Forensic Psychology
• Offender profiling: the top-down approach, including organised and disorganised types of offender;
the bottom-up approach, including investigative Psychology; geographical profiling.
• Biological explanations of offending behaviour: an historical approach (atavistic form); genetics and
neural explanations.
• Psychological explanations of offending behaviour: Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality;
cognitive explanations; level of moral reasoning and cognitive distortions, including hostile
attribution bias and minimalisation; differential association theory; psychodynamic explanations.
• Dealing with offending behaviour: the aims of custodial sentencing and the psychological effects of
custodial sentencing. Recidivism. Behaviour modification in custody. Anger management and
restorative justice programmes.
, Offender Profiling: Top-Down Approach
The top-down approach, including organised and disorganised types of offender;
Top Down (FBI) approach relies on the assessment of the crime scene and drawing conclusions about the offender
from the evidence found there and matching this against predetermined profiles of an offender type (organised
and disorganised offender types).
Hazelwood and Douglas – types of offenders
Organised offender: planned in advance, targeted victim, weapon removed from the scene, high intelligence,
skilled
Disorganised offender: unplanned, victim not targeted, unplanned violence, weapon is often present, low
intelligence
Mixed offender: do not fit into categories of organised or disorganised
In practice, the top-down approach is also known as crime scene analysis and Jackson and Bekerian put forward
the stages developed by the FBI in order to help build a profile
Stage 1: Data assimilation - collection of all evidence available (e.g. crime scene photos, post mortem results).
Stage 2: Crime classification - organising the crime into a particular type (i.e. organised or disorganised).
Stage 3: Crime reconstruction - reconstructing the crime in order to develop predictions about the motives and
behaviour of the offender/victim.
Stage 4: Profile generation - developing a profile based on this information regarding various characteristics,
including physical appearance and personality.
AO3 -
Canter et al – test the accuracy of organised and disorganised offender types. Researchers conducted content
analysis on 100 cases of serial killers in US. Used criteria set out by Douglas et al to classify the crimes as either
organised or disorganised
Found significant higher number of disorganised crimes. Further analysis of types of crime didn’t clearly separate
organised and disorganised crimes. So many disorganised crimes identified suggests either they are easier to spot
or fewer organised crimes get committed.
However, if it is that they are easier to spot, then that might suggest that criteria for identifying each is insufficient
AO3 – Simplistic to say two types. Research, AO3 – not all types of crimes. Why this is an issue.
alternatives. Possible gender/class bias.
Canter et al argued that it was overly simplistic to Only applies to one type of crime, namely violent crime,
reduce the types of criminals to only 2. While Douglas and rape and most offenders concerned are male
added the ‘mixed’ typology, this isn’t necessarily the
solution to the problem
Causes gender bias in approach as research focuses
Validity - Not based on scientific principles – it is based primarily on male offenders and a disorganised/
on intuition and experience so reduces its validity as organised female offender may have different
characteristics
decisions are based on subjective judgment
, AO3 – comparison with bottom up. Implications for the offender/society/the economy
- Based on the experience of the investigator
Compared to bottom- up, it is clear the limitations that the top-down has as it can only be applied to one crime
whereas the bottom-up is applicable to many types of crime
As top-down profiling tends to only apply to crimes of sexual assault or more violent crimes such as murder, it is
difficult to use the approach with crimes of less severity such as serial burglary or arson
As such, the bottom-up approach is able to generalise to different types of crime, as it makes use of objective
measures such as crime scene location
Offender Profiling: Bottom-up approach
The bottom-up approach, including investigative Psychology; geographical profiling
Makes use of past data on similar crimes committed in order to build a picture of the offender. Developed by David
Canter
Canter et al – wanted to see offender profiles built on objective data rather than an ‘intuition’ based approach,
such that used by top-down profilers.
Egger argues that it is partially based on some key assumptions about the interactions between offenders and their
victims:
1) Interpersonal coherence – there is a consistency between the way offenders interact with their victims and with
others in their everyday lives
2) Time and place – the time and location of an offender’s crime will communicate something about their own
place of residence/employment
3) Criminal characteristics – characteristics about the offender can help to classify them, which helps the police
investigation
4) Criminal career – crimes tend to be committed in similar fashion by offenders and can provide indication of how
their criminal activity will develop
5) Forensic awareness – offenders who show an understanding of a police investigation are likely to have had
previous encounters with the criminal justice system
Geographical profiling
A form of bottom-up profiling; takes particular note of the principle of time and place.
Canter and Young identified a number of telling cluses regarding the place crimes are committed in relation to the
offender:
1) Locatedness – in any violent crime, it may be that several locations are relevant. For example, an offender may
meet the victim, attack, dispose, etc. in different location. All of these locations are part of building an accurate
picture
2) Systematic crime location choice – this is the assumption that crime scenes are not random. The offender will
likely have some kind of connection with the area or at least familiarity
3) Centrality – as crime scenes are likely to occur in a familiar area to the offender, this means that crime scenes
tend to cluster. Here are two types of offenders that can require further analysis: commuters who travel from their
home to the crime scene, and marauder who will commit offences close to home
4) Comparative case analysis – this is the assumption that the crimes are being committed by the same offender
and therefore increases the precision of geographic profiling
• Offender profiling: the top-down approach, including organised and disorganised types of offender;
the bottom-up approach, including investigative Psychology; geographical profiling.
