reviews the evidence from the crime scene photographs, pathology reports, witness reports, etc.

2. Crime Scene Classification

   The scene is classified as either organised or disorganised.

3. Crime Reconstruction

   Hypotheses, in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of the victim, etc, are constructed.

4. Profile Generation

   Hypotheses related to the likely offender, demographic background, physical characteristics, behaviour, etc, are constructed.

Evaluation

Research Evidence

• Canter et al (2004) conducted an analysis of 100 US murders. The details of each case were examined with reference to 39 characteristics of the two types of killers. Although the findings did suggest evidence of an organised type, there was no evidence of a disorganised type.

• Many studies suggest that the two types of criminals are not mutually exclusive- there can be a variety of combinations that occur at any given murder scene. A killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics.

Scientific Basis

• Canter (2000) has pointed out that the crime scene evidence on which the profile is based on is often incomplete and ambiguous, which means judgements based on the evidence are speculative. Different profilers may reach different conclusions from the same evidence.

• The top-down approach is high in ecological validity. It was created by the FBI meaning the templates used are based on real investigations. It is therefore highly generalisable to current investigations.

• The FBI interviews were based on a small group of 36 extreme and therefore has low population validity. It therefore has limited use in more frequently occurring crimes. [counterpoint: Meketa]

• Canter has argued that it is not sensible to rely on self-report data with convicted killers when constructing a classification system. Results may be affected by social desirability or even the ‘screw you’ effect.

Wider Application

• Top-down profiling is best suited to crime scenes which reveal important details about the suspect such as rape and crime involving acting out fantasies or torture. More common offences do not lend themselves to profiling because the crime scene reveals very little about the offender.

• Meketa (2017) reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states. The detection method includes two additional categories: interpersonal and opportunistic.

Offender Profiling: Bottom-Up Approach

Bottom Up Approach

The Bottom-Up aims to generate a picture of the offender based on database evidence developed by Professor David Canter. Unlike the top-down approach, there are no fixed typographies instead it utilises database analysis with a grounding in psychological theory. It uses both investigative psychology and geographical profiling to build an offender profile.

Investigative psychology matches details from the crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behavioural patterns. A statistical database is created where details about a case can be analysed to help find the offender. Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) is the output from programmes used to generate profiles. The closer to the middle the factors are, the more likely they are to occur together. For example, rape and beating the victim occur together 65% of cases, whereas bite marks and decapitation rarely are found together.

Geographical profiling produces a crime map where the location of linked crime scenes are used to make inferences of the likely operation base. It is based on spatial consistency and the assumption that serial offenders have a “centre of gravity” to their work. Canter developed the Circle Theory based on this. The Circle Theory categorises offenders into "commuters” and “Marauders” - those who travel to commit a crime, and those who do not. This can provide insight into the nature of the offence as well as employment status, age etc.

Key Concepts

1. Forensic Awareness

   Crime scene evidence.

2. Interpersonal Coherence

   Analysing the behaviour of an offender can help establish and understand offender behaviour in their day-to-day life.

3. Villain’s Characteristics

   Assumptions of the offender’s demographic or modus operandi.

4. Early Career

   Early offences may indicate how later crimes will be committed.

5. Space and Time

   The time and location of the crime will communicate something about the offender’s own place of residence or employment.

The Railway Rapist

Canter was appointed to help build an offender profile on a rapist in London (1975 to 1986). John Duffy had carried out 24 sexual attacks on women and 3 murders near railway stations. Canter overlaid an acetate film onto a map revealing distinctive patterns in the locations and types of crimes. This classified the offender as a marauder allowing Canter to narrow the suspect list from approximately 200 to just 2. The geographical profiling helped to convict John Duffy as the Railway Rapist. Canter’s profile was surprisingly accurate, for example Canter believed the offender to be married without children, in reality John was separated from his wife who had previous convictions from attacking her.

Rachel Nickell

Rachel Nickell was sexually abused and murdered with only her 2 year old son as the only witness. A full investigation had been conducted with very little results. It was reopened when initial suspect Colin Stagg had clearly not committed the offence. Extensive investigative psychology looking into DNA evidence later convicted Robert Napper as Rachel’s murder. This is limiting evidence as the original profile drawn up after using the bottom-up approach was wrong. The honey used in aims of getting Stagg to confess was thrown out of court. However, it also provides support for the importance of investigative psychology.

Evaluation

The Railway Rapist

• The case supports investigative psychology as using database evidence it was obvious the crimes were linked. The behaviour of the offender was consistent, David Canter was able to successfully use this information to build up a very accurate profile.

• The theory of interpersonal coherence was supported by the case as Duffy had a police record for violently raping his estranged wife at knifepoint.

• The case supports geographical profiling as there was consistency in the location of the crimes. Canter was able to suggest that Duffy had a good working knowledge of the railways (he was a carpenter for British rail) and he was able to infer where Duffy lived.

Rachel Nickell

• The case illustrates the fact that just because someone fits a profile does not mean they are the offender. Profiling can help narrow down a list of suspects and give a lead in an investigation but may not deliver the actual suspect. Data driven approach may take way from the importance of police intuition.

Research Evidence

• Copson (1995) surveyed 48 UK police forces using investigative psychology and found that over 75% of the police officers questioned said that profilers advice was useful however only 3% said that advice had helped identify the actual offender.

• Canter and Larkin (1993) studied 45 sexual assaults that showed support for their circle theory model by distinguishing between marauders and commuters. However, 91% were identified as marauders limiting the usefulness of the classification.

• Canter and Heritage (1990) analysed 66 sexual assault cases using smallest space analysis and identified clear common patterns of behaviour. Supporting the theory of behaviour consistency.

