Forensic Psychology

A historical approach to offending-

Lombroso suggested that criminals were biologically different than non-criminals. His theory of the atavistic form is best described as speculative and naïve but his ideas have laid the foundations to modern offender profiling techniques.

Offenders were seen as lacking evolutionary development, their savage and untamed nature meant they could not adjust to civilised society, therefore turning to crime.

Atavistic characteristics-

Features of the face and head that make criminals physically different from non-criminals.

• Cranial characteristics- the atavistic form included a narrow, sloping brow, strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones and asymmetric face. Others included dark skin and the existence of extra toes, fingers and *******.

• Besides physical traits, Lombroso suggested that other aspects of being criminal included insensitivity to pain, use of criminal slang, tattoos and unemployment.

Lombroso’s research-

• He meticulously examined the facial and cranial features of hundreds of Italian convicts, both living and dead, and proposed the atavistic form was associated with anomalies which were indicators of criminality.

• Lombroso examined the skulls of 383 dead criminals and 3839 living, and concluded that 40% of criminal acts cam be accounted for by atavistic characteristics.

Evaluation-

Contribution to criminology-

Lombroso has been called the ‘modern father of criminology’. He shifted the emphasis to influence of genetics/scientific realm.

Scientific racism-

Most of the atavistic characteristics such as dark skin and curly hair are features most likely to be found among people of African descent. His description of the atavistic would lend to Eugenic philosophers of the time (believed that some cultural groups are more genetically fit than others, those that are fit should be allowed to breed whilst the others should be eliminated).

Contradictory evidence-

Goring- no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial or cranial characteristics, although he did suggest that offenders have a lower than average IQ.

Problems in defining crime-

Cultural issues- What is considered a crime in one country may not be considered a crime in another. E.g bigamy is illegal in the UK, but it is not a crime in cultures where polygamy is still practiced.

Historical issues- Definitions of crime change over time. A parent’s right to smack their child was outlawed in 2004 in the UK. Homosexuality was considered a crime till 1967. (both culturally and historically specific)

Ways of measuring crime-

Official statistics- government records of the total number of crimes reported to the police and recorded in the official figures. Allows the government to develop crime prevention strategies and policing initiatives, and directs resources to those in need.

Victim surveys- Records people’s experience of crime over time. Households randomly selected.

Offender surveys- Individuals volunteer details of the number and types of crimes they have committed. They target groups of ‘likely’ offenders based off previous convictions, social backgrounds and age groups.

Evaluation-

Official statistics- Unreliable as they significantly underestimate the true extent of crime- dark figure of crime. Unreported by victims or unrecorded by the police.

Victim surveys- More likely to include details of crimes that weren’t reported to the police and so are likely to be more accurate than the official statistics. ‘Telescoping’ may occur where a victim may misremember an event as happening in the past year when it did not (maybe because the trauma is still fresh) and this may distort the figures.

Offender surveys- Provide insight into how many people are responsible for certain offences. Confidential, but responses may be unreliable if offenders want to conceal the seriousness of the crimes they have committed, or exaggerate for the bravado.

Politics of measuring crime- Political party in opposition will focus on measurements that make the party in power look bad. Party in power will make it look like crime is decreasing.

Investigative psychology-

Attempt to apply statistical procedures, along psychological theory to analysis the crime scene evidence. This is in order to develop a statistical ‘database’ which then acts as a baseline for comparison. Specific details of an offence, or related offences can then be matched against the database to reveal important details about the offender, their personal history, family background etc. May also link a series of offences to the same person.

Interpersonal coherence- the way the offender behaves at the scene, including how they interact with the victim, may reflect their behaviour in more everyday situations.

Geographical profiling-

Uses information to do with the location of the linked crime scenes to make inferences of the likely home or operational base of an offender- known as crime mapping. Can help with making hypotheses about how the offender is thinking and their modus operandi.

Canters circle theory proposed two models of behaviour-

The marauder- who operates in close proximity to their home base.

The commuter- who is likely to have travelled a distance away from their usual residence.

This offers important insight into the nature of the offence, i.e whether it was planned or opportunistic, as well as revealing other factors like ‘mental maps’, mode of transportation, employment, status, approximate age.

