2. Specification
• Problems in defining crime. Ways of measuring crime, including official statistics,
victim surveys and offender surveys.
• Offender profiling: the top-down approach, including organised and disorganised
types of offender; the bottom-up approach, including investigative Psychology;
geographical profiling.
• Biological explanations of offending behaviour: an historical approach (atavistic
form); genetics and neural explanations.
• Psychological explanations of offending behaviour: Eysenck’s theory of the
criminal personality; cognitive explanations; level of moral reasoning and
cognitive distortions, including hostile attribution bias and minimalisation;
differential association theory; psychodynamic explanations.
• Dealing with offending behaviour: the aims of custodial sentencing and the
psychological effects of custodial sentencing. Recidivism. Behaviour modification
in custody. Anger management and restorative justice programmes.
3. Crime
• There are problems with defining crime
• Crime – acts that breaks the law.
• There are different crime definitions across countries e.g. forced marriage is illegal in the UK now.
• Definitions of crime change over time. E.g. homosexuality was a crime until 1967.
• Ways of measuring crimes:
• Official statistics – government records of official figures.
• Underestimates crime (75% unreported = dark figure)
• Victim surveys – randomly selected households questionaired .
• Greater degree of accuracy
• Rely on recall and can be inaccurate so figures can be distorted.
• Offender surveys – likely committers self report committed crimes.
• Provide insight
• May conceal crimes or exaggerate them.
• Middle class crimes are under-represented.
• Political parties only show the parts that are good for their party – figures cant be trusted.
• A multidisciplinary approach combines all measures to get a more reliable statistic.
4. Offender profiling – top-down approach(US)
• All evidence is analysed to generate possible characteristics.
• Only applies to particular crimes, common offences (burglary) do not tell us about the offender.
• Criminals are classified by their ways of working (typologies):
• Organised – evidence of planning, high degree of control, high IQ, married. – Ted Bundy
• Disorganised – spontaneous, little control, low IQ, failed relationships.
• Analysis of 100 murders found that there was not a distinct disorganised type.
• Too simplistic – a lot show characteristics from both that the model cant explain.
• Developed from a small unrepresentative sample.
• Cant rely on self report data from criminals.
• Stages of profile construction:
1. Data assimilation – review evidence.
2. Crime scene classification – organised or disorganised?
3. Crime reconstruction – generation of hypothesis about event.
4. Profile generation – generation of hypothesis about offender.
• Based on the assumption that patterns of behaviour are the same across all contexts – may have
poor validity in predicting next move.
5. Offender profiling – bottom-up approach (UK)
• Investigative psychology:
• Doesn’t begin with typologies, the profile is data driven and the profile is found through analysis of evidence.
• Statistical analysis – detects patterns of behaviour across crime database.
• Interpersonal coherence – the way an offender behaves at the scene (how they interact with the victim may reflect their real life
interactions).
• Geographical profiling:
• Inferences can be made based on location (crime mapping) to work out habits.
• There are two types of offender:
• Marauder – operates close to home
• Commuter – travelled
• Circle theory states that their crimes are likely to form a circle around their base. This can also lead to insight of the nature of
offence.
• Content analysis study supports this, disposal sites of bodies were plotted and their base was often in the centre.
• In a content analysis of multiple rapists, common characteristics were found – this supports the usefulness as it
shows statistical techniques can be applied.
• Bottom up approach is more scientific and objective as it works on evidence rather than hunches.
• There have been significant failures that have lad investigations wrongly. It is useful in 83% but accurate in 3% -
questions effectiveness.
• Can be applied to a range of offences (e.g. burglary) so is a more valuable investigative technique.
6. Biological explanation – atavistic form
• Lombroso proposed that criminals lack evolutionary development and have an innate tendency to turn to
crime (atavistic form).
• His research found 40% of criminal acts could be accounted for by people with the atavistic form.
• This laid the foundations of criminal profiling.
• Physiological markers – biologically determined characteristics (often linked to certain crimes).