Wider Application

• Geographical profiling may not be sufficient on its own. The success is reliant on the quality of data the police can provide. 75% of crime is not reported to the police.

• When police were looking at the disappearance and murder of 4 young girls from different areas of Britain in 1980s, the dumping of the bodies in laybys next to major roads led to a breakthrough. It was realised that his likely occupation was delivery driver.

• The bottom-up approach is useful for a wider range of crimes than top-up. The bottom-up approach can be used in more day-to-day crimes.

Biological Explanations: Atavistic Form

Atavistic Form

The Atavistic form proposed that criminals are a sub-species of genetic throwbacks that cannot conform to the rules of modern society. Such individuals have distinguishable facial and cranial characteristics. This is based on Lombroso’s book titled “Criminal Man” [in english].

Lombroso combined his ideas with Darwin’s theory of evolution, specifically the idea of ‘the survival of the fittest,’ to imply that criminals were primitive, less developed, and not responsible for their criminal actions.

Lombroso (1876)

Aim: To identify distinguishing physical features among criminals, which set them apart as offenders based on biological principles.

Method: Lombroso examined the features and measurements of nearly 4000 criminals and the skulls of an additional 400 dead criminals.

Results: Some common findings from Lombroso’s investigation included:

1. Cranial Characteristics

   Narrow sloping brow - indicating low intelligence levels

   A strong pronounced jaw

   High cheekbones

   Facial asymmetry

2. Other Characteristics

   Dark skin

   Large Ears

Offender types: Lombroso categorised particular types of offenders in terms of physical and facial characteristics. Murderers were described as having blood-shot eyes, curly hair and long ears; whereas sexual deviants had glinting eyes, swollen fleshy lips and projecting ears; while the lips of fraudsters were thin and ‘reedy.’

Conclusion: He concluded that these characteristics indicated that such people were more primitive in an evolutionary sense, evidence of an atavistic form. He concluded that 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics.

Evaluation

• Research Evidence

  Studies have shown prisoner behaviour has improved significantly following facial surgery. Re-offending (recidivism) rates of 42% have been found for those who have had surgery, compared to 70% of those who did not. Kurtzberg et al (1968) offered surgery to prisoners with facial defects. These prisoners said the defects had made people treat them differently and perceive them as boisterous and aggressive.

  Charles Goring (1913) set out to establish whether there are any physical or mental abnormalities among offenders. He concluded, after examining 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders, there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics.

• Scientific Basis

  Lombroso’s methods were poorly controlled; he failed to control important variables within his research and did not compare his offender sample to a non-offender control group. Confounding variables, which could have been controlled with a control group, include poverty and poor education.

• Socially Sensitive

  Several critics have suggested that the study has racist undertones. DeLisi (2012) illustrated that the features that were identified as atavistic (curly hair, dark skin) are most likely to be found amongst those with African descent. This suggests that Lombroso’s theory might be subjective, influenced by racial prejudices, and scientifically racist.

Biological Explanations: Genetics

Genetics

Offending behaviour can be explained through the role of genetics with a focus on the heritability and role of candidate genes. The evidence comes from twin, adoption and family studies.

Twin studies and the concordance rates can help indicate a possible genetic tendency due to the genetic make up of monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins who share 100% and 50% of their genes.

Christiansen (1977)

Studied over 3500 twin pairs in Demark and found a higher concordance rate in MZ twins. It was found that male MZ twins had a concordance rate of 35% whereas females had a rate of 21%. DZ males had a rate of 13% whereas females had a rate of only 8%. This indicates a degree of genetic inheritance. However, as the concordance rates are low, even for MZ twins, there is also an indication that environment plays a large part in criminal behaviour. Secondly, the results raises a question about the role of gender in criminal behaviour.

Crowe (1972)

One criticism raised in response to twin studies is that the effect of the environment is not ruled out. MZ twins may find a 68% concordance rate but if they are raised in the same environment therefore the learning environment is likely to be a factor in their behaviour. Adoption studies attempt to rule this out as the children are raised by adopted parents with no genetic similarity.

A group of adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record was compared to a control group of adopted children without criminal biological mothers. It was found that 50% of the adopted children with criminal bio mothers also had a criminal record by the time they were 18. In the control group this was only 5%. This suggests a biological predisposition to criminality.

Brunner et al (1993)

An analysis of a large family in the Netherlands was conducted, investigating how many of the male family members had been responsible for various counts of anti-social and criminal behaviour. It was found that the males had a genetic condition resulting in lower intelligence levels and a deficiency in the MAOA gene which regulates serotonin in the brain and has been linked to aggressive behaviour.

MAOA

The Warrior gene breaks down Monoamine Oxidase A, an enzyme responsible for breaking down neurotransmitters in the brain such as serotonin, dopamine, and noradrenaline. When there is a low variant of the gene, less MAOA is available to break down neurotransmitters therefore the neurotransmitters are not regulated. It has been found, by breeding mice with a knockout variant, that less MAOA results in hostility and more impulsive behaviour.

Caspi et al (2002) followed over 1000 males from age 3 to 26 to collect data about maltreatment between 3 and 11, the variance of MAOA gene and reports of aggressive behaviour by 26. Data was collated from school reports, family and friends accounts, and criminal reports. It was found that maltreatment was a significant predictor of aggression. Low activity of MAOA had no significant effect on aggression. 85% of males with low activity of MAOA and maltreatment became aggressive in their later life.

Evaluation

Scientific Basis

• Twins are unique and may have different experiences to the general population, thus it may not always be appropriate to generalise to all non-twins.

