Forensic Psychology Lecture Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Forensic Psychology Lecture Notes PDF

Description

Forensic Psychology Lecture 1 - Forensic Psychology Exam – 2 hours in Jan (100%) Forensic psychology – applying psychological theory to criminal investigation, understanding psychological problems associated with criminal behaviour and the treatment of criminals. Legal Psychology: application of psychological knowledge/methods to the processes of the law/legal system . ‘That branch of applied psychology which is concerned with the collection, examination and presentation of evidence for judicial purposes’ (Haward 1981). Criminal Psychology: application of psychological knowledge/methods to understanding/reducing criminal behaviour. Criminal Psychology and Criminology (Lainer & Henry , 2002). Public Criminology - The engagement of criminologists/sociologists and related professionals with the public on topics concerning crime for the purposes of education (Currie, 2007; Groombridge, 2007)

Lecture 2 – Public perceptions of crime and dangerous offenders     

Child sexual abuse in the USA 1990-2012 – 62% decline. Only 4.3% by strangers 1.5million violent deaths a year – 2012 58% were suicides England 2013 – 9% of all homicides by people with mental illness, 91% by people without mental illness Most worrying issues nationally – crime and violence – GB (43%) - average 31% - Duffy et al, 2008 Confidence in the govt to crack down on crime and violence – UK (25%) - average 43% - Duffy et al, 2008

Terminology •Perceptions: sensory information which represents & helps understand environment •Attitude: summary evaluation of an object, person, situation •Public opinion: collective evaluations expressed by a population on a particular issue Why does examining public perceptions of crime and dangerous offenders matter? •Central to criminology and social psychology (O’Connell & Whelan, 1996). •Crime is a major concern (Duffy et al. 2008) •Shape policy, criminal justice, & influence politics (Green, 2006) •Influence research, popular culture, and public education •Have impact on quality of life, health, and mental health •Can affect treatment and re-integration of offenders

How are these public perceptions, attitudes, and opinions measured? •Informal methods - Elections, Media, Protests, demonstrations, vigilantism •Formal methods – Quantitative, Surveys & opinion polls, Post, telephone, internet, “intercept” •Experiments & systematic observation - Vignettes (written, video), Using behavioural indicators (e.g. head nodding), Facial electromyographic recording •Content analysis of media (column inches, time devoted) •Formal methods – Qualitative, In-depth interviews, Focus groups •Formal – mixed, Deliberative poll - Representative sample, Deliberate on current issues through smallgroup discussions & conversations with experts - create more informed and reflective public opinion What are some of these perceptions? Mental illness Internalising disorders – less likely to be violent Externalising disorders – more likely to be violent   

46% of Americans believe people with serious mental illness are far more dangerous than the general population Only 4% of violence is attributed to serious mental illness Link et al 1999 – 70% wanted social distance from people with an alcohol dependence, 90% cocaine dependence, 63% shizophrenia, 47% major depressive disorder, 29% "troubled person"

Studies analysing press coverage: 6 main findings – perceptions of mentally disorderd offenders (MDOs) 1.“Other”, monster, double trouble: “mad & bad” 2.Racism: “Big, black, and dangerous” 3.“Living in luxury” in high secure hospitals 4.Blaming external agencies (risk assessment, de •Mental health professionals & poor risk assessment •Service reforms: de-institutionalization and community services •Inadequate laws 5.Making public the private lives of MDO 6.Use of photographs (perpetrator, victim, crime location) 7.No explanation of how mental disorder was linked to homicide (Alder 2016, Cross, 2014; McKenna et al. 2007)

Sex offenders Compared to other criminals: •Most intense hostility & public condemnation •Greater degree of stigma •Most despised members of our society •Modern day “monsters” & “beasts” •Deserve harshest punishment & greatest restrictions on freedom •“Scourge” of contemporary Britain, US, etc. Distorts reality of problem •Social scientist: “moral panic” (McCartan, 2011; Pickett et al. 2013)

What shapes these perceptions? Approaches to explaining these perceptions:     

Media “Moral panics & folk devils” How characteristics of individuals and their environments shape perceptions Explanations of attitudes towards sexual offenders Study of attitude formation

Media •Multiple formats •Fast changing technology •Saturation •UK & US media-centred society •Source of most of our perceptions & attitudes about crime •Reflects , distorts, creates reality •20-40% of news, reality TV, & drama about crime Media's influence

