Unit 5: Forensic Psychology 12 hrs

Forensic Psychology- Meaning; origin of legal psychology; Eyewitness memory- an

early model of memory, strength, and validity of the evidence; Psychology of confession-
voluntary false confession, interrogational tactics, coerced false confession; Psychology
of investigation- cognitive interview, detecting lies and deception, offender profiling and
case study; criminological psychology- violent offenders, working with offenders.
THE MEANING OF ‘FORENSIC’
According to The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, ‘forensic’ means ‘Of, used in, courts
of law’. So, strictly speaking, forensic psychology is the application of psychology to matters
concerning the court of law. Wrightsman’s Forensic Psychology takes just this approach in
proposing that ‘Forensic psychology is reflected by any application of psychological
knowledge or methods to the task facing the legal system’ (2001, p. 2). This correct usage of
the term ‘forensic’ is similarly reflected in other texts given specifically to forensic
psychology (Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998) or more generally to psychology and law
(Bartol & Bartol, 1994; Kapardis, 1997; Stephenson, 1992).
Forensic psychology’ has also come to be used in a much broader sense – when psychology
is associated with any topic even remotely related to crime, such as the development of
antisocial behavior, the study of different types of offenders, and crime prevention. This
improper use of the term ‘forensic’ has, rightly, met with disapproval (Blackburn, 1996), but
its use has become widespread. The topic of forensic psychology can be distinguished
between legal psychology – which can be thought of in terms of Wrightman’s definition –
and criminological psychology – the application of psychological knowledge and methods to
the study of crime and criminal behavior.
Criminological psychology is the application of psychology to enrich our understanding of
crime and criminal behavior. Legal psychology is the application of psychology to matters of
concern in a court of law.
EARLY ORIGINS OF LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY
Hugo Münsterberg (1863–1916) is often referred to as the founding father of forensic
psychology. A German psychologist, Münsterberg was invited to America in 1892 by
William James to set up a psychological laboratory at Harvard University. Münsterberg’s
insistence that psychology could be applied to education, industry, and law was variously
applauded as inspired by his supporters or derided as opportunistic by his critics. During the
First World War, his political views (as seen in his pro-German sympathies, and a
critical stance that he adopted to American involvement in the war) led to his becoming a
social and academic outcast.
L. R. C. Haward (1920 – 98) can rightly be acclaimed as the first major figure in British
forensic psychology. A clinical psychologist by training, Lionel Haward saw the potential for
psychology to inform legal proceedings. He published on the topic of forensic psychology in
the 1950s – well before The British Psychological Society formed the Division of
Criminological and Legal Psychology (now the Division of Forensic Psychology) – and in
1981 he wrote the classic text Forensic Psychology. Alongside his academic work, he
appeared as an expert witness in many cases, including the infamous 1960s trial of the
underground magazine Oz.
EYE WITNESS MEMORY, EARLY MODELS, STRENGTH, AND VALIDITY.
Eyewitness testimony
The evidence given by witnesses to a crime is typically in the form of a verbal account or
personal identification. The capacity and fallibility of human memory was one of the first
areas of investigation in psychological research. Through careful experimental work, several
distinguished scholars, including Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850 –1909), began to unravel some
of the fundamental properties of memory functioning (Ebbinghaus, 1885/1994). One model
that emerged from this early work described the three memory stages of
 Acquisition (when memories are formed),
 Retention (holding them in storage) and
 Retrieval (fetching them from storage). The study of eyewitness memory was one of
the first topics to be scrutinized when forensic psychology began to establish towards
the end of the 19th Century.
As mentioned on the history of forensic psychology page, the first recorded example of a
psychologist acting as an expert witness in a court of law was in 1896 when Albert Von
Schrenk-Notzing testified at the trial of a man accused of murdering three women. Drawing
on research into memory and suggestibility he argued that pre-trial publicity meant that
witnesses could not distinguish between what they actually saw and what had been reported
in the press The formal study of eyewitness memory is usually undertaken within the broader
category of cognitive processes. Cognitive processes refer to all the different ways in which
we make sense of the world around us.
We do this by employing the mental skills at our disposal such as thinking, perception,
memory, awareness, reasoning, and judgment. Although cognitive processes can only be
inferred and cannot be seen directly, they all have very important practical implications
within a legal context. If you accept that the way we think, perceive, reason, and judge is not
always perfect then it’s easy to understand why cognitive processes and the factors
influencing these processes are studied by psychologists in matters of law; not least because
of the grave implications that this imperfection can have within the criminal justice system.
The study of witness memory has dominated this realm of investigation and for a very good
reason because as Huff and Rattner note: The single most important factor contributing to
wrongful conviction is eyewitness misidentification