• Narrow sloping brow
• Strong jaw
• High cheekbones
• Facial asymmetry
• Curly hair, dark skin
• Criminal slang, tattoos, unemployment
• Racial undertones as some characteristics are most likely found in African descent.
• There is contradictory evidence when comparing criminals and non-criminals physically.
• Lombroso didn't’t use a control group, and there were confounding variables (psychological disorders) - methodological
issues.
• Generally lower IQ is found which supports the idea of a sub-species.
• Order of causation is a problem, they may have these features due to the lifestyle not their biology.
7. Biological explanation – genetic and neural
• Genetic:
• Lange did a study in which twins with one member was in prison. 10/13 MZ twins had the other twin in prison, with only 2/17 DZ twins.
• Judgement of types of twins was based on appearance.
• Concordance rates may be due to shared learning experiences.
• Study of adoptees with biological parent in prison showed 50% higher chance of criminal record by 18.
• Candidate genes found by analysis of offenders:
• MOAO (MOAOM) gene – linked to aggressive behaviour as controls serotonin and dopamine.
• CDH13 gene – linked to substance abuse and attention deficit disorder.
• Combination of both lead to higher likeliness of having a history of violent disorder.
• Methodological problems with adoption studies due to individual differences meaning nature and nurture cant be split (time spent with biological parent).
• Diathesis-stress model – influence is likely to be triggered by environment.
• Evidence – conviction rate of adoptees rises as we go from neither adoptive nor biological parent having convictions, to just biological parents, to both biological and
adoptive. – suggests highest rates with both.
• Neural:
• Anti-social personality disorder (ADP) is associated with lack of empathy and is suffered by many criminals.
• Raine found less brain activity and an 11% reduction in grey matter in prefrontal cortex of those with ADP. This is the part of the brain that regulates
emotion.
• Mirror neurons (neurons that act when a person does or observes an action) may not be turned on. They can empathise but only when asked to which
indicates a switch mechanism.
• Biologically reductionist – reducing behaviour to this level makes it too simplistic alone. Yes, criminality runs in families but so does poverty.
This makes it hard to separate the genetic and neural explanations from other factors.
• Biologically determinist – criminal gene idea creates problems with personal responsibility which could lead to a eugenics movement
against people with these gene mutations or disorders.
• Mobley’s lawyers used that he had 4 generations of violent crime family history in his murder case but failed.
• Bayout’s sentence was cut by one year when the judge learnt he had a mutated gene – real world application.
8. Psychological Explanation – Eysenck’s Theory
• 3 dimensions of that combine to make personality measured by Eysenck’s personality inventory (EPI):
• Introversion – extroversion (E)
• Extraverts have an underactive nervous system so seek stimulation.
• Little evidence from EEGs of more arousal in extroverts.
• A Hispanic study showed criminal group was less extroverted than control – cultural bias – low generalisability.
• Neuroticism – stability (N)
• Neurotic individuals highly reactive sympathetic nervous systems so are jumpy and anxious, so over-react in threatfull situations.
• Psychoticism – socialisation (P)
• Psychotic individuals are prone to aggressive behaviour and lack empathy.
• A combination of P, N, and E makes a criminal personality type.
• Supporting evidence – prisoners scored higher on E,N, and P than control – supports prediction.
• Another study said prisoners scored higher on P but not N or E.
• He suggests that personality is inherited in the nervous system (biological basis).
• Fits with biological approaches as recognises genetic basis.
• Biologically reductionist and determinist.
• Criminal behaviour is concerned with immediate gratification (immature). This is something we learn to delay as we
mature. Eysenck said people with high E and N scores lack the ability to learn, so also don’t learn anxiety responses
to antisocial behaviour.
• Eysenck’s personality test is out of step with modern personality theories, and there are different types of offenders
(individual differences).
• We cannot reduce personality type to a score, personality even changes in different contexts e.g. social influence.
This undermines whole theory of measuring personality.
