Philosophers and jurists have been grappling with criminal law for centuries. According to the American Psychological Association (2013, forensic psychology is the application and integration of psychology into the criminal justice system. Wrightsman (2002) defines it as the application and production of psychological knowledge within the criminal and civil justice system. This essay aims to explain the importance of forensics psychology in the criminal justice system. This essay examines and evaluates two methods for offender-profile evaluation. The course will also explain the psychological influences on jury decisions.
The FBI coined the term “offender profiling” to describe a method used by law-enforcement agencies in order to identify suspects. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) coined the term. It is a method of describing an offender using the crime scene, victim and any available evidence. This is one the most misunderstood and controversial areas of criminal detection.
The US (Top Down) approach is what Americans use to profile an offender. The research began in 1970s with Ressler’s team of experts at the Behavioural Research Unit. They were well-versed in sexual crime, homicide and family backgrounds. In order to analyse the crimes of 36 serial killers, they conducted an in depth interview. These included Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and other sexually-oriented murderers. The FBI classified serious crimes such a murder and rape in categories based on forensic evidence or the victim’s information. These two categories were meant to show different criminal characteristics. Organised crimes would show evidence of planning. The characteristics of the criminal would then be similar to those above. In contrast, a disorganised crime would not have planned attacks and do them haphazardly. It is also more likely that the victim knows who they are.
This classification analysis would provide a possible description of the criminal. It’s called a ‘Top Down” approach because the profile is generated from preexisting classification categories. The FBI went on to further develop four stages of developing a criminal profile using their crime analyses. Jackson and Bekerian (2007) describe the stages of crime analysis as follows: 1. Data assimilation – where information is gathered from various sources, such as autopsy reports and photos. 2. Crime classification – which is a categorisation of crimes into organised and disorganised. 3. Crime reconstruction – the process of developing a hypothesis regarding the behaviour and sequence of events of the victim or offender. This is followed by the generation of a profile, including suggestions for the offender’s age and social class. The offender. US approach is criticised on many fronts. It is limited to certain crimes that leave evidence, and it only applies to multiple crimes such as paedophilia, serial murder, and rape. The technique is only used for crimes like burglary because there are so few of them.
It was also a weakness that the US approach used a poor method. They interviewed only three serial murderers, rather than a larger group of criminals. This meant they were not sure if the interviewees would be trustworthy and reliable. Samples could include the exact same criminals. Therefore, generalisations for all crime sites are not possible. There were no standardised interviews and the questions asked varied. The classification method was poor because it relied on those who had been arrested and could ask questions about how they differed from friends or colleagues. A weakness of the US (top down) approach is that it was overly simplistic. This was because the validity and accuracy of the categories, organised or disorganised, had been questioned. Organised crimes scenes do not necessarily indicate an organised criminal. Canter et.al (2001) analysed evidence in hundreds of murders. They found no distinct subset characteristics because it was difficult to put people into pre-existing groups. Crime scenes could be disorganised, and offenders may have been slightly organised. Douglas, (1991) said that the method was useful in helping to solve horrific crimes. This approach could be useful in saving lives, such as the serial killer Arthur Shawcross. It’s possible to make quick profiles and guesses about who the perpetrator is.
It was adopted for its non-uniformity and because it was a good example of the UK approach. The UK’s (bottom-up approach) is more scientific than FBI because it is based more on psychological theories, such as theories of sociocognition that explain how and why criminal behavior varies. The UK approach is based on the idea that the most important thing to look at are the similarities between offenders, not the differences.
The UK’s approach has been dubbed bottom-up as it builds profiles from data collected at crime scenes. This is why it comes from the bottom. David CAnter stated that there are differences in the amount of violence used and the control exercised by some offenders, particularly in rape. However, some offenders tend to behave consistently with their victims in their everyday life. Some rapists may be violent, while others less so. Interpersonal coherence is the explanation for a controlling rapist. David Canter, a UK-based expert in profiling cases, identified three key themes. The first was interpersonal coherence. This is the type and selection of victim as well as the treatment the victim receives from the offender. Which of these three themes is first? Second, the importance of time and location. This is when and where the crime occurs and may provide clues as to the perpetrator. Mental maps are used to determine the location of the offender and their previous experience. As an example, a marauder will assume that the criminal will leave their home base to commit crimes. A commuter is someone who will travel a long distance before engaging in criminal activities. Thirdly, the offender’s forensic awareness is a key factor. If the criminals are known to have been previously interrogated, this theme will examine patterns and variations. These crimes could leave a trace. Offenders who conceal evidence could also be a sign of previous convictions. Davies et.al., for instance. The study (1997) concluded that rapists with concealed fingerprints were more likely to be convicted of burglary. A thorough police record check may be worth it in these cases.
