Forensic Psychology

• Top-down approach

  • offender profiling: narrows down likely list of suspects, works with police, analyses & examines scene/evidence to create hypotheses of characteristics (age, gender, occupation, background)
  • uses previous cases as pre-existing template, murderers or rapists classified in 1 of 2 categories (organised or disorganised) on basis of evidence, helps investigation
  • organised: planned, targeted, has a type, controlled, detached, skilled, socially/sexually competent
  • disorganised: spontaneous, little control, opportunistic, low IQ, failed relationships, close proximity
• 4 stages of top-down profiling

  • DATA ASSIMILATION: reviews evidence
  • CRIME SCENE CLASSIFICATION: organised/disorganised
  • CRIME RECONSTRUCTION: hypotheses (sequence of events, victims response etc.)
  • PROFILE GENERATION: hypotheses related to likely offender (background, physical characteristics e.g strength, behaviour)
• Top-down approach A03

  (-) only applies to particular crimes: doesn’t explain more common crimes like burglary, destruction of property, assault ; limited application as can only explain sadistic torture, dissection, or acting out fantasies

  (-) based on outdated models of personality: relies on patterned behaviour and motivations across situations and context, based on ‘static’ models of personality (that everyone has the same response), poor validity
• Bottom-up approach

  • generate a picture of offender - likely characteristics, routine behaviour, social background ; through systematic analysis of evidence, data-driven (based off specific findings to the case)
  • investigative psychology: establish patterns or likely occurrences across scenes; specific details reveal important details about offender, personal history, family background; can determine if is linked
  • interpersonal coherence: way behaves at scene, including victim interaction, reflects everyday behaviour (e.g if humiliating or apologetic rapist can show their response to women)
• bottom-up approach continued

  • forensic awareness: previous offenders, can show how likely they are to cover tracks
  • geographical profiler: can show how the offender approaches committing crime in terms of proximity, can also determine if crimes are linked due to area committed in (crime mapping)
  • Canter’s circle theory: the marauder- close to home committed, the commuter- travels further away to commit crime ; travel can show if they are opportunistic or planned, also can help determine transport, age, employment status, intelligence
• Bottom-up approach A03 (1)

  (+)CANTER & HERITAGE conducted content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases, used smallest space analysis (identifies correlations across patterns of behaviour), several characteristics identified (impersonal language and lack of reaction to victim) occurs differently in individuals, can lead to understanding of how behaviour can change or stay similar, supports usefulness of I.P as shows how statistical techniques can be applied

  (+) can apply to all crimes, specific data
• bottom-up approach A03 (2)

  (+) evidence supporting geographical profiling: LUNDRIGAN & CANTER used smallest space analysis which revealed spatial consistency in behaviour of 120 killers in USA, location differed in directions which created ‘centre of gravity’ - offenders base located in centre, shows proximity (short- marauders), claims spatial info is key to determine base
• Biological explanation to criminality: atavistic form

  • Lombroso: saw criminality to be genetic, ill-suited to conform to society’s rules down to genetic throwbacks (a biologically different sub-species)
  • atavistic characteristics: narrow & sloping brow, strong jaw, high cheekbones, asymmetric face, dark skin (murderers- bloodshot eyes, curly hair ; sexual deviants - glinting eyes, fleshy lips), non-physical - insensitive to pain, use of criminal slang, tattoos, unemployment
  • research: examined facial/cranial features of Italian convicts (383 dead & 3839 living), 40% had atavistic features
• Atavistic form A03

  (-) racist

  (+) shifted focus off moralistic discourse to scientific

  (-)doesn’t make sense that features would cause criminality- causation issue
• Biological explanation to criminality: genetic

  • offenders inherit a gene/genes that predispose them to commit crime
  • twin studies: LANGE- 13 MZ & 17 DZ, 1 of pair served time in prison, found 10 MZ & 2 DZ had co-twin who also served, genetics predominant part
  • adoption studies: CROWE- biological criminal parent meant 50% risk to criminal record by 18, where 5% with non
  • candidate genes: TRIIHONEN- studied 900 offenders, MAOA gene (controls serotonin & dopamine, linked to aggression), CDH13 (Linked to substance abuse and ADHD), FINNISH sample - 13 times more likely to have history of violence
• genetic explanation to criminality continued

  • diathesis stress model: genetic/biological predisposition + psychological trigger (e.g dysfunctional environment, criminal role models)
• biological explanation to criminality: neural

