Forensic Psychology

Page 1

Bio explanations of offending behaviour

Historical Approach (Atavistic Form)

Atavistic form =

Criminal activity is attributed to the fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks /primitive subspecies that are ill-suited to modern society - facial and cranial characteristics e.g. facial asymmetry, narrow slopping brow, high cheekbones, dark skin, extra toes, fingers or nipples ​​​​​​​

1870's - Lombroso - ​​​​​​​

​​​​​​​Centred his work around the idea that criminals had distinguishable physical features which orginated from a primitive stage of development - less civilised, not suited to culture of 1800's

Lombroso suggested primitive sub-species/genetic throwbacks = bio different

In todays current thinking = naive and speculative, however it did move criminology into the more rigorous and scientific realms (+)

His work led to the foundation of modern offender profiling techniques (+)

offenders seen by Lombroso as lacking evolutionary development - untamed, savage, found it impossible to adjust to demands of civilised society - inveitably turn to crime

Research - Lombroso (MUST LEARN)

1870 - Examined facial/cranial features of 383 dead italian criminals and 3000 living ones - concluded 40% of criminal acts could be accounted by atavistic characteristics.

AO3 OF LOMBROSO -

(-) Goring 1913 - compared 2348 london criminals and control group - he failed to replicate lombroso's findings and concluded that criminal behaviour is NOT linked to physical apperance - BUT people who commit crimes have a lower IQ - offers and alternatvie viewpoint looking at cognition not physicality

(-) Hooton 1939 - 12 yr study, 13,873 male prisoners in 10 diff states in USA, w/ control grp of 3023 men - concluded criminal behaviour is downto bio inferiority and degeneration

(-) Poor control - Lombroso didnt compare his criminal sample to a non-criminal control grp - his research failed to account for other important variables (psycho disorders) - the evidence which atavism is based has flaws

Page 2

Genetic explanations

Genetics

Twin/adoption studies suggest genes predisse offenders to crime - (lange et al = Twin) (mednick = adoption)

candidate genes

diathesis stress model

Genetic explanations for crime suggest offenders may inherit a gene of a combination of genes that may predispose them to commiting crime

Twin Studies

Lange (1930) -

13 MZ twins and 17 DZ twins

one twins in each pair had served time in prision - Lange founf 10 of MZ twins and only 2 of DZ twins had a co-twin who had also served time - concluded genetic factors play a pre-dominat part in offendending behaviour

Recent research - Christiansen (1977) - 87 MZ, 147 DZ twin pairs - found 33% concordance rate for MZ and 12% DZ - supports idea that criminality has a genetic component

AO3 OF TWIN STUDIES -

(-) small sample sizes - lacks pop validity, unusual sample, cant generalise

(-) poor control in early studies - no DNA testing

(-) twins reared in same enviro - conc rate due to envrioment not genetics ?

Adoption Studies -

these allow behaviour of an individual to be compared w/ both their adoptive/birth parents -

if behaviour is simialr to adoptive parents - envrio

if behaviour is simialr to birth parents - genetics

Mednick (84) -

Danish adoptees - researchers defined criminal behaviour as being in possession of at least one court conviction - this was checked agaisnt danish police records for adoptees

when neither bio nor adopted parents had convictions the percentage of adoptees with convictions was 13.5%

20% when either bio/adopted parents had a conviction

24.5% when both adopted/bio parents had a conviction

although genetics play a role in offending behaviour - cannot disregard enviromental factors

AO3 OF ADOPTION STUDIES -

(-) Many children experienced late adoption - most of childhood spent with bio parents

(-) many adoptees kept contact with bio parents - difficult to assess true impact of genetic on criminal activity

(-) mednicks research applied only to petty crimes- so conc's cannot be applied to more serious crimes

Family Studies

Farrington 1996 -

Cambridge study of delinquent development 411 males living in london from 400 families were monitored from aged 8-32

interview techniques and crime records used to compare conviction rates of men and of their bio families

findings -

64% of families had at least one convicted person

75% of convicted fathers and convicted mothers had convicted child

75% of families with convicted daughters also had convicted sons

conclusions -

offending is strongly concentrated in families and is demonstrated from one generation to another

