4.3.9 - Forensic psychology

• Typology approach


  Profilers who use this method will work downwards to match the crime to a pre-existing template that the FBI developed
• Typology approach

  • Based on interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers in the 1970s
  • Organised
  • Disorganised
• Organised


  • Evidence of planning and targeting the victim
  • May have a 'type'
  • High level of control
  • Likely to be socially or sexually competent
  • Tend to have above average intelligence
• Disorganised


  • Little evidence of planning
  • Leaves clues behind
  • Likely to be socially or sexually incompetent
  • Likely to have low intelligence and be unemployed
• Constructing an FBI profile


  1. Data assimilation (reviewing evidence)

  2. Crime scene classification- organised or disorganised

  3. Crime reconstruction- hypothesis sequence of events, behaviour of victim

  4. Profile generation- hypothesis of likely offender e.g. demographic, behaviour and physical appearance
• 1. Top down - AO3

  -Only applies to particular crimes scenes that reveal details about suspects of offences like rape, arson, murder etc. common offences like burglary can’t use this approach .Limited. C.A. allows the police to make predictions about the perpetrators in extreme cases of which are less common, whereby they are less able to spot trends according to previous offences (because they are uncommon).
• 2) Top down - AO3

  -May lack validity, it was based on a study of 36 sexually-motivated serial killers who were from the USA. Also use of self-report, offenders may have been dishonest. Also issues of generalisability. 
• 3) Top down - AO3

  -Too simplistic, many types of criminals cannot be put in to two categories. Other’s suggest there a 4 types and that we should focus on motivations.

  C.A. the typology developed by the FBI has paved the way for the more detailed typologies suggesting that the top-down approach (using categories) is still an appropriate method of offender profiling that is evolving
• 4) Top down - AO3

  -Based on outdated theories of personality being stable.

  External, situational factors can be a major influence on offending and they are constantly changing- top-down approach may have poor validity when it comes to identifying possible suspects and/or predicting their next move
• Bottom-up Approach - AO1

  -British bottom-up model-does not begin with fixed typologies. Profile is ‘data-driven’ and emerges as the investigator rigorously scrutinises the details of a particular offence.

  Investigative psychology- developed by Canter (psychological theory alongside statistical techniques).
• Bottom-up -AO1

  • 5 key assumptions used to analyse crime, with these in place bottom up profilers can use statistical techniques
  • e.g. smallest space analysis  which compare the crime scene to a database of similar crime in order to predict characteristics and see if crimes are linked 
  • Psychological theory

  -interpersonal coherence,(consistency in behaviour during crime and everyday life)

  - time and place (indicate home/work/socialising), 

  -criminal characteristics, criminal career (experience),

  -forensic awareness (knowledge of investigation)
• Bottom-up -AO1

  -Geographical profiling-

  -Locations of crime scenes are used to infer the likely home or operational base of an offender – known as crime mapping

  -The assumption is that serial killers will restrict their actions to areas that they are familiar with, and so understanding of their movements can give you a ‘centre of gravity’ 

  Canters circle theory: Marauder (close proximity to home) and commuter (travelled a distance from home), spatial mindset i.e. work   in a circle around home or a familiar place outside of their residence
• 1. Bottom-up -AO3

  +Research support I.V. Canter and Heritage (1990) smallest space analysis- (identifies correlations across patterns of behaviour). Several characteristics were identified as common in most cases such as the use of impersonal language and the lack of reaction to the victim- shows how statistical techniques can be applied

  content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases using 
• 2) Bottom-up -AO3

  +Support for G.P. Lundrigan and Canter (2001) 

  collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US. Smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers. location of each body disposal site was plotted and the offender’s base was invariably in the centre of the pattern. The effect was more noticeable for ‘marauders’ (offenders travelling short distance)
• 3) Bottom-up -AO3

  + Scientific basis-more objective and scientific than the top-down approach as it grounded in evidence and psychological theory than hunches, speculation and intuition, applied to all crimes 
• 4) Bottom-up -AO3

  -Mixed results

  e.g. failures e.g. case of Rachel Nickell perpetrator ruled out due to being inches taller than the profile. Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police forces, advice provided by a profiler was judged ‘useful’ in 83% of cases but led to accurate identification of an offender in just 3% of cases.
• Atavistic form (historical approach) - AO1

  -Atavistic: tendency to revert to an ancestral type

  •Proposed that criminality was innate, criminals were genetic throwbacks, a primitive subspecies biologically different from non-criminals.