Evaluation-

Evidence supports investigative psychology- Canter conducted a content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases. Used smallest space analysis, leading to an understanding of how an offender’s behaviour may change over a series of offences, or in establishing whether two or more offences were committed by the same person.

Evidence supports geographical profiling- Canter collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the USA. Smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers. The location that each body was disposed in was in a different direction from the previous, creating a ‘centre of gravity’. Spatial information is therefore key in determining the base of an offender.

Scientific basis- More objective and scientific than the top down approach as it is grounded in more evidence and psychological theory, less driven by hunches.

Wider application- can be applied to a wide range of offences, such as burglary and theft but also murder and ****.

Offender profiling-

An investigative tool used by the police when solving crimes, to narrow the field of enquiry and suspects. Generate hypotheses of likely characteristics of the offender (age, social background, occupation etc.)

The American approach-

The top-down approach to profiled originated as a result of the FBI’S behavioural science unit gathered data from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers including Ted Bundy.

Organised and disorganised types of offender-

Based on the idea that serious offenders have certain signature ways of working (modus operandi) and that these correlate with a particular set of social and psychological characteristics.

  Organised offenders

• Plan the crime in advance                                                     

• Victim is targeted

• High degree of control

• Little evidence left at scene

• Above-average intelligence

• Socially and sexually competent -usually married and may have children.

• Skilled or professional worker.

Disorganised offenders

• Little evidence of planning- event may be spontaneous, spur of the moment

• Body is usually still at the scene with little control of the offender.

• Lower than average IQ

• In unskilled work or unemployed

• History of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships

• Live alone and live relatively close to crime scene

Constructing an FBI profile-

• Data assimilation- profiler reviews the evidence

• Crime scene classification- organised or disorganised

• Crime reconstruction- sequence of events, behaviour of the victim etc.

• Profile generation- e.g. demographic background, physical characteristics, behaviour etc.

Evaluation-

Only applies to particular crimes- the approach is best suited to crimes that reveal important details about the suspect e.g. ****, arson and cult killings and acting out fantasies. Common offences such as burglary and destruction of property don’t reveal as much about the offender. Limited approach to identifying criminals.

Based on outdated models of personality- based on the assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain consistent between situations and contexts. Poor validity when it comes to identifying suspects as it is based off static models of personality.

Evidence does not support the disorganised offender- Canter et al used a technique called smallest space analysis. Findings did suggest a distinct organised type, they did not prove a disorganised type, which undermines the classification system as a whole.

Classification is too simplistic- the behaviours that describe both organised and disorganised are not mutually exclusive.

Original sample- too small and unrepresentative sample upon which to base a typology system that has a significant influence on the nature of the police investigation. Canter also argued it is not sensible to rely on the self-report data from convicted killers.

Level of moral reasoning-

Moral reasoning refers to the process by which an individual draws upon their own value system to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Kohlberg attempted to objectify this process by identifying different levels of reasoning based on people’s answers to moral dilemmas.

Kohlberg’s model and criminality-

Criminals tend to show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-criminals.  Pre-conventional level is characterised as egocentric and childlike, with the need to avoid punishment and gain rewards. Post-conventional level tend to sympathise more with the rights of others and exhibit behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence.

Level 1- Preconventional morality

Stage 1- Punishment orientation. Rules are obeyed to avoid punishment.

Stage 2- Personal gain. Rules are obeyed for personal gain.

Level 2- Conventional morality

Stage 3- "Good boy/good girl" orientation. Rules are obeyed for approval.

Stage 4- Maintenance of the social order. Rules are obeyed for maintenance of social order.

Level 3- Postconvential morality

Stage 5- Morality of social contract and individual rights. Rules are obeyed if they are impartial.

Stage 6- Morality of conscience. Establishes own rules in accordance with personal set of ethical principles.

Cognitive distortions-

Cognitive distortions are faulty, biased ad irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, other people and the world inaccurately and usually negatively.

This links in to the way that criminals interpret other people’s behaviour to justify their own.

There are two examples of cognitive distortions:

1. Hostile attribution bias- A cognitive style that makes the assumption that other peoples’ actions are in some way a negative reaction to the self.

