Forensic psychology
Discuss the top-down approach to offender profiling [16 marks]
Offender profiling is an investigative tool used in order to narrow down the list of
likely suspects for a crime. This involves scrutiny of the crime, as well as analysis of
the evidence that they are provided with. From this, a hypothesis about
characteristics of the perpetrator can be determined, and then they work their way
down the crime from there.
The top-down approach was made by the FBI, where they formulated ideas of an
organised or disorganised killer based on 36 interviews with murderers. Each
category had particular characteristics, and they assumed that if some
characteristics of a crime matched those of one typology, then other characteristics
could be predicted from this. To do this, they would collect further data and then
decide the category. In order to construct a profile, they would first assimilate data.
Then, they would classify the crime scene, i.e. what crime has been committed. After
this, they would reconstruct the crime before generating a profile.
Furthermore, they assumed that perpetrators had a modus operandi which
correlated with their social and psychological characteristics. In an organised
offender, they would display evidence of extensive planning of the crime, shown
through maintaining high control and leaving little to no evidence. This suggests they
are intelligent, most likely with a professional occupation. As well as this, they are
likely to be socially and sexually competent, and potentially married with a family. On
the other hand, a disorganised offender would be more impulsive, suggesting that
little planning was made for the crime. This is shown through maintaining little control
and leaving evidence or clues at the scene. This suggests they have a lower IQ and
are more likely to be unemployed. As well as this, they are likely to be sexually and
socially incompetent, with a history of failed relationships. Finally, they are likely to
live close to the area of the crime.
One strength of the top-down approach is that there is evidence to support the
existence of an organised offender. A smallest space analysis is used in order to
identify correlations between different samples of behaviour. This was used in order
to conduct a study into a number of offenders and their behaviours, and a subset of
features of killings was found to match the organised typology. This suggests that
this approach has some validity, as scientific research shows the typology categories
to have some existence.
However, further research has suggested that the organised and disorganised
typology categories are not mutually exclusive. It has been shown that perpetrators
can have a variety of combinations of characteristics, some of which may be
, contrasting to what the typology assumes. Without taking this into account, potential
suspects can be disregarded from an investigation due to not fitting a rigid category.
Thus suggesting that the organised-disorganised typology may be more of a
spectrum, as opposed to two strict categories which cannot cross over.
On the other hand, the top-down approach has shown to be useful in the real world,
as it has been adapted to be used for other types of crimes. Research showed that
there was a significant rise in the number of burglaries solved when using the
top-down approach to find the offender. In order to do this, two further categories of
offenders were identified: interpersonal and opportunistic. Interpersonal offenders
are likely to know the individual in which they are committing the crime, whereas
opportunistic offenders are less likely to know. This is useful in widening the typology
spectrum and allowing for more factors of a crime to be taken into consideration.
Therefore, this shows how the top-down approach has wide, useful application when
it comes to solving crimes in real life.
A final limitation to consider is that the evidence in which the top-down approach is
based is flawed. When conducting the original 36 interviews with convicted
murderers, the sampling used was poor. They did not randomly sample those they
interviewed, they used a relatively small sample size, and there was little variation in
the typology of the offenders they chose. This means it is difficult to generalise the
findings of the research to real life situations of identifying a killer. As well as this, the
interview in which they conducted was not standardised, but was different for every
person, meaning that comparing the results is significantly more difficult. Therefore,
this suggests that this approach does not have a scientific basis, reducing the
reliability of it as a way of profiling an offender.
Discuss investigative psychology and/or geographical profiling
[16 marks]
The bottom-up approach is typically used in the UK, and involves generating a
picture of the offender through systematic analysis of evidence from a crime scene.
Utilising psychological theory, a profile of the offender can emerge as more details
about the crime are revealed.
Investigative psychology is the use of statistical procedures to analyse evidence
about a crime, in order to establish patterns and predictions of behaviour that is likely
to occur consequently. This is also able to act as a baseline for comparisons with
other crimes, so details from previous ones can be matched to details from a current
crime. This is helpful in determining whether crimes are linked together and so
performed by the same individual, or whether it was a one-off crime. Furthermore,
interpersonal coherence is used to determine how the perpetrator acts in everyday
life, based on how they most likely acted at the crime scene. As well as this,
Discuss the top-down approach to offender profiling [16 marks]
Offender profiling is an investigative tool used in order to narrow down the list of
likely suspects for a crime. This involves scrutiny of the crime, as well as analysis of
the evidence that they are provided with. From this, a hypothesis about
characteristics of the perpetrator can be determined, and then they work their way
down the crime from there.
