Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Forensics - Coggle Diagram
Forensics
Eysencks theory of the criminal personality
PEN: Psychoticism + Extraversion + neuroticism = the criminal personality
Psychoticism: egocentric, aggressive, masculine, tough minded, cold, unemotional
Extraversion: sociable, dominant, risk taking, active, seek excitement
Neuroticism: anxious, depressed, tense, moody, nervous, behaviour is difficult to predict
socialisation
a result of being developmentally immature
concerns imediate gratification e.g impatient
those who are taught to delay gratification are more socially orientated
Eysenck linked criminal behaviour with socialisation
Charles Manson can be used as an example
Biological: functioning of the nervous system Psychological: stable psychological traits Social: responses to socialisation = behaviour in situations where criminal behaviour is a possible outcome - takes a hollistic view
AO3
easy to analyse as the response is quantitative data however is a self report technique therefore demand characteristics
gains different results depending on emotion
Supporting evidence. Eysenck and his wife compared 2070 male prisioners scores on the EPI with 2422 male controls. Subdivided into age groups. On measures of PEN prisioners recorded higher scores than controls which accords with the predictions of the theory. However heavy researcher bias and gender bias including beta bias.
the idea of a single criminal type. Idea that all offending behaviour can be explained by single personality type has been heavily criticised. e.g Moffitt proposed distinct types of adult male offender based on the timing of the first offense. Eysencks criminal personality is out of step with modern personality theories
Cultural Bias. Bartol and Holanchock looked into cultural differences. They studied hispanic and African American offenders in a maximum security prision in New York. Divided into 6 groups based on criminal history and nature of offence. Found that all 6 groups were less extravert than a non criminal control group. Bartol suggested that this was because their sample was a different cultural group than investigated by Eysenc which questions generalisability of the criminal personality
Psychodynamic explanations
Ronald Blackburn: if the superego is somehow deficient then criminal behaviour is inevitable because the id is goven 'free rein' and is not controlled. 3 different types of inadequate superego.
The weak Superego
if same sex parent is absent during the phallic stage the child cannot internalise a fully formed super ego
no opportunity for identification
immoral behaviour is more likely to occur
The Deviant Superego
if a child internalises an immoral superego with deviant behaviours then it can lead to offending behaviour
e.g if a child is raised by criminal father then less association with guilt
the over harsh superego
harsh= crippled with guilt and anxiety
this may lead a person to unconciously perform criminal acts in order to satisfy the need for punishment
AO3
Gender bias. An assumption is that girls develop a weaker superego than boys because they do not experience castration anxiety. The implication of this is that females should be more prone to criminal behaviour however this is not supported. Hoffman found hardly any gender differences and when he did he found that little girls were more moral than boys
Contradictory evidence. This means that there is little evidence that children raised without a same sex parent were less law abiding as adults. Similarly if children are raised by parents who have commited crime and the they go onto commiting crimes themselves then this may be due to genetic (ignores the role of biology) or socialisation rather than a deviant superego
the idea that criminal behaviour occurs due to an unconscious desire for punishment does not seem likely as many criminals go to great lengths to cover their crimes up therefore they want to avoid punishment
Top down approach (American approach)
FBI used information from interviews and surveys with criminals to establish an offender profile for that type of crime. They then create a pre existing template to match the suspects to.
two categories
organised: victim targeted, agressive towards victim, weapon absent, highly intelligent, skilled
disorganised: victim selected at random, crime unplanned, weapon present, lower intelligence
Ressler: stated that there are 7 aspects that need to be taken into consideration to create a criminal profile: 1. Murder Type, 2. Primary intent, 3. victim risk, 4. offender risk, 5. escalation, 6. time factors, 7. location factors
AO3
only applies to particular crimes for example the best suited crime scenes are those that reveal important details about the suspect. More common offenses like burglary do not lend themselves to a profile.
based on outdated models of personalities. Critics like Alison suggest that this approach is informed by old fashioned models of personality rather than external factors that may be changing. Top down approach is based on static models of personality and therefore is likely to have poor validity when trying to identify suspects.
evidence does not support the disorganised offender. David Canter uses a technique called smallest space analysis and analysed data from 100 murders in the USA. Findings suggested evidence of a distinct organised killer but was not the case for disorganised killer
Bottom up approach (the British Approach)
instead the profiling is data driven and is based more off the crime scene itself and rigorous scruitiny of the offence
investigative psychology: david canter where the analysis of the crime applies to statistical procedures. Five assumptions of investigative psychology
interpersonal coherence: behaviour is smiliar and consistent across situations
time and place: the positioning + timing of clues suggest where the offender may live or work
criminal characteristics: trying to place offenders into categories will help police identify key characteristics
criminal career: has this offender committed a previous crime
forensic awareness: do the offenders show signs of awareness such as cleaning the crime scene would show experience
Geographical profiling: Canter + Young 4 main principles which help shape a profile
locatedness: location of the crime can be important from criminals point of view. Can include where the offender and victim met and where the victim was left
Systematic Crime Location choice: the locations are not random. Offenders stick with places they know
Centrality: 2 main types of offenders. Commuters who travel to the place of the crime and Marauders who commit crimes closer to home
Comparative case analysis: can other cases be committed by the same offender. The more connections made the more accurate the profiling
AO3
Evidence supports Investigative Psychology. David Canter and Rupert Heritage conducted a content anaylsis of 66 sexual assault cases. Data as examined using the statistical technique of smallest space analysis. This led to an understanding of how an offenders behaviours may change over a series of offences. Supports the usefulness of investigative psychology as it shows these statistical techniques can be applied
Evidence supports Geographical Profiling. Ludrigan and Canter collected information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the USA. The location of each body was different then previously creating a centre of gravity, the offender being in the middle. Supports that spatial information is a key factor.
Scientific Basis. Canters argument is that bottom up profiling is more objective and scientific than the top down approach as it is more grounded in evidence. Investigators are able to manipulate geographical biographical and psychological data