O GoConqr está de visual novo! Conte para nós o que você achou.

Registre-se grátis

Quiz

Offender profiling assumptions

Ellie Batham 7 perguntas Atualizado em 6 jan 2019

Fazer o quiz

Este quiz tem tipos de pergunta que abrem no player de sempre.

Perguntas do quiz (7)

  1. 1Cross-situational [blank_start]consistency[blank_end]: Consistent behaviour across [blank_start]different[blank_end] situations, focuses on [blank_start]similarity[blank_end] of an individual's criminal behaviour to their 'normal' behaviour. (Sorochinski, 2015)
    1. Aconsistency
    2. Bdifferent
    3. Csimilarity
  2. 2"Likely to reflect [blank_start]variations[blank_end] that occur day to day" - [blank_start]Canter[blank_end], 2000

    "The evidence for c-s-c not impressive, but the more [blank_start]similar[blank_end] situations, the more likely the [blank_start]consistent[blank_end] use of aggression" -Walters, 2000

    Offence Paralleling Behaviour: a behavioural [blank_start]sequence[blank_end] which may be influenced by a patients' [blank_start]mental[blank_end] [blank_start]disorder[blank_end], functionally similar to behavioural sequences involved in criminal acts. (Daffern et al., [blank_start]2009[blank_end])

    >Research within Peaks Unit in Rampton Hospital compared aggression in offence with in-hospital aggression. Found some evidence of behavioural similarity across 2 different settings but not for [blank_start]all[blank_end] offences. Might only see OPB in offenders with consistent and idiosyncratic patterns of aggression. (Daffern et al., 2009)

    >In non-forensic settings, little evidence of cross situational consistency except for [blank_start]cognitive[blank_end] and intellectual functioning (Mischel, 1968)
    1. Avariations
    2. BCanter
    3. Csimilar
    4. Dconsistent
    5. Esequence
    6. Fdisorder
    7. Gmental
    8. H2009
    9. Iall
    10. Jcognitive
  3. 3Homology Assumption: Offenders who behave in a similar way when committing crimes should be similar in their characteristics ([blank_start]Makros[blank_end] & [blank_start]Allison[blank_end], 2002)
    1. AMakros
    2. BAllison
  4. 4-- :( Doan & Snook (2008) outlined [blank_start]6[blank_end] studies sampling arsons, robberies and rapes: found little supporting evidence. Approximately [blank_start]56%[blank_end] of the comparisons between background characteristics and the different classifications of arson [blank_start]violated[blank_end] the homology assumption.

    -- :( Lacks underpinning [blank_start]framework[blank_end] to explain why some socio-demographic variables would be associated with certain crime behaviours. Found that a similarity between offender's crime scene behaviour didn't necessairly mean a similarity in characteristics of the offender.

    -- :( Woodhams & Toye (2007) attempted to find homology in a group of [blank_start]80[blank_end] serial commercial robberies. Offenders were grouped into [blank_start]3[blank_end] different groups based on their offence behaviour. Examined whether the commercial robbers could be [blank_start]clustered[blank_end] according to characteristics of the offences, and whether the background information of these groupings would significantly differ. There were no significant [blank_start]differences[blank_end] between any of the groups according to offender age, ethnicity, employment, previous convictions, or distance travelled from home to offence.

    :( Makros & Alison (2002) fails because it is too [blank_start]simplistic[blank_end], and neglects the moderating influence of a third factor, the [blank_start]situation[blank_end].

    :) Tonkin, Bond & Woodhams (2009) sampled 200 burglaries, committed by 100 burglars. Found relationship between [blank_start]cost[blank_end] of footwear worn to crime and employment status and relative deprivation of home location. Suggests expensive footwear impression are related to [blank_start]unemployed[blank_end] offenders who live in the areas of deprivation.
    1. A6
    2. B56%
    3. Cviolated
    4. Dframework
    5. E80
    6. F3
    7. Gclustered
    8. Hdifferences
    9. Isimplistic
    10. Jsituation
    11. Kcost
    12. Lunemployed
  5. 5OFFENDER CONSISTENCY HYPOTHESIS (Canter, 1995): A degree of [blank_start]similarity[blank_end] will be apparent across crimes committed by the same offender (Sorochinski, 2015).