David Canter’s ‘Bottom-Up’ in the UK was pioneered with the rapist on the railway. It was the first case known in Britain that directly helped police. This was the result from 24 sexual assaults, 3 murders, and a series of incidents that took place in London around railway station over a four-year period. The same man was assumed to have committed all the attacks, whether he worked alone or with someone else. Canter’s investigation was based on the psychology principle that people influence one another and that differences in attacks that involved a single man and those that they both were involved could provide clues. The behaviour of people changes over the years, so a study of the differences between 1982 and 1996 could give clues about the perpetrators. The offender was 1505th in the list of 2000 suspecteds before the profile. The police narrowed down the list by using Canter’s three-key themes and Canter profiling. Canter’s Profiling Methodology supports UK Profiling Methods. The UK (Bottom) showed that different types rapes supported by good evidence were identified using characteristics of the crime.
Bottom-up is also more objective, scientific and grounded in psychological theory. It is less focused on guesses and suspicions. It is not clear if it can be used for all crimes, since it depends on the behaviour of offenders. Is it effective for serious crimes such as burglary, sexual assault and theft? In this section of the essay, we will discuss the impact of defendant characteristics on jury decisions. This includes ethnicity, attractiveness, age and gender. Duncan (1976) changed the ethnicity of both defendants and victims in a videotape depicting a violent situation. Duncan found that more blacks were convicted for ambiguous pushing than whites. A black individual was deemed to have committed the act more violently than a person of white ethnicity. Blacks were deemed more violent. Baldwin and Moonville (both 1979) concluded that blacks were more likely to have been wrongly convicted. Pfeiffer, Ogloff and their colleagues (1991), in a mock-jury situation, found that there were racial differences. In a case of rape, the white participants more often judged a black defendant guilty than a victim who was white. The effect was most pronounced when the victim in question was white. The effect vanished when asked to justify the decision, suggesting that stereotyping was at play.
A defendant’s physical attractiveness can also influence the decision of a jury. The argument is that attractive people tend to be viewed as less criminal. Dion Berschied and Hatfeild coined in 1972 the phrase “what’s good is beautiful.” They wanted to prove that attractive people had a distinct advantage. Stewart (1985), in another study, found that the attractiveness of a criminal defendant was correlated with the severity of punishment. The more attractive a person is the lower the sentence. Saladin, et.al. (1988), asked participants to rate the men’s photos on their capability of committing murder and armed burglary. The results revealed that attractive people were less likely commit crimes. This is limited by the fact that attractive people who appear to take advantage of their looks, such as coning others, lose this halo effect. This research may be biased in the sense that it may exclude studies that show no relationship between defendants’ features and jury verdicts.
Other psychological factors can also influence the decision-making process of a jury, such as conformity or majority pressure, or the horns/halo effects. Solomon Ach’s experiment on the conformity of majority pressure was designed to determine how individuals respond when they are placed in a non-ambiguous situation. Solomon Ach wanted to know how people would respond to a question that was obviously incorrect and whether they would continue to repeat the mistake. The answer would either confirm or be independent. He hypothesized that most people would not accept something clearly incorrect. Smith and Mackie suggest that there may be factors behind the influence of the majority viewpoint. Hinsz (1994) found that more diverse views led to greater changes. Deeper discussion is another factor. Stasser & Stewart (1992), for example, gave information to the group and to an individual. They focused only on the information that was shared and ignored non-shared information when instructed to do so. Kerr and al (1987) also found that knowing you have the support of a majority leads to more persuasive, forthright views.
The labeling theory also influences jury decisions. It is argued that people become more recognizable and behave differently based on how they are labeled by others. Labels are powerful and can override statuses, such as father or spouse. Becker, 1963 said that labeling could change someone’s social status. After seeing other people with similar values and identities, they end up making self-fulfilling prophecies. The jury will then be influenced by the fact that someone has been labeled as a criminal. It’s the same for expert testimony. Once a deviant is labeled, it’s hard to remove.
One could argue that forensic psychological investigations are very effective. It assists investigations by analyzing the psychology of criminals, discovering reasons for their crimes, and creating theories. The forensic psychology system is a blend of criminal justice and psychology. It is through forensic psychology that not only can crimes be investigated, but the perpetrators are also identified. Forensic psychological tests can also be used to determine whether a person is guilty or innocent.
Forensic psychology is a major contributor to policing. Take, for instance, offender profiles. It was proven that offender profiling had a greater benefit than identifying the perpetrator. Instead it provided unbiased second opinions to help find new approaches. It is indirectly, not directly, that profiling helps solve crimes. Legal decisions are based more on intuition than experience. However, they are not accurate. Forensic psychology helps to get a deeper look at the issue. It also identified methods for improving witness testimony. This included improving identification reliability, such as improving identikits. Eyewitness testimony was also considered as it may be inaccurate because of memory errors. There is a lack of consistency in UK’s approach at present, making it difficult to make an overall assessment.
