Offender profiling - the top down approach:
- Offender profiling; a behavioural and analytical tool that is intended to help
investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown criminals
- The top down approach; profilers start with a pre-established typology and work
down in order to assign offenders to one of two categories based on witness
accounts and evidence from the crime scene
- Organised offender; an offender who shows evidence of planning, targets the victim
and tends to be socially and sexually competent with higher than average intelligence
- Disorganised offender; an offender who shows little evidence of planning, leaves
clues and tends to be socially and sexually incompetent with lower than average
intelligence.
- The four stages of conducting an FBI profile; Data assimilation (review of evidence),
crime scene classification (organised or disorganised), crime reconstruction
(hypothesis of events, behaviour of victim), profile generation (hypothesis of likely
offender).
- The six stages (expanded); (1)Profiling inputs, (2)Decision process models, (3)Crime
assessment, (4)Criminal profile, (5)Crime assessment, (6)Apprehension. (Input
Makes A Profile Astonishingly Accurate)
- Only applies to particular crimes; top down profiling is best suited to crime scenes
that reveal details about the subject. Common offences such as burglary and
destruction of property do not lend themselves to profiling because the crime scene
tends to reveal little about the offender. Therefore this is a limited approach to
identifying a criminal.
- Based on outdated models of personality; the typology classification is based on the
assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain
consistent across situations and contexts. Alison 2002 suggested that the approach
is naive and ignores the effects of external factors which are constantly changing.
Therefore the approach has poor validity when it comes to identifying possible
suspects.
- Evidence does not support the ‘disorganised offender’; Canter 2004 analyzed data
from 100 murders in the USA and found evidence of the organised type, the
disorganised had little evidence, this undermines the classification system. Although
the organised/disorganised distinction is still used as a model for professional
profilers in the US and has widespread support.
- Classification is too simplistic; organised and disorganized are not mutually
exclusive. Godwin 2002 questioned police how they would classify a socially and
sexually competant killer who commits a spontaneos murder. Holmes 1989 suggests
there are four types; visionary, mission hedonistic and power/control. Keppel and
Walter 1999 focus on the different motivations rather than specific types.
- Original sample; the typology approach was developed using interviews of 36 killers
in the US, critics argue this is too small and unrepresentative for a system that may
have significant influence on the nature of police investigation, Canter argued it is not
sensible to rely on self-report data.
Offender profiling - the bottom up approach:
- The bottom up approach; profilers work up from evidence collected from the crime
scene to develop hypotheses about the likely characteristics, motivations and social
background of the offender.
- Investigative psychology; a form of bottom up profiling that matches details from the
crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on
psychological theory.
- Interpersonal coherence; the way an offender behaves at the scene, how they
interact with the victim, may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations
, - Forensic awareness; describes the individuals who have been subject of police
investigations before, their behaviour may denote how mindful they are of ‘covering
their tracks’.
- Geographical profiling; a form of bottom up profiling based on the principle of spiral
consistency; that an offenders operational base and possible future offences are
revealed by the geographical location of their previous crimes.
- Jeopardy surface; the area an offender is likely to next strike, from crime mapping.
- Cantar’s circle theory; two models of offender behaviour, the marauder (who
operates in close proximity to their home base), the commuter (who is likely to have
travelled a distance away from their usual residence).
- Evidence supports investigative psychology; Canter and Heritage 1990 conducted a
content analysis, data was examined using the smallest space analysis which
identifies correlations across patterns of behaviour. This can lead to an
understanding of how an offenders behaviour may change over a series of offences,
or establishing whether a number of offences were committed by the same person.
This supports the usefulness of investigative psychology because it shows statistical
techniques can be applied.
- Evidence supports geographical profiling; Lundringan and Canter 2001 collated
information from 120 murder cases. Smallest space analysis revealed spiral
consistency in the behaviour of serial killers. The offenders base was located in the
middle of the locations in which bodies were disposed (center of gravity). The effect
was more noticable for offenders who travelled a short distance. This supports
Canter’s claim that spatial information is a key factor in determining the base of an
offender.
- Scientific basis; Canters argument is that bottom up profiling is more objective and
scientific than the top down approach as it is more grounded in evidence and
psychological theory. The field of investigative psychology has also expanded to
include areas such as suspect interviewing and examination of material presented in
court, which supports its utility in all aspects of the judicial process.
- Wider application; another advantage is it can be applied to a wide range of offences,
such as theft unlike the top down approach.
- Mixed results for profiling; there are some significant failures of the approach,
Copson 1995 found that advice provided by the profiler to police was judged to be
useful 83% of cases but in reality only 3% lead to an accurate identification of the
offender. Kocsis 2002 found that chemistry students produced a more accurate
offender profile on a solved murder case than experienced senior detectives.
Biological explanation - Atavistic form:
- Lombroso 1876
- Atavistic form; a biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the
fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive subspecies ill-suited to
conforming to the rules of modern society. Such individuals are distinguished by
particular facial and cranial characteristics. (Atavisms = a characteristic by reversion
to something ancient or ancestral)
- Lombroso 1876; criminals are ‘genetic throwbacks’ who are biologically different from
non criminals (actavistic form).
- Evolutionary development; Offenders lack evolutionary development, savage and
untamed nature means cannot adjust to civilised society and would inevitably turn to
crime, saw criminal behaviour as an innate tendency (not their fault).
- Atavistic features; criminal subtype could be identified as being in possession of
physiological ‘markers’. Atavistic features are biologically determined.
Characteristics are mainly of the head and face that makes criminals physically
different.
