AQA Forensic Psychology - Questions and Answers Measuring crime: victim surveys Ask sample of ppl to identify which crimes (reported and unreported) have
... [Show More] been committed against them over a fixed period of time. British crime survey repeated every year and involves a sample of 50000 households aged 16+ Measuring crime: victim survey evaluation ✅ potential to provide info about the 'dark figure' of unreported crime BUT depends on honesty- some ppl may not report outcomes with a stigma attached e.g. Rape ✅more consistent than official stats as official stats vary with changes in laws and reporting practices ❌random sampling- final sample is biased as only 75% of those contacted take part therefore only ppl that respond may have time on their hand and want to uphold the law. Sample only drawn from those with a postal address ❌no of crimes reported by 1 person is capped at 5 in one year- underestimate of crime Measuring crime: offender surveys OCJS carried out annually from 2003-2006. Increased knowledge about young ppl and criminal behaviour Randomly selected members of population asked about crimes they have committed Measuring crime: offender surveys evaluation ❌self report- lack of accuracy and ppl may under report ❌perpetrators of more serious crimes are more likely to have been detected and convicted, removing them from sampling frame Measuring crime: official stats Info based on any incident reported to police or when police observe/ discover an offence Measuring crime: official stats evaluation ✅figures give an indication of whether crime is increasing or decreasing and allow geographical areas to be compared ✅give a good indication of police work load ❌biased- ppl may not report a crime, too much hassle avoid contact with authorities, scared of consequences of reporting ❌figures tend to underestimate extent of the crime ❌Walker et al (06) only 42% of crimes reported in BCS were reported to police- dark figure if unreported crime
Offender profiling Help identify suspects, creates and idea of offenders likely characteristics Offender profiling: Top down Top down approach (FBI) Based on 36 interviews with serial rapists and killers- insight into behav Typology approach- matched to preexisting template Organised (planned crime, intelligent) and disorganised offenders Douglas et al (86) 4 stages to a profile 1) data assimilation 2) classification 3)crime reconstruction 4)profile created Offender profiling: top down evaluation: canter ❌Canter (04) Analysed 100 murders in US. Examined against organised and disorganised type. Evidence of an organised but no disorganised Not generalisable to every crime Only in US Small sample Offender profiling: top down evaluation: outdated model ❌outdated model of personality Behaviour and motivation change over time and context Too fixed- crimes change over time/ cultural factors and economics of country Offender profiling: top down evaluation: copson ✅Copson (95) Useful- questioned 184 police officers and 82% said it was useful and 90% would use it again BUT doesn't always lead to identification- only in 3% of cases Offender profiling: top down evaluation: based on 36 interviews ❌Based on 36 interviews with killers Self report Offender profiling: top down evaluation: Douglas et al ❌Douglas et al (86) Aim of offender profiling is misrepresented. Offender profiling not meant to indemnity a particular person but a type of person Offender profiling: bottom up approach Canter- uses investigative psychology more than FBI. Includes data from crime scene to develop hypothesis about offenders characteristics. Behav patterns likely to exist across crime scenes compared to stats database. Interpersonal coherence- how offender
behaves at crime Geographical profiling- uses crime location to identify where offender may live Centre of gravity- area where offender commits crime (circle theory) Offender profiling: bottom up approach evaluation: wider app ✅Analysis can be used for a wide range of offences [Show Less]