•Subversive & crime causing? •Increases in social control, repression, punitiveness •Tabloids in the UK: “Main arena that constructs criminality” (Cross, 2014) •Agenda setting & ideology (Green, 2006) •Focus on crime incidents of an extreme nature, not patterns or analysis •“Newsworthiness”: immediacy, dramatization, personalization, titillation, novelty •Study of portrayal of victims & offenders – e.g. racism (Cross, 2014; Dowler et al. ,2006; McCartan, 2011; Reiner et al., 2002, 2007)

Moral panic Moral panic → Stanley Cohen (1972): Disproportional social reaction – fuelled by the media and helped by police, courts, and other agencies of social control – to what are perceived to be deviant activities of a particular groups or types of individuals (“folk devils”). Folk devils: •Threat to societal values & interests •Clarifies moral boundaries, reflects social anxieties •Not “myths” but over-reactions to real events & behaviour (Cohen, 1972; March and Melville, 2011)

Individuals/their environments and perceptions •Studies of the fear of crime •People less fearful in own area •Women: greater fear, focus of their fear = men •Ethnic minorities: greater fear •Gay & lesbians: greater fear •Dirt, decay, graffiti, litter.: drivers of fear Lorenc et al, 2013 •Belief in dangerousness of people with mental disorder: •Not linked to age or gender

•Lower in better educated people •Lower in UK, than China, Japan, and Pakistan •Higher in ethnic minorities in the US Jorn et al, 2012

What shapes these perceptions? Sex offenders Pickett et al. (2013): 3 possible explanation for intense hostility and punitiveness towards sexual offenders: 1. Concern for victims - Young, innocent, extremely damaging, contaminating 2. Sex offender stereotypes - Monsters, predatory outsiders who are untreatable, totally evil 3. Risk management explanation - Concern about increasing rates, difficulty in protecting one’s children → Found evidence for all three explanations, but 2. source of greatest hostility

Attitude formation and change Intra-personal processes: •Effortless, outside awareness: Mere exposure, Pairing with pleasant rewarding stimuli, Ease with which information can be processed, Effortful, conscious •Source of expertise, strength of argument (Bohner and Wanke 2009) Social interpersonal processes: Norms and social comparison Conformity, obedience and group behaviour Stereotyping and prejudice

How can they be changed? Public criminology: •Aim → to narrow gap between perception and scientific evidence (Uggen and Inderbitzen, 2010)

•Armed with peer-reviewed evidence, clear points, and plain language, criminologists have an important role to play as experts in the realm of crime and justice, giving voice to the accumulated and emerging knowledge in the field and addressing myths and misconceptions Deliberative polls – “Deliberation Day” Reform journalistic culture and standards: •“Public” or “civic” journalist; •Independent Press Standards Organisation Public education, public information campaigns •Education campaigns to reduce stigma related to mental disorder •Contact: interactions between public and stigmatized people • Protests: e-mail alert systems notifies about stigmatizing representations

Summary and conclusion Key message – big gap between perceptions and evidence Key Q – what shapes these – often distorted – perceptions? “The pattern of crime in the media is in most respects the reverse of what official statistics suggest” (Surette, 1998)

Lecture 3 – Psychological theories of crime: Biological and personality explanations of crime Biological psychology     

Mental processes and behaviors are affected by biology Nervous system – peripheral nervous system, central nervous system Brain Chemical construction of the brain and body Biology is affected by the environment

Biological theories of crime Does biology and heredity really lead to criminality and anti-social behaviour? Common myths surrounding biological explanations of crime: the criminal gene, criminality is deterministic Criminal gene – gives a reason for why people commit crime, know who the criminals are/aren't, justification for committing crime, no further investigation into why the person committed the crime, separates them from us, prevent crime?

Even if there was a biological explanation for crime – its not genetic Popularity of biological theories of crime: Academically (Miller, 1999; Lanier and Henry, 2004) In popular discourse (Ainsworth, 2000) Criminal anthropology Constitution and crime - are people of a different body type more likely to commit certain crimes? Do facial features predict criminal behaviour? Doesn't talk about social class – most criminals come from working class backgrounds, poor diets etc – scrutinized more by wider society Constitution    



J. Baptiste della Porte (1535 – 1615) Johan Caspar Lavater (1741 – 1801) - misshapen features = criminal behaviour Franz Joesph Gall (1810) Lombroso - academic/MD - forefather of criminology – criminals are fundamentally different from non-criminals in the way that they look – bigger hands/nose, eyes closer together etc – look like rugby players – problem with this – only looked at people who were criminogenic "labelling" Sheldon – 3 main body types – mesomorphic (muscluar), endomorphic, ectomorphic (thin) - fits into common notions of what criminals/offenders look like – but don't talk about body type in this way anymore