The role of the expert witness

As a professional chartered or registered psychologist, forensic psychologists are often called
upon to provide reports on particular individuals for court hearings. For example, in a legal
context, a forensic evaluation may subsequently be used to assist the court in making an
appropriate decision regarding family, civil or criminal matters. A forensic psychologist
might be called to give expert evidence on the accuracy of eyewitness memory, the likelihood
of a false confession, or the reliability of children as witnesses when subjected to certain
questioning procedures. The evaluation of the client provided by the forensic psychologist
will often involve characterizing the relationship between psychological factors and relevant
legal issues. For example, what is the forensic psychologist’s sessions should be noted? Any
recommendations that are made (for example, concerning rehabilitation) must be legally
sound, and practical and involve services that are widely available in the individual’s local
community.
Forensic psychologists should be able to defend their conclusions logically. The psychologist
must use explanations that can be understood by non-psychologists, such as the judge,
barristers, and, of course, members of the jury. The relevant issues should therefore be
presented clearly and simply, but without ‘dumbing down’. This takes great skill on the part
of the forensic psychologist. The conclusions and recommendations of the forensic
psychologist should assist the relevant person or agency in reaching a decision, and should
not add unnecessary confusion to that process.
In addition to having a relevant training and education background, it is therefore critical for
psychologists who undertake forensic evaluations to possess excellent assessment and
communication skills. They must also have experience and/or thorough training in
completing psychological evaluations in a legal setting so that they will not be ‘fazed’ by the
process. Lawyers engaged in cross-examination can be hostile and seek to undermine the
credibility of the psychologists’ professional opinions. ‘Wherever possible, stick to the facts’
is a piece of advice frequently offered to individuals who are presenting in court.
Psychologists offering a professional opinion in court are protected by the court and therefore
cannot be sued for defamation. Nevertheless, they should evaluate the core facts of the case
to reach a professionally informed opinion regarding the psychological issues only. As with
any professional, psychologists should not offer opinions outside their area of expertise. For
example, they should not speculate on whether a defective mechanism in the workplace may
have contributed to the event they have identified; this would be the province of another
forensic professional.

Acquisition
Research has also considered the effect of particular types of crime. For example, can
witnesses to a violent crime be as accurate as witnesses to a non-violent crime? Controlled
experimental studies, typically during which witnesses see videotaped crimes of varying
degrees of violence, suggest that violence results in poorer witness accuracy (Clifford &
Hollin, 1981). But strangely, field studies of real-life witnesses suggest that those who are
exposed to highly violent events can give very accurate testimony (Yuille & Cutshall, 1986).
Indeed, adult victims of rape usually give a reasonably accurate account of this extreme
personal experience of violence. (Koss, Tromp & Tharan, 1995).

Retention
During the retention stage, witness memory may be subject to various influences, such as
discussion with other witnesses and exposure to media accounts of the crime, not to mention
the fact that memory becomes less accurate over time. So the time interval between
acquisition and retrieval is an obvious consideration. Several studies have compared the
accuracy of eyewitness face identification over short and long time intervals. Malpass and
Devine (1981), for example, chose short (three-day) and long (five-month) intervals. It was
found that after three days there were no false identifications, but after five months the rate of
false identifications had risen. Conversely, the rate of correct identifications was initially high
but fell significantly after five months.

