Forensic psychology
Offender profiling
= an investigative tool employed by police when solving a crime – professional
profilers work with police especially during high profile murder cases.
Methods vary but compiling a profile usually involves scrutiny of crime scene &
analysis of evidence to generate a hypothesis about the likely characteristics of the
offender (age/background/occupation etc)
Top-down approach (=the American approach)
* Involves looking at the bigger picture before the details
* FBI developed this approach in the 1970s
* The first behaviour science unit looked at data from in-depth interviews with
36 sexually motivated serial killers including Ted Bundy & Charles Manson
* murders and rapists are usually categorised into two categories
(organised/disorganised)
Organised Crime Scene Disorganised Crime Scene
Þ Plan the crime Þ Little evidence of planning
Þ Victim is deliberately chosen. Þ Spontaneous crimes
Þ High control over the victim Þ Body left at the crime scene
Þ Detached surgical precision Þ Little evidence of control
Þ Few clues left at the crime scene
The criminals tend to be: The criminals tend to be:
Þ Above average IQ Þ Lower than average IQ
Þ Skilled professional Þ Unskilled work/unemployed
Þ Socially & sexually competent Þ Sexual dysfunction and failed relationships
Þ Married with children Þ Often lives alone/close to where the crime
took place
4 main stages in the construction of an FBI profile –
1. Data Assimilation – the profiler reviews the evidence (photos, pathology
reports).
2. Crime scene classification – organised or disorganised.
3. Crime reconstruction – formulate a hypothesis in terms of the sequence of
events (the behaviour of the victim).
4. Profile generation - formulate a hypothesis in terms of the likely offender
(background/behaviour/looks).
, AO3
However, this approach is best suited to However, it’s argued this approach is
certain scenes that reveal details about the outdated & assumes patterns of
suspect (e.g. rape, arson, cult killings & behaviour remain consistent. Alison et al
sadistic torture). More common crimes suggests it’s naïve & informed by old
(burglary/property crime) don’t lend fashioned theories of personality which
themselves to offender profiling as crime sees personality as being driven by
scene reveals very little about the offender dispositional factors rather than external
- so at best is a limited approach. factors that constantly change.
However, it can be difficult to measure the
effectiveness of any profiling technique However, evidence doesn’t support
scientifically. E.g. If 10 statements about the disorganised offender, Canter
the offender are correct & 10 aren’t - it’s studied 100 murders using the smallest
difficult to establish whether it’s a space analysis. Each was examined
successful profile - so profiling has been with reference to 39 characteristics
criticised as being too vague & little more thought to be typical of organised &
than common sense. disorganised killers. Although the
evidence did suggest evidence of a
distinct organised type, this wasn’t the
case with disorganised which seems to
However, Campbell (1976) argues undermine the classification system.
“psychologists confronted with real life Nonetheless this system is still used by
murder mystery can’t do any better than a profilers in the US & has widespread
college student, who could have done the support.
same material put in front of him.”
Categories very vague – may not help that
much at all
The bottom-up approach (the British approach)
* Developed by psychologist David Canter who proposed profiling can &
should be based on psychological theory & research
* It’s data driven rather than relying on judgements of profiler
* Starts with small details & creates the big picture – no initial assumptions are
made about the offender
* 2 examples of data driven approach – investigative profiling & geographical
profiling
Investigative psychology an attempt to use statistical procedures and psychological
theory. Statistics are used to create a prediction of behaviour that is likely to occur in
crimes. Specific details of an offence are matched to this to create details about
the offender.
, 3 main features –
Interpersonal coherence
Forensic awareness
à people are consistent in their behaviour
à certain behaviours reveal an
& so there’ll be links/correlations with
awareness of particular police
elements of the crime & how people
techniques & past experience
behave in everyday life.
à at same time people’s behaviour
E.g., David et al found rapists who
changes overtime & so looking at
conceal fingerprints often had
differences in crimes over time may offer
previous conviction for burglary
further clues
Smallest space analysis
à data about crime scenes & offender characteristics are correlated so most
common connections can be identified
E.g., Salfati & Canter analysed the co-occurrence of 48 crime scenes & offender
characteristics taken from 82 UK murder cases where the victim was a stranger.
They identified 3 underlying themes –
1. Instrumental opportunist – instrumental refers to using murder to accomplish a
goal & opportunist means they took the easiest opportunity.
2. Instrumental Cognitive means the offender had a particular concern with
being caught & so the crime was more planned out.
3. Expressive Impulsive means the offender was uncontrolled, a heat of the
moment with strong emotions, may have felt provoked by the victim.
AO3
In support, Copson surveyed 48 However, whilst data driven profiling is
UK police forces that had used more scientific than the American
investigative profiling & found approach it’s only as good as the data
over 75% of them said the that’s input & the underlying assumptions
profilers advice had been useful, used to work out links between data
however only 3% said the advice items. 1 issue being the data only relates
had actually helped to identify to offenders who’ve been caught & so
the offender - suggests the this tells us little about patterns of
method may not be that useful in behaviour related to unsolved crimes.
actually catching offenders.
