CN Psychology - Forensic Psychology
Defining Crime
-Crime is any act (or lack of acting) that violates the law. It is harmful to an individual, group or society as a whole
and is punished by the state.
-Crime is a socially dynamic construct.
-Some behaviours are universally regarded as unacceptable and unlawful. Ex. murder. However some countries
will factor in ‘crimes of passion’ which result in a lenient punishment for the offender.
-A crime is only a crime if state law is broken. Anything outside of the law is simply regarded as ‘wrongdoing’.
Criminal Responsibility & Age
-In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a child is deemed fit to stand trial at the age of 10, but in recent years it
has been shown that important changes in the brain's neural circuits go on well into a person's teens.
-In Scotland children cannot be convicted until they are 12.
-”A number of psychologists have already shown that adolescents are not wholly responsible individuals and are
inclined to take risks and behave in responsible ways” - Nicholas Mackintosh (professor of experimental psychology
at Cambridge University).
Circumstance Issues
-The law is clear that there should be no argument over whether a crime has been committed, however there are
circumstances in which the legal system can make allowances to take the situation and circumstances into account.
-For example, the French concept of ‘crime passionnel’ (crimes of passion) may lead to a more lenient sentence for
murder if the court decides that the murderer acted from a strong and unplanned impulse.
-Within the UK legal system there are 2 core elements that should be present for it to constitute as a crime, or guilty
act: actus reus and mens rea.
-Actus reus = means that the crime should be a voluntary act, meaning that the individual is in control of what they
are doing.
Measuring Crime
Official Statistics
-Good for identifying trends.
-There is unaccounted information as some people do not report crimes. Walker et al (2006) found that only 42% of
crimes committed were reported to police.
Victim Surveys
-Helps to get data on unreported crimes.
-Depends on the honesty and accuracy of answers provided.
-You can only report a maximum of 5 crimes in the survey - which leads to an underestimate of crime.
-Sampling issues - random sampling is used, 75% of those contacted actually complete the survey which the sample
is biassed due to the types of people being surveyed and not all groups are represented in the survey.
Offender Surveys
-Depends on the honesty and accuracy of answers - social desirability bias / bravado.
-However, Hales et al (2007) reported that participants of crime and justice surveys said they were honest in their
answers.
-Can expose the ‘dark figure’ of crime.
Offender Profiling
-A method of working out the characteristics of an offender by examining the characteristics of the crime and the
crime scene.
-Used when police have very little evidence to go on, they sometimes enlist the help of a forensic psychologist.
They will use prior knowledge and evidence gathered from the scene to build an offender profile.
,-It outlines the types of people likely to have committed the crime.
-It is based on prior experiences and may use computer databases to analyse what is already known.
-Offender profiles are only as good as the information provided to the profiler.
-They should be regarded as one tool amongst many to be used by the police.
Top-Down Profiling
-Starts with classification of the crime scene and then the profiler uses information gained to make judgements
about the likely offender who would fit the circumstances.
-Relies heavily on the prior knowledge and the intuition of the profiler.
-In the 1970s the FBI Behavioral Science Unit adhered data from 36 sexually motivated serial killers, including
Charles Manson and Ted Bundy to develop this approach to offender profiling.
-Hazelwood & Douglas interviewed serial killers and police officers in order to advance their theory. They published
their account of the ‘lust murderer’, they advanced a theory that lust murderers are mainly categorised by 2 types -
organised and disorganised. This is an example of a top-down typology.
-Organised offender = leads an ordered life and kills after some sort of critical life event. Their actions are
premeditated and planned, they are likely to bring weapons and restraints to the scene. They are likely to be of
average to high intelligence and employed.
-Disorganised offender = more likely to have committed the crime in a moment of passion. There will be no
evidence of premeditation and they are more likely to leave evidence such as blood, semen, weapons etc. This type
of offender is thought to be less socially competent and more likely to be unemployed.
Constructing A Top-Down Profile
1. Data assimilation = background information about the victim (work, relationships, habits, routines),
description of the crime scene (photos, sketches), details of the crime itself (weapons, cause of death,
autopsy reports).
2. Crime scene classification = as either organised or disorganised.
3. Crime reconstruction = hypothesis in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of the victim etc.
4. Profile generation = hypotheses related to the likely offender (demographic, physical characteristics,
behaviour etc).
Organised Killers - Ressler et al (1986)
-This perpetrator is above average in intelligence and considers himself superior to other people.
-They take great care with personal appearance, grooming and belongings.
-Their crime is well thought out and carefully planned - crimes are usually committed away from the home area.
-They may follow and stalk their victim for hours or days, and may take great pride in verbally manipulating their
target into a position of vulnerability.
-Takes trophies.
-They know police procedures and often have worked or are working in law enforcement.
-They will appear like regular and normal people.
Disorganised Killers
-They have average or below average intelligence.
-They are often a loner and recluse, as well as being an underachiever.
-They have low self-esteem and are considered weird or creepy by acquaintances.