9. Psychological Explanation – Cognitive
• Level of moral reasoning:
• Kohlberg proposed stages of moral development measured by a moral dilemmas (E.g. should Heinz steal the expensive drug
for his dying wife):
1. Pre-conventional - avoiding punishment and gaining rewards, less mature, child-like reasoning, egocentric.
2. Conventional – exhibit more honest, sympathetic and generous behaviours.
3. Post-conventional
• Another study using dilemmas showed offenders showed less less mature moral reasoning.
• Post-conventional stage should be abandoned as it is culturally bias towards western cultures.
• Individual differences – type of moral development isn't the same for all criminals, impulsive acts are less likely to show pre-
conventional moral reasoning e.g. assault unlike robbery.
• Cognitive distortions:
• Faulty thinking occurs more in criminals where they misread situations and thereby justify their behaviour.
• Hostile attribution bias – ambiguous facial expressions were judged as threatening, which can trigger disproportionate
responses.
• Minimalisation – reduces sense of guilt as they downplay significance of crime.
• In child molesting 36% say the victim consented.
• Understanding cognitive distortions helps treat criminal behaviour with CBT helping them to face up to their behaviour with
a less distorted view.
• Cognitive explanations are descriptive not explanatory – give us no underlying cause.
10. Psychological Explanation – Differential Association
• Sutherland’s theory suggests individuals learn the attitudes towards criminal behaviour through association
and interaction.
• Criminality arises from:
1. Learned attitudes towards crime.
2. Learning of specific criminal acts and techniques.
• Crime occurs if exposure to pro-crime values outweigh anti-crime values.
• By working out frequency, intensity, ad duration of exposure to pro-crime values we can mathematically work out likeliness
of offending.
• Difficult to test the theory with measurements.
• Theory can account for why so many criminals reoffend as they are exposed to pro-criminal attitudes in
prison.
• High explanatory power - theory can account for all sorts of crime e.g. corporate.
• Sutherland moved criminology away form biological determinism that pointed to weakness or immorality of
certain people, so offers better solution than eugenics.
• Evidence that criminality runs in families could point to genetic explanations rather than learning.
• Environmentally deterministic.
11. Psychological Explanation - Psychodynamic
1. The superego is guided by the morality principle which leads to feelings of guilt and pride. An
inadequate superego can lead to immoral behaviour as the ID is free. The superego is formed due to
the Oedipus complex.
• 3 types of inadequate superego:
• Weak superego – absence of same sex parent so no identification opportunity, so child cannot internalise fully formed
superego.
• Psychodynamic approach assumes girls develop weaker superegos as they have less need to identify with their mother as they don’t suffer
castration anxiety.
• Should mean females are more prone to criminal behaviour – not the case.
• Contradictory evidence – children raised without same sex parent aren't less law-abiding.
• Deviant superego – child internalises deviant parental moral values (criminal parent) wrongdoing isn't associated with
guilt.
• If children raised by deviant parents go on to commit crime it could be genetic.
• Over-harsh superego – criminal acts satisfy need for punishment due to a strict superego
• Unscientific as lacks falsifiability.
2. Loss of attachment (maternal deprivation) leads to affectionless psychopathy – Bowlby.
• 44 thieves study – 14 showed affectionless psychopathy 12 of these suffered prolonged separation in critical period.
• Bowlby methodological issues – researcher bias – undermines backing up evidence.
• Analysis showed that deprivation was a poor predictor of offending behaviour.
• Any correlation could be to do with alternative explanations so can’t say there is a causal link.
• All the explanations look at development from younger age, if all combined a better understanding can be gained.
12. Dealing With Behaviour – Custodial Sentencing
• Aims of sentencing:
• Deterrence – unpleasant experience puts the individual and the wider population off offending.
• Incapacitation – removing the danger to society.
• Retribution – revenge against the offender.
• Rehabilitation – reforms the offender.
• Psychological effects of custodial sentencing:
• Stress and depression – suicide rates are highest in prisons.
• Institutionalisation – inability to function outside of prison.
