PAPER 2
FORENSIC
Offender Profiling the top-down approach:
AO1-
Fit offenders into two categories organised or disorganised
Organised: socially and sexually competent, crime scene shows signs of planning
Disorganised: opposite characteristics
Profile Generation: crime scene classification, crime reconstruction, data assimilation and profile
generation
Originated in the USA
AO3-
Can only be used in larger crimes like rape or murder
Don't always fit into either category
Canter et al 2004 no evidence to support disorganised type
Personality not linear
Subjective/ less scientific
Snook 2007 Canadian police officers agreed it was helpful
Offender Profiling the bottom-up approach
AO1-
Develops a profile as evidence is analysed
Uses investigative psychology and geographical profiling
Investigative psychology: each crime recorded on database details then matched to generate likely
characteristics of offender using statistical analysis, also emphasises the importance of time and
place as well as interpersonal coherence
Geographical profiling: each offender has an operational base, centre of gravity, jeopardy surface,
offenders either marauders or commuters according to Canter and Larkin
Developed in the UK
AO3-
Copson found that information from an offender profile only led to successful identification in 3% of
cases
Scientific methods of inquiry
Supporting evidence
Not reliant on personality
Atavistic form:
AO1-
Historical approach to offender profiling proposed by Lombroso
Suggest that criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ and were under evolved
Characteristics of criminals included: long ears, dark skin, extra toes, curly hair
Certain characteristics were associated with certain crimes e.g. murderers have bloodshot eyes and
sexual deviants glinting eyes
He is seen as the father of offender profiling
, Lombroso carry out study studying features of 383 dead and 3839 alive criminals and found 40%
had atavistic characteristics
AO3-
Disproved- Goring found after conducting research of 3000 criminals and non-criminals that no
evidence of facial and cranial issues affecting crime
Investigator effect
Racists profile that allows discriminatory processes
Considered unscientific
Alternate explanations- Substance abuse during pregnancy can cause deformation of baby as well as
brain issues
Kurtzburg found facial surgery on prisoners increased how well they did on release
Biological explanation Genetic and Neural:
AO1-
Aggression may be an inherited characteristic
Lange 1930 looked at 17 DZ twins and 13MZ twins and found that 10MZ and 2DZ had a co twin also
in prison- suggesting an inheritable aspect
Mednick suggest a diathesis stress model to explain why not 100% concordance
Tiihonen abnormalities in MAOA and CDH-13 gene likelihood of being a criminal increase x13
Reduction in prefrontal grey matter and prefrontal cortex
Underdeveloped amygdala
AO3-
Correlation not causation
Doesn’t look at nurture
Issues with twin study evidence
Legal system is autonomy not biology
Biologically reductionist
Take away responsibility
Raine 11% reduction in prefrontal grey matter
Moffit et al 1992 abuse and low activity in MAOA make a person x9 more likely to be aggressive
Psychological Explanations Eysenck:
AO1-
Eysenck suggested there was a specific criminal personality Neuroticism Extraversion and
Psychoticism (last one was added later)
Extraversion: risk taker, commit crimes for thrill, Extraverts have an underactive nervous system so
are continuously looking for stimulation
Neuroticism: characterised by nervousness can be easily upset or unstable, linked to stability of
sympathetic nervous system, prone to erratic emotionally charged crimes
Psychoticism: insensitivity, impulsive behaviour, elevated testosterone, cruel or violent acts
Believed environmental factors and upbringing influence behaviour, criminals are more likely to
seek instant gratification and cannot be easily conditioned
AO3-
Too simplistic and black and white- new 5 factor model in place
Personality tests are subjective
, Our personality does not stay the same throughout time
Eysenck compares male prisoner scores with controls- prisoners had higher
Cultural bias
Reductionist approach
Oversimplification
Cognitive Explanations for Offending Behaviour:
AO1-
Kohlberg 3 levels of moral reasoning which include the pre conventional level, conventional level
and the post conventional level
Pre-Conventional: Punishment stage and Reward stage (this is where most criminals are)
Conventional: Good boy/girl stage and law and order stage
Post Conventional: Social contract and Universal Ethical Principle
Based on a series of moral dilemmas he gave to 72 boys aged 10-16
Cognitive Distortions: Hostile Attribution Bias (viewing an unthreatening situation as threatening)
and Minimalisation (under exaggerate significance of crime often used as coping mechanism)
AO3-
Lots of supporting evidence
Gender Bias
Application- reducing these in therapy is associated with lower reoffending rates
Descriptive- only describes does not explain
Individual differences- moral reasoning differs based on type of crime
Palmer and Hollin supporting research delinquent group less mature moral reasoning
Kennedy and Grubin sex offenders accounts of crimes often downplayed
Psychological Explanation Differential Association:
AO1-
Sutherland 1924
Uses principles of social learning theory: they learn general attitudes towards crimes as well as
specific criminal acts
Learn these behaviours from family, community, prison etc.
