Offender profiling (top down and bottom up)
• Offender profiling: methods used to analyse behaviour that it intended to help
investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of a criminal
• Top down: general classification of the crime scene, information then used to make
judgements about likely offenders who would fit the circumstances, classification to da
• Bottom up: collects details about the crime scene, data is analysed using statistical
techniques to generate predictions, data to classification
Top down
• Origins: in the US, developed to try and solve bizarre and extreme murder cases, tried
get a ‘feel’ for the kind of person the offender is, less scientific and logical
• Inputs: description of crime scene, photographs, sketches, background information ab
the victim, details of the crime, all information
• Decisions: profiler makes decisions about the information and place it into patterns,
considers the murder type, time factors and location factors
• Assessment: crime is classified as organised or disorganised
• Organised: crime was planned, victims deliberately targeted, high decree of contr
very little evidence, usually highly professional employment, usually married or in a
long-term relationships
, • Disorganised: crime may be spontaneous, lower than average intelligence,
unskilled work or unemployed, tend to live alone, live close to offence/crime
• Profile: constructed of the offender, predict likely background, beliefs and habits
• Report: sent to investigating agency, people that match are evaluated, if new evide
if generated or no suspect identified, go back to stage 2
• Apprehension: if suspect is apprehended then the entire profile-generating process
reviewed to check the conclusions made at each stage where appropriate
• Evaluation: Copson (1985) used 184 US police, 84% found it useful, 90% would use
again
• Basis is flawed: based on self-report interviews of 36 serial sex offenders, very
restricted sample group, unrepresentative, lacks reliability
• Lacks scientific value: ‘reading’ behaviour rather than using precise methods,
lacks reliability, can’t measure anything accurately using this approach
• I and D: cultural differences- developed in the US, idiographic- takes an individu
approach to each crime, time consuming, gains a deeper understanding
Bottom-up (investigating psychology and geographical profiling)
• Bottom-up: generated from actual data, not judgements, aim is to generate a ‘pictu
of the offender, their likely characteristics, routine behaviour and social background
through systematic analysis of evidence
, Investigative psychology
• Investigative psychology: developed by David Canter, proposed profiling based on
psychological theory
• Interpersonal coherence: people are consistent in their behaviour, correlations with elemen
crime and how people behave in everyday life, people’s behavioural changes over time, lookin
differences over time will offer cues
• Forensic awareness: certain behaviours reveal an awareness of particular police techniques
past experience
• Smallest space analysis: statistical techniques, data from many crime scenes and offender
characteristics are correlated so most common connections can be identified, identify 3 underl
themes (instrumental opportunistic, instrumental cognitive and expressive impulse)
• Geographical profiling
• Geographical profiling: people reveal themselves through the crimes they commit and the
location of crimes, assuming that offenders commit a crime near where they live or habitually
travel to as it involves the least effort
• Analysis of locations: of connected series of crimes and where the crimes were committed,
spatial relationships between the different crime scenes and how they might relate to an offen
home
• Circle theory: offenders commit crimes in an imagined circle
• Marauders: home is within this circle
• Commuters: travel to another area and commit crime in a circle there
• Offender profiling: methods used to analyse behaviour that it intended to help
investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of a criminal
• Top down: general classification of the crime scene, information then used to make
judgements about likely offenders who would fit the circumstances, classification to da
• Bottom up: collects details about the crime scene, data is analysed using statistical
techniques to generate predictions, data to classification
Top down
• Origins: in the US, developed to try and solve bizarre and extreme murder cases, tried
get a ‘feel’ for the kind of person the offender is, less scientific and logical
• Inputs: description of crime scene, photographs, sketches, background information ab
the victim, details of the crime, all information
• Decisions: profiler makes decisions about the information and place it into patterns,
considers the murder type, time factors and location factors
• Assessment: crime is classified as organised or disorganised
• Organised: crime was planned, victims deliberately targeted, high decree of contr
very little evidence, usually highly professional employment, usually married or in a
long-term relationships
, • Disorganised: crime may be spontaneous, lower than average intelligence,
unskilled work or unemployed, tend to live alone, live close to offence/crime
• Profile: constructed of the offender, predict likely background, beliefs and habits
• Report: sent to investigating agency, people that match are evaluated, if new evide
if generated or no suspect identified, go back to stage 2
• Apprehension: if suspect is apprehended then the entire profile-generating process
reviewed to check the conclusions made at each stage where appropriate
• Evaluation: Copson (1985) used 184 US police, 84% found it useful, 90% would use
again
• Basis is flawed: based on self-report interviews of 36 serial sex offenders, very
restricted sample group, unrepresentative, lacks reliability
• Lacks scientific value: ‘reading’ behaviour rather than using precise methods,
lacks reliability, can’t measure anything accurately using this approach
• I and D: cultural differences- developed in the US, idiographic- takes an individu
approach to each crime, time consuming, gains a deeper understanding
Bottom-up (investigating psychology and geographical profiling)
• Bottom-up: generated from actual data, not judgements, aim is to generate a ‘pictu
of the offender, their likely characteristics, routine behaviour and social background
through systematic analysis of evidence
, Investigative psychology
• Investigative psychology: developed by David Canter, proposed profiling based on
psychological theory
• Interpersonal coherence: people are consistent in their behaviour, correlations with elemen
crime and how people behave in everyday life, people’s behavioural changes over time, lookin
differences over time will offer cues
• Forensic awareness: certain behaviours reveal an awareness of particular police techniques
past experience
• Smallest space analysis: statistical techniques, data from many crime scenes and offender
characteristics are correlated so most common connections can be identified, identify 3 underl
themes (instrumental opportunistic, instrumental cognitive and expressive impulse)
• Geographical profiling
• Geographical profiling: people reveal themselves through the crimes they commit and the
location of crimes, assuming that offenders commit a crime near where they live or habitually
travel to as it involves the least effort
• Analysis of locations: of connected series of crimes and where the crimes were committed,
spatial relationships between the different crime scenes and how they might relate to an offen
home
• Circle theory: offenders commit crimes in an imagined circle
• Marauders: home is within this circle
• Commuters: travel to another area and commit crime in a circle there