KEY STUDY - BRUNER ET AL (1993) -

aim -

case study, netherlands, males were affected by syndrome or borderline mental retardation and abnormal violent behaviour

procedure -

5 affected males, data collected from analysis of urine samples over a 24 hour period

findings -

tests showed disturbed monoamine metabolism associated with a deficit of the enzyme MAOA. a mutation was identifed in the X chromosone of the gene responsible for production of MAOA

conc -

MAOA is involved in serotonin metabolism. impaired metabolism of serotonin is likley to be responsible for mental retardationand linked to aggressive behaviour

eval -

very small sample (-), cannot be generalised, condition is also rare (-)

Candidate genes -

Tiionen (2014) -

Genetic analysis of 900 offenders found abnormalities on 2 genes that may be associated to violent crime -

MAOA - controls dopamine and serotonin in brain has been linked to aggression - low lvls of this mean there are more nuerotransmitters and this means pple are more prone to violence

DH13 - linked to substance abuse and attention disorder

in Finnish sample, pple with high risk combination were 13x more likley to have a history of violent behaviour. HOWEVER, this research is in its infancy and has not yet been replicated

FURTHER A03 -

Bio reductionism - Criminality is complex - explanations that reduce offending behaviour is ignoring higher lvl explanations - genetic + neural explanations in isolation are too simplistic

Bio determinism - 'criminal gene' - dilemma - legal system based on premise that criminals have personal responsibility - this riases ethical questions about what society does w/ pple who are carrying criminal gene

Page 3

Neural explanations of offending behaviour

it explains behaviour in terms of the brain and nervous system. this includes the activity of brin structures such as the hypothalamus and nerutotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine.

evidence suggests that there may be neural differences in the brain of criminals and non. Much of the evidnece has centred around individuals diagonsed with antisocial perosnality disorder. APD is associated with reduced emotional reponses a lack of empathy for others which is often a characterstic of soe convicted criminals.

Bio-chemistry

noradrenaline

serotonin

dopamine

Prefrontal cortex -

individuals who experience APD show reduced acitivty in PFC - PFC regulates emotions - APD was reffered to as PSYCHOPATHY

RAINE (2000) -

Found an 11% reduction in volume of grey matter in PFC of pple w/ APD compared to control - hemispheric dysfunction

KEY STUDY - RAINE ET AL (1997) -

aim -

to identify bain regions specific to offenders charged w/ murder or manslaughter, who had pleaded not quilty by reason of insanity

method -

41 murderers (2 female), researcher used a PET scan to highlight areas of brain activity and these reuslts were comapred to an age and gender match control group

results -

found reduced activity for offender group in areas such as prefrontal cortex and corpus callosum. also abnormalities in activity of limbic system including amygalda and thalamus

conc -

indication that offenders have abnormal brain functuion when compared to normal controls - as there is largely slowed activity, it would suggest that the brains of offenders are slowed and perhaps unable to make swift decisions to react appropriatly to situations

A03 OF NEURAL EXPLANATIONS -

(-) Oversimplistic - the links btw levels of certain neruotransmitter and offending behaviour often centre around violent crimes, which doesnt explain all crime behaviour - impartial theory

(-) correlational - no clear way to show cause and effect

(-) reductionist - overlooks other factors such as envrio

Page 4

Psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour

Maternal deprivation theory

role of the super-ego

defence mechanisms

The Inadequate Super-ego -

tripartite system

super-ego is formed at end of PHALLIC STAGE - oedipus and electra complex

super-ego works on morality principle and exerts its influence by punishing the ego through guilt

BLACKBURN - if super-ego is deficient or inadequate then criminality is inevitable. this is becuase ID is given free reign and is not regulated

3 types of inadequate super-ego :-

Weak Super-ego - If same sexed parent is absent during phallic stage, child cannot internalise a fully formed superego, as there is no opportunity for identification. this would make criminal behaviour more likely

Deviant Super-ego - if super-ego that the child internalises had deviant values this would lead to offending behaviour

Overharsh Super-ego - an excessivly harsh super-ego means the individual is crippled by guilt and anxiety. this may unconsciously drive the individual to perform criminal acts in order to satisfy the superego's overwhelming need for punishment.