The top-down approach was made by the FBI, where they formulated ideas of an
organised or disorganised killer based on 36 interviews with murderers. Each
category had particular characteristics, and they assumed that if some
characteristics of a crime matched those of one typology, then other characteristics
could be predicted from this. To do this, they would collect further data and then
decide the category. In order to construct a profile, they would first assimilate data.
Then, they would classify the crime scene, i.e. what crime has been committed. After
this, they would reconstruct the crime before generating a profile.
Furthermore, they assumed that perpetrators had a modus operandi which
correlated with their social and psychological characteristics. In an organised
offender, they would display evidence of extensive planning of the crime, shown
through maintaining high control and leaving little to no evidence. This suggests they
are intelligent, most likely with a professional occupation. As well as this, they are
likely to be socially and sexually competent, and potentially married with a family. On
the other hand, a disorganised offender would be more impulsive, suggesting that
little planning was made for the crime. This is shown through maintaining little control
and leaving evidence or clues at the scene. This suggests they have a lower IQ and
are more likely to be unemployed. As well as this, they are likely to be sexually and
socially incompetent, with a history of failed relationships. Finally, they are likely to
live close to the area of the crime.
One strength of the top-down approach is that there is evidence to support the
existence of an organised offender. A smallest space analysis is used in order to
identify correlations between different samples of behaviour. This was used in order
to conduct a study into a number of offenders and their behaviours, and a subset of
features of killings was found to match the organised typology. This suggests that
this approach has some validity, as scientific research shows the typology categories
to have some existence.
However, further research has suggested that the organised and disorganised
typology categories are not mutually exclusive. It has been shown that perpetrators
can have a variety of combinations of characteristics, some of which may be
, contrasting to what the typology assumes. Without taking this into account, potential
suspects can be disregarded from an investigation due to not fitting a rigid category.
Thus suggesting that the organised-disorganised typology may be more of a
spectrum, as opposed to two strict categories which cannot cross over.
On the other hand, the top-down approach has shown to be useful in the real world,
as it has been adapted to be used for other types of crimes. Research showed that
there was a significant rise in the number of burglaries solved when using the
top-down approach to find the offender. In order to do this, two further categories of
offenders were identified: interpersonal and opportunistic. Interpersonal offenders
are likely to know the individual in which they are committing the crime, whereas
opportunistic offenders are less likely to know. This is useful in widening the typology
spectrum and allowing for more factors of a crime to be taken into consideration.
Therefore, this shows how the top-down approach has wide, useful application when
it comes to solving crimes in real life.
A final limitation to consider is that the evidence in which the top-down approach is
based is flawed. When conducting the original 36 interviews with convicted
murderers, the sampling used was poor. They did not randomly sample those they
interviewed, they used a relatively small sample size, and there was little variation in
the typology of the offenders they chose. This means it is difficult to generalise the
findings of the research to real life situations of identifying a killer. As well as this, the
interview in which they conducted was not standardised, but was different for every
person, meaning that comparing the results is significantly more difficult. Therefore,
this suggests that this approach does not have a scientific basis, reducing the
reliability of it as a way of profiling an offender.
Discuss investigative psychology and/or geographical profiling
[16 marks]
The bottom-up approach is typically used in the UK, and involves generating a
picture of the offender through systematic analysis of evidence from a crime scene.
Utilising psychological theory, a profile of the offender can emerge as more details
about the crime are revealed.
Investigative psychology is the use of statistical procedures to analyse evidence
about a crime, in order to establish patterns and predictions of behaviour that is likely
to occur consequently. This is also able to act as a baseline for comparisons with
other crimes, so details from previous ones can be matched to details from a current
crime. This is helpful in determining whether crimes are linked together and so
performed by the same individual, or whether it was a one-off crime. Furthermore,
interpersonal coherence is used to determine how the perpetrator acts in everyday
life, based on how they most likely acted at the crime scene. As well as this,
