Discuss offender profiling: top down approach - typology (16 marks)
A01
Offender profiling: analysis of the crime scene and analysis of the other evidence in order to generate
hypotheses about the probable characteristics of the offender.
Conducting an FBI profile:
1) Data assimilation - profiler reviews evidence.
2) Crime scene classification - as either organised or disorganised.
3) Crime reconstruction - hypothesis in terms of sequence of events/ behaviour of victim.
4) Profile generation - hypothesis related to the likely offender e.g. demographic.
A01
The American approach
A top down approach - collect data about a murderer then decide on category.
Procedure: Data drawn from interviews of 36 sexually motivated murderers including Ted Bundy, Charles
Manson. Concluded that data can be categorised into disorganised or organised killers - if data matched
characteristics in one category predictions of further characteristics could be made.
Disorganised and organised types of offender:
1) Organised
Crime scene: Weapon brought to scene, Evidence removed, Control of victim
Killer traits: Unknown to victim, Socially + sexually competent, Normal to high intelligence, angry/depressed
2) Disorganised
Crime scene: Weapon improvised, Evidence left at scene, Little control of victim
Killer traits: Possibly known to victim, Socially/ sexually inept, Low intelligence, Severely mentally ill
A03
One limitation is that it only applies to a limited number of crimes e.g. sexually motivated murder.
This is best suited to crime scenes that reveal a lot about the offender e.g. rape, aron and cult killings. This
means that the top-down approach is limited for crimes where there is little revealed about the offender.
However…
Meketa reports thet top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading 85% rise in solved
cases in the US. The method uses the same categories of organised and disorganised but adds 2 more of its
own, opportunistic and interpersonal. This provides evidence of wider application that was originally
assumed.
A03
One limitation is that it is based on flawed evidence.
FBI profiling used data from interviews with 36 sexually motivated killers - 25 being serial murderers, 11
being double murderers. At the end of the process 24 were classified as organised and 12 disorganised. Some
argued that the sample was poor - it was not a random or large sample to include all different types of
offender + no standardised questions so it can be argued that interviews aren't comparable. It can be argued
that there is no scientific basis to the data.
A03
One strength is that the top down approach is based on the principle of behavioural consistency- serial
offenders have characteristic ways of working (modus operandi). These should be seen across all of their
crime scenes. It should therefore be possible for profilers to link different crime scenes together making the
offender easier to catch.
However…
In contrast, situationist psychologists, e.g. Mischel argued that people's behaviour is more driven by the
situation they are in than by a thing called ‘personality’. Behavioural patterns seen at crime scenes may tell us
little about how the individual behaves in everyday life.
A03
One strength is that there is evidence to support the organised type. Canter used the smallest space analysis
based on 100 murders in the USA. They referenced 39 characteristics thought to be typical of each type of
offender, the evidence supported the organised type giving the approach validity.
,Discuss offender profiling a bottom up approach - data-driven (16 marks)
A01
Bottom up approach:
The British approach, generates a picture through systematic analysis of evidence at the crime scene.
Investigative psychology -
Aim is to establish patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur across crime scenes creating a database used
as a baseline for comparison with specific details that can be matched against a database to reveal details
about the offender.
Interpersonal coherence: (central to the approach)
It is the way that the offender behaves at the scene and how they ‘interact’ with the victim may reflect how
they behave in everyday situations.
Variables key to investigative psychology:
1) Time
2) Place
3) Forensic awareness.
A01
Geographical profiling -
Crime mapping: Uses info about the location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about the operational
base of the offender and is based on the principle of consistency (committing crimes in a limited geographical
space). Used in conjunction with psychological theory to generate hypotheses about offenders modus
operandi.
Assumption is that serial offenders restrict their work to a ‘center of gravity’ which includes the offender base
- based on Canter’s circle theory.
Offender is categorised into either:
1) The marauder - operated in close proximity to their home base
2) The commuter - likely to have travelled away from their usual residence
Offers insight into whether the offence was planned or opportunistic and reveals factors about the offender
e.g. mental maps/ mode of transport.
A03
One strength is evidence support from Canter and Heritage on interpersonal coherence.
Analysis of 66 sexual assault cases using smallest space analysis identified several behaviours as common in
different samples of behaviour. Each individual displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviours that
helps to link cases together.
This supports the basic principles of investigative psychology that people are consistent in their behaviour.
However…
Case linkage depends on the database and this will only consist of historical solved crimes, the fact they were
solved may be because it was relatively straightforward to link the crimes together in the first place. This
suggests that investigative psychology may tell us little about crimes that have few links between them and
therefore remain unsolved.
A03
One strength of offender profiling is that it is regarded as ‘useful’ by police forces. Eg Copson surveyed 48
police departments and found advice provided by the profiler was judged to be ‘useful’ in 83% of cases, this
suggests it is a valid investigative tool.
However…
The same study revealed that in only 3% of cases did it lead to accurate identification of the offender E.g.
Rachel Nickell shows how profiling can be misused.
A03
One strength is evidence to support geographical profiling.
Canter collated information for 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US. Smallest space analysis
was used and revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers, location of each body disposal site
created a ‘centre of gravity’ a circular effect around their homebase. The effect was more noticeable in
marauders. This supports the view that geographical info can be used to identify an offender.
A03
, One limitation is that geographical profiling may not be sufficient on its own. As with investigative
psychology the success of geographical profiling may be reliant on the quality of data that the police can
provide. Recording of crime is not always accurate or reported as a ‘dark figure of crime’. This questions the
utility of the approach as it relies on the accuracy of geological data. This suggests that geological
information alone may not always lead to the successful; capture of the offender.
