forensics

-originally constructed by FBIs in America (1970s) from data gathered from 36 in-depth interviews w/ 36 prolific sexually-motivated serial killers.
-they will match offender to pre-existing template of organised/disorganised (based on their modus operandi) murderer/****** & then this is used to inform the police investigation.
-organised = pre-meditated, targeted victim, high lvl of control/detached surgical precision, no evidence left, high IQ in skilled job, sexually/socially competent, married & children
-disorganised = spontaneous, impulsive/messy crime scene, little control, low IQ, unemployed, history of failed relationships, living alone.
CONSTRUCTING A PROFILE:
1) all info gathered from crime scene
2) decision of organised/unorganised
3) prediction of what happened during crime scene
4) rough 'sketch' of criminal e.g. appearance, characteristics.

EVALUATION:
-only applies to certain crimes: can only be used on murders/**** as crimes such as burglary (more common) won't have many clues about the offender from the crime scene, unlike geographical profiling which is more versatile as it looks at pattern of crime, not the type.
-too simplistic: CANTER used S.S analysis on 100 organised/disorganised serial killers in US & found only 2 co- occurring behaviours (body concealment = 70%, sexual activity = 75%), meaning not enough distinction between the 2 categories of killers & any distinction made would be too restrictive for such an individual crime.
-original sample: based on only 36 serial-killers which is too small/unrepresentative & data was self-reported, questioning validity/objectivity.
-lack of theoretical foundation: relies on profilers expertise, so extreme risk of subjectivity. Barnum effect could exist, whereby the ambiguous descriptions given seem to 'fit' anyone, which is why profiles often appear to be 'right'. could be damaging as it may mislead investigations.

BOTTOM UP:
-uses 'smallest space analysis' data system which comprises correlations across patterns of behaviour, so its data-driven.
INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY = establishes patterns of behaviour using S.S & decides whether any other offences can be linked, considers interpersonal coherence which is the way the offender behaves w/ the victim/crime scene as this can reveal more about their everyday behaviour, considers forensic awareness as this can reveal if they've interacted w/ police before.

GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING = using location of crime scene can reveal details of the offenders possible base (centre of gravity) which can tell a lot about their modus operandi as well as where they may strike next (jeopardys surface). it can also reveal alot about their character e.g. transport, job, organisation, age etc.

EVALUATION:
-scientific basis: S.S analysis combines biographical, geographical & psychological data, thus seen more objective/scientific than T-D approach as its more grounded in evidence rather than profilers' 'hunches'/speculations.
-supporting evidence for investigative psychology: CANTER used 55 sexual assault cases w/ S.S & identified several common characteristics e.g. impersonal language & lack of reaction to victim. with the help of the database, we can understand how different characteristics occur in individual patterns, so we can see how their behaviour may change over time/no. of offences committed by same person.
-supporting evidence for geographical profiling: CANTER collated 120 murder cases & found spatial consistency w/ each body disposal in opposite direction to the other, & offenders' base in the middle (centre of gravity). this was even more prevalent w/ Maurauders.
-wider application: can be used on variety of different crimes, making it more versatile for common crimes.
-misleading investigations: in some cases (Colin Stagg), it's resulted in wrongful convictions & research of 48 police forces found 83% of profilers advice was deemed 'helpful' but was only truly successful in 3% of cases.

ATAVISTIC FEATURES:

-criminals are 'genetic throwbacks' who were a primitive sub-species lacking evolutionary development, so their savage & untamed nature meant its impossible for them to function in a civilised society.

-their crime was attributed to their physiology, making them biologically different to humans.

-includes narrow sloping brow, prominent jaw, projecting ears, high cheekbones & facial insymmetry.

-murderers: bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears

-sexual deviants: fleshy lips, glinting eyes, projecting ears

-fraudsters: thin lips & 'reedy'

EVIDENCE = examined the facial/cranial features of 3839 living + 383 dead Italian convicts & found 40% had atavistic features.

EVALUATION:
-methodological issues: he had no control group, therefore unable to say there were significant differences in non-criminals.
-challenging evidence: research comparing 3k criminals to 3k non-criminals found no evidence of atavistic features, so L's research lacks reliability.
-social sensitivity: racial undertones have been found within his research as features such as 'curly hair' & 'dark skin' are predominantly found in those w/ African descent, which further highlights the importance of empirical evidence which can be checked to avoid damaging conclusions/discrimination.
-contribution to criminology: it helped shift the focus of moral explanations (offenders were just weak-minded & wicked) to a more scientifically credible focus (criminality could be genetic/evolutionary) it also attempts to explain how certain ppl are more likely to commit certain crimes, which could have contributed to offender profiling.

