Forensic and criminal investigation - Unit 7- Offender Profiling Infogram
● Description of each offender profiling method
● Why the methods are an important tool to use as part of the process of
● identifying an offender.
● Serious crimes these offender profiling methods have been used to
● investigate, and how successful the method used was.
● Examples of cases where offender profiling methods have not been
● successful and why the methods were unsuccessful in identifying the
● perpetrator.
An investigative technique used by the police to solve crimes is using offender profiling. The
purpose is to narrow all enquiries and the list of suspects. There are a few methods used,
but each involves careful scrutiny of the crime scene and evidence.
Bottom Up Approach: (British method)
The Bottom Up approach was developed in the UK. This method aims to create a profile of
the offender by completing all available evidence. Unlike the US’ using typologies to match
to the offender, the Bottom Up method emerges solely from the evidence of the case.
David Canter developed the criminal consistency hypothesis, this
suggests that criminals have consistencies in their behaviours. It
suggests a profiler should be able to draw parallels between the
offender's everyday life and their criminal behaviours and activities.
Canter’s approach feels that categorising offenders is unnecessary as
each offender is distinctive in their criminal nature. This is proven by
his Commuter’s and Marauder’s ideology. He identified that
“Commuter’s” are criminals who travel far away from their everyday life
and location to commit crimes. Whereas “Marauder’s” are criminals
who commit crimes within their everyday life and location.
The Bottom Up Approach is a useful tool in identifying offenders as it focuses on evidence of
the case, to then support the consistency hypothesis. This approach focuses much more on
the scientific and not the motives. Whilst the evidence is the main focus when building an
offender profile, the evidence is collected to support the hypothesis and categorise the
offender based on their behaviours. This approach is surrounded by details of the crime and
the offender. Therefore, data analysis is required, and so this approach isn’t reductionist
(breaking down human nature into smaller components) like theTop Down Approach.
David Canter looked for offenders behaviour consistencies during the crime’s to create a
greater understanding of the offender. His most famous case is the “Railway Rapist”, John
Duffy. John Duffy carried out 24 sexual attacks and 3 murders of women near the North
London railway station in the 1980’s.
John Duffy was originally believed to commit his crimes alone, after further investigation, the
police were sure he had an accomplice. After 15 years, forensic science allowed the police
to arrest David Mulcahy, childhood friend of Duffy, who was eventually convicted and proved
● Description of each offender profiling method
● Why the methods are an important tool to use as part of the process of
● identifying an offender.
● Serious crimes these offender profiling methods have been used to
● investigate, and how successful the method used was.
● Examples of cases where offender profiling methods have not been
● successful and why the methods were unsuccessful in identifying the
● perpetrator.
An investigative technique used by the police to solve crimes is using offender profiling. The
purpose is to narrow all enquiries and the list of suspects. There are a few methods used,
but each involves careful scrutiny of the crime scene and evidence.
Bottom Up Approach: (British method)
The Bottom Up approach was developed in the UK. This method aims to create a profile of
the offender by completing all available evidence. Unlike the US’ using typologies to match
to the offender, the Bottom Up method emerges solely from the evidence of the case.
David Canter developed the criminal consistency hypothesis, this
suggests that criminals have consistencies in their behaviours. It
suggests a profiler should be able to draw parallels between the
offender's everyday life and their criminal behaviours and activities.
Canter’s approach feels that categorising offenders is unnecessary as
each offender is distinctive in their criminal nature. This is proven by
his Commuter’s and Marauder’s ideology. He identified that
“Commuter’s” are criminals who travel far away from their everyday life
and location to commit crimes. Whereas “Marauder’s” are criminals
who commit crimes within their everyday life and location.
The Bottom Up Approach is a useful tool in identifying offenders as it focuses on evidence of
the case, to then support the consistency hypothesis. This approach focuses much more on
the scientific and not the motives. Whilst the evidence is the main focus when building an
offender profile, the evidence is collected to support the hypothesis and categorise the
offender based on their behaviours. This approach is surrounded by details of the crime and
the offender. Therefore, data analysis is required, and so this approach isn’t reductionist
(breaking down human nature into smaller components) like theTop Down Approach.
David Canter looked for offenders behaviour consistencies during the crime’s to create a
greater understanding of the offender. His most famous case is the “Railway Rapist”, John
Duffy. John Duffy carried out 24 sexual attacks and 3 murders of women near the North
London railway station in the 1980’s.
John Duffy was originally believed to commit his crimes alone, after further investigation, the
police were sure he had an accomplice. After 15 years, forensic science allowed the police
to arrest David Mulcahy, childhood friend of Duffy, who was eventually convicted and proved