• Twin studies assume that MZ and DZ twins share similar environments, however this is not always the case. An issue with twin studies is that MZ twins are often treated more similarly than DZ twins, thus this may be an explanation for higher concordance rates for MZ twins.

Issues and Debates

• Adoption studies assume that nature and nurture can be distinguished, however many adoptions take place when the children are older after spending several years with their biological parents, thus an environmental influence may still be present.

• Biological determinism suggests that offending behaviour is determined by genetic factors which cannot be controlled by the person. Therefore cannot be blamed for their crimes.

• Biological determinism does not hold up in the modern criminal justice system. Stephen Mobley (1981) argued that he was ‘born to kill’ because of a family predisposition towards violence and aggression. This was rejected in court showing that biological explanations have limited RWA.

Biological Explanations: Neural

Neural

Neural explanations refers to dysfunctions of the brain and nervous system, which includes activity of brain structures and neurotransmitters. Evidence suggests that there may be differences in the brains of offenders and non-offenders, much of this is based on individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (APD).

APD is associated with:

• reduced emotional responses

• a lack of empathy for the feelings of others

• disregard for normal social behaviour

• irresponsibility

Neurophysiology

The prefrontal cortex is associated with moderating social behaviour, morality and decision making. The reduction of the PFC could therefore cause antisocial behaviour, aggression, and other offending behaviour. The amygdala is associated with emotional regulation, aggression, and fear. Lower activation may result in lack of empathy for others, aggression, and other offending behaviour.

Mirror neurons fire in response to both personal action and the action of others. These special neurons may be involved in social cognition, allowing us to interpret the intention and emotion in others.

Raine et al (1997)

Aim: to identify brain regions specific to offenders charged with murder or manslaughter, who had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. (NGRI)

Method: 41 murderers (2 females) were placed under a PET scanner to highlight areas of brain activity. The results of were then compared to an age and gender match control group.

Results: It was found that there was reduced activity in the group of offenders in areas such as PFC and corpus callosum. Additionally, there were abnormalities in the activity of the limbric system, including the amygdala and the thalamus.

Conclusion: There is indication that offenders have abnormal brain function when compared to normal controls. It would suggest that the brains of offenders are slowed and perhaps unable to make the swift decisions to react appropriately. For example, the frontal lobe is linked to planning, therefore the decreased activity in the PFC indicates that offenders are unable to consider the consequences of their actions and control their behaviour.

Neurochemisty

Serotonin has been linked to mood and the ability to control impulsivity. Low serotonin could cause aggression, impulsivity, and even depressive moods. This is linked to antisocial behaviour and offending behaviour.

Dopamine is known as the pleasure neurotransmitter; it causes a rewarding feeling creating a desire to repeat certain behaviours. A criminal may experience an increase in dopamine and feel rewarded by their criminal act, thus creating the desire to repeat the action.

Buitelar (2003) gave dopamine antagonists to juvenile delinquents which reduced the rewarding feeling causing a decrease in desire to repeat the aggressive behaviour.

Evaluation

Research Evidence

• Farrington et al (2006) studied a group of adult males who scored highly on APD. It was found that there was some neural differences caused by various risk factors in childhood.

• Scerbo and Raine (1993) conducted a meta-analysis on 29 pieces of research into anti-social adults and children, finding in all cases low levels of serotonin.

• Potegal et al (1996) found that the stimulation of the amygdala in hamsters led to pronounced aggressive behaviour.

• Couppis (2008) argues that individuals who engage in certain criminal behaviours may experience an increase in dopamine and as a result seek out such experiences again due to the rewarding feeling.

• Keysers (2011) found that offenders only had their empathy reaction activated (mirror neurons) when asked to empathise with the pain of a person in a film. This indicates they are not completely without empathy, but may have a neural switch.

Scientific Basis

• The nature of some of the research into neurochemistry and neurophysiology is often correlational, which means that there is no clear way to show cause and effect.

• The link between neural differences and APD may be complex. Other intervening variables may contribute to APD and offending.

• Neurochemical explanations of offending have been criticised for being overly simplistic. The links between abnormal levels of a certain neurotransmitter and offending behaviour, often centre around violent and aggressive behaviour which does not explain all types of crime.

Issues and Debates

• Biological determinism suggests that offending behaviour is determined by neural factors which cannot be controlled by the person. Therefore cannot be blamed for their crimes.

• Biological determinism does not hold up in the modern criminal justice system.

Psychological Explanations: Eysenck

Eysenck

Personality-based theories are based on the idea that traits which are fixed from birth contribute hugely to subsequent behaviours eg aggression, violence, deception.

Eysenck proposed that personality can be measured with dimensions - Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI) proposed that behaviour could be represented along two dimensions:

1. Introversion-Extraversion

2. Neuroticism-Stability

These two dimensions combine to form a variety of personality traits/characteristics.

A third dimension was later added:

• Psychoticism-Sociability

Eysenck believed that individual differences on these scales would determine how people would react to environmental stimuli. He argued that someone with a criminal personality would be: Extrovert-Neurotic-Psychotic.

These dimensions have a biological basis.

• Extravert

  • Under-active nervous system

    • They require excitement to increase neurotransmitters such as dopamine.

  • Under-aroused therefore searches the environment for stimulation.

  • They may engage in dangerous and risky activities to raise their levels of arousal.

  • Also resistant to conditioning/learning.

    • They do not learn from their mistakes.

• Neurotic

  • High level of reactivity in their sympathetic nervous system.

    • Therefore react quickly to situations of threat.

  • They tend to be jumpy, over-anxious, and can be difficult to predict.

• Psychotic

  • Tend to be cold, unemotional, and prone to aggression.

  • They may lack empathy.