Retrieval
Finally, during the retrieval stage, factors that potentially influence the accuracy of
eyewitness testimony include an interview style and the use of aids to recall, such as the
photofit and identity parades. Studies of the impact of leading questions show that even
subtle changes in question-wording can influence testimony. For example, Loftus and Palmer
(1974) asked witnesses to a filmed traffic accident to estimate the speed of the cars when
‘they – into each other’: for different groups of witnesses the blank read ‘contacted’, ‘hit’,
‘bumped’, ‘collided’ or ‘smashed’. The witnesses’ estimates of the speed increased according
to the level of force implied by the verb contained in the question. Leading questions contain
information (either intentionally or unintentionally) that can bias the respondent’s reply

The Strength and Validity of the Evidence

Narby, Cutler, and Penrod (1996) have created three categories of witness-related evidence
based on reliability and magnitude of effect:
· Reliable and strong factors that show consistent effects on eyewitness memory (e.g.
there are differences in memory performance between adult and child witnesses; if a person is
wearing a disguise, such as a hat, this influences the accuracy of memory; and the length of
time, termed ‘exposure duration’, that the witness has to observe an incident);
· Reliable and moderate factors that show effects in some studies but not in others (e.g.
the match between the level of confidence a witness has in their memory and how accurate it
is; weapon focus; and crime seriousness); and
· Weak or non-influential factors that have little or no effect on witness accuracy (e.g.
witness gender; the personality of the witness; and (within limits) the witness’s level of
intelligence).
Because a crime is an unexpected event (at least to an eyewitness). One can draw a natural
distinction between variables that reflect the witness’ unplanned situational or cognitive state
at the time of the crime and variables that reflect controllable conditions and internal states
following the witnessed events.
Researchers categorize these factors, respectively as
 Estimator variables
 System variables
· Estimator variables include such things as the viewing conditions (e.g., lighting,
distance, duration),
· Presence of distracting stimuli (e.g., weapons, bright lights, loud noises),
· And internal states of the observer (e.g., attention, motivation, skill, prejudice).
The criminal justice system has no control over these variables but they must be taken into
account.
System variables, by contrast, are those that can be controlled by the criminal justice system
and include such things
1. How a lineup is presented to an eyewitness,
2. The instructions that are given,
3. And whether the lineup administrator is blind to the status of the lineup participants.
Eyewitness testimony reflects a decision made by a human observer based on things seen and
remembered. It naturally follows that a causal and predictive understanding of why
eyewitnesses make errors depends upon an appreciation of how human vision and memory
work.

Why do Eyewitnesses fail?

The information perceived by an eyewitness is stored in memory, where it is made available
for retrieval when called upon to identify a suspect. This type of memory is declarative, in
that it consists of consciously accessible semantic and episodic content: the things perceived,
their meaning, and sequence over time. It is mediated by brain systems different from those
involved in visual perception and operates with different dynamics, but its products are
similarly influenced by uncertainty, bias, and confidence.

THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND CONFESSION

Confessions have played a multifaceted role throughout history. There are three venues of
human social encounters in which one person’s confession to another person has proved
important: religion, psychotherapy, and criminal justice. In religion, the scene of the penitent
with the Catholic priest, occurring inside a small, private, and hallowed stall known as a
confessional, serves as a reminder that all of the world’s major religions advise or oblige
adherents to confess their transgressions as a means of moral cleansing. In psychotherapy, the
image of the emotionally distressed patient lying on a couch, often in tears, while disclosing
personal secrets to a therapist illustrates the widely held belief in the healing power of
‘‘opening up’’ the past—including memories of one’s actual or imagined misdeeds. In
criminal justice, of course, the classic image of the beleaguered suspect being grilled behind a
locked door and under the bright light of the interrogation room serves as a stark reminder
that, in law, confession is the most potent evidence of guilt. The purposes served by these
confessions are twofold: to cleanse the individual’s soul and to police the community, thus
serving as a deterrent to wrongdoing. Religions vary as to how, when, where, and to whom
confessions are given, and even whether they are made in private or in public. Recent
research confirms the healing power of opening up about one’s problems, traumas, and
transgressions.
In a series of controlled experiments, Pennebaker (1997, 2002) and other investigators. Other
studies, too, have shown that keeping confessional secrets can be stressful and that ‘‘letting
go’’ can have therapeutic effects on health—especially when the events in question are
highly traumatic (Smyth, 1998).

