Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · Forensic Psychology

PSY.OPT20 Defining and Measuring Crime, and Offender Profiling

AQA 7182 · Calculators not allowed · about 90 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer ALL questions. Show all your working.

Define historical relativism as it applies to the concept of crime in forensic psychology, giving a clear example from UK history.

Define historical relativism in the context of crime, with an example.

(Total for Question 1 is 2 marks)

Outline cultural relativism in defining crime and give a brief example showing how the same act may be criminal in one culture but not in another.

Outline cultural relativism and provide an example.

(Total for Question 2 is 2 marks)

Outline one strength of using official statistics produced by police forces to measure crime in the UK.

Outline a strength of official statistics for measuring crime.

(Total for Question 3 is 3 marks)

Outline one limitation of victim surveys as a method of measuring crime in the UK.

Outline a limitation of victim surveys for measuring crime.

(Total for Question 4 is 3 marks)

Outline one advantage of offender self-report surveys compared with official statistics when studying less serious offences.

Outline an advantage of offender self-report surveys.

(Total for Question 5 is 2 marks)

Explain what is meant by the 'dark figure' of crime and why it matters when interpreting crime statistics in the UK.

Explain the dark figure of crime and its importance.

(Total for Question 6 is 3 marks)

Outline the main behavioural characteristics of an 'organised' offender according to the top-down (US) approach to offender profiling.

Outline organised offender characteristics.

(Total for Question 7 is 4 marks)

Outline the main behavioural characteristics of a 'disorganised' offender according to the top-down approach.

Outline disorganised offender characteristics.

(Total for Question 8 is 4 marks)

Outline the concept of interpersonal coherence within the bottom-up approach to offender profiling known as investigative psychology.

Outline interpersonal coherence in investigative psychology.

(Total for Question 9 is 3 marks)

Outline what is meant by forensic awareness in bottom-up profiling and give a short example of how it might affect behaviour recorded at a crime scene.

Outline forensic awareness with an example.

(Total for Question 10 is 2 marks)

Explain the distinction between a 'marauder' and a 'commuter' in geographical profiling, and state one implication of this distinction for police searches.

Explain marauder versus commuter and an implication for police.

(Total for Question 11 is 4 marks)

You are given the following crime-scene summary. At a secluded rural track an adult male cyclist was attacked at night. The victim was restrained with ligatures, his facial injuries are severe, and some personal items were taken. A partially buried flashlight and a single boot print were found some distance from the body. There was no sexual assault. Using either the top-down organised/disorganised typology or geographical profiling (marauder versus commuter), analyse which profiling interpretation is most appropriate and justify your choice with at least two pieces of evidence from the scene. Explain how that interpretation would guide initial police enquiries.

Apply profiling to the supplied crime-scene description and explain investigative consequences.

(Total for Question 12 is 6 marks)

Discuss the strengths and limitations of offender profiling as a tool for criminal investigations. In your answer, refer to both the top-down and bottom-up approaches, use evidence or examples where appropriate, and evaluate how useful profiling is for real-world policing.

Discuss the strengths and limitations of offender profiling, covering top-down and bottom-up approaches and implications for policing.

(Total for Question 13 is 16 marks)

Mark scheme · PSY.OPT20 Defining and Measuring Crime, and Offender Profiling

Question 1

B1 definition: the idea that what counts as a crime changes over time, depending on historical social norms and laws oe
B1 example: e.g. homosexuality was illegal in the UK until the late 20th century, so behaviour considered criminal then is not criminal now oe
Answer: Historical relativism: the view that crime is defined differently at different times; for example, homosexual acts were criminal in the UK in the past but are not today.

Question 2

B1 outline: cultural relativism is the idea that definitions of crime vary between cultures, depending on local norms and values oe
B1 example: e.g. in some countries drinking alcohol may be illegal or heavily restricted while in others it is lawful and socially accepted oe
Answer: Cultural relativism: crime definitions depend on cultural norms; for example, alcohol consumption may be legal and normal in one country but illegal in another.