Maternal deprivation theory - BOWLBY -

emotional/intellectual consequences of long speration from mother figure

30 months critical period

children need continuous care for normal healthy development

effects =

mental retardation / Low TQ

affectionles psychopathy (no guilt)

44 Juvenille Thieves -

44 thieves - interviews for affectionless psychopathy

families interviewed aswell

14/44 thieves = affectionless psychopaths

12/14 = experienced prolonged seperation w/ mother

5 out of the remaining 30 thieves experienced seperation

only 2/44 control group had experienced prolonged seperation

EVALUATION / A03 -

Gender bias (-) - girls develop weaker super-egos than boys. girls dont experience castration anxiety/under less pressure to identify with mother = this means their super-ego and sense of morality is not fully formed - impact of this is that females should be more prone to criminality than males - HOFFMAN - found little evidence of gender diffs - girls tended to be more moral than boys - ALPHA BIAS - exaggerates diffs between men and devalues women

Contradictory evidence (-) - little evidence that children raised w/o same sex parents are less law abiding adults - this contradicts BLACKBURNS weak super-ego argument - if children are raised by deviant parents and commit crimes themselves then this may be an influence of genetics or enviroment/socialisation rather than super-ego

Page 5

Differential Association Theory

Key term -

DAT proposes that through interactions with others, individuals learn their attitudes, values, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour

SUTHERLAND (1939) -

DAT is a theory that explains how pple learn to become criminals from their enviroment i.e. criminal behaviour isnt inherited

WHAT IS LEARNED? -

A child learns attitudes towards crimes i.e. whether its desirable or undesirable.

potential criminal is someone who has learned pro-criminal attitudes from those around them.

children will learn what crimes are acceptable in their community.

A child may learn specific methods for committing crimes. Techniques can range from simple to complex.

WHO IS IT LEARNED FROM? -

Attitudes and behaviour are learned from intimate personal groups, such as family and/or peer groups.

also learned from wider neighbourhood

the degree to which a community supports or opposes criminal activity (differential social organsiation) determined the differences in crime rates from one area to another.

HOW IS IT LEARNED? -

sutherland suggests that the frequency, length and personal meaning of such social associations will determine the degree of influence.

sutherland didnt specify the actual mode of learning but its likely to be both direct and indirect operant conditiong (OC - Behaviourism)

a child may be directly reinforced for deviant behavour through praise or may be punished by family/peers.

Role models - provide opportunites to model behaviours and if the role model is succesful themselves in criminal activites, this would provide indirect (vicarious) reinforcement.

social groups also establish norms by which we define behaviour

SUTHERLAND - KEY PRINCIPLES FOR DAT -

criminal behaviour is learned rather than inherited

its learned through association with others

association is with intimate personal groups

what is larned - techniques and attitudes/motives

learning is directional - either for or agaisnt crime

if number of favourable attitudes outweigh unfavourable ones - person becomes offender

larning experience vary in frequency and intensity for each person

criminal behaviour is learned through same processes as any other behaviour

A03 -

(+) - explanatory power = theory can account for crime in all sections of soceity - can help our understand of different types of crimes

(-) - difficulty of testing the theory = unclear how we can measure the numbers of pro or anti criminal attitudes a person is exposed to = theory doesnt provide satisfactory solution to these issues, undermining its scientific credibility

(-) - alternatvie explanations

(-) - overly deterministic = not everyone who is exposed to criminal influences commits crimes- DAT may stereotype pple from impoverished backgrounds as 'unavoidably criminal' - enviromentally deterministic

Page 6

Defining/Problems in defining crime

Crime = is any act that violates the law, harmful to an individual, group or society and is punished by the state.

Problems in defining crime -

definition is only as good as the legal system it sits in, and is liable to change

something could be a crime one point in history, but not a few years later

crime is socially constructed

crimes vary cross-culturally

CULTURE =

what is considered a crime in one culture may be judged as a crime in another

e.g. Marriage = having more than 1 wife in UK is bigamy, however polygamy is practised in other countries

AGE =

the idea that someone committed a crime means that they should understand its unacceptable. this isnt the case for children.

the age of criminal responsibility varies across countires e.g. in UK its 10

HISTORICAL DIFFS =

definitions of crime change over time - e.g. homosexuality was a crime in the UK until 1967 - therefore crime can be seen as historically and culturally specific

another e.g. = a parents right to smack a child was outlawed in 2004 w/ intro of childrens act.