Attractiveness   

Cavior & Howard (1973) - attractiveness can result in people getting lesser sentences (jury) - jusy decision making (halo effect) Sigall & Ostrove (1978) Thompson (1990)

Genetics and crime   

  

Evidence linking genetics and anti-social/aggressive behaviour (Raine, 2002) Genetics can predispose us to certain actions but they are not predetermination (Tehrani et al, 2000) Ellis (1998) – “r/K” selection and crime. r = loads of offspring, don't look after them but hope some survive. K = parents devote more love and car towards fewer offspring, so all survive and they would be brought up well, steered away from deviant/problematic lifestyles Genetics research is: How vs. How much do genes contribute to criminal behaviour? Not the search for genetic programme codes or a criminal gene.

(Blackburn, 1993) Heredity 

Genetics and criminality are measured through a number of techniques

  

   

Twin studies Family studies Adoption studies – monozygotic twins = similar lives, similar offences. Wouldn’t be allowed to carry out studies like this today – children need to be put in the same or similar homes, so one child isn't negatively effected. Therefore begging the question of, is criminality nature or nurture? Interplay between Genetics & Environment Development and the lifespan Gender of the child

(Akers & Sellers, 2004: Blackburn, 1993: Bartol & Bartol, 2007: Lainer & Henry, 2004) Chromosome abnormalities Variations in the normal 23 chromosome pairs are the result of errors in cell division These abnormalities have been shown to result in behavioural abnormalities – e.g. more aggressive, more anti social, more criminogenic So rare in the population that it can't possibly explain all criminal behaviour XYY/XXY Gene Most common in mentally retarded people     

Price et al (1966)/ Hope et al (1967) Owen (1972) Wilkin et al (1976) Jarvik et al (1973) Dorus (1978)

Psychophysiological causes of crime Explanations based around engagement with the outside world. Automatic theory of crime (electrodermal and cardiovascular correlates) - fight or flight. People who have a reduced capacity of flight or fight are more likely to be criminogenic - not able to determine if they should be in that situation or not so leads to crime e.g. getting into fights Temperament – able to walk away from fights or not? - can lead to criminal behaviour Electrocortical correlates – psychopathy and electrocortical corrrelates - (Blackburn, 1979; Hill & Watterson, 1942; Syndulko et al, 1975) - brainwaves and the function of them. Consistent brainwaves = less likely to be deviant. Not thinking straight, not being coherent in way of thinking = more likely to be criminogenic Biochemical causes of crime Neurotransmitters – serotonin, dopamine – people with an imbalance of these neurotransmitters will be more likely to be criminogenic

Hormones – angrogens and oestrogens (Daitzman & Zuckerman, 1980; Dalen, 1961; D’Orban & Dalton, 1980; Ellis, 1987; Goodman, 1976; Mazur, 1983), adrenaline & noradrenalin (Lidberg et al,1976), insulin (Schoenthalar, 1983) Young men most likely to commit crime – going through puberty. Ages of 14-21. Come into contact with the law more, engage in more anti social behaviour. Women – oestrogen impacts mood and decision making. PMS = previously thought of as a form of insanity. Could previously be used as a way of reducing sentence. Reduced sentence for women suffering in abusive relationships. Insulin – too low or too high = poor decision making. Brain dysfunction and crime 

  

Problematic Brain Development (Ishikawa and Raine; 2004) - fetal alcohol syndome, research on mother who smoked/took drugs whilst pregnancy, peadophilila = serious head trauma before the age of 5. Learning difficulties – characterised as anti social – they think what they're doing is appropriate Epilepsy and dysfunction (Fenwick, 1990; Gunn and fenton, 1983; Whitman et al; 1984) - not always in control of what they're doing e.g. severe epilepsy – not allowed to drive Hyperactivity (Lambert, 1988; Mannuzza et al, 1989; Satterfield et al, 1982; Weiss et al, 1985) previously seen as problematic children – not able to settle down, focus. Effects decision making Neuropsychological dysfunctions (Liu et al, 2004; Millar, 1999; Raine 2002)

(Bartol and Bartol, 2007; Blackburn, 1997; Howitt, 2006; Miller, 1999) Application of biological explanations of crime   

