forensics
- Created by: sophiemai
- Created on: 21-04-19 11:04
View mindmap
- forensic psychology
- defining and measuring crime
- offical crime stats - annual goverenmental report of all crimes reported
- eval; 1- systematic and standarised 2- clear easy comparison 3- 75% dark figure of crime 4- sations report different amounts
- victim surveys - 50000 people asked yearly any crime they have experienced
- eval; 1- easy to compare 2- more likely to show dark figure 3- not representie of pop 4- crimes exaggerated
- offender surveys - criminals report cries they have commited
- eval; 1- only to see num of offenders 2- dark crime seen 3- self report 4- exageration
- problems with defining crime = cultural differences, changes over time, cicumstances
- offical crime stats - annual goverenmental report of all crimes reported
- biological explanations
- genetics & neural
- genetic predisposition to crime - diathesis stress model = 52% MZ concordance rate candidate gene = MAOM abnormal - which reguates seretonin & dopamine
- eva; 1= runs in family not necessarily genes 2- twins study flawed
- neural brain differences - that cause anti social personality disorder - reduced empathy & emotions -
- differences - prefrontal cortext smaller in those that have ASPD, neural transmitter differences - high noradren = agression low seri, dop linked to addiction
- eval; 1= more scientific 2- not al criminals have ASPD
- eval; 1- reductionist 2- deterministic
- genetic predisposition to crime - diathesis stress model = 52% MZ concordance rate candidate gene = MAOM abnormal - which reguates seretonin & dopamine
- atavistic approach
- genetics & neural
- psychodynamic explanations
- inadequate super egos
- weak - didnt identify with same sex parent during phallic stage
- deviant- identified with criminal parent
- over harsh - very strict, done to satisfiy need for punishment
- eval; 1- gender bias 2- contradictory evidence
- maternal deprivation theory
- failure to bond suring critical period - causes affectionless psychopathy - making them more likely to do crime
- eval; 1- supporting evidence 2- nature of research
- eval; 1- cause and effect 2- difficult to test
- inadequate super egos
- dealing with offenders
- anger management
- using AB model, to change behaviours = cognitive prep, skill aquistion, roleplay
- eval; 1= supporting evidence 2- holistic view 3- better than behaviour mod 4- really high recidivism
- custodial sentancing
- prison - causing neg psy effects, instiutionalisation, prisoniation
- eval; could rehabilitate 2-high neg effects 3- individual differences 4- universities of crime
- behaviour modification
- token economy based on OC amiming to change maladaptive behaviours
- eval; 1- supporting evidence 2- cheap 3- cant genralise 4= not realistic in all cases
- restoritve justice
- directly helping the victim, accepting responcibility, rehabilitation focused
- eval; 1- supporting evidence 2- not suitable for all crimes 3- to soft 4- more expensive
- anger management
- differential association theory
- learning through association- 1- learnt attitudes towards crime 2- learning of specific criminal acts
- pro &anti crime views - mathmatically predictable - learning new techniques usually in prison
- eval; 1- wide scope of explanation 2- influence 3- scientific status 4- individual differences
- learning through association- 1- learnt attitudes towards crime 2- learning of specific criminal acts
- criminal personality - Eysenck
- measured people on scales of extro-intro version, neurotic vs stability
- extraverts= underactive nervous system - seeks risks dont learn from mistakes
- neurotics = nervous jumpy, over anxious - difficult to predict behaviour
- later he added psychotism - unemotional & aggressive
- believing that criminal were extroverted neurotics - linked due to socialisation - didnt learnt to delay gratification
- eval; supporting evidence 2- alternative explanation 3- culturally bias 4- gender bias
- measured people on scales of extro-intro version, neurotic vs stability
- top down approach
- applying psychological principles to crime, pre establised offender templates working to fit them into catagories
- 4 stages of profiling; data assimilation, crime scene classification, crime reconstruction, profile generation
- eval; 1- small scope 2- over simplistic 3- lacking evidence 4- hunch not theory
- applying psychological principles to crime, pre establised offender templates working to fit them into catagories
- bottom up approach
- based on quantative statistical analysis
- investigative psychology - looking at similar offences - interpersonal coherance, time & place, forensic awareness
- geographical profiling- location & timing - comuters - travel to crime maraduers- close to home crime
- eval; 1- scientific staus 2- scope 3- problems with comparing 4- over simplistic
- defining and measuring crime
Comments
No comments have yet been made