Page 7

3 ways of measuring crime

Official Stats (OS)

Victim surveys

Offender surveys

OFFICIAL STATS -

gov records of the total number of crimes reported to the police and recorded in the official crime figures

published on an annual basis and provide a 'snapshot' of the number of crimes occuring in the country and diff regions

the gov uses them to develop crime prevention stratergies and policing initiatives in response to figures

A03 -

(+) - trends and patterns

(-) - Unreliable - they underestimate true extent of crime - many crimes are unreported by victims or unrecorded by police - only around 25% of offences are included in OS - other 75% is dark figure of crime = WALKER ET AL (2006) - 42% of crimes committed were reported to police

VICTIM SURVEYS -

these record pple's experiences of crime over a specific period

Crime survey for england and walves asks pple to document the crimes they had been victim to in the past year

50,000 pple randomly selected, this enable office for national stats to produce crime figues

the surveys are published on an annual basis

A03 -

(+) -victim surveys more likley to include detials of crime that were not reported to police - greater degree of accuracy than OS - less likley to conceal dark figure of crime

(-)- However, vicitm surveys rely on ppts having an accurate recall of the time/crime - 'telescoping' may occur where the ppts misremembers events

OFFENDER SURVEYS -

individuals volunteering detials of the number and types of crime they have comitted. these tend to target groups of likley offenders based on risk factors such as previous convictions and social background.

The Offender and Justice survey was the first national self-report survey in UK. it looked at indicators of offending trends in the prevalence of offending etc.

A03 -

(+) - provide insight into how many pple are repsonsible for certain offences. offender surveys assure confidentiality.

(-) - However, responses may be unreliable as some offenders may conceal some of their more serious crimes or exaggerate the number of crimes for reasons of bravado

(-) - additionally, certian types of crimes such as buglary go over represented whereas middle-class crimes such as fraud are unlikley to be included = unrepresentative

Page 8

Offender Profiling

offender profiling is based on the idea that the characteristics of the offender can be deduced from the characteristics of the offence and the particulars of the crime scene

KEY TERMS -

Offender Profiling - A method of working out the characteristic of an offender by examining the characteristics of the crime scene

Top down approach - aims to narrow the list of suspects - match crime/offender to pre-exisitng templates

organsied offender / disorganised offender

THE TOP DOWN APPROACH -

the main aim is to narrow the field of enquiry and the list of suspects.

careful scrutiny of the crime scene takes place and analysis of the evidnece including witness reports in order to generate hypotheses about the probate charactertics of the offender (age etc.)

THE AMERICAN APPROACH -

developed by FBI in 1970's - using a stage process to narrow down the number of possible suspects of a crime

gathered data from an in depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers including ted bundy + charles manson

top down approach is also known as TYPOLOGY approach and profilers will match what is known about the crime and the offender to pre-existing template developed by FBI

ORGANISED/DISORGANSIED -

DRESSLER ET AL (1988) -organised/disorganised distinction is based on the idea that serious offenders have certian signature 'ways of working' - these generally correlate with a particular set of social and psychological characteristics that relate to the individual.

ORGANISED = evidence of planning, high degree of control during offence, above-average IQ, usuall married + kids

DISORGANISED = little evidence of planning, impulsive nature, below-average IQ, history of failed relationships + living alone

TOP DOWN - FBI APPROACH -

an organised offender leads an ordered life and kills after some sort of critical life event. their actions are premeditated and planned, they are likley to bring weapons and restraints to the scene. they are likley to be of avergae high intelligence and employed

a disorganised offender is more likley to have committed a crime in a moment of passion, no evidence of planning, more likley to leave evidnce such as blood and semen etc. - less socially competent and more likley to be unemployed

CONSTRUCTING AN FBI PROFILE -

4 main stages -

RESSLER ET AL (1988) -

Data assimilation - profiler reviews evidence

Crime scene classification - (organised/disorganised)

Crime reconstruction - (hypothesis in terms of sequence of event, behaviour of victims)

Profile generation - hypotheses related to the likley offender

A03 -

(-) - evidence doesnt support the 'disorganised offender; - CANTER ET AL - small space analysis of 100 murders in USA = each examined against 39 characteristics - FINDINGS = organised but no disorganised

(-) - classification is too simplistic - behaviours describing organised/disorgansied offenders are not mutally exclusive - conflicting typology = classification far too simplistic

(-) - original sample - the typology was developed using interviews with 36 killers in USA - 25 of whom were serial killers - 11 were single/double killers - this is too small a sample and is regarded as unrepresentative especially to base typology on.

Page 9

Cognitive Explanations of offending behaviour