Offender profiling
= an investigative tool employed by police when solving a crime – professional
profilers work with police especially during high profile murder cases.
Methods vary but compiling a profile usually involves scrutiny of crime scene &
analysis of evidence to generate a hypothesis about the likely characteristics of the
offender (age/background/occupation etc)
Top-down approach (=the American approach)
* Involves looking at the bigger picture before the details
* FBI developed this approach in the 1970s
* The first behaviour science unit looked at data from in-depth interviews with
36 sexually motivated serial killers including Ted Bundy & Charles Manson
* murders and rapists are usually categorised into two categories
(organised/disorganised)
Organised Crime Scene Disorganised Crime Scene
Þ Plan the crime Þ Little evidence of planning
Þ Victim is deliberately chosen. Þ Spontaneous crimes
Þ High control over the victim Þ Body left at the crime scene
Þ Detached surgical precision Þ Little evidence of control
Þ Few clues left at the crime scene
The criminals tend to be: The criminals tend to be:
Þ Above average IQ Þ Lower than average IQ
Þ Skilled professional Þ Unskilled work/unemployed
Þ Socially & sexually competent Þ Sexual dysfunction and failed relationships
Þ Married with children Þ Often lives alone/close to where the crime
took place
4 main stages in the construction of an FBI profile –
1. Data Assimilation – the profiler reviews the evidence (photos, pathology
reports).
2. Crime scene classification – organised or disorganised.
3. Crime reconstruction – formulate a hypothesis in terms of the sequence of
events (the behaviour of the victim).
4. Profile generation - formulate a hypothesis in terms of the likely offender
(background/behaviour/looks).
, AO3
However, this approach is best suited to However, it’s argued this approach is
certain scenes that reveal details about the outdated & assumes patterns of
suspect (e.g. rape, arson, cult killings & behaviour remain consistent. Alison et al
sadistic torture). More common crimes suggests it’s naïve & informed by old
(burglary/property crime) don’t lend fashioned theories of personality which
themselves to offender profiling as crime sees personality as being driven by
scene reveals very little about the offender dispositional factors rather than external
- so at best is a limited approach. factors that constantly change.
However, it can be difficult to measure the
effectiveness of any profiling technique However, evidence doesn’t support
scientifically. E.g. If 10 statements about the disorganised offender, Canter
the offender are correct & 10 aren’t - it’s studied 100 murders using the smallest
difficult to establish whether it’s a space analysis. Each was examined
successful profile - so profiling has been with reference to 39 characteristics
criticised as being too vague & little more thought to be typical of organised &
than common sense. disorganised killers. Although the
evidence did suggest evidence of a
distinct organised type, this wasn’t the
case with disorganised which seems to
However, Campbell (1976) argues undermine the classification system.
“psychologists confronted with real life Nonetheless this system is still used by
murder mystery can’t do any better than a profilers in the US & has widespread
college student, who could have done the support.
same material put in front of him.”
Categories very vague – may not help that
much at all
The bottom-up approach (the British approach)
* Developed by psychologist David Canter who proposed profiling can &
should be based on psychological theory & research
* It’s data driven rather than relying on judgements of profiler
* Starts with small details & creates the big picture – no initial assumptions are
made about the offender
* 2 examples of data driven approach – investigative profiling & geographical
profiling
Investigative psychology an attempt to use statistical procedures and psychological
theory. Statistics are used to create a prediction of behaviour that is likely to occur in
crimes. Specific details of an offence are matched to this to create details about
the offender.
, 3 main features –
Interpersonal coherence
Forensic awareness
à people are consistent in their behaviour
à certain behaviours reveal an
& so there’ll be links/correlations with
awareness of particular police
elements of the crime & how people
techniques & past experience
behave in everyday life.
à at same time people’s behaviour
E.g., David et al found rapists who
changes overtime & so looking at
conceal fingerprints often had
differences in crimes over time may offer
previous conviction for burglary
further clues
Smallest space analysis
à data about crime scenes & offender characteristics are correlated so most
common connections can be identified
E.g., Salfati & Canter analysed the co-occurrence of 48 crime scenes & offender
characteristics taken from 82 UK murder cases where the victim was a stranger.
They identified 3 underlying themes –
1. Instrumental opportunist – instrumental refers to using murder to accomplish a
goal & opportunist means they took the easiest opportunity.
2. Instrumental Cognitive means the offender had a particular concern with
being caught & so the crime was more planned out.
3. Expressive Impulsive means the offender was uncontrolled, a heat of the
moment with strong emotions, may have felt provoked by the victim.
AO3
In support, Copson surveyed 48 However, whilst data driven profiling is
UK police forces that had used more scientific than the American
investigative profiling & found approach it’s only as good as the data
over 75% of them said the that’s input & the underlying assumptions
profilers advice had been useful, used to work out links between data
however only 3% said the advice items. 1 issue being the data only relates
had actually helped to identify to offenders who’ve been caught & so
the offender - suggests the this tells us little about patterns of
method may not be that useful in behaviour related to unsolved crimes.
actually catching offenders.