Confession in Psychotherapy
La Barre (1964) found that many natives of North and South America believed that physical
and mental health required purity, which in turn required the exposure of misdeeds—often
through elaborate confession ceremonies involving shamans and witch doctors. Similar
notions have permeated Western medicine, as when Breuer and Freud (1895/1955) observed
from psychotherapy sessions that patients often felt better after purging the mind of material
buried beneath consciousness. This discovery spawned Freudian psychoanalysis, the first
systematic ‘‘talking cure,’’ and now forms the basis for most modern psychotherapies and
social support groups. Recent research confirms the healing power of opening up about one’s
problems, traumas, and transgressions. In a series of controlled experiments, Pennebaker
(1997, 2002) and other investigators had research subjects talk into a tape recorder or write
either about past traumas or about trivial daily events. While speaking or writing, subjects in
the trauma group were physiologically aroused and upset. Many tearfully recounted deaths,
accidents, failures, personal wrongdoings, and instances of physical or sexual abuse. Soon,
however, these subjects felt better. Although systolic blood pressure levels rose during the
disclosures, they later dipped below pre-experiment levels. Moreover, these subjects
exhibited a decline in doctor visits over the next 6 months.

Confession in Criminal Law

In criminal law, confession evidence is the government’s most potent weapon—so much so,
as one prominent legal scholar put it, that ‘‘the introduction of a confession makes the other
aspects of a trial in court superfluous’’ (McCormick, 1972, p. 316). To guard the integrity of
the criminal justice system, to protect citizens against violations of their constitutional rights,
and to minimize the risk that innocent people are induced to confess to crimes they did not
commit, many countries have set guidelines for the admission of confession evidence at trial.
In the 21st century, confessions are not accepted or rejected outright. Instead, they are
considered on a case-by-case basis, evaluated by a ‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ and the
requirement that they be voluntary. Hence, confessions are supposed to be excluded if
elicited by brute force; by deprivation of food, sleep, or other biological needs; by threats of
punishment or harm; by promises of immunity or leniency in prosecution; or without
apprising a suspect of his or her legal rights (as we discuss shortly, however, some egregious
tactics are permitted by the Legal Jurisprudence by different countries)

Voluntary false confession

Voluntary false confessions are those that are given freely, without police prompting.
Sometimes they may be sacrificial, to divert attention from the actual person who committed
the crime. For instance, a parent might confess to save their child from jail. In some cases,
people have falsely confessed to having committed notorious crimes simply for the attention
that they receive from such a confession. Compliant false confessions are given to escape a
stressful situation, avoid punishment, or gain a promised or implied reward. An example of a
stressful situation is the typical setting of a police interrogation; these are often conducted in
stark rooms with no windows or objects other than a table and two chairs.
A false confession is an admission (“I did it”) plus a post-admission narrative (a detailed
description of how and why the crime occurred) of a crime that the confessor did not
commit. Social science research on wrongful convictions has demonstrated that there are
four ways to prove a confession is false:
(1) When it can be objectively established that the suspect confessed to a crime that did not
happen (e.g., the presumed murder victim is found alive.
(2) When it can be objectively established that the defendant could not have committed the
crime because it would have been physically impossible to have done so (e.g., he was in
another location at the time of the crime.
(3) When the true perpetrator of a crime is identified and his guilt can be objectively
established.
(4) When scientific evidence, in recent years most commonly DNA evidence, conclusively
establishes the confessor's innocence.
Despite these four possibilities, only a small number of alleged false confessions contain
independent case evidence or circumstances that allow the confessor to prove his innocence
beyond dispute. Researchers have documented approximately 300 proven false confessions in
recent decades. Researchers have also categorized cases involving likely, but non-proven,
false confessions as highly probable or probable false confessions.
Despite substantial documentation and analysis by scholars, the phenomenon of police-
induced false confessions remains counterintuitive to most people. Most lay people believe in
what has been referred to as the myth of psychological interrogation: that an innocent person
will not falsely confess to police unless he is physically tortured or mentally ill. This belief
has been noted by several scholars and documented in public surveys.
The myth of psychological interrogation persists because most people do not know what
occurs during police interrogations, and because they wrongly assume that individuals do not
act against their self-interest or engage in self-destructive behavior, such as falsely confessing
to a crime that they did not commit.
Interrogational tactics
The conduct of police interrogation of suspects varies from country to country. However,
some psychological principles can be applied whenever one person is seeking information
from another, irrespective of location.