Question 3

M1 identifies a strength, e.g. they provide consistent, standardised records over time across large areas oe
A1 explains how this helps, e.g. allows trends to be tracked and resources to be allocated by police and policymakers oe
A1 adds consequence: this can support planning and comparison between regions oe
Answer: Official statistics are routinely collected and standardised, allowing trends to be tracked over time and comparisons across regions, which helps police and policymakers allocate resources.

Question 4

M1 identifies a limitation, e.g. they rely on recall and honesty so memory errors and dishonesty can bias results oe
A1 explains impact, e.g. victims may forget details or under-report incidents such as sexual offences, leading to an underestimation of true crime levels oe
A1 links to consequence, e.g. this affects the accuracy of the dark figure estimate and policy responses oe
Answer: Victim surveys rely on respondents remembering and reporting incidents; memory errors or under-reporting of sensitive crimes can bias results, meaning victim surveys may still underestimate true crime.

Question 5

B1 advantage: they can reveal offences not recorded by police, capturing part of the dark figure of crime oe
B1 brief explanation: useful for studying minor or hidden offences that do not usually lead to arrest oe
Answer: Self-report surveys can uncover offences that were not recorded by police, helping researchers study minor or hidden offending that official statistics miss.

Question 6

M1 defines the dark figure: offences that occur but are not reported to or recorded by the police oe
A1 explains why it matters: it means official statistics underrepresent true crime levels and may mislead policymakers oe
A1 gives consequence: reliance on official figures alone can lead to poor resource allocation or misunderstood crime patterns oe
Answer: The dark figure refers to crimes that go unreported or unrecorded; it matters because official statistics then understate true crime levels, potentially misleading policy and policing decisions.

Question 7

M1 identifies organised features such as planned crime, control at the scene, and the offender bringing tools or restraints oe
A1 identifies further features: above-average intelligence or social competence and attempts to avoid detection oe
A1 explains that organised offenders often leave little forensic evidence and may target victims selectively oe
A1 links traits to the typology: organised suggests premeditation and social competence rather than impulsivity oe
Answer: Organised offenders are thought to plan their crimes, show control at the scene, bring tools or restraints, select victims, have social competence and attempt to avoid detection, often leaving little forensic trace.

Question 8

M1 identifies disorganised features such as spontaneous, impulsive behaviour and little or no planning oe
A1 identifies further features: chaotic crime scene, body left in view, minimal attempt to conceal evidence oe
A1 explains that disorganised offenders are thought to have lower social competence and possible mental health issues oe
A1 links traits to typology: disorganised suggests lack of control and more likely to leave forensic clues oe
Answer: Disorganised offenders are seen as impulsive and unplanned, leaving chaotic scenes and little attempt to conceal the body, often displaying lower social competence and leaving more forensic evidence.

Question 9

M1 identifies interpersonal coherence: behaviour at the crime scene reflects the offender's everyday interactions and personality oe
A1 explains that analysts infer habitual interpersonal style from victim interactions, e.g. level of control or intimacy oe
A1 gives consequence: this helps link crime behaviour to likely characteristics or routines of the offender oe
Answer: Interpersonal coherence is the idea that an offender's behaviour during a crime reflects their normal interpersonal style, so analysts infer personality or habitual interaction patterns from how the offender treated the victim.

Question 10

B1 definition: forensic awareness is when an offender has knowledge of police procedures and takes steps to avoid detection oe
B1 example: e.g. wearing gloves or wiping surfaces to remove fingerprints, or staging the scene to mislead investigators oe
Answer: Forensic awareness is when an offender knows about police methods and tries to hide evidence, for example by wearing gloves, removing traces, or staging the scene.

Question 11

M1 explains marauder: offender operates close to their home or base, leaving offences clustered near the offender's anchor point oe
A1 explains commuter: offender travels from their base to offend, producing crime sites further from their home and less clustered oe
A1 states implication: for a marauder focus searches and enquiries close to offence cluster, for a commuter expand radius and look for travel routes oe
A1 adds reasoning: this guides resource deployment and screening of local CCTV and witness accounts oe
Answer: A marauder operates near their home so offences are clustered close together; a commuter travels to offend so sites are more dispersed. Police therefore concentrate local searches and enquiries for marauders but examine travel routes and wider areas for commuters.