AO3-
Difficulty testing
Individual differences- not everyone exposed to crime will become a criminal, creates a stereotype
Cannot account for all crime- just small not violent
Led to a shift in focus- not just bio or personality- allows help for those in bad socio conditions
Difficult to measure objectively
Psychological Explanations Psychodynamic Explanation:
AO1-
Blackburn suggested that there are 3 types of inadequate superegos (formed at the end of the
phallic stage)
Deviant Superego: means that the child internalises abnormal moral standard from criminal parents
Weak Superego: lack of identification with same sex parent
Over Harsh Superego: crave punishment as have grown up with strict parents
FORENSIC
Offender Profiling the top-down approach:
AO1-
Fit offenders into two categories organised or disorganised
Organised: socially and sexually competent, crime scene shows signs of planning
Disorganised: opposite characteristics
Profile Generation: crime scene classification, crime reconstruction, data assimilation and profile
generation
Originated in the USA
AO3-
Can only be used in larger crimes like rape or murder
Don't always fit into either category
Canter et al 2004 no evidence to support disorganised type
Personality not linear
Subjective/ less scientific
Snook 2007 Canadian police officers agreed it was helpful
Offender Profiling the bottom-up approach
AO1-
Develops a profile as evidence is analysed
Uses investigative psychology and geographical profiling
Investigative psychology: each crime recorded on database details then matched to generate likely
characteristics of offender using statistical analysis, also emphasises the importance of time and
place as well as interpersonal coherence
Geographical profiling: each offender has an operational base, centre of gravity, jeopardy surface,
offenders either marauders or commuters according to Canter and Larkin
Developed in the UK
AO3-
Copson found that information from an offender profile only led to successful identification in 3% of
cases
Scientific methods of inquiry
Supporting evidence
Not reliant on personality
Atavistic form:
AO1-
Historical approach to offender profiling proposed by Lombroso
Suggest that criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ and were under evolved
Characteristics of criminals included: long ears, dark skin, extra toes, curly hair
Certain characteristics were associated with certain crimes e.g. murderers have bloodshot eyes and
sexual deviants glinting eyes
He is seen as the father of offender profiling
, Lombroso carry out study studying features of 383 dead and 3839 alive criminals and found 40%
had atavistic characteristics
AO3-
Disproved- Goring found after conducting research of 3000 criminals and non-criminals that no
evidence of facial and cranial issues affecting crime
Investigator effect
Racists profile that allows discriminatory processes
Considered unscientific
Alternate explanations- Substance abuse during pregnancy can cause deformation of baby as well as
brain issues
Kurtzburg found facial surgery on prisoners increased how well they did on release
Biological explanation Genetic and Neural:
AO1-
Aggression may be an inherited characteristic
Lange 1930 looked at 17 DZ twins and 13MZ twins and found that 10MZ and 2DZ had a co twin also
in prison- suggesting an inheritable aspect
Mednick suggest a diathesis stress model to explain why not 100% concordance
Tiihonen abnormalities in MAOA and CDH-13 gene likelihood of being a criminal increase x13
Reduction in prefrontal grey matter and prefrontal cortex
Underdeveloped amygdala
AO3-
Correlation not causation
Doesn’t look at nurture
Issues with twin study evidence
Legal system is autonomy not biology
Biologically reductionist
Take away responsibility
Raine 11% reduction in prefrontal grey matter
Moffit et al 1992 abuse and low activity in MAOA make a person x9 more likely to be aggressive
Psychological Explanations Eysenck:
AO1-
Eysenck suggested there was a specific criminal personality Neuroticism Extraversion and
Psychoticism (last one was added later)
Extraversion: risk taker, commit crimes for thrill, Extraverts have an underactive nervous system so
are continuously looking for stimulation
Neuroticism: characterised by nervousness can be easily upset or unstable, linked to stability of
sympathetic nervous system, prone to erratic emotionally charged crimes
Psychoticism: insensitivity, impulsive behaviour, elevated testosterone, cruel or violent acts
Believed environmental factors and upbringing influence behaviour, criminals are more likely to
seek instant gratification and cannot be easily conditioned
AO3-
Too simplistic and black and white- new 5 factor model in place
Personality tests are subjective
, Our personality does not stay the same throughout time
Eysenck compares male prisoner scores with controls- prisoners had higher
Cultural bias
Reductionist approach
Oversimplification
Cognitive Explanations for Offending Behaviour:
AO1-
Kohlberg 3 levels of moral reasoning which include the pre conventional level, conventional level
and the post conventional level
Pre-Conventional: Punishment stage and Reward stage (this is where most criminals are)
Conventional: Good boy/girl stage and law and order stage
Post Conventional: Social contract and Universal Ethical Principle
Based on a series of moral dilemmas he gave to 72 boys aged 10-16
Cognitive Distortions: Hostile Attribution Bias (viewing an unthreatening situation as threatening)
and Minimalisation (under exaggerate significance of crime often used as coping mechanism)
AO3-
Lots of supporting evidence
Gender Bias
Application- reducing these in therapy is associated with lower reoffending rates
Descriptive- only describes does not explain
Individual differences- moral reasoning differs based on type of crime
Palmer and Hollin supporting research delinquent group less mature moral reasoning
Kennedy and Grubin sex offenders accounts of crimes often downplayed
Psychological Explanation Differential Association:
AO1-
Sutherland 1924
Uses principles of social learning theory: they learn general attitudes towards crimes as well as
specific criminal acts
Learn these behaviours from family, community, prison etc.
AO3-
Difficulty testing
Individual differences- not everyone exposed to crime will become a criminal, creates a stereotype
Cannot account for all crime- just small not violent
Led to a shift in focus- not just bio or personality- allows help for those in bad socio conditions
Difficult to measure objectively
Psychological Explanations Psychodynamic Explanation:
AO1-
Blackburn suggested that there are 3 types of inadequate superegos (formed at the end of the
phallic stage)
Deviant Superego: means that the child internalises abnormal moral standard from criminal parents
Weak Superego: lack of identification with same sex parent
Over Harsh Superego: crave punishment as have grown up with strict parents