-Voyeurism, exhibitionism.
-Do not plan their crimes and leave a mess - impulsive and spontaneous killings - often blitz attacks and overkill.
, Organised vs Disorganised Summary
Organised Disorganised
-Average to high intelligence. -Below average intelligence
-Socially competent -Socially competent
-Plans offences -Unskilled or unemployed
-Uses restraints on victims -Minimal use of restraints / leaves body on display and
-Weapon is usually hidden performs sexual acts postmortem
-Body is usually transported from the scene -Victim is likely to be random
Victim is specifically targeted -Offender is messy and makes no effort to conceal
Tries to conceal evidence incriminating evidence
+ Research shows that it is useful
Police who have used the FBI methods have found it useful. Copson (1995) conducted a questionnaire on
184 US police officers and found that 82% said the technique was useful and 90% said they would use it
again.
However, this research can be argued to be ethnocentric - culture bias.
- The top down approach is based on extreme cases
The approach is based on extreme cases and therefore can only be used for particular crimes. This
approach has been based on specific cases and not all killers are motivated by the same things and do not
all have the same background.
- Not scientific
The top down approach is not scientific as it is solely based on the opinions and intuitions of profilers. It can
even be compared to horoscopes whereby the descriptions are made to fit any situation for most people
(Barnum effect). This is a problem especially if profiling is wrong. Profiling holds greater consequences
than horoscopes, wrong profiling could result in wrongful convictions and criminals on the loose.
- Disorganised and organised categories overlap
Tuvey (1999) suggests that the categories of organised and disorganised offenders are not dichotomous,
rather, they are on a continuum and can overlap.
Douglas et al (1992) suggested that there should be a mixed offender category - however, this would
reduce the usefulness of the classification as this new category would be considered a ‘dustbin’ for
offenders that do not fit the norm.
- Based on outdated models of personality
The typology classification system is based on the assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour
and motivation that remain consistent across different situations and contexts. Alison et al (2002)
suggested that this approach is naive and is informed by old-fashioned models or personality that see
behaviour as being driven by dispositional traits rather than external factors that may be constantly
changing. This means the top-down approach, based on static models, is likely to have poor validity when it
comes to identifying possible suspects.
- Evidence does not support the ‘disorganised offender’
Canter et al (2004), using a technique called smallest space analysis, analysed data from 100 murders in
the USA. The details of each case were examined with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical
or organised and disorganised killers. Although the findings did indeed suggest evidence of a distinct
organised type, this was not the case for disorganised which seems to undermine the classification system
as a whole.
Defining Crime
-Crime is any act (or lack of acting) that violates the law. It is harmful to an individual, group or society as a whole
and is punished by the state.
-Crime is a socially dynamic construct.
-Some behaviours are universally regarded as unacceptable and unlawful. Ex. murder. However some countries
will factor in ‘crimes of passion’ which result in a lenient punishment for the offender.
-A crime is only a crime if state law is broken. Anything outside of the law is simply regarded as ‘wrongdoing’.
Criminal Responsibility & Age
-In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a child is deemed fit to stand trial at the age of 10, but in recent years it
has been shown that important changes in the brain's neural circuits go on well into a person's teens.
-In Scotland children cannot be convicted until they are 12.
-”A number of psychologists have already shown that adolescents are not wholly responsible individuals and are
inclined to take risks and behave in responsible ways” - Nicholas Mackintosh (professor of experimental psychology
at Cambridge University).
Circumstance Issues
-The law is clear that there should be no argument over whether a crime has been committed, however there are
circumstances in which the legal system can make allowances to take the situation and circumstances into account.
-For example, the French concept of ‘crime passionnel’ (crimes of passion) may lead to a more lenient sentence for
murder if the court decides that the murderer acted from a strong and unplanned impulse.
-Within the UK legal system there are 2 core elements that should be present for it to constitute as a crime, or guilty
act: actus reus and mens rea.
-Actus reus = means that the crime should be a voluntary act, meaning that the individual is in control of what they
are doing.
Measuring Crime
Official Statistics
-Good for identifying trends.
-There is unaccounted information as some people do not report crimes. Walker et al (2006) found that only 42% of
crimes committed were reported to police.
Victim Surveys
-Helps to get data on unreported crimes.
-Depends on the honesty and accuracy of answers provided.
-You can only report a maximum of 5 crimes in the survey - which leads to an underestimate of crime.
-Sampling issues - random sampling is used, 75% of those contacted actually complete the survey which the sample
is biassed due to the types of people being surveyed and not all groups are represented in the survey.
Offender Surveys
-Depends on the honesty and accuracy of answers - social desirability bias / bravado.
-However, Hales et al (2007) reported that participants of crime and justice surveys said they were honest in their
answers.
-Can expose the ‘dark figure’ of crime.
Offender Profiling
-A method of working out the characteristics of an offender by examining the characteristics of the crime and the
crime scene.
-Used when police have very little evidence to go on, they sometimes enlist the help of a forensic psychologist.