  • investigations on antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy), symptoms include reduced emotional response & lack of empathy, condition characterises criminals
  • prefrontal cortex: RAINE - studied APD brain, brain-imaging, reduced brain activity in prefrontal cortex (regulates emotional behaviour), 11% reduction in volume of grey matter in comparison to controls
  • mirror neurons: KEYSERS ET AL- found when prompted to empathise, only then would they (asked in response to a film where pain was shown), neural switch
• Biological explanation to criminality: genetics & neural A03


  (-) twin studies: based MZ/DZ twins off appearance not DNA testing, confounding variablue of environment as reared in same one so shared experiences

  (+) support for diathesis stress model: MEDRICK ET AL- Danish adoptees who were convicts, 13.5% had neither biological or adoptee criminal parents, 20% had one of these were criminal, 24.5% had both - shows biology and environmental influence

  (-) biological determinism: legal system based on personal morals & responsibility, if biology can be blamed then causes sentencing issues
• Psychological explanation to criminality: Eysenck’s theory

  • behaviour dimensions: introvert/extravert, neuroticism/stability, psychoticism
  • biological basis: type of nervous system determines personality type - extroverts are underactive (constantly seeks excitement, stimulation & engages in risk-taking behaviours) , neurotics are overactive (nervous, jumpy, over-anxious, unpredictable)
  • criminal personality: neurotic-extravert, typical offender scores high on psychoticism (cold, unemotional, prone to aggression) measured via EPI (Eysenck personality inventory - scale to determine type)
• Eysenck’s theory continued

  • role of socialisation: criminals tend to be selfish & need immediate gratification (impatient), in society children learn to delay gratification thus become more socially orientated, Eysenck said high E & N scorers cant be conditioned to this due to their nervous system, so acts antisocially
• Eysenck‘s theory A03


  (+) evidence: compared 2070 male prisoners to 2422 male controls, prisoners scored higher on extraversion, psychoticism & neuroticism

  (-)idea of a single personality type: characteristics not all considered - DIGMAN added agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness

  (-) cultural bias : study on Hispanic and African-American prisoners in NYC, shown to be less extraverted than controls - research culture-bound and cant be generalised
• cognitive explanation to criminality continued

  • egocentric (self-centred) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills whereas people with higher reasoning level sympathise with rights of others (more honest & generous)
  • cognitive distortions: faulty thinking, hostile attribution bias (judge situations or actions of others as aggressive or threatening when aren’t), minimalisation (downplaying deception, denies seriousness)
• Cognitive explanation to criminality

  • level of moral reasoning: criminals have lower level, Kohlberg’s found using moral dilemma technique (Heinz dilemma - steal drugs for a loved one, would it be different if was a stranger?)
  • Kohlberg’s model & criminality: criminals pre-conventional level (avoid punishment, seek reward, less mature, childlike reasoning), e.g get away with it or gains reward like money or revenge

  
• Cognitive explanation to criminality A03

  (-) alternative theories for moral reasoning: GIBBS - two levels (mature or immature), aligned with Kohlberg’s Level 1 & 2 context, but said Level 3 was culturally biased (Western)

  (+) application of research: understanding cognitive distortions is beneficial for treating criminal behaviour - hostile attribution bias is applied to anger management, teaches them to rationalise situations to prevent provoking crime
• Differential association theory- criminality

  • offending behaviour has same process of learning - interactions with family & peers
  • 2 factors: learning attitudes towards crime, learning of specific criminal acts
  • pro-criminal attitudes: SUTHERLAND- outweighs anti-criminals so likely offends, due to intensity, duration and frequency of deviant norms
  • Learning criminal acts: learns techniques (forced entry, disabling locks), breeds ideas in specific social groups (hence re-offenders after release), via observational learning & imitation or direct tuition from criminal peers
• Differential association theory of offending A03

  (+) explanatory power: accounts for all crimes in all sectors of society (class- white-collar crimes linked to middle-class deviant social groups values & attitudes)

  (+) shift of focus: shifts focus on biological accounts (Lombroso), interprets individuals contribution to the lead up to offending (individual weakness & immorality), social circumstances can be more to blame and easily followed

  (-) difficult to test: cant measure exposure to anti-criminal and pro-criminal attitudes
• Psychodynamic explanations of offending

