Forensic Psychology
Offender Profiling
The Typology Approach
The typology approach is a qualitative method of offender profiling that focuses on classifying offenders into organised and disorganised categories. It is based on police experience and case studies rather than scientific psychological theory, and was developed from interviews conducted by the FBI with 36 sexually motivated serial killers.
Organised offenders are thought to plan their crimes, target specific victims and attempt to control interactions with victims. Their crimes tend to involve efforts to conceal evidence, such as moving or hiding the body. In contrast, disorganised offenders are more likely to act impulsively, select victims at random, avoid interaction and leave the crime scene in a disordered state.
The typology approach follows several stages. Data assimilation involves gathering information from crime scenes, police reports and post-mortems. Crime classification involves categorising the crime as organised or disorganised. Profile generation involves creating a description of the offender’s characteristics, and crime reconstruction involves forming hypotheses about the sequence of events.
Evaluation of the Typology Approach
One limitation is that it is overly simplistic, as offenders are unlikely to fit neatly into just one category. This makes it difficult to accurately predict offender characteristics.
Another limitation is that it is only useful for certain crimes, such as murder or rape, where there is significant crime scene evidence. It is less useful for crimes such as burglary.
The original sample of 36 killers is small and unrepresentative, and relied on self-report data, which may be unreliable.
Canter et al. (2004) analysed 100 murders and found little evidence for a disorganised category, although some support existed for organised offenders.
The Data Driven Approach
The data driven approach is a more scientific and objective method of offender profiling. Investigative psychology uses computer databases and statistical analysis to identify patterns and relationships between crimes and offenders.
Investigative psychology focuses on interpersonal coherence, which examines how offenders interact with victims and links this to their behaviour in everyday life. It also considers the significance of time and place, which can help identify an offender’s base. Forensic awareness refers to how offenders attempt to avoid detection, which may indicate previous experience with law enforcement.
Geographical profiling focuses on the spatial patterns of offending. Rossmo (1997) proposed that an offender’s base can be inferred from the geographical distribution of crimes. Canter and Larkin (1993) proposed the circle theory, which suggests that offenders are either marauders, who commit crimes close to home, or commuters, who travel further distances.
Evaluation of the Data Driven Approach
Lundrigan and Canter (2001) found spatial consistency in the behaviour of serial killers, supporting geographical profiling.
Compared to the typology approach, the data driven approach has wider application and is more scientifically based.
However, focusing only on geographical data may overlook other important factors, such as psychological characteristics.
Copson (1995) found that profiling advice was useful in 83 percent of cases, but accurate identification of the offender occurred in only 3 percent of cases, suggesting limited effectiveness.
Biological Explanations of Offending Behaviour
Genetic Explanations
Genetic explanations suggest that criminal behaviour may be inherited. Tiihonen et al. (2014) identified two genes, MAOA and CDH13, which were associated with violent behaviour in offenders. Individuals with both genetic abnormalities were significantly more likely to have a history of violent crime.
Twin studies also support genetic explanations. Lange (1930) found that monozygotic twins were more likely than dizygotic twins to both have criminal convictions, suggesting a genetic influence.
Neural Explanations
Neural explanations focus on brain differences. Raine (2000) found reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex of individuals with antisocial personality disorder, which may affect emotional regulation.
Keysers (2011) found that criminals show reduced automatic empathy responses, although these responses can be activated when prompted, suggesting differences in mirror neuron functioning.
Evaluation of Biological Explanations
Mednick (1984) found that individuals were most likely to have a criminal conviction if both their biological and adoptive parents had criminal histories, supporting an interaction between genetic and environmental factors.
Biological explanations may be reductionist and deterministic, as they suggest behaviour is determined by biology and may reduce perceptions of free will.
Early twin studies may lack validity because zygosity was often determined by appearance rather than genetic testing.
Farrington et al. (2006) found that antisocial personality disorder is linked to environmental factors such as childhood neglect, suggesting biological explanations alone are insufficient.
Psychological Explanations of Offending Behaviour
Eysenck’s Theory of the Criminal Personality
Eysenck (1964) proposed that personality traits are biologically determined and that a criminal personality is characterised by high levels of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism.
Extraverts have an underactive nervous system and seek stimulation, increasing risk-taking behaviour. Neurotic individuals have unstable emotional responses, and psychotic individuals are more aggressive and lack empathy.