A Extrovert-Neurotic-Psychotic personality type would more likely:

1. To engage in risky behaviour → high extraversion.

2. Be impulsive → neuroticism

3. Lack guilt and empathy → psychoticism

The Role Socialisation

As well as a biological basis, Eysenck also linked personality to socialisation processes. He saw offenders as developmentally immature (selfish and concerned with immediate gratification), offenders are impatient and cannot wait for things.

• During socialisation, children are taught to delay gratification, they are conditioned to wait and be good to receive a treat.

Eysenck believed that people with high E and N scores had nervous systems that made them difficult to condition.

• They are more likely to act in an anti-social manner.

Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)

• This personality test locates people along the three dimensions to determine their personality type.

  • Introversion-Extraversion

  • Neuroticism-Stability

  • Psychoticism-Sociability

• This measurement helped him to conduct research relating to personality variables and other behaviours including criminality.

Evaluation

Research Support

• There is research supporting Eysenck’s Personality Inventory of Criminality

  • Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) sampled 2070 male prisoners and 2422 male controls using the EPQ.

    • It was found that there was a higher average score for extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism in the prisoners than controls.

    • Supporting the criminal personality type.

  • Singh and Rani (2017) tested 100 criminals and 100 non-criminals on different personality traits using the EPI.

    • It was found that criminals scored higher on extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticsm, with the key predictors of criminal personality

      • Being unhappiness, anxiety, feelings of inferiority, risk taking, irresponsibility, assertiveness, and impulsiveness.

• However, there is a lack of consistency.

  • Farrington (1982) conducted a meta-analysis and found that offenders tended to score high on measures of psychoticism. but not for extraversion and neuroticism.

    • The meta-analysis collates evidence from many different studies therefore has high internal validity.

• This suggests that there is only limited support for Eysenck’s theory.

Scientific Basis

• There are issues with the internal validity of Eysenck’s theory because it is based on questionnaires.

  • A problem with questionnaires is that respondents may lie due to social desirability bias.

    • Most people want to present a positive image of themselves and so may lie or bend the truth to look good.

    • The criminals’ responses may be inaccurate as they may want to get revenge so will act with a ‘screw-you-effect.’

      • They will answer inaccurately to affect the results making it difficult for the researcher.

    • Questionnaires may lack validity for this reason.

  • Another key issues is that participants may not understand, or may misinterpret the question.

    • This leads to inaccurate information being gathered by the researcher.

    • This impacts the validity of the method.

• A limitation of Eysenck’s theory of personality and offending is that it is based on the idea that personality traits are stable constructs, but this has been disputed.

  • Mischel (1988) argued there is no such thing as a stable personality as people adopt different personality types depending on the situation one is in.

    • If it is true that personality is not stable, then it would not be possible to predict criminality based on personality

  • Therefore the personality theory may not be very useful as it is based on invalid measures.

Issues and Debates

• A further limitation of Eysenck’s theory is that cultural factors are not considered.

  • The criminal personality may vary according to culture.

  • Bartol and Holachock (1978) studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a prison and divided them into six groups depending on their criminal history and offence.

    • They found that all groups were less extraverted than a non-criminal group, which was opposite of what Eysenck would expect.

  • This limits Eysenck’s theory in terms of wider application across cultures.

• The theory could also be accused of being biologically determinist.

  • It suggests that there is a significant genetic component to personality traits.

  • This is a problem in the criminal justice system.

    • It suggests criminals have no free will, no control over their actions.

    • This is rejected by the criminal justice system.

    • LINK TO STEPHEN MOBLEY

Psychological Explanations: Cognitive

Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Reasoning

Kohlberg (1968) was the first researcher to apply the concept of moral reasoning to offending behaviour.

Kohlberg argued that people are at different levels of moral reasoning. The higher the level and the stage within, the more sophisticated the reasoning. He based his theory on people’s responses to a series of moral dilemmas.

• Kohlberg thought that the justification given by each individual per dilemma was more interesting than their ultimate decision.

• It is the reasoning which demonstrates the level of morality most clearly.

Moral Reasoning: Refers to the way a person thinks about right and wrong.

The higher the level of moral reasoning, the more behaviour is driven by what is right and wrong, and less about just avoiding punishment or avoiding disapproval from others.

Kohlberg argued that offenders are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level, characterised by the need to avoid punishment and gain reward.

• This level is associated with less mature, child-like reasoning.

• Those who reason at this level may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards.

People who reason at higher levels tend to:

• Sympathise more with the rights of others

• Show behaviours such as honesty, generosity, and non-violence.

• Therefore, they are less likely to commit crimes

  • They fully appreciate the impact on others and their own ethical principles.

Cognitive Distortions

Cognitive Distortions: Faulty, biased, and irrational thinking which leads to perceptions of oneself and others being inaccurate and usually negative.

Research has linked cognitive distortions to the way offenders interpret other people’s behaviours and justify their own actions.

• Hostile Attribution Bias

  • The tendency to misinterpret the actions of other people as aggressive or threatening.

  • Assumption that others are being confrontational when they are not.

    • EXAMPLE: “looking at me funny.”

  • This can trigger a violent response.

• Minimalisation

  • This is an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence.

  • This is a common strategy when dealing with feelings of guilt.

    • EXAMPLE: A burglar may describe themselves as “doing a job” or “supporting my family.”

  • Sexual offenders have been prone to minimalisation.

    • EXAMPLE: “She was asking for it.”

Evaluation

Research Support

• There is research supporting the cognitive explanations of offending.

  • Kohlberg et al (1973) found that a group of violent youths had a significantly lower level of moral reasoning than non-violent youths.

    • Offenders were more likely to be classified as preconventional.