2. Minimalisation- Cognitive distortion that serves to downplay the seriousness of criminal behaviour by the offender. Self-deception, where the offender does not accept the full reality of the situation and will attempt to rationalise what they have done.

Evaluation

Kennedy- The majority of convicted sex offenders studied attempted to excuse their behaviour by blaming someone else, usually the victim (“they were drunk”, “the way they dressed” etc).

Practical applications- Association between moral development and offending behaviour. Specific moral values are associated with offending. She suggests that intervention programmes should work on increasing offenders’ level of reasoning.

Spielberger- found a relationship between hostile attribution bias and aggression, this happens when behavioural cues are misinterpreted and lead to a hostile response.

Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality

General personality theory- Eysenck proposed that behaviour can be represented along two dimensions: introversion/extroversion (E) and neuroticism/stability (N).

The two dimensions combine to form a variety of personality characteristics and traits. Eysenck later added a third dimension- psychoticism (P).

Biological basis- Our personality traits are biological and depend on the type of nervous system we inherit. Therefore, believing that all personality types, including the criminal personality, have innate, biological basis.

• Extraverts have an underactive nervous system, they constantly seek excitement, stimulation and more likely to engage in risk taking behaviours. They do not condition easily and do not learn from their mistakes.

• Neurotic individuals tend to be nervous, jumpy and over anxious, their instability mean their behaviour is difficult to predict.

The criminal personality

• The criminal personality is a combination of neurotic-extravert (all of behaviours described above).

• Typical offender will score high on measures of psychoticism- personality type that is cold, unemotional and prone to aggression.

Measuring the criminal personality

• The notion that personality can be measured is central to Eysencks theory.

• He developed the EPI, a psychological test that locates the respondents along the E and N dimensions to determine their personality type. A later scale was added to measure psychoticism.

Evaluation

Evidence supporting his theory

On measures of psychoticism, prisoners scored higher than controls which supports the predictions of the theory.

The idea of a single criminal type

The idea that all offending behaviour can be explained by a single personality type has been heavily criticised.

In modern understanding of personality types and offending, there are multiple combinations available, therefore a high E and N does not mean offending is inevitable.

 Cultural bias

Bartol et al found that a  group Hispanic and African-American offenders were less extravert than a non-criminal control group.

This group was a different cultural group than what Eysenck investigated, raising questions of the generalisability of the criminal personality.

Cognitive behaviour treatment

• Novaco- Cognitive factors trigger the emotional arousal that precedes aggressive acts.

• Behaviourist terms- becoming angry is reinforced by the individual’s feeling of control in the situation.

• In anger management (type of CBT) the individual is taught how to recognise when they are losing control and encouraged to develop techniques which bring conflict-resolution without need for violence.

Three stages to anger management

1. Cognitive preparation- Offender reflects on past experience and consider typical pattern of their anger. Identify which situations that trigger anger, and if the offender interprets the situation irrationally, therapist points it out.

2. Skill acquisition- Offender introduced to a range of techniques to help deal with anger-provoking situations more rationally and effectively, e.g. positive self-talk, communicating more effectively, or relaxation/meditation. Possible for offender to be in control of their emotions rather than ruled by them.

3. Application practice- Role play in carefully monitored environment. They must see each scenario as real. Role play would be met with positive reinforcement by the therapist.

Tip to remember: Calm People Should Avoid Angry People

Evaluation

Comparison with behaviour modification- Unlike behaviour modification, anger management attempts to tackle one of the causes of offending. Offenders can self-discover ways of managing behaviour outside of the prison. More likely to make a permanent behaviour change and reduce recidivism than behaviour modification.

Limited long-term effectiveness- Blackburn, little evidence to show that anger management reduces recidivism in the long term. Still relies heavily on role play, might not reflect the possible triggers that could be present in real-life situations.

Anger may not cause offending- Novaco assumes a relationship between anger and offending.Loza et al measured anger levels in prisoners, found no difference between those classed as violent and non-violent. Anger management could therefore be providing the offenders with justification for their behaviour.

Behaviourist principles

• If Human behaviour is learned, then it should be possible to encourage the unlearning of behaviour.

