Forensic Psychology

• Offender profilling


  • a behavioural and analytical tool to help investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown offenders
  • characteristics of an offender can be deduced from the characteristics of the offence and the details from the crime scene
• Aim of top down approach 


  to narrow field of enquiry and list of likely suspects
• • Top-down approach = profilers start with a pre-existing typology and work down in order to assign offenders to one of two categories, based on witness accounts and evidence from the crime scene. 
• top down approach

  Originated in USA in 1970s, as result of work conducted in USA by FBI
• top down approach

  • They drew up on data gained from detailed interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial murderers
  • These interviews were then used in order to establish a typology for future similar offences by comparing the crime and the previous offender
• Top down approach

  • Initially murderers and rapists were typified into 2 groups; organised + disorganised offenders – categorised into 2 groups based on the idea that offenders have certain signature ways of working and these correlate with set of social and psychological characteristics that relate to the individual 
• Organised offender

  • planned crime in advance
  • victim is deliberately targeted
  • offender has high degree of control during the crime
  • little evidence/clues left behind at crime scene
  • above-average intelligence
  • skilled/professional occupation
  • socially + sexually competent
  • usually married and may have children
• Disorganised offender

  • little evidence of planning
  • spontaneous offences (crime scene tends to reflect the impulsive nature of the attack)
  • body usually still at scene
  • very little control from the offender
  • lower-than-average IQ
  • unskilled work/umeployed
  • socially + sexually incompetent
  • tend to live alone and relatively close to where crime took place
• Top down approach

  • Each category had certain characteristics which meant that if, in a future situation, the data from a crime scene matched some of the characteristics from one category, we could then predict other characteristics that would be likely – this could then be used to find the offender 
  • Offender profilers will use the top-down method to collect data about a murder and then. Decide on the category the data best fits 
• Top down approach - how a profile is made

  1. Data assimilation = prolifer reviews the evidence (data compiled from police reports, post mortem, crime scene photos, etc)
  2. Crime scene classification = profilers decide whether the crime scene is organised and disorganised 
  3. Crime reconstruction = hypotheses about sequence of events, victim behaviour, etc 
  4. Profile generation = hypotheses related to likely offender, e.g. demographic background, physical characteristics, behaviour, etc
• Top down approach - limitation

  • research to contradict - Copson in a survey of detectives working with offender profiling, this approach only succeeds in catching the offender 3% of the time – largely due to the inconsistency between individualistic ways of determining psychological profiles - proves how it is not an effective method of profiling as it doesn’t have a high success rate - unreliable method of profiling - less likely be accepted by wider society.
• Top down approach - limitation

  • over-simplistic method - Godwin posed the question of how a criminal who is with high intelligence and sexual competence who commits a murder where they leave the body of the victim at the scene of the crime would be classified - evidence shows the method is too simple because it emphasises how most crimes show a combination of organised and disorganised characteristics - criminals shouldn’t be restricted to only 1 of the categories - not always applicable.
• Top down approach - strength

  • Has wider applications – meketa reports the top down approch to profiling has been applied to burglary - 85% rise in solved cases in 3 us states
  • The detection method - an adapted method - keeps organised and disorganised + adds 2 new categories: interpersonal (knows victims + steals something of significance) and opportunistic (unexpected young offender)
  • This suggests that the top down approach has a wider application to different types of offenders and crimes than originally thought
• Bottom up approach 


  profilers work up from evidence collected from the crime scene to develop hypotheses about the likely characteristics, motivations, routine behaviours and social backgrounds of the offender. (AIM = generate picture of the offender). Doesn’t begin with fixed typologies – profile is data-driven and emerges as investigator scrutinises details off the offence
• Investigative psychology 


  a form of bottom-up profiling that matches details from the crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory. AIM = establish patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur across crime scenes. This is in order to develop a statistical database – which then acts as a baseline for comparison. Specific details of offences can be matched against the database to reveal details about offender (personal history, family background, etc). Also determines if offences are linked / committed by same person.
• Investigative psychology - Interpersonal coherence 