Interrogational tactics
The laws relating to the conduct of police interrogation of suspects vary from country to
country. But some psychological principles can be applied whenever one person is seeking
information from another, irrespective of location
Suspects may spend time isolated in police cells before and during interrogation, an
experience that can be frightening and stressful (Irving, 1986). For some, this situation may
create psychological distress or exacerbate existing psychological and emotional conditions.
Police interrogation manuals from both Britain (Walkley, 1987) and America (Inbau, Reid,
& Buckley, 1986) tell us that, from a policy perspective, the interrogator must overcome the
suspect’s natural resistance, to tell the truth, and so must be skilled in the use of strategies to
persuade the suspect to confess. These interrogational tactics, based on the social psychology
of conformity, obedience, and persuasion increase the pressure on suspects so that they will
fall into line with the

Here is a list of the most common interrogation tactics followed in India.

Exaggerating the strength of their case: They tell you that they have recordings,
fingerprints, documents, eyewitnesses, etc. All of this may be true or all may be false but you
simply don’t know because you are isolated. They try and get to you as soon as possible to
play on your fears and work that confused state of mind to their advantage.
Good cop, bad cop: this is an age-old tactic. The police will work in teams of the good cop
and bad cop. The bad cop will shout at you and attempt to intimidate you, and may even
rough you up. The good cop walks in and will apply the healing solution. He may even yell at
the bad cop. Apart from exchanging pleasantries, speak to him about all other things at your
own risk.
Comparison: They will convince you that they think you are the least to blame for what
happened and that, therefore, you will not suffer as severe a sentence. It’s the other guys they
are after and if you cooperate, they will put a good word in for you.
Small talk/Chit chatting: What is critical to getting the ultimate admission is to get you
talking in the first place – about anything – usually in a “friendly” manner. They will try and
find something that you have in common and just have a regular conversation. Then, when
you feel comfortable just talking, they will move into the area of the crime. It’s the old story
about the frog – try and place him in the boiling pot and he will jump out immediately. But
put him in a cold pot and then slowly turn up the heat, he will die before he knows what
happened to him.
Separation: if the accused, like in most 498A cases, belongs to a family, then the family
members may be separated and each will be told that the other confessed. Watch out for this.
This is the most pernicious tactic in my opinion.
Threats And Intimidation: This is the standard operating procedure. The police may
threaten to book you under more charges. Wish them the best. These charges need to be
proven in court and lies don’t stand up to impartial, intelligent scrutiny. There will be threats
of physical violence, direct or suggested. Just stand up to it.
Promises: They will cut a “deal” with you or “put a good word in” for you. Don’t be fooled.
They have no power whatsoever to make deals – only prosecutors can do that and, even then,
the judge is never bound by any bargain.
Investigation techniques

