WAYS OF MEASURING CRIME :
WAYS OF MEASURING STRENGTHS : LIMITATIONS :
CRIME :
OFFICIAL STATS 1. UNRELIABLE
- Significantly underestimate
the true extent of rime
- Only 25% of offences are
only recorded in official
figures
- The other 75% are ‘dark
figures’ (due to crimes being
under-reported by victims &
under-recorded by police)
- Nottinghamshire Police were
more likely than any other
region to record thefts of
under £10 which explains
apparent spikes of thefts in
1985
VICTIM SURVEYS 1. PROVIDES INFO ABOUT ‘DARK 1. ISSUES WITH SAMPLING
FIGURES’ OF UNREPORTED CRIME - Random sampling aims to
2. MORE CONSISTENT THAN identify a representative
OFFICIAL STATS sample BUT only 75% who
- Especially making are contacted take part SO
comparisons over time final sample is biased
because official stats very - Sample is only drawn from
with changes in law & those with a postal address
reporting practises which is also bias
OFFENDER SURVEYS 1. SELF-REPORT
- Lack of accuracy with
answers
- In offender surveys ppl may
underplay criminal
involvement & other
behaviours e.g. drug use
- HOWEVER the OCJS
reported that the ppts said
they were honest in their
answers (Hales et al 2007)
TOP-DOWN / TYPOLOGY APPROACH - OFFENDER PROFILING
Strengths Limitations
1. Qualitative data 1. It is difficult to distinguish between organised and
- The approach non-numerical disorganised types of offender
language-based data collected through - Turvey suggests that dichotomy is false
interviews, open questions and content and is more likely to be a continuum
analysis. rather than 2 distinct categories
- THEREFORE It allows researchers to - THEREFORE this suggests that the crime
develop insights into the nature of assessment aspect of top-down profiling is
subjective experiences, opinions and limiting and therefore reduces the
feelings. usability of the entire approach
2. Issues with methodology
- The original data is based on the
interviews with 36 of the most dangerous
and sexually motivated murderers,
including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
- The self-report data from the interviews is
then used to identify the key
characteristics that would lead to the
apprehension of an offender
- HOWEVER, basing the entire profiling
strategy on these interviews is highly
flawed as the individuals, who are highly
manipulative, are unlikely to be a good
source of reliable information.
3. Based on outdated models of personality
- The typology classification system is
based on the assumption that offenders
have patterns of behaviour and
motivations that remain consistent across
, situations and contexts.
- critics such as Alison et al (2002) have
suggested that this approach is naïve and
is informed by old fashioned models of
personality that see behaviour as being
driven by stable dispositional traits rather
than external factors that may be
constantly changing.
- This is a weakness as it means that the top
down approach has poor validity.
THEREFORE offender profiling is
unreliable.
BOTTOM-UP APPROACH - OFFENDER PROFILING
Strengths : Limitations :
1. Bottom-up approach, compared to offender 1. There are mixed results for profiling
profiling, is seen as a more scientific approach - Gary Copson surveyed 48 police forces &
- For example, it uses evidence and found the advice provided by the profiler
psychological theory, rather than being was judged to be ‘useful’ in 83% of cases
driven by hunches, making it more BUT only in 3% did it lead to accurate
objective. identification of the offender.
- This is a strength because with the aid of - THEREFORE, this highlights that while the
advanced artificial intelligence, bottom-up approach can be useful in
investigators are able to manipulate helping to provide information it DOES
geographical, biographical and NOT necessarily result in the identification
psychological data quickly to produce of the accurate offender.
insights and results that assist in the 2. Bottom-Up Profiling has led to wrongful
investigation. convictions
- As a result, the credibility of the - For example, in the case of Rachael
bottom-up approach of offender profiling Nickell’s murder, Colin Stagg was initially
is increased. convicted as he matched the profile.
- HOWEVER, new forensic evidence emerged
2. The bottom-up approach has wider applications leading to Robert Napper being convicted
than the top-down approach after he was initially ruled out of the
- One strength of the bottom-up approach enquiry.
of offender profiling is that it has a very - THEREFORE, this shows that just because
wide application. someone fits a profile it doesn’t
- For example, it can be applied to a wide necessarily mean they are an offender.
range of offences, whereas the top-down
approach is limited in it’s application
(mainly to sexually motivated murderers)
- Techniques such as smallest space
analysis and the principle of spatial
consistency can be used in the
investigation of crimes such as burglary
and theft as well as more serious offences
such as murder and rape.
- This is a strength because it means it is
more versatile for use in wider policing.
- THEREFORE the credibility of the
bottom-up approach of offender profiling
is increased.
GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING
Strengths Limitations
1. Can be applied to a range of offences 1. Model is flawed
- Small space analysis and spatial - Patherick suggested that if a person's
consistency can be used in investigating home is not at the centre of the circle then
burglary and theft as well as rape and the police may look in the wrong place.
murder offences. - THEREFORE the use of the circle if
- THEREFORE this technique is seen as oversimplified.
highly reliable and can be generalised to 2. It cannot be used in all circumstances
multiple offences. - For example, it can’t distinguish between
multiple offenders in the same area
- ALSO, it is limited to spatial behaviour &
doesn’t take into account personality
characteristics
- THEREFORE, it is questionable as to how
much more it offers than the traditional
method of Police placing pins on a map to
see where a group of crimes were
WAYS OF MEASURING STRENGTHS : LIMITATIONS :
CRIME :
OFFICIAL STATS 1. UNRELIABLE
- Significantly underestimate
the true extent of rime
- Only 25% of offences are
only recorded in official
figures
- The other 75% are ‘dark
figures’ (due to crimes being
under-reported by victims &
under-recorded by police)
- Nottinghamshire Police were
more likely than any other
region to record thefts of
under £10 which explains
apparent spikes of thefts in
1985
VICTIM SURVEYS 1. PROVIDES INFO ABOUT ‘DARK 1. ISSUES WITH SAMPLING
FIGURES’ OF UNREPORTED CRIME - Random sampling aims to
2. MORE CONSISTENT THAN identify a representative
OFFICIAL STATS sample BUT only 75% who
- Especially making are contacted take part SO
comparisons over time final sample is biased
because official stats very - Sample is only drawn from
with changes in law & those with a postal address
reporting practises which is also bias
OFFENDER SURVEYS 1. SELF-REPORT
- Lack of accuracy with
answers
- In offender surveys ppl may
underplay criminal
involvement & other
behaviours e.g. drug use
- HOWEVER the OCJS
reported that the ppts said
they were honest in their
answers (Hales et al 2007)
TOP-DOWN / TYPOLOGY APPROACH - OFFENDER PROFILING
Strengths Limitations
1. Qualitative data 1. It is difficult to distinguish between organised and
- The approach non-numerical disorganised types of offender
language-based data collected through - Turvey suggests that dichotomy is false
interviews, open questions and content and is more likely to be a continuum
analysis. rather than 2 distinct categories
- THEREFORE It allows researchers to - THEREFORE this suggests that the crime
develop insights into the nature of assessment aspect of top-down profiling is
subjective experiences, opinions and limiting and therefore reduces the
feelings. usability of the entire approach
2. Issues with methodology
- The original data is based on the
interviews with 36 of the most dangerous
and sexually motivated murderers,
including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
- The self-report data from the interviews is
then used to identify the key
characteristics that would lead to the
apprehension of an offender
- HOWEVER, basing the entire profiling
strategy on these interviews is highly
flawed as the individuals, who are highly
manipulative, are unlikely to be a good
source of reliable information.
3. Based on outdated models of personality
- The typology classification system is
based on the assumption that offenders
have patterns of behaviour and
motivations that remain consistent across
, situations and contexts.
- critics such as Alison et al (2002) have
suggested that this approach is naïve and
is informed by old fashioned models of
personality that see behaviour as being
driven by stable dispositional traits rather
than external factors that may be
constantly changing.
- This is a weakness as it means that the top
down approach has poor validity.
THEREFORE offender profiling is
unreliable.
BOTTOM-UP APPROACH - OFFENDER PROFILING
Strengths : Limitations :
1. Bottom-up approach, compared to offender 1. There are mixed results for profiling
profiling, is seen as a more scientific approach - Gary Copson surveyed 48 police forces &
- For example, it uses evidence and found the advice provided by the profiler
psychological theory, rather than being was judged to be ‘useful’ in 83% of cases
driven by hunches, making it more BUT only in 3% did it lead to accurate
objective. identification of the offender.
- This is a strength because with the aid of - THEREFORE, this highlights that while the
advanced artificial intelligence, bottom-up approach can be useful in
investigators are able to manipulate helping to provide information it DOES
geographical, biographical and NOT necessarily result in the identification
psychological data quickly to produce of the accurate offender.
insights and results that assist in the 2. Bottom-Up Profiling has led to wrongful
investigation. convictions
- As a result, the credibility of the - For example, in the case of Rachael
bottom-up approach of offender profiling Nickell’s murder, Colin Stagg was initially
is increased. convicted as he matched the profile.
- HOWEVER, new forensic evidence emerged
2. The bottom-up approach has wider applications leading to Robert Napper being convicted
than the top-down approach after he was initially ruled out of the
- One strength of the bottom-up approach enquiry.
of offender profiling is that it has a very - THEREFORE, this shows that just because
wide application. someone fits a profile it doesn’t
- For example, it can be applied to a wide necessarily mean they are an offender.
range of offences, whereas the top-down
approach is limited in it’s application
(mainly to sexually motivated murderers)
- Techniques such as smallest space
analysis and the principle of spatial
consistency can be used in the
investigation of crimes such as burglary
and theft as well as more serious offences
such as murder and rape.
- This is a strength because it means it is
more versatile for use in wider policing.
- THEREFORE the credibility of the
bottom-up approach of offender profiling
is increased.
GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING
Strengths Limitations
1. Can be applied to a range of offences 1. Model is flawed
- Small space analysis and spatial - Patherick suggested that if a person's
consistency can be used in investigating home is not at the centre of the circle then
burglary and theft as well as rape and the police may look in the wrong place.
murder offences. - THEREFORE the use of the circle if
- THEREFORE this technique is seen as oversimplified.
highly reliable and can be generalised to 2. It cannot be used in all circumstances
multiple offences. - For example, it can’t distinguish between
multiple offenders in the same area
- ALSO, it is limited to spatial behaviour &
doesn’t take into account personality
characteristics
- THEREFORE, it is questionable as to how
much more it offers than the traditional
method of Police placing pins on a map to
see where a group of crimes were