  • This suggests that offenders may be more childlike and egocentric when making moral judgements.

• This supports moral reasoning as an explanation for crime.

• Further research supports Kohlberg’s theory.

  • Palmer and Hollin (1998) gave a series of moral dilemmas to a sample of male and female offenders and non-offenders (aged 13-22).

    • It was found that the non-offenders showed higher levels of moral reasoning than the offenders.

• However, one limitation is that the level of moral reasoning may depend on the offence.

  • Thornton and Reid (1982) found that people who committed crimes for financial gain were more likely to show preconventional moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes.

  • Preconventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes in which offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment,

• This suggests that Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime.

• There is research supporting the theory of cognitive distortions.

  • Schonenberg and Jusyte (2014) presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions.

    • This was compared to a non-aggressive control group.

    • It was found that the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry and hostile.

  • This suggests that offenders are more likely to perceive things negatively supporting hostile attribution bias.

  • Kennedy and Grubin (1992) found that the majority of convicted sex offenders tended to blame the victim.

    • A quarter of the sample interviewed believed that the abuse was a positive thing for the victim, thereby minimising their involvement.

  • This supports minimalisation as an explanation of offending.

• However, one limitation is the level of cognitive distortions depends on the type of offence.

  • Howitt and Sheldon (2007) gathered questionnaire responses from sexual-offenders.

    • Contrary to what the research predicted, they found that non-contact sexual offenders (accessed sexual images on the internet) used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders (pedophiles).

    • Those who had a previous history of offending were also more likely to use distortions as a justification.

• This suggests that distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders.

Scientific Basis

• There are limitations of the theories due to the scientific basis.

  • Kohlberg’s research sample was all male, based on hypothetical dilemmas, and people’s thoughts not actions.

    • The research cannot be generalised to everyone, it lacks high population validity.

    • Not everyone will act exactly as they hypothetically thought.

  • Moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour.

    • Moral reasoning of the kind Kohlberg was interested in is more likely used to justify behaviour after it has happened. (Krebs and Denton, 2005).

Other

• Cognitive theories do not help in predicting future offender behaviour.

  • Just because someone tends to have distorted thinking, it does not inevitably mean they will become an offender.

  • This leaves the primary source/underlying cause of offending to be questioned.

• Cognitive explanations tend to oversimplify behaviour.

  • Both Kohlberg’s theory and cognitive distortions negelct biological, social, and situational variables which impact offending behaviour.

• Cognitive distortions are used by everyone, it does not explain why not everyone becomes a criminal.

  • Everyone uses minimalisation to blame events on external causes to protect oneself.

  • This suggests that there are other factors which are more significant.

  • The diathesis-stress model may better explain criminality.

    • This suggests that people have predispositions such as low moral reasoning or cognitive distortions which are triggered by an event, causing offending behaviour.

Psychological Explanations: Differential Association

Differential Association Theory

Differential Association Theory (DAT) proposes that, through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for offending behaviour.

• This links to Social Learning Theory and Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment.

  • Behaviour is learned by observing others, through vicarious reinforcement. 

According to Sutherland (1939), offenders learn their criminal behaviour from being exposed to other people who commit crimes, people who have pro-crime attitudes. An individual surrounded by pro-crime attitudes and has an absence of anti-crime attitudes is likely to commit crime themselves.

• Pro-Crime Attitudes are those that view criminal behaviour as favourable and beneficial, despite conflicting with law.

• Sutherland argues that if the number of pro-criminal attitudes the person comes into contact with outweighs the number of anti-criminal attitudes, they will go on to offend,

Sutherland explains crime can run in families because people are repeatedly exposed to pro-crime attitudes and values.

• These values are passed from one generation to the next.

• DAT suggests that it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that an individual will commit offences.

  • To do this, the frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values needs to be known.

• Offending arises from two factors:

  • Learned attitudes towards offending

    • All criminal behaviour is learned in the same ways that other behaviours are learned → through modelling.

    • Small groups are more likely to be influential.

    • Repeated exposure to pro-crime attitudes increases the likelihood that an individual will learn criminal behaviours.

    • Anyone can become a criminal regardless of demography.

  • Learning of specific offending acts/techniques.

    • DAT accounts for why so many convicts released from prison go on to reoffend.

      • It is reasonable to assume that whilst in prison, inmates will learn specific techniques of offending from other more experienced offenders.

Evaluation

Shift of Focus

• One strength of DAT is, at the time it was first published (1924), it changed the focus of offending explanations.

  • Sutherlands was successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending (Lombroso’s Atavistic Theory).

  • It also moved the focus away from theories that explained offending as being the product of individual weakness or immorality.

  • DAT draws attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for offending than deviant people.

• This approach is more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of offending.

• However, DAT runs the risk of stereotyping individuals who come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidably offenders.’

  • Despite Sutherland pointing out that offending should be considered on an individual case-by-case basis, the theory suggests that exposure to pro-crime values is sufficient to produce offending in those who are exposed to it.

• This ignores the fact that people may choose not to offend despite such influences, as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes go on to offend.

Wide Reach

• A strength is that the theory can account for offending within all sectors of society.

  • Sutherland recognised that some types of offences (burglary) may be clustered within inner-city, working class communities.

  • It is also that case that some offences are clustered amongst more affluent groups in society.

    • Sutherland was particularly interested in so-called “white-collar” crimes and how this may be a feature of middle-class social groups who share deviant norms and values.

• This shows that it is not just the “lower” classes who commit offences and that the principles of DAT can be used to explain all offences.

Research Evidence

• There is research supporting DAT.

  • Farrington et al (2006) conducted a longitudinal study of the development of offending and anti-social behaviour in 411 males.