Coerced False Confession

Coerced false confession refers to a situation in forensic psychology where an individual
admits to committing a crime they did not commit due to psychological coercion or
manipulation during an interrogation process. It is a concerning phenomenon that can lead to
wrongful convictions.
Several factors can contribute to coerced false confessions:
1. Interrogation techniques: Certain interrogation techniques, such as prolonged questioning,
sleep deprivation, threats, or promises of leniency, can increase the risk of a false confession,
especially when used on vulnerable individuals like juveniles, individuals with intellectual
disabilities, or those with mental health issues.
2. Confirmation bias: Investigators may fall victim to confirmation bias, where they focus on
evidence that confirms their initial suspicion and ignore or discount evidence that contradicts
it, leading them to coerce a confession through suggestive questioning or other tactics.
3. Social influence: Social influence tactics, such as portraying confession as the only way to
avoid harsher consequences or appealing to an individual's desire to please authority figures,
can lead to false admissions of guilt.
4. Cognitive vulnerabilities: Individuals with cognitive vulnerabilities, such as those with low
intelligence, suggestibility, or compliance tendencies, may be more susceptible to coerced
false confessions.
The consequences of coerced false confessions can be severe, leading to wrongful
convictions, lost years of freedom, and erosion of public trust in the justice system. To
mitigate this risk, many jurisdictions have implemented safeguards such as mandatory
recording of interrogations, limiting the use of certain interrogation techniques, and providing
access to legal counsel during questioning.
Forensic psychologists play a crucial role in identifying and evaluating cases of potential
coerced false confessions, assessing the psychological vulnerabilities of the accused, and
educating law enforcement and legal professionals about the risks and prevention strategies.

THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW

Interviews are one of the most common ways of gathering information across a range of
settings for a variety of reasons (Memon & Bull, 1999). In the context of crime investigation,
information was encoded, and the witness should have facilitated access to stored memories,
improving the accuracy and completeness of recall. (Fisher et al., 1994).Reverse order – the
witness is encouraged to begin their description of an event from different starting points
(such as a mid-point), or to start at the end and work backward to the beginning. Change
perspective – witnesses are encouraged to try to give an account of the event from the point
of view of another person, such as another witness or the victim. Techniques 3 and 4 are
intended to encourage witnesses to try to use many different paths to retrieve information
from memory. According to Milne and Bull (1999), the weight of evidence shows that the
cognitive interview elicits more correct (that is, truthful) information than other types of
interviews.

DETECTING LIES AND DECEIT

Kassin (1997) cites several examples taken from police training manuals that suggest
suspects’ verbal and nonverbal cues can be read to determine if they are lying. Empirical
evidence suggests that even skilled questioners are not good at detecting deceit simply based
on a suspect’s verbal and non-verbal cues (Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991). Vrij (2000)
suggested that most liars are caught because it becomes too difficult to continue to lie, and
they have not made sufficient preparations to avoid detection. Vrij lists seven qualities that
make a good liar as follows
• having a well-prepared story;
• being original in what is said;
• thinking quickly when the need arises;
• eloquence in storytelling;
• having a good memory for what has been said previously;
• not experiencing emotions such as fear or guilt while lying and
• Good acting ability.

Statement Validity Assessment (SVA).

Originally developed as a clinical tool for analyzing children’s statements in cases of sexual
abuse (Undeutsch, 1982), SVA consists of three elements:
A statement is taken in a structured interview.
The content of the statement is judged by the forensic psychologist in a criterion-based
content analysis (CBCA). These content criteria are concerned with the general
characteristics of the statement (such as whether it has a logical structure), the specific
contents of the statement (such as descriptions of events and people), motivation-related
content (such as the admission of a lack of memory) and offense-specific elements
(concerning the fine details of the offense).
The CBCA is necessarily subjective, and needs to be evaluated against a standard set of
questions set in the ‘validity checklist’ (Raskin & Esplin, 1991). This checklist raises
questions about the conclusions drawn from the analysis.
In other words, the content analysis itself is put to the test by systematic consideration of
interviewee characteristics. The interviewee’s psychological and motivational characteristics,
the characteristics of the interview, and a ‘reality check’ against other forensic evidence are
all examined.

OFFENDER PROFILING
Offender profiling means constructing a picture of an offender’s characteristics from their
modus operandi together with the clues left at the crime scene. Offender profiling would be
high on the list of most forensic psychologists as our knowledge base increases, it is likely
that the technique will become increasingly sophisticated (Ainsworth, 2001; Jackson &
Bekerian, 1997). Turvey (2000) distinguishes inductive and deductive methods of profiling.
Inductive methods rely on the expert skills and knowledge of the profiler – a method often
referred to as ‘clinical’ in style. Deductive methods rely on forensic evidence, such as crime
scene characteristics and offense-related empirical data – an approach often referred to as
‘statistical’.