  the way an offender behaves at the scene, including how they ‘interact’ with the victim may reflect behaviour in normal everyday situations - (apologetic, controlling during rape) may tell profilers how they relate to women in general 
• Investigative psychology - significance of time and place 


   offender needs to feel in control so will choose a specific location – indicates where they are living 
• Investigative psychology - forensic awareness 


  describes behaviour of those who have had previous interrogation with the police – will be mindful and cover tracks to mislead the investigation 
• Bottom-up - geographical profiling 


  based on the principle of spatial consistency (within a limited geographical space) – that an offender’s operational base and possible future offences are revealed by the geographical location of their previous crimes. Spatial consistent can be used with psychological theory to create hypotheses about how the offender is thinking

  • Assumption is that serial offenders will restrict their crimes to areas they are familiar with – so spatial patterns of their behaviours allows investigators a centre of gravity which is likely to include offenders base.
• Geographical profiling

  This is based on Canter’s Circle theory – the pattern of offending forms a circle around offenders home base

  Offenders described in 2 ways:

  1. Marauder = who operates in close proximity to their home base 
  2. Commuter = who is likely to have travelled a distance away from their usual residence. 

  • This spatial decision-making allows investigators to possibly figure out nature of offence, planned/opportunistic and facts about offender (mental maps, mode of transport, employment status, age, etc).
• Investigative psychology - strength

  scientific - The use of computer databases and small space analysis makes this approach much more scientific than top down typologies

  Empiricism = can directly observe the connections between offenders and crimes

  Objective = no room for personal bias/persona interpretion from the profilers, as uses computer databases

  Much more acceptable in wider society.
• Investigative psychology - limitation

  research to contradict - Canter and Herritage conducted analysis of 66 sexual assault cases - data was examined using smallest space analysis. Several behaviours were identified as common in different samples of behaviour such as the lack impersonal language and lack fo reaction to the victim. Each individual displayed characteristic pattern of such behaviours and this can help to establish whether two or more offences were committed by the same person - investigative psychology may tell us little about crimes which have few patterns between them.
• Geographical profiling - strength

  research to support - 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 - The location of each body disposal site created a centre of gravity with the offenders base located in the middle. Supports the view that geographical information can be used to identify an offender. Geographical data can lead to successful profiling. So it is a useful + effective method. 
• Geographical profiling - limitation

  research to contradict. the success of geographical profiling may be reliant on the quality of the data police can provide. Recording of crime is not always accurate - estimated 75% of crimes are not reported to the police - questions the accuracy of an approach which relies on data. Critics also claim that other factors are just as important at creating an accurate profile such as: Timing of offence and age/ experience of the offender - geographical info alone is not enough to lead to successful capture of the offender
• biological explanation - historical - Lombroso

  Lombrosos' theory of criminology – suggests that criminality is inherited and that someone ‘born criminal’ could be identified by the way they look. 

  • Offenders lack evolutionary development, savage nature means they wouldn’t be able to adjust to the demands of civilised society so inevitable turn to crime. Offending behaviour = natural tendency, rooted in genes (innate) of these who offend.
• Lombroso - atavistic form 


  a biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks (people who had not developed properly like normal humans and who were biologically different) or a primitive subspecies ill-suited to conforming to the rules of modern society. Such individuals are distinguishable by particular facial and cranial characteristics. These people were more likely to commit crime because they were undeveloped.
• Lombroso - method

  Lombroso studied the skulls of over 4000 living or dead Italian criminals and found 40% of all criminal activity was perpetrated by someone with atavistic features. 

