----------------------------------------
Forensic Psychology
Topics:
● Offender Profiling
● Biological Explanations
● Psychological Explanations
● Dealing with Offender Behaviour
Offender Profiling
The Top-Down Approach
The top-down approach is a typology approach favoured in the US. The top down
approach was developed from in-depth interviews conducted with 36 sexually
motivated serial killers by the FBI in the 1970’s. Profilers using this approach collect
details about the crime and the offender directly from the crime scene and then
match them to a pre-existing typology template.
The Top-down approach then uses evidence from the crime scene and other details
of the crime/victim/context to fit suspects into either of the pre-existing categories in
order to determine the offender as being ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’.
Th e or gan ised off ender → show evidence of having planned the crime in advance.
The victim is deliberately targeted and this suggests the criminal has a ‘type’ of victim
they seek out. The offender maintains a high degree of control during the crime and
may operate with almost detached surgical precision. There is little evidence or clues left
behind at the scene. They tend to be of above-average intelligence, in a skilled,
professional occupation and are socially and sexually competent.
Th e disor gan ised off en der → show little evidence of planning, suggesting that their
offences may have been spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment acts. The crime scene tends
to reflect the impulsive nature of the attack – the body is usually still at the scene and
there appears to have been very little control on the part of the offender. They tend to
, have a lower-than-average IQ, be in unskilled work, and often have a history of
dysfunction and failed relationships.
Or gan ised Off en der Disor gan ised Off en der
● Clear evidence of planning the crime ● Unplanned
● Victim targeted ● Victim not targeted
● High degree of control allows minimal ● Crime scene reflects the impulsive nature of
evidence left behind at the crime scene the crime
● Body is hidden from view at the scene or ● Body is left visible at the scene rather than
removed from it removed
● Highly intelligent ● Lower intelligence
● Socially competent ● Socially awkward
● Usually has a partner ● Unlikely to have a partner
● Keeps up with the media and follows their ● Does not follow their crime in the media
crime
Ted Bundy → organised
Jack the Ripper → both
Jeffery Dahmer → both
Jackson and Bekerian (1994):
1. Collect evidence → Collect evidence from multiple sources available (e.g.
crime scene photos, post mortem results, police reports).
2. Cr im e scene classifi cation → Classify the crime scene and offender as either
organised or disorganised applying a typology approach.
3. Cr im e r econstr uction → Reconstruct the crime to develop hypotheses and
predictions about the motives and behaviour of the offender/victim
4. Pr ofi le gener ation → Develop offender profile based on this information
regarding various characteristics, including physical appearance, behavioural
habits and demographic information
Ao3
+ One strength of the top-down approach to offender profiling is that there is
support for a distinct organised offender typology. Canter et al (2004) used a
technique called ‘smallest space’ to analyse data from 100 offenders in the
USA with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical of organised and
disorganised offenders. It was found that such characteristics did provide
evidence to support a distinct organised offender type, offering some validity
to the top-down approach to offender profiling. However this was not
, consistent for the disorganised offender, suggesting that the criteria for
separating the two typologies is ineffective. Furthermore, some studies
suggest that the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive;
there are a variety of combinations that occur during any murder scene.
Godwin (2002) argues that it is difficult to classify killers as one or the other
type. This suggests that the organised-disorganised typology is probably more
of a continuum. Therefore, this lowers the internal validity of the top-down
approach.
- Additionally, the application of the top-down approach is limited as it cannot
be used to profile offenders for all types of crime. The top approach relies
heavily on evidence being left at the crime scene for profilers to analyse
however not all crimes do this. Offences such as identity theft or burglary can
sometimes leave no evidence at all which would make it almost impossible for
profilers to classify. This means that although there is evidence to support the
classification of an organised offender it is likely to only apply more so to
violent crimes where more evidence is readily available and therefore this
limits the application of the top-down approach.
+ Despite these criticisms, the approach does have wider application. Previously
the top-down approach was criticised for relying too much on evidence left at
a crime scene making its application limited as it could only be applied to
violent crimes such as sexually motivated attacks. However, Meketa (2017)
reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to cases of burglary,
leading to an 85% increase in solved cases in three US states. The adapted
approach has also expanded to include two further classifications of offenders,
interpersonal and opportunistic. This is a strength as it increases the
application of the typology approach being used in law enforcement to assist
with criminal investigations as it is now more applicable to crimes that occur
more frequently in society. Therefore, taking this higher-level approach to
offender profiling helps to address some of the earlier criticisms of the
classifications being reductionist. This therefore increases the external validity
of the top-down approach as it demonstrates that the approach can now be
used to assist the police with crimes other than rape and murder.