Profiling criminals from the crime scene

In the late 1880s, forensic pathologists were trying to link a series of crimes by the similarity
of crime scene characteristics, such as the nature of a victim’s wounds. More recently, the
American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) pioneered an investigative system based on
central features (such as the details of a crime scene and forensic evidence) to construct a
profile of the psychological and behavioral characteristics of the criminal (Douglas et al.,
1986). While forensic evidence can yield many clues, the starting point for the FBI was to use
the crime scene to construct a picture of the type of person who committed the offense. This
approach yielded various classifications of types of offender associated with their
psychological characteristics.

The FBI framework, ‘organized’ and ‘disorganized

An organized offender will plan the offense, be careful not to leave evidence, and target the
victim. The disorganized offender will seemingly offend at random, use a weapon that is
discarded near the scene of the crime, and make few attempts to hide evidence or potential
clues. In terms of psychological characteristics, the organized offender is seen as intelligent
and socially adjusted, although this apparent normality can mask a psychopathic personality.
The disorganized offender is said to be less intelligent and socially isolated, may have mental
health problems, and is likely to offend when in a state of panic.
The obvious criticism of such distinctions ( the FBI approach more generally) is that they are
inductive, highly subjective, and lacking in robust empirical validation.

Profiling from empirical data.

This method is to look to empirical data, rather than an expert’s opinion, to construct profiles.
It emphasizes the rigorous gathering of data about the crime from multiple sources (such as
geographical location and victim statements), the application of complex statistical analyses
to databases of crime scene details (and other forensic evidence), and attempts to build a
profile of the offender with theoretical integrity

Empirical data application

Canter and Heritage (1990) analyzed data from over 60 cases of sexual assault and were able
to identify over 30 offense characteristics, such as level of violence, use of a weapon, type of
assault, and use of threats. Statistical analyses were used to search for relationships and
patterns between the factors and to build up characteristic profiles of types of sexual assault.

CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
Criminology is the study of the causes of crime and ways to prevent and control it. Criminal
psychology focuses on studying the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of criminals. A
criminologist might ask questions such as, "Is poverty a driving force behind high crime
rates? while a criminal psychologist might ask "What mental illnesses does Mr. Smith, who
committed a crime, suffer from?" In the 1930s, the focus in mainstream criminology shifted
from the individual to society, and the psychological theories of criminal behavior held little
sway compared to sociological theories. However since the 1990s, there has been an
increasing dialogue between the disciplines as the study of the individual once again becomes
a concern in criminology (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2001).

Violent offenders.
A recent World Health Report (Krug et al., 2002) referred to violence as a global public
health problem’. Contemporary psychological theory characterizes violence in this context in
terms of an interaction between the qualities of the individual and the characteristics of their
environment.

Development of Violent Behavior

Nietzel, Hasemann, and Lynam (1999) developed a model based on four sequential stages
across the lifespan. This is an excellent example of an attempt to integrate social,
environmental, and individual factors to characterize the key factors underlying violence.
(Aetiology the cause, set of causes, or manner of causation of a disease or condition.) "The
importance of sunlight in the etiology of melanoma"

Social information processing

There is evidence that aggressive young people search for and encode fewer social cues than
their non-aggressive peers (Dodge & Newman, 1981) and pay more attention to cues at
the end of an interaction (Crick & Dodge, 1994). This misperception may in turn lead to
misattribution of intent so that the actions of other people are mistakenly seen as hostile or
threatening (Akhtar & Bradley, 1991; Crick & Dodge, 1996).

Social problem solving

Working out how best to respond to a situation is a cognitive ability often referred to as social
problem-solving. It involves generating feasible courses of action, considering potential
alternatives and they are likely consequences, and making plans for achieving the desired
outcome (Spivack, Platt & Shure, 1976. Studies suggest that violent people show
restricted problem-solving ability and consider fewer consequences than non-violent people
(Slaby & Guerra, 1988). This sequence of cognitive events culminates in violent behavior,
which the violent person may view as an acceptable, legitimate form of conduct (Slaby &
Guerra, 1988).