    • The study followed the men from 8 to 50 years.

    • They were all living in a deprived, working-class, inner city area of London.

    • The study describes their criminal careers, looking at both official recorded convictions and self-reported offending.

    • The study also looked at what crimes they had committed as well as family background, success at school, and parenting styles.

  • It was found that 41% of the males had been convicted at least once between 10 and 50.

    • Average conviction career lasted from age 19 to 28 and included 5 convictions.

  • 7% were defined as ‘chronic offenders’ because at age 17, they had obtained 50% of the convictions recorded within the study.

  • Key risk factors were identified:

    • Family criminality

    • Poverty

    • Poor parenting

    • Low school achievement

    • Risk Taking.

• Farrington et al’s study supported DAT because the socialisation of the males through inappropriate role models and dysfunctional systems of reward and punishment had led to criminal behaviour.

• COUNTER: Lack of Operationalisation

• COUNTER: Unrepresentative.

  • The sample is not representative of the target population.

    • It consists of only males therefore cannot be generalised to females.

  • The sample only represents certain parts of London, it is not representative of all school types, nor all family backgrounds.

Difficulty Testing

• One limitation is it is difficult to test the predictions of DAT.

  • Sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending behaviour could be predicted.

    • This means that the predictions must be testable.

  • The problem is that many of the concepts are not testable because they cannot be operationalised.

  • EXAMPLE: It is hard to see how the number of pro-crime attitudes a person has, or has been exposed to, could be measured.

• Similarly, the theory is built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro-crime values outnumber anti-crime ones.

  • Without being able to measure either type of attitude, it cannot be known at what point the urge to offend is realised and the offending career triggered.

• This means the theory does not have scientific credibility.

Psychological Explanations: Psychodynamic

Inadequate Superego

According to Freud, children go through a series of psychosexual stages of development and overcome numerous conflicts in order to avoid adulthood fixations.

The Superego is formed at the end of the phallic stage when children resolve the Oedipus and Electra Complexes. The Superego works on the morality principle and is concerned with an individual’s understanding of guilt, right and wrong, their conscience and morals.

According to Blackburn (1993), offending behaviour may occur if there is a problem with the way the Superego develops. This can result in one of three superego issues:

• The Weak Superego

  • Same-sex parent is absent during phallic stage.

  • Oedipus and Electra complexes not fulfilled.

  • Therefore, no opportunity for identification.

  • Causing less guilt and immorality

    • Offending behaviour more likely.

• The Deviant Superego

  • Opportunity for identification with the same-sex parent.

  • Same-sex parent holds deviant morals

    • Links to DAT

  • Child internalised deviant morals

    • Increases the likelihood of offending.

• The Over-harsh Superego

  • The individual has an overly harsh parent

  • Excessively harsh Superego who is crippled by guilt and anxiety.

  • Drives the individual to perform criminal acts in order to get caught and satisfy the superego.

    • Superego has an overwhelming need for punishment

  • Can build-up pressure causing an outburst of inappropriate behaviour when it all becomes overwhelming.

The Role of Emotion

The effect of an inadequate Superego is to allow primitive, emotional demands to become uppermost in guiding moral behaviour. This a key feature of the psychodynamic approach.The approach deals with the emotional life of the individual, this means that lack of guilt is relevant to understanding offending behaviour.

Maternal Deprivation

Bowlby (1944) argued that the ability to form meaningful relationships in adulthood was dependent upon the child forming a warm, continuous relationship with a mother-figure. Failure to establish such a relationship during the critical period (2.5 years) means a child is likely to experience a number of damaging and irreversible consequences in later life.

One consequence: The development of Affectionless Psychopathology.

• Characterised by the lack of

  • guilt

  • empathy

  • feelings for others

Affectionless Psychopathology makes it unlikely that an individual will develop a healthy internal working model for relationships, or the ability to see things from other people’s perspectives. This makes it more likely that a person will commit criminal acts without guilt or concerns about repercussions.

Maternal deprivation → consequences in adulthood → affectionless psychopathology → engage in acts of delinquency.

44 Juvenile Thieves

Aim: To see if early separation from the primary caregiver was associated with behavioural disorders.

Procedure

• Bowlby studied 88 children from the Child Guidance Clinic, London, who were emotionally maladjusted.

  • Half of the children were accused of stealing → 44 Juvenile Thieves.

  • The rest made up the control group.

• Bowbly conducted interviewed with the children, family, and friends

  • All thieves were interviewed for signs of being affectionless psychopaths.

  • Families were interviewed to establish whether the thieves had experienced prolonged periods of separation from their caregiver.

    • Separations were due to continual or repeated stays in hospitals or foster homes with few visits from their family.

• The children completed IQ tests, emotional assessments, and a separate report by a social worker, psychologist, and Bowlby (psychiatrist) was carried out.

Findings

• 14/44 thieves were categorised as affectionless psychopaths.

  • 12 out of 14 had experienced prolonged periods of separation from their caregiver in the first 2 years of their lives.

• 5 out of the 34 (not categorised thieves) had experienced prolonged separation.

  • In total, 40% of the thieves experienced prolonged separation.

• Out of the control group, only 2 had experienced prolonged separation.

Conclusion

• There is a suggested link between early separation and later maladjustment.

• Maternal deprivation appears to lead to affectionless psychopathy.

• Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period for attachment.

  • The first 2 years of a child’s life are a critical period in emotional and psychological development.

  • Prolonged or frequent separation during this period and experiencing deprivation of emotional care may lead to psychological damage.

Evaluation

Research Evidence

• There is research supporting the link between offending and the superego.