• Behaviour modification programmes are designed to reinforce obedient behaviour, and punish disobedient behaviour. This is made possible in prison with the use of a token economy system.

Token economy

• Based on operant conditioning.

• Enforcing desirable behaviour with a token that can then be exchanged for some kind of reward.

• Tokens are secondary reinforcers because they derive their value from their association with reward.

• Non-compliance, or disobedience may result in the tokens, and associated privileges, being removed (punishment).

Changing behaviour

• Desirable behaviour identified and broken down into small step (increments)

• Baseline measure established

• Behaviours to reinforce are decided upon and those who come into contact with offenders must follow the same regime of selective reinforcement.

• E.g. prison officers may reinforce a particular prisoner for working positively in a group.

Hobbs and Holt- introduced a token economy in young offender’s institute. Significant difference in positive behaviour in the token economy units compared to the control group.

Evaluation

Easy to implement- No need for expertise or specialist professionals as there would be for anger management. Cost-effective and easy to follow.

Little rehabilitative value- Blackburn- behaviour that is learnt in prison may be quickly lost once released, unlikely to extend past the custodial setting.

Ethical issues- Regarded as manipulative and dehumanising by several commentators. Participation of offenders is obligatory rather than optional. Withdrawal of privileges such as exercise and contact with loved ones is ethically questionable.

Individually tailored programmes are most effective- The programme should be designed, so that the rewards, and frequency of rewards, suit each individual.

The aims of custodial sentencing

Involves a convicted offender spending time in a prison or closed institution such as young offenders or psychiatric hospital.

1. Deterrence- unpleasant prison experience designed to put off the individual (or society) from engaging in criminal behaviour. General deterrence is to send a message to members of society that crime will not be tolerated. Individual deterrence is to stop the individual repeating the same crime in light of their prison experience. Behaviourist idea of conditioning through punishment.

2. Incapacitation – offender taken out of society in order to prevent them reoffending and to protect the public. Depends on the severity of offence and nature of offender, e.g. serial murderer or ******.

3. Retribution- society enacting revenge for the crime by making offender suffer, proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. ‘Eye for an eye’- belief that offender should in some way pay for their actions.

4. Rehabilitation- prison not only for punishment, but for reform. Offenders should leave prison adjusted and ready to take an active part in society.  Prison should provide opportunities to develop skills and training, with chance to reflect on crime.

The psychological effects of custodial sentencing

• Stress and depression- Suicide rates are higher in prison that general population, as are self-harm. Stress of prison increases risk of psychological disturbance following release.

• Effects on the family- children with a parent in prison are affected financially and psychologically. Parents may feel guilt and separation anxiety.

• De-inividuation- Zimbardo- prison and guard uniforms can lead to loss of identity associated with increased aggression and treating people in inhumane ways.

• Institutionalisation- Having adapted to norms of prison life, it is hard for some offenders to function when released into society again, e.g. Brookes in Shawshank redemption.

Recidivism

Ministry of Justice figures suggest 57% of offenders will re-offend within a year of being released in UK. Stark contrast to the rate in Norwegian prisons, penal institutions are more open and emphasis placed on rehabilitation and skills than in UK. Many are critical and label it as ‘soft option’ that doesn’t sufficiently punish.

Evaluation

Individual differences- Can’t be assumed that all offenders will react in the same way. Different prisons have different regimes so there will be variations in experience. Length of sentence, reason for incarceration, and previous prison experience will also have an effect.  Difficult to make conclusions that apply to every prisoner and every prison.

Prisons as a training ground for crime- Prison may increase rate of re-offending than decrease. Sutherland- increasing association with people with pro-criminal attitudes. Placing low-risk offenders with high-risk offenders, share knowledge and increasing chances of low-risk offenders re-offending. Imprisonment may lead to low self-esteem, reduced empathy and anger towards the system.

Benefits of non-custodial sentencing- Cost of prison care and problems associated with it mean alternatives may be preferred. Alternatives inc. probation, penalties, electronic monitoring, fines, community service and ASBO’s. Klein- cautions are more effective deterrents than arrests.

Focuses on rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims.

Changing the emphasis

Switch emphasis from crimes being against the state to crimes being against the individual. Changes from needs of the state (enforcing law and punishing) to needs of victim (coming to terms and moving on).