• Biological explanations of offending behaviour: an historical approach (atavistic form); genetics and
neural explanations.
• Psychological explanations of offending behaviour: Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality;
cognitive explanations; level of moral reasoning and cognitive distortions, including hostile
attribution bias and minimalisation; differential association theory; psychodynamic explanations.
• Dealing with offending behaviour: the aims of custodial sentencing and the psychological effects of
custodial sentencing. Recidivism. Behaviour modification in custody. Anger management and
restorative justice programmes.
, Offender Profiling: Top-Down Approach
The top-down approach, including organised and disorganised types of offender;
Top Down (FBI) approach relies on the assessment of the crime scene and drawing conclusions about the offender
from the evidence found there and matching this against predetermined profiles of an offender type (organised
and disorganised offender types).
Hazelwood and Douglas – types of offenders
Organised offender: planned in advance, targeted victim, weapon removed from the scene, high intelligence,
skilled
Disorganised offender: unplanned, victim not targeted, unplanned violence, weapon is often present, low
intelligence
Mixed offender: do not fit into categories of organised or disorganised
In practice, the top-down approach is also known as crime scene analysis and Jackson and Bekerian put forward
the stages developed by the FBI in order to help build a profile
Stage 1: Data assimilation - collection of all evidence available (e.g. crime scene photos, post mortem results).
Stage 2: Crime classification - organising the crime into a particular type (i.e. organised or disorganised).
Stage 3: Crime reconstruction - reconstructing the crime in order to develop predictions about the motives and
behaviour of the offender/victim.
Stage 4: Profile generation - developing a profile based on this information regarding various characteristics,
including physical appearance and personality.
AO3 -
Canter et al – test the accuracy of organised and disorganised offender types. Researchers conducted content
analysis on 100 cases of serial killers in US. Used criteria set out by Douglas et al to classify the crimes as either
organised or disorganised
Found significant higher number of disorganised crimes. Further analysis of types of crime didn’t clearly separate
organised and disorganised crimes. So many disorganised crimes identified suggests either they are easier to spot
or fewer organised crimes get committed.
However, if it is that they are easier to spot, then that might suggest that criteria for identifying each is insufficient
AO3 – Simplistic to say two types. Research, AO3 – not all types of crimes. Why this is an issue.
alternatives. Possible gender/class bias.
Canter et al argued that it was overly simplistic to Only applies to one type of crime, namely violent crime,
reduce the types of criminals to only 2. While Douglas and rape and most offenders concerned are male
added the ‘mixed’ typology, this isn’t necessarily the
solution to the problem
Causes gender bias in approach as research focuses
Validity - Not based on scientific principles – it is based primarily on male offenders and a disorganised/
on intuition and experience so reduces its validity as organised female offender may have different
characteristics
decisions are based on subjective judgment
, AO3 – comparison with bottom up. Implications for the offender/society/the economy
- Based on the experience of the investigator
Compared to bottom- up, it is clear the limitations that the top-down has as it can only be applied to one crime
whereas the bottom-up is applicable to many types of crime
As top-down profiling tends to only apply to crimes of sexual assault or more violent crimes such as murder, it is
difficult to use the approach with crimes of less severity such as serial burglary or arson
As such, the bottom-up approach is able to generalise to different types of crime, as it makes use of objective
measures such as crime scene location
Offender Profiling: Bottom-up approach
The bottom-up approach, including investigative Psychology; geographical profiling
Makes use of past data on similar crimes committed in order to build a picture of the offender. Developed by David
Canter
Canter et al – wanted to see offender profiles built on objective data rather than an ‘intuition’ based approach,
such that used by top-down profilers.
Egger argues that it is partially based on some key assumptions about the interactions between offenders and their
victims:
1) Interpersonal coherence – there is a consistency between the way offenders interact with their victims and with
others in their everyday lives
2) Time and place – the time and location of an offender’s crime will communicate something about their own
place of residence/employment
3) Criminal characteristics – characteristics about the offender can help to classify them, which helps the police
investigation
4) Criminal career – crimes tend to be committed in similar fashion by offenders and can provide indication of how
their criminal activity will develop
5) Forensic awareness – offenders who show an understanding of a police investigation are likely to have had
previous encounters with the criminal justice system
Geographical profiling
A form of bottom-up profiling; takes particular note of the principle of time and place.
Canter and Young identified a number of telling cluses regarding the place crimes are committed in relation to the
offender:
1) Locatedness – in any violent crime, it may be that several locations are relevant. For example, an offender may
meet the victim, attack, dispose, etc. in different location. All of these locations are part of building an accurate
picture
2) Systematic crime location choice – this is the assumption that crime scenes are not random. The offender will
likely have some kind of connection with the area or at least familiarity
3) Centrality – as crime scenes are likely to occur in a familiar area to the offender, this means that crime scenes
tend to cluster. Here are two types of offenders that can require further analysis: commuters who travel from their
home to the crime scene, and marauder who will commit offences close to home
4) Comparative case analysis – this is the assumption that the crimes are being committed by the same offender
and therefore increases the precision of geographic profiling