  • Lombroso focused on cranial features and considered skin tone, fingers and nipples.
• Lombroso - key features 


  include:

  • large jaw
  • high cheekbones
  • flat/upturned nose
  • handle-shaped ears
  • large chin
  • hawk-like nose
  • sanity beard
  • bald
  • long arms
  • criminal slang
  • tattoos
  • unemployment
  • insensitivity to pain
• Lombroso features 


  Different features could be matched to different types of criminals

  • Murderers = bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears
  • Sexual deviants = glinting eyes, swollen, fleshy lips, projecting ears
  • Fraudsters = thin body shape, thin lips 
• Lombroso - limitation

  methodological flaws - did not use a control group to compare his atavistic population to - no control for extraneous variables, such as poverty, poor diet, poor mental health - we don’t know if non-criminals also have atavistic features so we don’t know if atavistic features are a predictor for crime. We do not know if it this the IV (presence/absence of atavistic features) is linked to crime related behaviour or if crime related behaviour is in fact linked to the extraneous variables - limits the internal validity 
• Lombroso - strength

  important contributions to psychology - Lombroso shifted the study of criminal behaviour from a moral basis to a more scientific and credible nature (evolutionary influences and genetics) and he argued for the interaction of biological, psychological and social factors in causing criminal behaviour. Started theories – to show genes could be a predictor of crime - beginning of criminal profiling - helped criminology be classified as scientific, empiricism – can directly observe features - more likely to be accepted by wider society, due to its scientific nature. 
• Lombroso - limitation

  scientific racism - critics have drawn attention to the distinct racial undertones within Lombroso's work. Many of the atavistic features (curly hair, dark skin) are most likely to be found among people of African descent. Also his description of atavistic form as being ‘uncivilised, primitive, savage’ would help support many of the eugenic philosophies of the time. This would lead to people carrying atavistic features to being more likely to face discrimination/being judged, purely because of how they look and the features they inherited/have no control over. 
• Biological explanation - genetic

  Genetics = genes consist of DNA strands produces ‘intructions’ for general physical features of an organism (eye colour, height) and also specific physical features (such as neurotransmitter levels and size of brain structures). These may impact on psychological features (intelligence and mental disorder). Genes transmitted from parents to offspring/inherited.

  • offenders inherit a gene, that predispose them to commit crime 
• Genetic approach - twin + adoption studies

  • Christiansen studied over 3500 twin pairs in Denmark and found concordance rates for offender behaviour of 35% of identical twins (MZ) males and 13% of non-identical twin (DZ) males - indicates that predisposed traits are also inherited.
  • Crowe found that adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by the age of 18, whereas adopted children whose biological mother who didn’t have a criminal record only had 5% risk.
• Genetic approach - candidate genes

  Genetic analysis of 800 Finnish offenders suggested 2 genes; MAOA and CDH13 may be associated with violent crime. MAOA gene regulates seratonin in brain and has been linked to aggressive behaviour. CDH13 gene has been linked to substance abuse and ADHD. Analysis found about 5-10% of all violent crimes in Finland attributable to MAOA and CDH13 genotypes.
• Genetic approach - diathesis stress model 


  A tendency towards offending behaviour may come about through combination of genetic predisposition and environmental trigger, e.g. having criminal role models, raised in dysfunctional environment 
• genetic approach - twin studies - limitation

  assumption of equal environments - it is assumed by researchers studying twins that environmental factors are held constant as they are raised together and therefore must experience similar environments - this 'shared environment' may apply much more to MZ twins that DZ twins because MZ look identical it is much more typical for people to treat them more similarly, which in turn affects their behaviour - higher concordance rates in MZ twins may be due to the fact they are treated more similarly the DZ twins.
• genetic approach - diathesis stress - strength

  research support - a study of 13000 danish adoptees were studied by Mednick et al - when neither the biological nor adoptive parent had criminal convictions, the % of adoptees that did was 13.5% - this figure rose to 20% when biological parents had convictions - then rose to 24.5% when both biological and adoptive parents had convictions - shows genetic inheritance plays an important role in offending behaviour but environment is also as important
• Biological explanation - neural

  • Any explanation of behaviour in terms of dysfunctions of the brain + nervous system. This includes the activity of brain structures such as the prefrontal cortex, and neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. 
  • Neural differences present in the offenders and non-offenders 
  • Much evidence involves criminals being diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (APD). APD is associated with reduced emotional responses, lack of empathy for others. 
• neural approach - prefrontal cortex 


  Raine conducted many studies of the APD brain, and found reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, the part that regulates emotional behaviour.

  Also found 11% reduction in grey matter in prefrontal cortex of people with APD, compared to controls