    >Unlikely for offenders to behave perfectly consistently because of the effect of [blank_start]changing[blank_end] environment (Davies et al., 1992) and the interpersonal nature of some crimes e.g. rape (Santtila et al., 2005).
    >As long as 2 crimes committed by the same offender more consistent than 2 crimes committed by different offenders, there is [blank_start]support[blank_end] for this assumption. Is this too simplistic?
    >Davies & Beech (2017) [blank_start]Acquisitive[blank_end] crime, limited evidence for consistency and distinctiveness. interpersonal crime can identify crimes from same series using similarity with good [blank_start]degree[blank_end] of accuracy.
    >:) Slater, Woodhams & Hamilton (2015): large dataset, both serial and one-off sex offences. 2 assumptions were tested simultaneously and provides support for assumptions consistency and distinctiveness.
    >:) [blank_start]Tonkin[blank_end] & Woodhams (2017) tested consistency and distinctiveness, [blank_start]749[blank_end] solved commercial burglaries. Offender behaviour is sufficiently consistent and distinctive.
    1. Asimilarity
    2. Bchanging
    3. Csupport
    4. DAcquisitive
    5. Edegree
    6. F749
    7. GTonkin
  6. 6Actions --> Characteristics ASSUMPTION: There will be a relationship between someone's actions (behaviour) and their characteristics.

    >Davis et al., (1998) found they could accurately predict [blank_start]rapists[blank_end]' likelihood of having a previous conviction for [blank_start]burglary[blank_end] in around 70% cases.
    >Inconsistent results
    >Alison (2007) suggest crime scene behaviours differ in "profitability" meaning some will be more useful in [blank_start]determining[blank_end] characteristics about the offenders than others.
    >Mokros and Alison’s study (2002),the crime scene behaviour and socio-demographic characteristics and criminal histories of a sample of [blank_start]100[blank_end] British male stranger rapists were examined. Using correlational analysis they tested for similarity between offenders’ behaviour and characteristics but found no evidence to support the homology assumption. This indicates that the process of drawing [blank_start]inferences[blank_end] about background [blank_start]characteristics[blank_end] from crime scene actions is not a simple if A then C [blank_start]equation[blank_end].
    1. Arapists
    2. Bburglary
    3. Cdetermining
    4. D100
    5. Einferences
    6. Fcharacteristics
    7. Gequation
  7. 7BEHAVIOURAL DISTINCTIVENESS ASSUMPTION: "[blank_start]Variation[blank_end] in way different offenders [blank_start]commit[blank_end] crime. If all burglars committed crime in the same way, wouldn't be possible to tell one from another" - Woodhams et al., (2007) Offenses committed by one offender will be distinctly different from those committed by another offender.

    'Signatures' "Behaviours committed by an offender that serves their [blank_start]emotional[blank_end] and psychological needs" (Geberth, 1995).
    e.g. unusual sexual behaviours, special restraints, taking trophies.

    + Slater, Woodhams & Hamilton (2015)
    +Tonkin & Woodhams (2017) 749 solved commercial burglaries.
    1. Aemotional
    2. Bcommit
    3. CVariation

Informações

Descrição
Quiz sobre Offender profiling assumptions, criado por Ellie Batham em 06-01-2019.
Idioma
English
Visualizações
1
Histórico
Criado em 6 jan 2019 · atualizado em 6 jan 2019
Avaliação
Ainda sem avaliações
Avalie este quiz
Avalie este quiz

Fale Conosco

Sobre o que é sua mensagem?

O que você acha do novo visual?

Você gostou?