  • inadequate superego (morality): BLACKBURN - deficient superego, gives ID ‘free rein‘ (isn’t properly controlled, superego doesn’t punish for wrongdoing/induce guilt)
  • weak superego: same sex parent absent, cannot internalise a fully-formed superego (can’t identify), turns to criminal behaviour
  • deviant superego: superego internalised has immoral/deviant values (parent), doesn’t associate guilt with wrongdoing
  • overharsh superego: excessively punitive, driven by punishment as its all they know, unconscious drive to receive punishment so commits crimes
• Psychodynamic explanations of offending continued

  • maternal deprivation theory: BOWBLY, failure to establish maternal bond leads to affection less psychopathy (lack of guilt & empathy), leads to delinquency and cant develop close relationships as didn’t have necessary early experience to do so
  • 44 juvenile thieves study: found 14 displayed affectionless psychopathy, and 12 of these experience maternal deprivation
• Psychodynamic explanations of offending A03

  (-) gender bias: Freudian theory suggests girls develop weaker superego than boys (because they are less pressured as don’t experience castration anxiety) so their sense of morality is supposedly weaker, but Hoffman’s research shows girls are actually more moral in a study where boys & girls are to resist temptation

  (-) unconscious concept: lack of falsifiability, considered pseudoscientific (fake science) as only has little contribution and doesn’t have much purpose in terms of prevention
• Behaviour modification in custody

  • reinforce obedience & punish disobedience, reverse effects and get rid of criminal behaviour
  • token economy system: operant conditioning, reinforced by token in exchange for reward (avoid conflict, follow rules), token is secondary reinforcer as is a second to the reward (i.e call a loved one, time in yard), punished by withholding or removing tokens
  • HOBBS & HALT: used token economy on youth delinquent groups in behavioural units, found significant difference
• behaviour modification in custody A03 


  (+) easy to implement: easy & workable methods, doesn’t require expertise like anger management

  (-) lack of reward for obedience in outside world may reverse effects (expecting a motivational reward, obeying law outside isn’t generally rewarded as its a societal standard expectation)

  (+) individual tailoring: can mould conditions into fitting a certain individuals areas of improvement
• custodial sentencing

  • prison/ closed institution
  • reasons: DETERRENCE- to put criminals off offending, negative reinforced, shows behaviour wont be tolerated ; INCAPACITATION- removal from public as a means of protection (serial killer or rapist) ; RETRIBUTION- pay for actions as a consequence ; REHABILITATION- reflect & better self
  • psychological effects: stress & depression (suicidal), institutionalisation (forgets how to communicate in outside world), prisonisation (acts like an inmate)
  • problems with recidivism (reoffending): 57% rate yearly in UK
• custodial sentencing A03 


  (-) side effects can block rehabilitation: depression can cause lack of motivation, leading to them not wanting to try and be a better person as they see no point

  (-) individual difference: experience is different for everyone so cant be generally applied

  (+) rehabilitation has potential long-term effects that are beneficial
• anger management

  • NOVACO: cognitive factors trigger emotional arousal, progresses into aggression (anger-prone people surface anger quicker when feeling anxious or threatened, due to perception)
  • behaviourists: anger reinforced by feelings of control, CBT used to recognise loss of control & teach how to remain calm & resolve without aggression
  • STAGES: COGNITIVE PREPARATION- reflect on typical pattern of events, identifies trigger to rationarise ; SKILL ACQUISITION- (cognitive: positive self talk, behavioural: assertive better communication training, physical: relaxation) APPLY: practice
• Anger management A03


  (+) multidisciplinary: addresses multiple elements (social, behavioural, cognitive)

  (-) limited long-term effectiveness: recidivism issues, relies on practicing role-playing to prepare for real situations

  (-) expensive and requires expertise professionals to carry out therapy (learn to disconnect harsh feelings towards what the offender has done and treat them as anyone else, professionalism)
• restorative justice system

  • system from rehabilitation, sees impact of crime & empowers victim by giving them a ‘voice’
  • changes emphasis On enforcing the law to the individuals involved
  • mediated collaboration of victim & offender, confrontation and explaining effects on victim, offender sees consequences of the crime (emotional distress), influences guilt to encourage rehabilitation
  • key features: accepting responsibility, focus on positive change (not harm others, learning lesson), unrestricted to courtrooms, active involvement, positive outcomes for both
• restorative justice system continued

  • variations: financial restitution, repairing of damaged property, community service
  • RJC (restorative justice council): prevents & manages conflict in public areas (schools, communities, workplaces, prisons)
  • (+) individual tailoring: variations offers specific application
  • (-) mediator expenses
  • (-) high drop out rate: can be too much for either parties so sometimes is too intense to be carried out