A01
Offender profiling: analysis of the crime scene and analysis of the other evidence in order to generate
hypotheses about the probable characteristics of the offender.
Conducting an FBI profile:
1) Data assimilation - profiler reviews evidence.
2) Crime scene classification - as either organised or disorganised.
3) Crime reconstruction - hypothesis in terms of sequence of events/ behaviour of victim.
4) Profile generation - hypothesis related to the likely offender e.g. demographic.
A01
The American approach
A top down approach - collect data about a murderer then decide on category.
Procedure: Data drawn from interviews of 36 sexually motivated murderers including Ted Bundy, Charles
Manson. Concluded that data can be categorised into disorganised or organised killers - if data matched
characteristics in one category predictions of further characteristics could be made.
Disorganised and organised types of offender:
1) Organised
Crime scene: Weapon brought to scene, Evidence removed, Control of victim
Killer traits: Unknown to victim, Socially + sexually competent, Normal to high intelligence, angry/depressed
2) Disorganised
Crime scene: Weapon improvised, Evidence left at scene, Little control of victim
Killer traits: Possibly known to victim, Socially/ sexually inept, Low intelligence, Severely mentally ill
A03
One limitation is that it only applies to a limited number of crimes e.g. sexually motivated murder.
This is best suited to crime scenes that reveal a lot about the offender e.g. rape, aron and cult killings. This
means that the top-down approach is limited for crimes where there is little revealed about the offender.
However…
Meketa reports thet top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading 85% rise in solved
cases in the US. The method uses the same categories of organised and disorganised but adds 2 more of its
own, opportunistic and interpersonal. This provides evidence of wider application that was originally
assumed.
A03
One limitation is that it is based on flawed evidence.
FBI profiling used data from interviews with 36 sexually motivated killers - 25 being serial murderers, 11
being double murderers. At the end of the process 24 were classified as organised and 12 disorganised. Some
argued that the sample was poor - it was not a random or large sample to include all different types of
offender + no standardised questions so it can be argued that interviews aren't comparable. It can be argued
that there is no scientific basis to the data.
A03
One strength is that the top down approach is based on the principle of behavioural consistency- serial
offenders have characteristic ways of working (modus operandi). These should be seen across all of their
crime scenes. It should therefore be possible for profilers to link different crime scenes together making the
offender easier to catch.
However…
In contrast, situationist psychologists, e.g. Mischel argued that people's behaviour is more driven by the
situation they are in than by a thing called ‘personality’. Behavioural patterns seen at crime scenes may tell us
little about how the individual behaves in everyday life.
A03
One strength is that there is evidence to support the organised type. Canter used the smallest space analysis
based on 100 murders in the USA. They referenced 39 characteristics thought to be typical of each type of
offender, the evidence supported the organised type giving the approach validity.
,Discuss offender profiling a bottom up approach - data-driven (16 marks)
A01
Bottom up approach:
The British approach, generates a picture through systematic analysis of evidence at the crime scene.
Investigative psychology -
Aim is to establish patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur across crime scenes creating a database used
as a baseline for comparison with specific details that can be matched against a database to reveal details
about the offender.
Interpersonal coherence: (central to the approach)
It is the way that the offender behaves at the scene and how they ‘interact’ with the victim may reflect how
they behave in everyday situations.
Variables key to investigative psychology:
1) Time
2) Place
3) Forensic awareness.
A01
Geographical profiling -
Crime mapping: Uses info about the location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about the operational
base of the offender and is based on the principle of consistency (committing crimes in a limited geographical
space). Used in conjunction with psychological theory to generate hypotheses about offenders modus
operandi.
Assumption is that serial offenders restrict their work to a ‘center of gravity’ which includes the offender base
- based on Canter’s circle theory.
Offender is categorised into either:
1) The marauder - operated in close proximity to their home base
2) The commuter - likely to have travelled away from their usual residence
Offers insight into whether the offence was planned or opportunistic and reveals factors about the offender
e.g. mental maps/ mode of transport.
A03
One strength is evidence support from Canter and Heritage on interpersonal coherence.
Analysis of 66 sexual assault cases using smallest space analysis identified several behaviours as common in
different samples of behaviour. Each individual displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviours that
helps to link cases together.
This supports the basic principles of investigative psychology that people are consistent in their behaviour.
However…
Case linkage depends on the database and this will only consist of historical solved crimes, the fact they were
solved may be because it was relatively straightforward to link the crimes together in the first place. This
suggests that investigative psychology may tell us little about crimes that have few links between them and
therefore remain unsolved.
A03
One strength of offender profiling is that it is regarded as ‘useful’ by police forces. Eg Copson surveyed 48
police departments and found advice provided by the profiler was judged to be ‘useful’ in 83% of cases, this
suggests it is a valid investigative tool.
However…
The same study revealed that in only 3% of cases did it lead to accurate identification of the offender E.g.
Rachel Nickell shows how profiling can be misused.
A03
One strength is evidence to support geographical profiling.
Canter collated information for 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US. Smallest space analysis
was used and revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers, location of each body disposal site
created a ‘centre of gravity’ a circular effect around their homebase. The effect was more noticeable in
marauders. This supports the view that geographical info can be used to identify an offender.
A03
, One limitation is that geographical profiling may not be sufficient on its own. As with investigative
psychology the success of geographical profiling may be reliant on the quality of data that the police can
provide. Recording of crime is not always accurate or reported as a ‘dark figure of crime’. This questions the
utility of the approach as it relies on the accuracy of geological data. This suggests that geological
information alone may not always lead to the successful; capture of the offender.