- However, despite the wider application of the top-down approach, there are
also problems with the research that has informed the creation of the top-
down approach. The FBI conducted interviews with 36 murderers in the US,
however there were no standardised set of questions. This alone raises
problems as offenders were likely to be asked different questions, meaning
, that responses between offenders were not comparable. The interviews also
relied on the offenders recalling their crimes accurately and retrospectively. It
is possible that the recall of these events may have been distorted given the
length of time that had passed but also because offenders are more likely to
focus on the times they were successful in their killings rather than their
failures. Reviewing the evidence from a crime scene is also highly subjective,
creating an opportunity for the profiler to select evidence they think might be
relevant to their profile. Most evidence at a crime scene is ambiguous and so
judgements based on the evidence are usually speculative. This is a limitation
as the data on which the top-down approach is based lacks objectivity,
meaning different profilers may have come to different conclusions if they
were conducting the interviews or reviewing the same evidence. The
implication of this is that the evidence of which the approach is based lacks
scientific credibility and therefore significantly reduces the validity of the
approach.
The Bottom-up Approach
Introduced by David Canter, who was motivated by a desire to see offender profiles
built on objective data rather than an intuition based approach. The approach is data
driven, making use of past data on similar crimes committed in order to build a
picture of the offender. This does not rely on typologies. It is informed by data and
psychological theory.
In vestigative psychology → based on understanding relationship and interactions
between the offender and their victims; they match the details from the crime scene with
statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory.
1. In ter per son al coher en ce → there is a consistency between the way
offenders interact with their victims and with others in their everyday lives.
2. Tim e an d place sign ifi can ce → The time and location of an offender’s
crime will communicate something about their place of residence or
employment as they feel more comfortable near places they know.
3. Cr im in al char acter istics → Characteristics about the offender can help to
classify them, which helps police investigation.
4. Cr im in al car eer → Crimes tend to be committed similarly by offenders and
can indicate how their criminal activity will develop as they become more
experienced.
Forensic Psychology
Topics:
● Offender Profiling
● Biological Explanations
● Psychological Explanations
● Dealing with Offender Behaviour
Offender Profiling
The Top-Down Approach
The top-down approach is a typology approach favoured in the US. The top down
approach was developed from in-depth interviews conducted with 36 sexually
motivated serial killers by the FBI in the 1970’s. Profilers using this approach collect
details about the crime and the offender directly from the crime scene and then
match them to a pre-existing typology template.
The Top-down approach then uses evidence from the crime scene and other details
of the crime/victim/context to fit suspects into either of the pre-existing categories in
order to determine the offender as being ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’.
Th e or gan ised off ender → show evidence of having planned the crime in advance.
The victim is deliberately targeted and this suggests the criminal has a ‘type’ of victim
they seek out. The offender maintains a high degree of control during the crime and
may operate with almost detached surgical precision. There is little evidence or clues left
behind at the scene. They tend to be of above-average intelligence, in a skilled,
professional occupation and are socially and sexually competent.
Th e disor gan ised off en der → show little evidence of planning, suggesting that their
offences may have been spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment acts. The crime scene tends
to reflect the impulsive nature of the attack – the body is usually still at the scene and
there appears to have been very little control on the part of the offender. They tend to
, have a lower-than-average IQ, be in unskilled work, and often have a history of
dysfunction and failed relationships.
Or gan ised Off en der Disor gan ised Off en der
● Clear evidence of planning the crime ● Unplanned
● Victim targeted ● Victim not targeted
● High degree of control allows minimal ● Crime scene reflects the impulsive nature of
evidence left behind at the crime scene the crime
● Body is hidden from view at the scene or ● Body is left visible at the scene rather than
removed from it removed
● Highly intelligent ● Lower intelligence
● Socially competent ● Socially awkward
● Usually has a partner ● Unlikely to have a partner
● Keeps up with the media and follows their ● Does not follow their crime in the media
crime
Ted Bundy → organised
Jack the Ripper → both
Jeffery Dahmer → both
Jackson and Bekerian (1994):
1. Collect evidence → Collect evidence from multiple sources available (e.g.
crime scene photos, post mortem results, police reports).