- Offender profiling; a behavioural and analytical tool that is intended to help
investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown criminals
- The top down approach; profilers start with a pre-established typology and work
down in order to assign offenders to one of two categories based on witness
accounts and evidence from the crime scene
- Organised offender; an offender who shows evidence of planning, targets the victim
and tends to be socially and sexually competent with higher than average intelligence
- Disorganised offender; an offender who shows little evidence of planning, leaves
clues and tends to be socially and sexually incompetent with lower than average
intelligence.
- The four stages of conducting an FBI profile; Data assimilation (review of evidence),
crime scene classification (organised or disorganised), crime reconstruction
(hypothesis of events, behaviour of victim), profile generation (hypothesis of likely
offender).
- The six stages (expanded); (1)Profiling inputs, (2)Decision process models, (3)Crime
assessment, (4)Criminal profile, (5)Crime assessment, (6)Apprehension. (Input
Makes A Profile Astonishingly Accurate)
- Only applies to particular crimes; top down profiling is best suited to crime scenes
that reveal details about the subject. Common offences such as burglary and
destruction of property do not lend themselves to profiling because the crime scene
tends to reveal little about the offender. Therefore this is a limited approach to
identifying a criminal.
- Based on outdated models of personality; the typology classification is based on the
assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain
consistent across situations and contexts. Alison 2002 suggested that the approach
is naive and ignores the effects of external factors which are constantly changing.
Therefore the approach has poor validity when it comes to identifying possible
suspects.
- Evidence does not support the ‘disorganised offender’; Canter 2004 analyzed data
from 100 murders in the USA and found evidence of the organised type, the
disorganised had little evidence, this undermines the classification system. Although
the organised/disorganised distinction is still used as a model for professional
profilers in the US and has widespread support.
- Classification is too simplistic; organised and disorganized are not mutually
exclusive. Godwin 2002 questioned police how they would classify a socially and
sexually competant killer who commits a spontaneos murder. Holmes 1989 suggests
there are four types; visionary, mission hedonistic and power/control. Keppel and
Walter 1999 focus on the different motivations rather than specific types.
- Original sample; the typology approach was developed using interviews of 36 killers
in the US, critics argue this is too small and unrepresentative for a system that may
have significant influence on the nature of police investigation, Canter argued it is not
sensible to rely on self-report data.
Offender profiling - the bottom up approach:
- The bottom up approach; profilers work up from evidence collected from the crime
scene to develop hypotheses about the likely characteristics, motivations and social
background of the offender.
- Investigative psychology; a form of bottom up profiling that matches details from the
crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on
psychological theory.
- Interpersonal coherence; the way an offender behaves at the scene, how they
interact with the victim, may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations
, - Forensic awareness; describes the individuals who have been subject of police
investigations before, their behaviour may denote how mindful they are of ‘covering
their tracks’.
- Geographical profiling; a form of bottom up profiling based on the principle of spiral
consistency; that an offenders operational base and possible future offences are
revealed by the geographical location of their previous crimes.
- Jeopardy surface; the area an offender is likely to next strike, from crime mapping.
- Cantar’s circle theory; two models of offender behaviour, the marauder (who
operates in close proximity to their home base), the commuter (who is likely to have
travelled a distance away from their usual residence).
- Evidence supports investigative psychology; Canter and Heritage 1990 conducted a
content analysis, data was examined using the smallest space analysis which
identifies correlations across patterns of behaviour. This can lead to an
understanding of how an offenders behaviour may change over a series of offences,
or establishing whether a number of offences were committed by the same person.
This supports the usefulness of investigative psychology because it shows statistical
techniques can be applied.
- Evidence supports geographical profiling; Lundringan and Canter 2001 collated
information from 120 murder cases. Smallest space analysis revealed spiral
consistency in the behaviour of serial killers. The offenders base was located in the
middle of the locations in which bodies were disposed (center of gravity). The effect
was more noticable for offenders who travelled a short distance. This supports
Canter’s claim that spatial information is a key factor in determining the base of an
offender.
- Scientific basis; Canters argument is that bottom up profiling is more objective and
scientific than the top down approach as it is more grounded in evidence and
psychological theory. The field of investigative psychology has also expanded to
include areas such as suspect interviewing and examination of material presented in
court, which supports its utility in all aspects of the judicial process.
- Wider application; another advantage is it can be applied to a wide range of offences,
such as theft unlike the top down approach.
- Mixed results for profiling; there are some significant failures of the approach,
Copson 1995 found that advice provided by the profiler to police was judged to be
useful 83% of cases but in reality only 3% lead to an accurate identification of the
offender. Kocsis 2002 found that chemistry students produced a more accurate
offender profile on a solved murder case than experienced senior detectives.
Biological explanation - Atavistic form:
- Lombroso 1876
- Atavistic form; a biological approach to offending that attributes criminal activity to the
fact that offenders are genetic throwbacks or a primitive subspecies ill-suited to
conforming to the rules of modern society. Such individuals are distinguished by
particular facial and cranial characteristics. (Atavisms = a characteristic by reversion
to something ancient or ancestral)
- Lombroso 1876; criminals are ‘genetic throwbacks’ who are biologically different from
non criminals (actavistic form).
- Evolutionary development; Offenders lack evolutionary development, savage and
untamed nature means cannot adjust to civilised society and would inevitably turn to
crime, saw criminal behaviour as an innate tendency (not their fault).
- Atavistic features; criminal subtype could be identified as being in possession of
physiological ‘markers’. Atavistic features are biologically determined.
Characteristics are mainly of the head and face that makes criminals physically
different.