The role of anger

Cognitions interact with emotions and anger (particularly dysfunctional anger) is the
emotional state most frequently associated with violent behavior (Blackburn, 1993). Anger
may be said to be dysfunctional when it has significant negative consequences for the
individual or other people (Swaffer & Hollin, 2001) Anger is not the principal cause of
violence, all violent offenders are not necessarily angry, but clearly, it is a consideration in
understanding violence.

Taxonomy of anger
The most influential theory of anger is Novaco’s (1975). According to Novaco, for someone
to become angry,
The environmental event must first trigger distinctive patterns of physiological and cognitive
arousal. This trigger usually lies in the individual’s perception of the words and actions of
another person. When one becomes angry, physiological and cognitive processes are kicked
into action. Increased autonomic nervous system activity includes a rise in body temperature,
perspiration, muscular tension, and increased cardiovascular activity.
The relevant cognitive processes (Novaco & Welsh, 1989) involve various types of
information-processing biases concerned with the encoding of interpretation and triggering
cues.
Attentional cueing is the tendency to see hostility and provocation in the words and actions
of other people,
An attribution error occurs when the individual believes that his or her behavior is
determined by the situation, but that the behavior of other people is explained by their
personality
· The progression from anger to violence is associated with the dis-inhibition of internal
control, which can result from factors such as high levels of physiological arousal, the
perception that there is little chance of being apprehended or punished, and the perpetrator’s
use of drugs or alcohol.

Moral reasoning
Research into the relationship between moral reasoning and offending (Palmer, 2003).
Gibbs has examined the specific association between moral reasoning and violent behavior,
focusing on the bridge between theories of social has examined the specific association
between moral reasoning and violent behavior, focusing on the bridge between theories of
social /of social information processing and moral development. Gibbs and colleagues
suggest that this bridge takes the form of cognitive distortions (Gibbs, 1993; Goldstein, Glick
& Gibbs, 1998) by which we rationalize or mislabel our behavior. Cognitive distortion my
distorted rationalization might be that ‘he was asking for it It’s also seen in my biased
interpretation of the consequences of my behavior.

Working with offenders

Our understanding of antisocial and criminal behavior has developed, moving from
psychodynamic psychotherapy, through group therapy, to behavior modification. Approaches
to working with offenders have also changed as our understanding of antisocial and criminal
behavior has increased phenomenally.
(Hollin, 2001, has documented the struggle between proponents of treatment and advocates
of punishment.) Since the mid-1990s, there has been a renewed interest in the treatment
approach, stimulated by a clutch of studies using meta-analysis.
Offender profiling means constructing a picture of an offender’s characteristics from their
modus operandi together with the clues left at the crime scene. Offender profiling would be
high on the list of most forensic psychologists as our knowledge base increases, it is likely
that the technique will become increasingly sophisticated (Ainsworth, 2001; Jackson &
Bekerian, 1997). Turvey (2000) distinguishes inductive and deductive methods of profiling.
Inductive methods rely on the expert skills and knowledge of the profiler – a method often
referred to as ‘clinical’ in style. Deductive methods rely on forensic evidence, such as crime
scene characteristics and offense-related empirical data – an approach often referred to as
‘statistical’.

Profiling criminals from the crime scene

In the late 1880s, forensic pathologists were trying to link a series of crimes by the similarity
of crime scene characteristics, such as the nature of a victim’s wounds. More recently, the
American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) pioneered an investigative system based on
central features (such as the details of a crime scene and forensic evidence) to construct a
profile of the psychological and behavioral characteristics of the criminal (Douglas et al.,
1986). While forensic evidence can yield many clues, the starting point for the FBI was to use
the crime scene to construct a picture of the type of person who committed the offense. This
approach yielded various classifications of types of offender associated with their
psychological characteristics.