Restorative justice process

Braithwaite “crime hurts, justice should heal”.  Based on healing and empowerment.

The offender is able to see the consequences of their actions, including the emotional distress it caused the victim.

Key features of the process

• Focus on acceptance of responsibility and positive change.

• Survivors (term victim is avoided) those responsible for harm may voluntarily choose to meet face-to-face in a non-courtroom setting.

• Active rather than passive involvement from all parties.

• Focus on positive outcomes for survivors and offenders.

Variations of the process

Not all involve face-to-face encounters between the offender and the victim.  Some cases the offender may make some financial restitution to the victim to reflect the psychological damage done- or actual physical damage.

The offender may even repair the damaged property themselves, showing how flexible restorative justice is.

The Restorative Justice Council is an independent body who establishes clear standards for the use of restorative justice to support victims.

Evaluation

Diversity of programmes- there is a degree of flexibility in terms of possible applications. This is positive because schemes can be adapted and tailored to the needs of the individual situation. However, it is difficult to draw general conclusions about its effectiveness.

Relies on offender showing remorse- danger that some offenders may ‘sign up’ for the scheme to avoid prison rather than a general willingness to want to make amends to the victim. The victim may also want to seek his or her own revenge.

Expensive- specialist professionals who are trained to act as a mediator are likely to be expensive and few and far between.

Scientific basis

Sutherland wanted to create scientific priniciples that explained all offending- regardless of class, gender, race or ethnicity.

Crime as a learned behaviour

Offending behaviour acquired through learning. Childrens interactions with significant others such as family or peers. Criminality arised from 2 factors: pro-criminal attitudes and learning of specific criminal acts.

Pro-criminal attitudes-

If the number of pro-criminal attitudes the individual comes to acquire outweighs the number of anti-criminal attitudes, they will go on to offend.

Possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that an inidividual will commit crime if we have the knowledge of frequency, intensity and duration of the exposure to pro-criminal attitudes.

Learning criminal acts-

As well being exposed to pro-criminal, the individual may learn techniques for committing crime.

Sutherlands theory accounts for why so many offenders are realeased from prison and go on to reoffend, assuming that they have learnt specific techiniques from peers in prison.

This learning may occure through observation, imitation or direct tuition.

Evaluation-

Explanatory power-

Accounts for crime in all sectors of society, both white-collar and street crime.

Shift of focus-

Moved the emphasis from the biological accounts of crime, dysfunctional society rather than dysfunctional person.

More realistic solution than eugenics.

Diffuculty of testing-

Hard to see how many pro-criminal attitudes a person has, or been exposed to, and issued with how that would be measured.

The inadequate superego-

Superego works on morality principle.

Blackburn- If the individual has a deficient superego, crime is inevitable because the id is given the free-rein. 

Three types of inadequate superego have been proposed:

• Weak superego- if same-sex parent is absent during the phallic stage the child will not have a fully formed superego as they have no one to identify with. Makes criminal behaviour more likely.
• Deviant superego- if the superego that the child internalised has deviant or immoral values more likely to offend e.g. boy raised by criminal father.
• Over-harsh superego- excessively punishing or harsh superego leaves a person crippled with guilt and anxiety. They may commit crimes to satisfy the superego's overwhelming need to punish. 

The maternal deprivation theory

Bowlby- Failure to establish a warm, loving bond with the mother during the first few years of life means the child will suffer damaging and irreversible consequences in later life.

One of these is affectionless psychopathy- a lack of guilt, empathy, and feeling for others.

Such maternally deprived individuals are likely to engage in acts of deliquency and cannot form close relationships with others.

Bowlby- 44 theives

• 14 had affectionless psychopathy
• Of those 14, 12 had prolonged periods of seperation from their mother during infancy (first two years of their lives).

Evaluation

Gender bias-

Assumed that girls develop a weaker superego than boys. Therefore girls should be more prone to criminal behaviour than boys but this is not true.

Contradictory evidence-

Very little evidence that children raised without a same-sex parent are less law-abiding as adults. Contradicts Blackburn.

Unconsious concepts-

Freud's concepts lack of falsifiability- cannot be empirically tested.