Eysenck argued that criminals are less easily conditioned and therefore do not learn to control their impulses.
Evaluation of Eysenck’s Theory
Farrington et al. (1982) found some support for the role of psychoticism but not for extraversion and neuroticism.
The theory is reductionist because it simplifies personality into a few traits.
Bartol and Holanchock (1979) found cultural differences in personality traits, suggesting limited generalisability.
Cognitive Explanations
Kohlberg (1968) suggested that criminals operate at the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning, where behaviour is guided by avoiding punishment and gaining rewards. This reflects immature, self-centred thinking.
Cognitive distortions also contribute to offending. Hostile attribution bias involves interpreting others’ actions as aggressive. Schonenberg and Justye (2014) found that violent offenders were more likely to interpret ambiguous expressions as hostile.
Minimalisation involves downplaying the seriousness of offences. Barbaree (1991) found that many offenders denied or minimised their crimes.
Evaluation of Cognitive Explanations
Gibbs (1979) criticised Kohlberg’s theory for cultural bias and proposed alternative levels of moral reasoning.
Langdon et al. (2010) suggested that intelligence may be a better predictor of criminal behaviour and that moral reasoning may depend on the type of crime.
Cognitive explanations have real-world applications, as therapies such as CBT can address distorted thinking and reduce reoffending.
Differential Association Theory
Sutherland (1924) proposed that criminal behaviour is learned through interactions with others. Individuals learn attitudes, values and techniques for offending through observation, imitation and direct teaching.
If an individual is exposed to more pro-criminal attitudes than anti-criminal ones, they are more likely to offend. This theory also explains how offenders learn specific techniques, contributing to reoffending.
Evaluation of Differential Association Theory
A limitation is that the theory is deterministic and does not account for individuals who are exposed to criminal influences but do not offend.
A strength is that it can explain different types of crime across social groups.
Mednick (1984) found that family influences contribute to criminal behaviour, although genetic factors may also play a role.
Dealing with Offending Behaviour
Custodial Sentencing
Custodial sentencing involves sending offenders to prison. Its aims include deterrence, which prevents future offending, incapacitation, which protects the public, retribution, which punishes offenders, and rehabilitation, which aims to reform behaviour.
Psychological effects include stress and depression, institutionalisation, where offenders struggle to adapt to life outside prison, and prisonisation, where they adopt prison norms.
Evaluation of Custodial Sentencing
The Prison Reform Trust (2014) found high levels of psychological distress among prisoners, suggesting limited rehabilitative effects.
However, it is unclear whether these issues existed prior to imprisonment.
Individual differences mean not all prisoners respond in the same way.
Prisons may act as “universities of crime”, where offenders learn new criminal behaviours.
Behaviour Modification
Behaviour modification uses operant conditioning to encourage desirable behaviour through token economy systems. Tokens are given for good behaviour and exchanged for rewards, while undesirable behaviour may result in loss of tokens.
Evaluation of Behaviour Modification
Cohen and Filipczak (1971) found that token economy programmes reduced reoffending in the short term, but effects did not last long term.
Field (2004) found that individual differences affect effectiveness, but tailoring programmes is difficult in practice.
There are ethical concerns regarding lack of consent and withdrawal of rewards.
Anger Management
Anger management is a form of cognitive behavioural therapy that aims to reduce aggressive behaviour.
Keen et al. (2000) found that offenders gained awareness and improved self-control after treatment.
Programmes involve cognitive preparation, skill acquisition and application practice.
Evaluation of Anger Management
Blackburn (1993) found limited long-term effectiveness in reducing reoffending.
It is more effective than behaviour modification because it targets underlying causes.
However, it is expensive and requires motivated participants, and it is only suitable for aggression-based offences.
Restorative Justice
Restorative justice involves the offender and victim engaging in a process aimed at rehabilitation and healing. It may involve face-to-face meetings, compensation or repairing damage.
Shapland et al. (2007) found that restorative justice reduces reoffending and is cost effective.
Evaluation of Restorative Justice
A limitation is that offenders may not show genuine remorse and may participate for personal gain.
Some view restorative justice as too lenient, despite its effectiveness.
It is flexible and can be adapted to different situations, but this makes it difficult to evaluate overall effectiveness.