Based upon interruptions of biological theories (Akers & Sellers, 2004) Biological causes of crime and the medical model Eugenics - Galton (1883), Racism, sexism and violation of civil liberties, Modern Eugenics (Taylor, 1983; Jeffrey, 1993; Wood et al, 1994) - used to sterilize those with mental illnesses and learning difficulties so they couldn't reproduce

(Akers & Sellers, 2004; Lainer & Henry, 2004) Link between personality and crime   

Biology, Personality and Psychopathology are all intertwined. They help shape our attitudes and behaviours. Different combinations of environmental, neurobiological and personality factors combine to give rise to different types of crime (Eysenck & Eysenck; 1973) There is a link between personality and crime, as well as between psychopathology and crime (Blackburn, 1998; Bartol & Bartol, 2008)

Theories of personality 

Personality is said to be the intersection of all psychological research (Mischel, 1993)



 

Main theories of personality (Bernstein et al, 1997; Blackburn, 1998). Trait theories (Allport; Eysenck; Costa & McCrea). Psychodynamic (Freud; Jung; Alder) Cognitive theories of personality (Rotter; Bandura; Mischel; Kohlberg; Paiget) Phenomenological theories of personality (Rodgers; Maslow) Personality and Crime

Trait theories of personality    

Allport Cattell Eysenck Costa and McCrae

(Bernstein et al., 1997; chapter 14) Trait theories of personality and crime    

Eysenck (1964, 1977) - crime = an interaction between personality and envrionment Clecky (1941) and Hare (2008) Scales (MMPI; CPI; MPQ) (Lanier and Henry, 2004) Miller and Lynam (2001)

(Ainsworth,2000; Lainer & Herny, 2004; Blackburn, 1997) Psychodynamic theories of personality Freud – impulsivity rather than crime itself. Id, ego, superego. Sex offenders – mothers presented too much love to the fetus in the womb. Harsh superego = more likely to be aggressive. Weak superego = don't buy into the moral framework. Deviant superego = ego is misshapen. Alder Jung Psychodynamic theories of personality and crime      

Freud (1915, 1950) Blackburn (1997) - 1. harsh superego, 2. weak supergo, 3. deviant superego Aichhorn (1935) Bowlby (1951, 1988) Healy & Bonner (1936) Glover (1960)

(Lainer & Herny, 2004; Blackburn, 1997) Cognitive theories of personality Cognitive Behavioural & Developmental theories of personality: Piaget

  

Rotter Bandura Mischel

(Bernstein et al, 1997; Blackburn, 1998) Cognitive developmental theories of personality & crime    

Kohlberg Blaise (1980) Delinquents will display a development mental delay, best exhibited by lower moral maturity than non-delinquents (Blackburn, 1998) Relationship between moral reasoning and offending alters with offence (Thornton, 1982, 1987)

Lecture 4 – Psychological, social and developmental explanations of crime Link between personality, psychopathology, social and developmental theories of crime Different combinations of environmental, neurobiological and personality factors combine to give rise to different types of crime (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1973) There is a link between psychopathology and crime (Blackburn, 1998; Bartol and Bartol, 2008) Mental illness more prevalent in prison than in the general population Psychopathology Explaining mental disorders (Bernstein et al., 1997)     

Supernatural influences Biological factors – chemical imbalance Psychological processes – internal turmoil Sociocultural context Diathesis-stress model

Classification of offenders DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) ICD-10 (WHO, 1992) Anxiety disorders A condition whereby the person suffers from long term and disruptive feelings of apprehension and fear. Phobia, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, PTSD & Obsessive-Compulsive disorder Somatoform disorders The individual suffers from physical symptoms that mimic a disease or injury, but there is no identifiable physical cause or physical symptoms

Conversion disorder, hypochondriasis, somatization disorder, pain disorder Dissociative disorders These are conditions that involve disruptions or breakdowns of memory, awareness, identity and/or perception. Amnesia, Dissociative identity disorder (DSM-IV-TR, 2000; ICD – 10, 1992; Bernstein et al, 1997) Mood disorders These are conditions whereby a persons mood tends to shift from one extreme to another and are inconsistent with the events around them. Depressive disorders & Bipolar disorders Schizophrenic disorders A pattern of disturbed thinking, emotion, perception and behaviour that impairs peoples ability to communicate and function normally in society. Paranoid schizophrenia, disorganised schizophrenia, catatonic schizophrenia, undifferentiated schizophrenia & residual schizophrenia Personality disorders These are long term, inflexible maladaptive modes of behaviour that affects all parts of a persons daily functioning, creating is...