  • Goreta (1991) conducted a Freudian-style analysis of 10 offenders referred for psychiatric treatment.

  • In all those assessed, disturbances in Superego formation were diagnosed.

    • Each offender experienced unconscious feelings of guilt and the need for self-punishment.

  • Goreta explained this as a consequence of an over-harsh Superego - the need for punishment manifesting itself as a desire to commit acts of wrongdoing and offend.

• This evidence seems to support the role of the psychic conflicts and an over-harsh Superego as a basis for offending.

• However, the central principles of the inadequate Superego theory are not supported.

  • If the theory were correct, it would be expected that harsh, punitive parents would raise children who constantly experience feelings of guilt and anxiety.

  • Evidence suggests that the opposite is true.

    • Parents who rely on harsher forms of discipline tend to raise children who are rebellious and rarely express feelings of guilt or self-criticism. (Kochanska et al, 2001).

• This calls into question the relationship between a strong, punitive internal parent and excessive feelings of guilt within the child.

Other Factors

• The maternal deprivation theory of offending has been supported by Bowlby’s research, however this research has been highly criticised.

  • It has been criticised as too narrow as it focuses on the attachment of a mother and an infant.

  • Shaffer and Emerson (1964) found evidence of a multiple attachment stage where an infant forms various attachments with parents, grandparents, siblings.

    • This questions the importance of a primary attachment figure.

  • Lewis (1954) analysed the data drawn from the interviews with 500 young people.

    • It was found that maternal deprivation was a poor indicator of future offending and the ability to form close relationships in adolescence.

    • Even if there is a link between children who have experienced (prolonged) separation from their mothers and offending in later life, this is not a casual relationship.

      • There are countless other reasons for this apparent link.

• This suggests that maternal deprivation may be one of the reasons for later offending behaviour, but not the only reason.

Scientific Basis and Bias

• A limitation of the psychodynamic approach, specifically Freud’s theory of the Superego, is that it lacks scientific basis.

  • Popper argued that the approach lacks falsification.

    • The approach lacks empirical testing meaning that it cannot be proven false which is crucial for the scientific method.

  • The concept of the Superego is stated to be part of the unconscious mind, it cannot be empirically tested.

  • As Blackburn’s theory of the undeveloped Superego cannot be tested, the theory is unscientific and lacks features of science.

• Furthermore, the psychodynamic explanations suffer from gender bias.

  • An assumption of Freud’s theory is that girls develop a weaker Superego than boys because of weaker identification with the same-sex parent during the Electra Complex.

    • This is alpha bias - the difference between men and women is exaggerated.

  • If this were true, women should outnumber men in the prison population.

• However this is not the case.

  • According to the government report, in 2023 females made up 4% of the total prison population in the UK.

  • Furthermore, statistics show that men are 20 times more likely to commit a crime than women.

• The psychodynamic approach to offending is flawed by its gender bias, it is also limited by statistics showing the opposite to be true.

• The undeveloped Superego as an explanation to offending is therefore limited.

Dealing with Offending: Custodial Sentencing

Aims of Custodial Sentencing

There are a number of ways in which different societies deal with offending behaviour but the most common form of punishment is custodial sentencing (prison). Surveys in the UK suggest that the majority of the public would like to see harsher conditions in prison and tougher sentences.

Custodial Sentencing involves a convicted offender spending time in prison or another closed institution (such as young offender’s institute, or psychiatric hospital).

There are four main reasons:

• Deterrence

  • Prison experience is designed to put off people from engaging in offending behaviour.

    • The threat of prison should stop people from committing crimes.

  • This works on two levels:

    • General Deterrence aims to send a broad message to society that crime will not be tolerated.

    • Individual Deterrence should prevent the individual from repeating the same offences in light of their experience.

  • This links to behaviourist ideas of conditioning through punishment and vicarious punishment.

• Incapacitation

  • Prison is for removing the offender from society, to prevent them reoffending, as a means of protecting the public.

  • The need for incapacitation is likely to depend on the severity of the offence and the nature of the offender.

    • EXAMPLE: Individuals in society will require more protection from a serial murderer or rapist than an elderly person who refuses to pay council tax.

• Retribution

  • Prison is a means of society enacting revenge for the offence by making the offender suffer.

    • The level of suffering should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

  • This is based on the biblical notion of “an eye for an eye” that the offender should in some way pay for their actions.

  • Many people see prison as the best possible option in this sense and alternatives to prison are often criticised as soft options.

• Rehabilitation

  • Prison should not be purely punishment, but should be a way to reform the offender.

  • Upon release, offenders should leave prison better adjusted and ready to take their place back in society.

    • Prison should provide opportunities to develop skills and training, or to access treatment programmes, as well as give the offender the chance to reflect on their crimes.

Psychological Effects

Prison is not designed to have a calming and therapeutic effect on prisoners. Instead it generally is an impersonal, regimented, and stark environment in which the individual may find their sense of self, their dignity, and mental health suffering hugely. (Bartol, 1995).

The regime of daily prison life provides a structure and routine that some prisoners come to depend on. This can result in them not being able to cope with the unpredictable, unstructured nature of life outside.

There are several psychological effects associated with serving time in prison.

• Stress and Depression

  • Suicide rates are considerably higher in prison than in the general population.

    • As are the incidents of self-mutilation and self-harm.

  • The stress of the prison experience also increases the risk of developing psychological disorders following release.

• Institutionalisation

  • Having adapted to the norms and routines of prisoner life, inmates may become so accustomed to these that they are no longer able to function on the outside.

    • EXAMPLE: They learn to lack autonomy as everything is done for them, and they aren’t allowed any independence in prison.

    • So, upon release they cannot be independent in the outside world.