2. Cr im e scene classifi cation → Classify the crime scene and offender as either
organised or disorganised applying a typology approach.
3. Cr im e r econstr uction → Reconstruct the crime to develop hypotheses and
predictions about the motives and behaviour of the offender/victim
4. Pr ofi le gener ation → Develop offender profile based on this information
regarding various characteristics, including physical appearance, behavioural
habits and demographic information
Ao3
+ One strength of the top-down approach to offender profiling is that there is
support for a distinct organised offender typology. Canter et al (2004) used a
technique called ‘smallest space’ to analyse data from 100 offenders in the
USA with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical of organised and
disorganised offenders. It was found that such characteristics did provide
evidence to support a distinct organised offender type, offering some validity
to the top-down approach to offender profiling. However this was not
, consistent for the disorganised offender, suggesting that the criteria for
separating the two typologies is ineffective. Furthermore, some studies
suggest that the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive;
there are a variety of combinations that occur during any murder scene.
Godwin (2002) argues that it is difficult to classify killers as one or the other
type. This suggests that the organised-disorganised typology is probably more
of a continuum. Therefore, this lowers the internal validity of the top-down
approach.
- Additionally, the application of the top-down approach is limited as it cannot
be used to profile offenders for all types of crime. The top approach relies
heavily on evidence being left at the crime scene for profilers to analyse
however not all crimes do this. Offences such as identity theft or burglary can
sometimes leave no evidence at all which would make it almost impossible for
profilers to classify. This means that although there is evidence to support the
classification of an organised offender it is likely to only apply more so to
violent crimes where more evidence is readily available and therefore this
limits the application of the top-down approach.
+ Despite these criticisms, the approach does have wider application. Previously
the top-down approach was criticised for relying too much on evidence left at
a crime scene making its application limited as it could only be applied to
violent crimes such as sexually motivated attacks. However, Meketa (2017)
reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to cases of burglary,
leading to an 85% increase in solved cases in three US states. The adapted
approach has also expanded to include two further classifications of offenders,
interpersonal and opportunistic. This is a strength as it increases the
application of the typology approach being used in law enforcement to assist
with criminal investigations as it is now more applicable to crimes that occur
more frequently in society. Therefore, taking this higher-level approach to
offender profiling helps to address some of the earlier criticisms of the
classifications being reductionist. This therefore increases the external validity
of the top-down approach as it demonstrates that the approach can now be
used to assist the police with crimes other than rape and murder.
- However, despite the wider application of the top-down approach, there are
also problems with the research that has informed the creation of the top-
down approach. The FBI conducted interviews with 36 murderers in the US,
however there were no standardised set of questions. This alone raises
problems as offenders were likely to be asked different questions, meaning
, that responses between offenders were not comparable. The interviews also
relied on the offenders recalling their crimes accurately and retrospectively. It
is possible that the recall of these events may have been distorted given the
length of time that had passed but also because offenders are more likely to
focus on the times they were successful in their killings rather than their
failures. Reviewing the evidence from a crime scene is also highly subjective,
creating an opportunity for the profiler to select evidence they think might be
relevant to their profile. Most evidence at a crime scene is ambiguous and so
judgements based on the evidence are usually speculative. This is a limitation
as the data on which the top-down approach is based lacks objectivity,
meaning different profilers may have come to different conclusions if they
were conducting the interviews or reviewing the same evidence. The
implication of this is that the evidence of which the approach is based lacks
scientific credibility and therefore significantly reduces the validity of the
approach.
The Bottom-up Approach
Introduced by David Canter, who was motivated by a desire to see offender profiles
built on objective data rather than an intuition based approach. The approach is data
driven, making use of past data on similar crimes committed in order to build a
picture of the offender. This does not rely on typologies. It is informed by data and
psychological theory.
In vestigative psychology → based on understanding relationship and interactions
between the offender and their victims; they match the details from the crime scene with
statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory.
1. In ter per son al coher en ce → there is a consistency between the way
offenders interact with their victims and with others in their everyday lives.
2. Tim e an d place sign ifi can ce → The time and location of an offender’s
crime will communicate something about their place of residence or
employment as they feel more comfortable near places they know.
3. Cr im in al char acter istics → Characteristics about the offender can help to
classify them, which helps police investigation.
4. Cr im in al car eer → Crimes tend to be committed similarly by offenders and
can indicate how their criminal activity will develop as they become more
experienced.