• Prisonisation – bad behaviours are encouraged in prison by other inmates.
• E.g. conforming to social roles – Zimbardo / psychiatric ward
• Recidivism rates are high in the UK – 57% reoffend within a year. Rates are lower in Norway where there is
emphasis on rehabilitation.
• Individual differences – general conclusions can’t be drawn as offenders may react in different ways,
schemes may vary, pre-existing vulnerabilities.
• Rehabilitation can occur in prisons due to schemes like anger management and education.
• Inconclusive long term evidence.
• Prisons become universities for crime – they learn off each other so reoffending is more likely.
• Alternatives work better, however government cant implement them as they would look too soft.
13. Dealing With Behaviour – Behaviour Modification
• Behaviourist approach says that behaviour is learned so can be unlearned.
• Token economy:
• This is based on operant conditioning
• Desirable behaviour is reinforced with tokens (secondary reinforcer) that can be exchanged for primary
reinforcers e.g. food.
• Desirable behaviours are broken down into increments (steps), and staff grade them every day on how well
they have followed these steps.
• Prison staff must all selectively reinforce the identified behaviours.
• Hobbs & Holt – training school for adolescent delinquents.
• Easy to implement as it doesn't need specialists so is also cost effective.
• Effectiveness is lowered when staff aren't consistent so must be trained effectively.
• Individual differences.
• Effects can be maximised by tailored programmes so everyone can respond
• Law abiding behaviour isn't positively rewarded on the outside so any effects are lost. – little rehabilitative
value.
• Ethical issues – withdrawal of tokens may be unfair and take away ‘privileges’ (phone calls home), it also
seems dehumanising and manipulative.
• Learning is only superficial and passive and only looks at surface behaviours. – offenders regress back to their
original behaviour.
14. Dealing With Behaviour – Anger Management
• Cognitive factors trigger aggression. Aggression arises in anxiety-inducing situations so the person feels in control and are positively reinforced
by this (behaviourist).
• Multidisciplinary approach tells us why AND how to combat, and acknowledges complexity.
• Anger management programmes are a form of CBT, the individual is taught to recognise cognitive triggers and develop behavioural techniques
to bring about resolution.
• Stages:
1. Identify triggers
2. Skills to avoid them
3. Application practice roleplay
• Artificial – no real trigger – questions effectiveness.
• Keen et al showed evidence of it working with young offenders. To begin with it wasn't taken seriously, 8 sessions later there was increased self-
control.
• Tackles causes and thought processes unlike token, leading to lower recidivism rates.
• Evidence for reduction of recidivism in short term but little evidence in long term.
• Too simplistic - anger may not be the cause of offending, other motives like money may cause aggressive behaviour (individual differences).
• Fails to cater for everyone.
• High expense and commitment from both sides needed for success.
• Ethics – therapists putting themselves in danger during roleplay.
15. Dealing With Behaviour – Restorative Justice
• Crime is seen as against an individual (to give them closure) rather than against the state (to enforce law).
• The offender takes responsibility and sees the effects of their actions and can empathise with the victim.
• This is supervised by a trained mediator.
• Expensive specialised people, and high drop out rates lead to cost inefficiency.
• Studies show that it would save money through reduced offending.
• “crime hurts, justice should heal” – Braithwaite
• Key features:
1. Focus on responsibility being taken.
2. Voluntary meeting in non-courtroom situations.
3. Active rather than passive involvement.
4. Focus on positive outcomes
• Variations:
• Offender may make financial repay or physically repair damages e.g. burglary.
• May be used as an incentive to reduce sentence.
• Restorative Justice Council (RJC) establishes clear standards.
• There is flexibility in how they can be tailored to the individual.
• It relies on good intentions from both sides: the offender showing remorse (some may just sign up for reduced sentence so it doesn't
work), and the victim not seeking revenge of their own.
• Wouldn’t work for all offences e.g. domestic violence where the abuser blames the victim.
• They are seen as a soft option so doesn't receive public support, politics gain votes by seeming tough on crimes.
