Forensics

Forensics

1. Offender profiling, Behavioural analytical tool help accurately predict and profile characteristics of unknown offenders

   • Top down, Developed in the 70s is the US used 36 sexual movitated killers to determine two types of killer
     • Organised, High IQ, Little evidence, preplanned, Targeted victums, older
       • Bundy
     • Disorganised, Low IQ, More evidence, random victums, younger
       • NightStalker
     • Evaluation Negative
       • Only applied to certin crimes, rape, arson etc, for more common crimes theres insufficient evidence for it eg burglary
       • Alison (2002), Outdated models of personality, behaviour determined by static dispositional dactors rather than constantly changing due to external factor. Leading to poor validity in prediction.
       • Holmes (1989), Over simplified classicifaction, Four types of serial killers: Visionary, Mission, Hedonistic and power/control
       • Ungeneraliseable orginial sample, Too small and unreprensentative to entire justice system and Canter, not sensible to rely on self report from convicted murders
   • Bottom up, Using crime scene evidence to develop prediction on characterictics, social backgrounds and mottivation
     • Geographical profiling, Determinign a criminals home base by using the location of their crimes
       • Circle theory, Canter + Larkin (1993), Identification of offenders base using spatial distrubtions of crimes, Marauders vs commuters
     • Investigative psychology, Stat analysis and psychological theory to analyse crime scene evidence, eg communitaion between offender and victim
       • Dwyer (2001), Interpersonal coherence Brutal and degrading or remorsal = demonstrates empathy
       • Davies (1997), Rapists that conceal fingerprints tended to have previous robbery conviction
     • Evaluation Positive
       • Canter (1980), railway rapisit, 24 SA and 3 murders near railways in London, Geographic info to determine a profile leading to an arrest
       • More Scientificic thatn Top down, A1 stat analyse of geo, psycholo, biogloical data is objective. Less bias in interpretation.
       • Applied to wider range of crimes than just top down, Can be used in theft not only rape and murder
     • Evaluation Negative
       • Copson (1995), Mix results, 48 police forces found evidence provided by profiler judged useful in 83% of cases, only lead to 3% ccurate indetitfcation of offender

2. Biological explanations

   • Lombroso, offenders were primitvie subspecies unable to function in civilised society
     • Lombroso (1876), Measure facial/cranial features of 383 dead criminals and 3839 living, 40% crim acts accounted by features
     • Positive Evaluation
       • Lombroso (1876) research support
     • Negative Evaluation
       • DeLisi (2012), Scientific racism, Many features were of African descent and used in support of eugenics philosophers at the time
       • Poor control in Lombrosos research, No control group failing to account for confounding variables eg pscyhological disorders
       • Causation, environemntal factors eg poverty may lead to atavistic features
   • Genetic Explantion, Offenders inherit a gene/s that leave them predisposed to commiting crime
     • Lange (1930), Twin study, MZ vs DZ twins and concerance in prison sentences. 10 MZ co twins and only 2 DZ
       • Small sample size not generalisable
       • Poor control, MZ vs DZ based on apperance not DNA
       • Twins raised in same eniviroment confounding variables
       • MZ concordance rate wasnt 100%
     • Crowe (1972), Adopted child with CR mother 50% risk of CR by 18, Adopted child No CR mother 5% Risk CR by 18
       • Presumed seperation at young age (some adoptions don't occur till much later)
     • Tiihonen (2014), High risk genes MAOH: aggreesion, CDH13: Substance abuse and ADHD
       • Has not been replicated yet, research still in infancy
       • Legal system ethical dilemma
     • Diathesis-stress model, High risk genes mixed with environmental triggers leading to criminal behaviour
   • Neural Explantion, Criminal beahviour explained through strucual and functional abnormalities in the brain
     • Raine (2000), 11% reduction in grey matter in PFD of APD vs control
     • Keysers (2011), Mirror neurons criminals only empahised with someone in pain when asked to, APD have empathy but have a neural switch for it

3. Psychological explanations

   • Eysencks Theory, High lvl of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism combine to cause criminality
     • Neuroticism, Low activation threshold in SNS
     • Extraversion, Underactive nervous system
     • Positive Evaluation
       • recognition of genetic basis of personality, Overlap with APD research, cold uncaring and incaple of empathy
       • Eysenck (1977) 2070 male prisoners vs control EPI scores, All age groups prisoners scores were higher in E,N,P
     • Negative Evaluation
       • Farrington (1982), review Eysenck (1977) offenders score high on P not E/N
       • Bartol and Holandchock (1979), Cultual differences, Hispanics and African American Offenders in six groups based on crim history dound that all 6 were less E that control group
   • Cognitive explanations, Levels of moral reasonsing, Logicallt consistent stages containing value systems individuals use to determine right and wrong
     • Kolhberg theory of crimiality, Offenders are in preconventional level, lacking empathy for victims of crime
     • Positive Evaluation
       • Chandler (1973), Preconventional indivual motivated by avoiding punishment or personal gain, S1: commit crime if get away S2: commit crime if get reward
       • Palmer and Holin, 126 M offenders w 210 F + 122M offenders, 11 moral dilemmas offenders had less mature level of moral reasoning
     • Negative Evaluation
       • Langdon, Intelligence better predictor of crime, gorups of very low intelligence + moral reasoning being unlikely to commit crimes
       • Gibbs, Western culture bias, Post conventional not represent natural matureation of moral reasoning, 2 stages immature (self gain + avoid punishment) then mature (empathy + social justice)