TWIN STUDIES:
-Christiansen: (3.6k twin pairs) found MZ (35%) & DZ (13%) C-rates for males + MZ (21%) & DZ (8%) C-rates for females.
-Raine: reviewed 13 twin studies & found overall C-rates: MZ (52%), DZ (21%).
CANDIDATE GENES:
-Tihonen: (900 offenders) abnormalities found on 2 genes associated w/ violent crime. MAOA (low lvls) linked to aggressive behaviour & CDH13 linked to substance misuse & attention deficits. within this sample, this high risk combination made them 13x more likely to have violent history.
-Further research of males from a Dutch family who shared history of violence/aggression & found they also shared gene which led to abnormally low lvls of MAOA.

NEURAL EXPLANATIONS:
-APD = predominantly associated w/ criminal brains as the disorder is characterised by reduced emotional responses & lack of empathy for others.
-PFC = Raine: 70 brain images of murderers & psychopaths found reduced activity in PFC which is responsible for regulating emotions/controlling moral behaviour. low lvls can lead to impulsiveness & lack of control.
-Limbic system = Raine: used PET scans to compare 40 murderers/non-murderers & found differences in activity in PFC & amygdala, both responsible for regulating emotions, so could explain aggressive/violent behaviour.
-Biochemistry = research shows criminals more likely to have low lvls of serotonin leading to impulsivity (regulates mood/impulse control).

EVALUATION:

-research issues: samples used to investigate brain activity are often small as they're the minority of the population (APD & criminals) as well as it being time-consuming & expensive, which means we cant generalise to wider population.

-causation: although they exhibit differences in brain scans, we cant assume this is caused by biological factors, it could be early abuse, therefore we cant explain it from a solely genetic/neural viewpoint.

-use of twin studies: greater C-rates for MZ twins could be explained by environmental similarities e.g. same characteristics, gender, appearance so treated the same. twins are an unusual study, so we cant generalise one group to wider population, & C-rate less than 100%, so other factors must attribute.

-diathesis stress model: 13k Danish adoptees studied & found when they had neither biological/adoptive parents w/ convictions, criminality was 13.5%, which rose to 20% when biological parents had convictions & 24.5% when both adoptive/biological parents had convictions, showing genetics could make you vulnerable, but environment has an effect.

-biological reductionism: the complexity of offending behaviour cant be minimised down to genetics or neural abnormalities, other factors such as social position, mental illness etc can have a huge influence, so we cant conclude it to be a purely genetic/neural basis.

CRIMINAL PERSONALITY:
-all personality types are biological.
-criminal personalities were developmentally immature & selfish as they're concerned w/ immediate gratification.
-socialisation usually teaches delayed gratification & social orientation.
-those scoring higher on E, N or P measures are more likely to commit crime:
Extroversion = underactive nervous system (low lvls of arousal), thus the need for more stimulation, excitement & engagement, leading to sensation-seeking & taking part in risk-taking behaviour/'the thrill', so difficult to condition.
Neuroticism = high lvls in ANS (especially SNS/'fight or flight') meaning they respond quickly & strongly to threat. they may show nervous, jumpy & anxious behaviour which is unstable, so hard to predict. they'll commit crime in an emotionally charged situation, so difficult to condition.
-Psychoticism = tend to have high lvls of testosterone & are often uncaring, aggressive, impulsive & antisocial, meaning they have no regard for others', so less holding them back from crime.
EPQ: he constructed a questionnaire which he believed to accurately measure individuals on E, N & P dimensions, so can discover potentially criminal personality type.

EVALUATION:
-supporting evidence: Eysenck compared 2.1k prisoners to 2.5k controls (males) from 16-69 yrs & found across all ages groups the male prisoners scored higher on measures of E, N & P.
-challenging evidence: 2 different studies of offenders found they scored higher on P & N, but not E, so his theory is incomplete. it could be that E measures both sociability & impulsiveness, but criminality is only associated w/ the latter.
-nature & nurture: he acknowledges both (the genetics of the nervous system & the difficulties high scorers face w/ being conditioned) which is a strength as it shows the roles of environment & biology compared to other theories.

LEVEL OF MORAL REASONING:
-criminals more likely to sit at pre-conventional stages, characterised by the need to avoid punishment & gain rewards, so considered less mature & childlike.
-this means they will commit the crime if they think they can 'get away with it' or gain rewards.
RESEARCH: Kholberg used a moral dilemma technique & found violent youth group were significantly lower in stages than control group of non-violent group.

EVALUATION:

-supporting evidence: 140 juvenile offenders were assessed & found 38% didnt consider consequences of their actions & 36% confident they wouldn't be caught, showing relationship between the pre-conventional lvl & offending behaviour.

-causation: criminals may use lower lvls of moral reasoning to justify their crimes rather than it being the reason they committed the offence

-beta bias: all male sample K used means it only reflects male definition of morality (androcentrism). its argued females have different moral development as they focus on how actions affect others, whereas men focus on fairness/justice, which could account for the difference in crime rates, but K doesn't acknowledge this.

-practical applications: can be used to devise treatment programmes within institutions to raise offenders lvl of moral reasoning, particularly juveniles.