They will use prior knowledge and evidence gathered from the scene to build an offender profile.
,-It outlines the types of people likely to have committed the crime.
-It is based on prior experiences and may use computer databases to analyse what is already known.
-Offender profiles are only as good as the information provided to the profiler.
-They should be regarded as one tool amongst many to be used by the police.
Top-Down Profiling
-Starts with classification of the crime scene and then the profiler uses information gained to make judgements
about the likely offender who would fit the circumstances.
-Relies heavily on the prior knowledge and the intuition of the profiler.
-In the 1970s the FBI Behavioral Science Unit adhered data from 36 sexually motivated serial killers, including
Charles Manson and Ted Bundy to develop this approach to offender profiling.
-Hazelwood & Douglas interviewed serial killers and police officers in order to advance their theory. They published
their account of the ‘lust murderer’, they advanced a theory that lust murderers are mainly categorised by 2 types -
organised and disorganised. This is an example of a top-down typology.
-Organised offender = leads an ordered life and kills after some sort of critical life event. Their actions are
premeditated and planned, they are likely to bring weapons and restraints to the scene. They are likely to be of
average to high intelligence and employed.
-Disorganised offender = more likely to have committed the crime in a moment of passion. There will be no
evidence of premeditation and they are more likely to leave evidence such as blood, semen, weapons etc. This type
of offender is thought to be less socially competent and more likely to be unemployed.
Constructing A Top-Down Profile
1. Data assimilation = background information about the victim (work, relationships, habits, routines),
description of the crime scene (photos, sketches), details of the crime itself (weapons, cause of death,
autopsy reports).
2. Crime scene classification = as either organised or disorganised.
3. Crime reconstruction = hypothesis in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of the victim etc.
4. Profile generation = hypotheses related to the likely offender (demographic, physical characteristics,
behaviour etc).
Organised Killers - Ressler et al (1986)
-This perpetrator is above average in intelligence and considers himself superior to other people.
-They take great care with personal appearance, grooming and belongings.
-Their crime is well thought out and carefully planned - crimes are usually committed away from the home area.
-They may follow and stalk their victim for hours or days, and may take great pride in verbally manipulating their
target into a position of vulnerability.
-Takes trophies.
-They know police procedures and often have worked or are working in law enforcement.
-They will appear like regular and normal people.
Disorganised Killers
-They have average or below average intelligence.
-They are often a loner and recluse, as well as being an underachiever.
-They have low self-esteem and are considered weird or creepy by acquaintances.
-Voyeurism, exhibitionism.
-Do not plan their crimes and leave a mess - impulsive and spontaneous killings - often blitz attacks and overkill.
, Organised vs Disorganised Summary
Organised Disorganised
-Average to high intelligence. -Below average intelligence
-Socially competent -Socially competent
-Plans offences -Unskilled or unemployed
-Uses restraints on victims -Minimal use of restraints / leaves body on display and
-Weapon is usually hidden performs sexual acts postmortem
-Body is usually transported from the scene -Victim is likely to be random
Victim is specifically targeted -Offender is messy and makes no effort to conceal
Tries to conceal evidence incriminating evidence
+ Research shows that it is useful
Police who have used the FBI methods have found it useful. Copson (1995) conducted a questionnaire on
184 US police officers and found that 82% said the technique was useful and 90% said they would use it
again.
However, this research can be argued to be ethnocentric - culture bias.
- The top down approach is based on extreme cases
The approach is based on extreme cases and therefore can only be used for particular crimes. This
approach has been based on specific cases and not all killers are motivated by the same things and do not
all have the same background.
- Not scientific
The top down approach is not scientific as it is solely based on the opinions and intuitions of profilers. It can
even be compared to horoscopes whereby the descriptions are made to fit any situation for most people
(Barnum effect). This is a problem especially if profiling is wrong. Profiling holds greater consequences
than horoscopes, wrong profiling could result in wrongful convictions and criminals on the loose.
- Disorganised and organised categories overlap
Tuvey (1999) suggests that the categories of organised and disorganised offenders are not dichotomous,
rather, they are on a continuum and can overlap.
Douglas et al (1992) suggested that there should be a mixed offender category - however, this would
reduce the usefulness of the classification as this new category would be considered a ‘dustbin’ for
offenders that do not fit the norm.
- Based on outdated models of personality
The typology classification system is based on the assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour
and motivation that remain consistent across different situations and contexts. Alison et al (2002)
suggested that this approach is naive and is informed by old-fashioned models or personality that see
behaviour as being driven by dispositional traits rather than external factors that may be constantly
changing. This means the top-down approach, based on static models, is likely to have poor validity when it
comes to identifying possible suspects.
- Evidence does not support the ‘disorganised offender’
Canter et al (2004), using a technique called smallest space analysis, analysed data from 100 murders in
the USA. The details of each case were examined with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical
or organised and disorganised killers. Although the findings did indeed suggest evidence of a distinct
organised type, this was not the case for disorganised which seems to undermine the classification system
as a whole.