  •Their savage and untamed nature meant it would be impossible to adjust to a civilised society and so would inevitably turn them to crime, which is not the fault of the criminal
• Atavistic form -AO1

  •Lombroso argued that offenders possess similar characteristics to lower primates.

   He examined facial and cranial features of 383 dead criminals and 3839 living ones, and found 40% of the criminal acts could be accounted for by people with atavistic characteristics.

   •Criminal subtypes could be identified as being in possession of physiological markers. Cranial characteristics include; narrow sloping brow, strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones and facial asymmetry. Others physical markers can include dark skin or extra toes, nipples or fingers.
• Atavistic form (historical approach) - AO3

  + Contribution to criminology, shifted emphasis form moralistic to scientific. Laid foundation for modern criminal profiling- e.g. certain types of people commit crime. Positive impact and importance?

  -Scientific racism, the features described are found among people of African descent, could support eugenics movement, discrimination and stereotyping→ socially sensitive, more harm than good? Routed in bias, rather than objective science.
• Atavistic form (historical approach)-AO3

  -Contradictory research (Goring : compared 3000 criminals to 3000 non-criminals and found no evidence that criminals are distinct group with unusual facial and cranial features. Questions validity offenders can be physically distinguish. However, criminals tend to have lower than average IQ offering limited support for the criminal subtype.

  -Reductionism, interactionist approach better alternative 

  -Deterministic, does not consider free will, inconsistent with the CJS- SLT better alternative→ soft determinism and responsibility
• Genetic explanation-AO1

  -Criminals inherit a gene or combination of genes, that predisposethem to commit crime.

  Lange (1930) studied 13 MZ and 17 DZ twins where one of the twins in each pair spent time in prison. Concordance rates for criminality = 10 MZ and 2 DZ twins.

  Christiansen (1977) studied over 3500 twins. Concordance rates= 35% MZ and 12% DZ (for males)

  Crowe (1972) adoptees with criminal biological mother -50% higher risk of a criminal record by the age 18. Compared to only a 5% risk in controls (adopted children whose mother did not have a criminal record) 
• Genetic explanation - AO1

  -Tiihonnen- genetic analysis of nearly 900 Finnish offendersabnormalities on the MAOA (controls serotonin & dopamine linked to aggression) and CDH13 (substance abuse and ADHD) genes- associated with violent crime individuals with this high-risk combination were 13 times more likely to have a history of violent behaviour.

  5-10% of all severe violent crime in Finland is attributable to these genotypes.
• Genetic explaination - AO3

  -Issues with twin studies, small samples, higher concordance rates for MZ twins may be due to a more shared environment, Lange’s judgements related to zygosity (whether twins pairs were MZ or DZ) were based on appearance rather than DNA testing. Undermines the credibility of the genetic exp.

  -Reductionist, oversimplifiedm failure to consider other factors e.g. poverty, mental health, environment
• Genetic explanation - AO3

  -Determinist, ignores free will and shifts responsibility from criminal going against judiciary system principles. C.A explains reoffending, it is not learned so cannot be unlearned through punishment 

  -SLT better alternative, takes a soft determinist approach, people take responsibility 
• Neural explanation - AO1

  • Neural differences in the brain in terms of structure and activity between criminals and non- criminals 
  • Antisocial personality disorder (APD) associated with characteristics of criminals- lack of empathy, guilt and reduced emotional responses and a condition many convicted criminals have.
  • Pre-frontal cortex: Raine et al found 11% reduced grey matter volume, reduced activity in the PFC and reduced autonomic response during the stressful situations in the APD brain compared to controls. 
• Neural explanation - AO1

  • PFC regulates emotional behaviour and planning/decision-making, so could explain criminals’ lack of emotional responses,ability to carry out violent crimes, not consider consequences, or control their behaviour.
  • Mirror neurons: cells in the brain that activate both when you perform an action and when you witness someone else performing the same act →controls empathy response. 
• Neural explanation study - Keysers (2011)

  • Keysers (2011) APD criminals could empathise with someone on screen experiencing pain when told to.
  • Criminals have a neural switch, so experience empathy, but more sporadically unlike in the ‘normal brain’ where it is constantly on
• Neural explainations - AO3

  • (-) Biologically deterministic, ignores free will and shifts responsibility from criminal going against judiciary system principles. 