Question 12

M1 chooses a profiling approach and gives initial justification, e.g. top-down organised preferred because scene shows control and planning oe
A1 uses evidence 1: restraint with ligatures and removal of personal items indicates planning and attempt to control victim, supporting organised interpretation oe
A1 uses evidence 2: partially buried flashlight and single boot print suggest offender attempted to hide or transport items and took steps to avoid detection, supporting organisation and forensic awareness oe
A1 explains investigative consequence 1: treat suspect as likely to be organised so check for people with forensic awareness, search for ownership of similar boots and for missing flashlights in local property oe
A1 explains investigative consequence 2: if using geographical profiling, evidence of single isolated scene near rural track could suggest commuter if offender travelled there, so enquiries should include travel routes and recent visitors to the area; if organised and local, focus on nearby residents with relevant knowledge oe
A1 links interpretation to priority actions: prioritise forensic analysis of prints and the boot, check CCTV on access routes and interview people with relevant skills or missing items oe
Answer: An organised top-down interpretation fits because restraint and control, removal of items, and attempts to hide a flashlight suggest planning and forensic awareness; investigators should therefore treat the suspect as organised, check for people with relevant skills or possessions (similar boots, missing torch), and prioritise forensic trace analysis. Alternatively, if geographical profiling is used, the rural isolated site could indicate a commuter who travelled there, so enquiries should also examine travel patterns and visitors to the area; if seen as a marauder then focus on local residents and nearby CCTV.

Question 13

Level 4 (13-16): Knowledge of offender profiling is accurate and detailed. Discussion evaluates both top-down and bottom-up approaches using empirical evidence and methodological critique. Arguments are balanced and interactive, considering practical utility, limitations such as scientific basis and reliability, and ethical or operational implications. The answer is coherent, focused and uses specialist terminology effectively.
Level 3 (9-12): Knowledge is generally accurate with some detail. Discussion includes strengths and limitations of one or both approaches and offers some evaluation, but may be less well balanced or detailed. Some application to policing practice is included. The answer is mostly clear and organised.
Level 2 (5-8): Knowledge is present but limited. Evaluation is superficial or one-sided. Few links to evidence or practical implications are made. The answer may lack organisation and use specialist terms inconsistently.
Level 1 (1-4): Knowledge is minimal and largely descriptive. Little or no critical evaluation or application to policing. The answer is fragmentary or list-like.
Level 0 (0): No creditworthy material.
Indicative content:
- AO1: Top-down approach origins and claims: developed from US FBI work with crime scene classification into organised and disorganised offenders, producing offender profiles that infer personality and background.
- AO1: Bottom-up approaches: investigative psychology builds profiles from statistical analysis of multiple offences and behaviours, focusing on interpersonal coherence and forensic awareness; geographical profiling analyses spatial patterns distinguishing marauders and commuters.
- AO3: Strengths supporting profiling: bottom-up approaches are more empirical and use data from many cases, allowing probabilistic, testable inferences; investigative psychology links behaviour to likely routines, aiding operational decision-making.
- AO3: Empirical support and limitations: some studies show useful investigative leads from bottom-up profiling, whereas top-down typology has been criticised for lacking empirical foundation and being based on anecdotal interviews with a limited sample.
- AO3: Methodological critiques: problems of validity and reliability, e.g. circularity in some top-down profiles, lack of inter-rater reliability, small or biased samples in original top-down work, and difficulties in testing many profiler predictions objectively.
- AO3: Practical utility: profiling can prioritise enquiries and narrow suspect pools, saving resources, but over-reliance can misdirect investigations when profiles are inaccurate; examples where profiling helped and where it may have hindered should be discussed.
- AO3: Ethical and legal concerns: risk of bias, stereotyping and confirmation bias leading to miscarriages of justice; importance of integrating profiling with traditional evidence and forensic science.
- AO3: Integration and improvement: combining bottom-up statistical methods with forensic evidence, ongoing validation, and training can increase usefulness; use of geographic information systems and behavioural databases improves accuracy.
- AO3: Conclusion: balanced judgement weighing profiling as a useful adjunct, especially bottom-up, but not a standalone solution; highlight need for empirical validation, caution in application and combination with other investigative methods.

Defining and Measuring Crime, and Offender Profiling - Worksheets, Questions and Revision