H.A.B:
-faulty information processing leading to bias in interpreting info, therefore assuming ppl's behaviour is confrontational/aggressive when its not.
-this leads to 'blame' on external factors & they use others' to justify their actions.
-mis-reading non-aggressive cues leads to disproportionate & violent response.
SCHONENBERG: showed images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions to 55 violent offenders & compared w/ matched control group, finding violent offenders misinterpreted images as angry/hostile

EVALUATION:
-supporting evidence: study found relationship between H.A.B & aggression in children in both hypothetical & real situations, which shows how it can be the precursor of aggression in children, adolescents, & adults.
-methodological issues: lacks both predictive & ecological validity as use of hypothetical situations can't accurately determine a real-life emotional response e.g. may score lower/higher on H.A.B scale, but differently in real-life, so we cant predict why ppl engage in aggressive behaviour as it may not be the same in real-life.

D.A.T:
-individual will learn values, techniques, motives & attitudes for criminal behaviour via the associations & interactions w/ significant others.
-the more pro-crime values/associations ppl have & the less anti-crime/associations will make it likely they will go on to offend.
-the frequency, intensity & duration of exposure to PC values/interactions is also important & can predict the likelihood of crime being committed.
-the learning of techniques is also important e.g. how to break into a car.

EVALUATION:
-explains for prevalence of crimes: it can explain crimes that tend to be committed in urban/WC areas e.g. gang violence & also white-collar crimes e.g. elitist circle. can explain why crimes are especially prolific within one single area & why there are high recidivism rates, as prisoners all have PC values & learn techniques off of one another, however, cant explain one-off/individualised crimes.
social sensitivity: could create negative stereotypes of those perceived to be from crime-ridden backgrounds, also confirming already existing negative labelling.
-environmental determinism: assumes those w/ too many associations/exposure to PC values will become criminal, however, this isnt the case & there are many individuals who dont go on to offend, so ignores role of free will.
-difficult to test: hard to assess scientific credibility as its nearly impossible to accurately measure the frequency/intensity/duration of PC values one is exposed to, so we cant make firm conclusions.

MINIMALISATION:
-offender downplays, rationalises, trivialises or denies the seriousness of the crime they've committed.
-especially prevalent in those who've committed sexual offences.
BARBAREE = amongst 30 convicted rapists, 54% denied committing offence at all & further 40% minimised harm caused to victim.
HASMALL = 35% of child molester sample argued the crime was non-sexual & 36% stated the victim consented.

EVALUATION:
-too descriptive: fails to explain why offender committed crime in first place, just describes their distorted view of crime, however, could be useful in predicting reoffending/developing treatment programmes.
-only relevant to some crimes: evidence shows it's prevalent in particular crime populations (sex offences), therefore limited in explaining other natures of crime.

INADEQUATE SUPEREGO: a healthy superego is like a kind but firm internal parent which has rules but is also forgiving. if its deficient, the conscience isnt developed properly which can lead to crime.
WEAK = same-sex parent absent during phallic stage, so child cant 'identify w/ aggressor'/internalise a fully formed superego, so their left dominated by ID impulses (selfishness, pleasure).
DEVIANT = internalises deviant/immoral values e.g. raised by criminal father, so doesnt experience guilt.
OVER-HARSH = overly-guilty & anxious conscience, so they're unconsciously driven to commit crime as they have a desire for punishment in order to satisfy superego.

EVALUATION:
-alpha bias: Freud claims women develop weaker superego, which would predict that they engage in more criminal behaviour, however, this isnt reflected in official stats, so it minimises differences between men & women.
-lack of empirical support: theres a shortage of evidence showing inadequate superego leads to crime & is further based on a theory which cant be empirically tested, therefore theoretical explanation is flawed.
-challenging evidence/theories: little evidence shows single-parent/same-sex families produce children who go on to offend (weak superego), those exposed to deviant values may commit crime due to other factors e.g. socialisation/genetics (deviant superego) & it seems very unlikely that the over-harsh superego would lead to offending, as its common that offenders go to great lengths to avoid being caught/punished (over-harsh superego).

DEFENCE MECHANISMS: used by unconscious/ID to reduce anxiety as psychodynamic theory believes anxiety can weaken the ego, leading to dominating ID/superego.
DISPLACEMENT : focus of strong emotion is shifted from actual target to neutral target e.g. lashing out at stranger rather than boss at work.
RATIONALISATION : explaining very negative behaviour in a rational & acceptable way e.g. woman kills a prostitute as they're 'threat to civilisation'.
SUBLIMATION : strong ID impulses expressed in more socially acceptable way e.g. vandalising someones house who you want to murder.

EVALUATION:
-psychic determinism: assumes criminal has no control over actions as its result of defence mechanisms determined from egos response to ID conflicts, which ignores the role of free will & suggests criminals arent responsible for actions, which isnt supported by criminal justice system.
lack of practical applications: according to this theory, offending behaviour would be dealt w/ using psychodynamic therapy which would be a time-consuming & impractical way of dealing w/ widespread offending behaviour.
-lack of empirical evidence: based on Freudian principles which cant be empirically measured.