  • They also conform to roles, whereby they develop what Zimbardo called “pathological prisoner syndrome.’

    • They become passive and helpless.

• Prisonisation

  • Refers to the ways in which prisoners are socialised into adopting an “inmate code.”

    • Behaviour that may be considered unacceptable in the outside world may be encouraged and rewarded inside the walls of the institution.

Recidivism

Recidivism: reoffending rates.

Recidivism rates in ex-prisoners explains to what extent prison acts as an effective deterrent. It is difficult to measure recidivism rates as it depends on numerous factors.

• EXAMPLE: it depends on the time frame for reoffending

These rates may demonstrate one of the major flaws in custodial sentencing. According to the Ministry of Justice (2021):

• 25% of adult offenders go on to reoffend.

• Young offenders show a recidivism rate of 30%.

• 55.1% of adults released from prison who had been serving sentences longer than 12 months go on to reoffend.

• Adult reoffending rates increased by 2% in 2021.

Reoffending rates vary with time period after release, age of offender, crime committed and country.

• The US, Australia, and Denmark regularly record rates in excess of 60%.

• In Norway rates may be as low as 20%

  • Yukhnenko et al (2019)

  • In Norway, there is less emphasis on incarceration and greater emphasis on rehabilitation and skills development than anywhere else.

Evaluation

Research Evidence

• There is research which shows that custodial sentencing may not be effective.

  • Marsh et al (2009) conducted a meta-analysis which tested the hypothesis that prisons are an effective means of reducing recidivism.

  • It concluded that residential drug treatment programmes, educational/vocational training, community supervision, victim reparation, and community programmes with aftercare are all much more likely to prevent reoffending than simple incarceration.

• Additionally, it has been found that, for some, prison life is better than life outside.

  • Hollin (1992) found that some prisoners would rather be in prison for the regular meals and routines than in their own home.

    • This suggests that prison does work as a deterrent and that some prisoners lack resources and a strong support network outside of prison.

  • Some articles highlight how individuals are turning to crime because prisons provide a better quality of life than their current homeless situation.

• Custodial sentencing may not be effectively deterring people away from a life of crime, but it can provide a better life than crime for some individuals.

Psychological Effects

• One limitation of custodial sentencing is the negative psychological effect on prisoners.

  • Bartol (1995) has suggested that, for many offenders, imprisonment can be ‘brutal, demanding, and generally devastating.’

  • It has been found that suicide rates are almost 9 times higher than in the general population.

    • Most at risk are young, single men during the first 24 hours of confinement.

  • A study conducted by the Prison Reform Trust (2014) found that 25% of women and 15% of men in prison reported symptoms of psychosis.

• However, the figures in the Prison Reform Trust’s study do not include the number of inmates who were experiencing psychotic symptoms before they were incarcerated.

  • Many of those convicted may have pre-existing psychological and emotional difficulties at the time they were convicted.

• This suggests there may be confounding variables that influence the link between prison and its psychological effects.

Training and Treatment

• One strength of custodial sentencing is it provides opportunity for training and treatment.

  • Rehabilitation offers the chance for offenders to become better people during their time in prison.

  • This improved character may mean they are able to lead a crime-free life when back in society.

  • The Vera Institute of Justice (Shirley, 2019) claims that offenders who take part in college education programmes are 43% less likely to reoffend following release.

    • It also claims that prisons that offer these programmes report fewer incidents of violence.

• This suggests prison may be a worthwhile experience assuming offenders are able to access these programmes.

• However, a limitation of custodial sentencing is offenders may learn to become better offenders.

  • Incarceration with long-term offenders may give younger inmates the opportunity to learn the ‘tricks of the trade’ from more experienced prisoners.

  • Offenders may acquire criminal contacts whilst in prison that they may follow up when they are released.

• This form of ‘education’ may undermine attempts to rehabilitate prisoners and consequently may make reoffending more likely.

Dealing with Offending: Behaviour Modification

Token Economies

According to the behaviourist approach, all human behaviour is learned in which case, it should be possible to encourage the unlearning of behaviours. Behaviour modification programmes are designed with the aim of reinforcing obedient behaviour in offenders, whilst punishing disobedience, in the hope that the former continues and the latter dies out.

Token Economies are an example of behaviour modification.

• These are based on the use of tokens (secondary reinforcers) which are given to offenders by prison staff once a desirable behaviour has been displayed.

• The tokens can then be exchanged for a primary reinforcer.

  • EXAMPLES: A phone call home, time in the gym, extra cigarettes, or food.

  • These are directly rewarding.

• This is based on operant conditioning.

• Desirable behaviour may include:

  • Avoiding confrontation

  • Following prison rules

  • Keeping one’s cell orderly

    • This is made clear to the prisoners before the programme is implemented.

Design and Use

Dealing with Offending: Anger Management

Dealing with Offending: Restorative Justice

Revision

• Anti Personality Disorder

Psychological Explanations

Eysenck

• Criminal Personality = neurotic-extravert-psychotic

• AO3 - research support

  • Eysenck and Eysenck

  • Counterpoint - Farrington (1982) meta-analysis

    • no evidence of extraversion and neuroticism

  • Furthermore, it is widely discredited today

Differential Association Theory

• Socialisation

• Pro-crime attitudes and techniques are learnt

  • Leading to more likely to commit

• Frequency = intensity * duration???

• Any background can commit crime

• AO3 - Farrington et al (2006)

  • Support for DAT

  • Limited as suggests family impacts criminality

    • Suggesting a role of genetics

• AO3

  • Environmental Determinism

    • Nurture over nature

  • Other Explanations

Other

Freud = lacks falsifiability

Kohlberg - gender and culture bias