  C.A explains reoffending, crime is not learned so cannot be unlearned (through punishment in prison)
• Neural explanations - AO3

  • (-)Biologically reductionist, simplistic to reduce criminality to neural differences, reduced grey matter volume and low activity mirror neurons not present in all criminals. Other factors involved..
• Neural explainations -AO3

  • (-)Shows correlation between mirror neuron/PFC activity and criminal behaviour, not causation.
  • Limited explanation.

  
  

  • (-) SLT may be a better explanation, takes a soft- determinist approach – criminals take responsibility
• Cognitive explanation: Kohlberg’s model and criminality - AO1

  • -Kohlberg (1973) using his moral dilemma technique found that a group of violent youths were significantly lower in their moral development than non-violent youths- even after controlling for social background 
  • Kohlberg found that criminal offenders tend to be at the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning (and do not progress from this). 
  • Pre-conventional level is characterised by: a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards and less mature child-like reasoning
• Cognitive explanation: Kohlberg’s model and criminality - AO1

  -Thus, adults and adolescents who reason at this level commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards in the form of money, increased respect etc.

  • Research shows that offenders are often egocentric (self-centred) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills -lacking empathy (Chandler, 1973) in line with Kohlberg’s assumptions
  • Non-criminals however, tend to reason at higher levels and empathise with the rights of others, exhibiting honesty, generosity and non-violence (post-conventional moral reasoning)
• Cognitive explanation: Kohlberg’s model and criminality - AO3

  • (+) Research support, Palmer and Hollin. compared moral reasoning between non-offenders and convicted offenders using the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure (SRM) -Offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-delinquent groups. Blackburn suggests this is due to a lack of moral role play in childhood
• Cognitive explanation: Kohlberg’s model and criminality - AO3

  
  

  (-) Flawed methodology, Heinz dilemma is criticised, children have not been married, cannot be put into perspective- lacks validity - undermines credibility of theory based on this 

  • (-) Gender biased (beta bias). Levels based on boys’ responses to the Heinz dilemma. Female morality judged against male standards. Gilligan, found women scored lower than men because female morality was focused on caring behaviour rather than notions of justice, androcentric
• Cognitive distortions - AO1

  • Cognitive distortions: faulty, irrational ways of thinking which can cause individuals to perceive themselves,                others or the world inaccurately, and usually negatively, helps criminals justify their behaviour
• Cognitive distortions - AO1

  • Hostile attribution bias- ambiguous situations interpreted as threatening
  • •Violence is associated with the tendency to misinterpret the actions of other people as aggressive or confrontational when they are not. 
  • •Offenders misread non-aggressive cues (e.g. being looked at) and this can trigger a disproportionate and violent response. 
  • •Schonenberg and Justye (2014) found that violent offenders were more likely than non-offenders to perceive ambiguous facial expressions as hostile and angry.
• Cognitive distortions - AO1

  Minimalisation- downplaying the significance/seriousness of the crime to reduce guilt. 

  • •Bandura (1973) refers to it as applying a ‘euphemistic label’- using sanitised language in order to detract from the emotional intensity of the reality being referenced and to make ethical violations seem more acceptable
  • •This is particularly likely in sex offenders who may claim the crime was non-sexual e.g. they may claim they were “being affectionate” or that the victim consented (Pollock and Hashmall, 1991)
• Cognitive distortions - AO3

  • (+) Real-life applications anger management (CBT), encourages less distorted view of crime, aims to reduce denial,HAB & MINI, thus recidivism. Led to effective rehabilitative therapy (which requires active involvement of the offender).
• Cognitive distortions - AO3

  • (-) Descriptive not explanatory- describes thought processes after crime. MINI gives an insight into how criminals deal with their guilt, not the reason behind their actions. Cannot explain underlying cause. 
  • C.A. may explain reoffending due to rationalising such behaviours. Neural explanations a better exp of MINI, due to lack of empathy response.
• -Eysenck’s Theory of the Criminal Personality -AO1

  • •Eysenck’s believed our personality is innate and based on the nervous system we inherit.
  • •Criminal personality scored highly on all 3 traits neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism
  • •Eysenck’s personality questionnaire measured these traits using YES/NO responses