OFFENDER PROFILING:
o Aim: to narrow down list of suspects when crime’s committed by working alongside police to
gather info on crime scenes and other evidence to generate probable characteristics of offender.
o 3 main goals:
Social and psychological assessment: basic info e.g., personality, sex, race, employment
Psychological evaluation of belongings: possessions associating offender with crime scene e.g.,
souvenirs, photos
Interviewing suggestions and strategies: techniques suitable for individual offenders.
THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH:
o Interview based technique: US based conducted by FBI.
o Began in 1970s, FBI conducted in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated murderers inc Ted
Bundy and Charles Manson to find why/how they committed crimes concluding that data could be
categorised into organised/disorganised crimes.
o If data from crime scene matched a category, we can generate other likely characteristics to
narrow down suspects.
CATEGORIES:
Organised Offender: Disorganised Offender:
Personality: Personality:
Evidence of planning at crime scene as victim’s Little evidence of planning – spontaneous
deliberately targeted so killer has ‘type’ of Low than avg IQ in unskilled work
victim they seek out. Sexually/socially dysfunctional with failed
High degree of control maintained. relationships
Above avg intelligence in skilled profession Tend to live alone + lives close to crime scene.
Socially/sexually competent + may be married Low level of control
W kids. Crime scene:
Crime scene: Reflects’ impulsive nature, body’s still at scene
Little evidence of clues left behind
PROCESS:
Info gathered from crime scene + other sources on exactly what happened
Data
assimilati Look at photos, forensic evidence and police report
on
crime Decision made re whether criminal appears to be organised and planned or
scene acted hastily in an unplanned way
classificat
ion
Hypotheses generated on what may've occured in crime scene e.g. victims
crime
reconstru
behaviour/events
ction
profile rough 'sketch' developed inc social grp, appearance or likely behvaioural traits
generatio
n
EVALUATION:
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
o Research supporting organsied offender. o Approach is based on behavioural consistency
o E.g., David Canter analysed 100 US assuming offenders have ways of working that’d
murders by diff serial killers. Using small be the same across all crime scenes.
space analysis, they analysed 39 aspects o Mischell: rather than personality causing
of serial killing finding many features of behaviour, it’s acc situation offenders are in that
serial killing matching FBIS organsied does questioning whether behavioural patterns
, offender category. observed at a crime scene would tell us about
o Strength as adds validity to the FBIS their everyday life.
typology. o Weakness as Qs whether model based on
o However, studies suggest categories behavioural consistency will acc lead to
aren’t mutually exclusive and there’s little successful identification.
evidence for disorganise types. Godwin: o However, has helped in high profile murders like
hard to classify serial killers as 1 so should Arthur Shawcross as he has similar killing styles
be a continuum. Douglas: should be 3rd of strangulation and wasn’t targeted leading to
category called mixed offender his identification
o Wider application of approach o Flawed evidence
o E.g., can be adapted to many crime types o E.g., it was developed thru interviews with 36
e.g., burglary even tho critics said it’d only murders in US: 25 serial killers and other 11 ½
work for serial killing. murders. Then 24 classified as organised and 12
o Meketa: approach applied to burglary led disorganised. Sample was poor and non-random
to 85% rise in solved cases in 3 states in and un-representative of diff offender types +
US. Method retains organised+ were all offenders who were caught. Standard Qs
disorganised category but adds in weren’t set so each interview was diff and not
interpersonal (knows victim) and comparable.
opportunistic. o Weakness as suggests approach doesn’t have
o Strength as suggests has wider application sound, scientific basis.
than assumes o Interviews could also have social desirability bias
THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH:
Aim: generate pic of offender and their likely characteristic, behaviour and social background by
systematic analysis of evidence at crime scene.
UK approach: more data driven and deeper/more rigorous scrutiny of offence.
Techniques used:
Investigative Psych: Geographical Profiling:
o Applies statistical procedures to o Uses info on crime locations for inferences on likely
analyse crime scene evidence so basis of offender.
general behaviour patterns are o Known as crime mapping and based on spatial
established across crime scenes so consistency: people committing crimes in a limited
statistical database can be used as a geographical space.
baseline for comparison. o Can be combined with investigative psych to create
o Details can be matched against hypotheses.
database for important details on Canters circle theory:
offender, personal history, family o Assumption that serial killers offend in familiar areas
background to see if crimes are so understanding their behaviour patterns provides a
linked: centre of gravity (circle) around offender base.
Interpersonal coherence: way offender o Offenders commit crimes in 2 ways:
behaves may reflect real life behaviour Marauders: proximity to home. Hide identity and crimes
irl. further spread.
Significance of time + place: may Commuters: travels distance away from home w/o
indicate where offender lives. hiding identity but around area of some familiarity
Forensic awareness: behaviour may o Spatial decision gives insight on nature of offence and
demonstrate previous involvement with whether planned or opportunistic, age or employment.
police in how tracks are covered
RESEARCH EVIDENCE: (John Duffy – Railway rapist)
o Many women raped in London so Canter placed all cases on map allowing him to speculate where
rapist may live.
o He identified 2 ways offender committed crime: dominance used and how offender dealt with
victim.
o Cases on a map allowed distinctive patterns in locations to be found where Duffy was likely to
live.
o Before geographical profiling, he was 1 of 2000 suspects but was narrowed down to 2.
o It suggested he lived locally in Kilburn and person had some association with railway and was
found to be true of Duffy and he was a carpenter for railway.
o Supports investigative psych as looking at cases of serial rape/murder allowed consistent patterns
to build an accurate profile of Duffy.
o Aim: to narrow down list of suspects when crime’s committed by working alongside police to
gather info on crime scenes and other evidence to generate probable characteristics of offender.
o 3 main goals:
Social and psychological assessment: basic info e.g., personality, sex, race, employment
Psychological evaluation of belongings: possessions associating offender with crime scene e.g.,
souvenirs, photos
Interviewing suggestions and strategies: techniques suitable for individual offenders.
THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH:
o Interview based technique: US based conducted by FBI.
o Began in 1970s, FBI conducted in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated murderers inc Ted
Bundy and Charles Manson to find why/how they committed crimes concluding that data could be
categorised into organised/disorganised crimes.
o If data from crime scene matched a category, we can generate other likely characteristics to
narrow down suspects.
CATEGORIES:
Organised Offender: Disorganised Offender:
Personality: Personality:
Evidence of planning at crime scene as victim’s Little evidence of planning – spontaneous
deliberately targeted so killer has ‘type’ of Low than avg IQ in unskilled work
victim they seek out. Sexually/socially dysfunctional with failed
High degree of control maintained. relationships
Above avg intelligence in skilled profession Tend to live alone + lives close to crime scene.
Socially/sexually competent + may be married Low level of control
W kids. Crime scene:
Crime scene: Reflects’ impulsive nature, body’s still at scene
Little evidence of clues left behind
PROCESS:
Info gathered from crime scene + other sources on exactly what happened
Data
assimilati Look at photos, forensic evidence and police report
on
crime Decision made re whether criminal appears to be organised and planned or
scene acted hastily in an unplanned way
classificat
ion
Hypotheses generated on what may've occured in crime scene e.g. victims
crime
reconstru
behaviour/events
ction
profile rough 'sketch' developed inc social grp, appearance or likely behvaioural traits
generatio
n
EVALUATION:
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
o Research supporting organsied offender. o Approach is based on behavioural consistency
o E.g., David Canter analysed 100 US assuming offenders have ways of working that’d
murders by diff serial killers. Using small be the same across all crime scenes.
space analysis, they analysed 39 aspects o Mischell: rather than personality causing
of serial killing finding many features of behaviour, it’s acc situation offenders are in that
serial killing matching FBIS organsied does questioning whether behavioural patterns
, offender category. observed at a crime scene would tell us about
o Strength as adds validity to the FBIS their everyday life.
typology. o Weakness as Qs whether model based on
o However, studies suggest categories behavioural consistency will acc lead to
aren’t mutually exclusive and there’s little successful identification.
evidence for disorganise types. Godwin: o However, has helped in high profile murders like
hard to classify serial killers as 1 so should Arthur Shawcross as he has similar killing styles
be a continuum. Douglas: should be 3rd of strangulation and wasn’t targeted leading to
category called mixed offender his identification
o Wider application of approach o Flawed evidence
o E.g., can be adapted to many crime types o E.g., it was developed thru interviews with 36
e.g., burglary even tho critics said it’d only murders in US: 25 serial killers and other 11 ½
work for serial killing. murders. Then 24 classified as organised and 12
o Meketa: approach applied to burglary led disorganised. Sample was poor and non-random
to 85% rise in solved cases in 3 states in and un-representative of diff offender types +
US. Method retains organised+ were all offenders who were caught. Standard Qs
disorganised category but adds in weren’t set so each interview was diff and not
interpersonal (knows victim) and comparable.
opportunistic. o Weakness as suggests approach doesn’t have
o Strength as suggests has wider application sound, scientific basis.
than assumes o Interviews could also have social desirability bias
THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH:
Aim: generate pic of offender and their likely characteristic, behaviour and social background by
systematic analysis of evidence at crime scene.
UK approach: more data driven and deeper/more rigorous scrutiny of offence.
Techniques used:
Investigative Psych: Geographical Profiling:
o Applies statistical procedures to o Uses info on crime locations for inferences on likely
analyse crime scene evidence so basis of offender.
general behaviour patterns are o Known as crime mapping and based on spatial
established across crime scenes so consistency: people committing crimes in a limited
statistical database can be used as a geographical space.
baseline for comparison. o Can be combined with investigative psych to create
o Details can be matched against hypotheses.
database for important details on Canters circle theory:
offender, personal history, family o Assumption that serial killers offend in familiar areas
background to see if crimes are so understanding their behaviour patterns provides a
linked: centre of gravity (circle) around offender base.
Interpersonal coherence: way offender o Offenders commit crimes in 2 ways:
behaves may reflect real life behaviour Marauders: proximity to home. Hide identity and crimes
irl. further spread.
Significance of time + place: may Commuters: travels distance away from home w/o
indicate where offender lives. hiding identity but around area of some familiarity
Forensic awareness: behaviour may o Spatial decision gives insight on nature of offence and
demonstrate previous involvement with whether planned or opportunistic, age or employment.
police in how tracks are covered
RESEARCH EVIDENCE: (John Duffy – Railway rapist)
o Many women raped in London so Canter placed all cases on map allowing him to speculate where
rapist may live.
o He identified 2 ways offender committed crime: dominance used and how offender dealt with
victim.
o Cases on a map allowed distinctive patterns in locations to be found where Duffy was likely to
live.
o Before geographical profiling, he was 1 of 2000 suspects but was narrowed down to 2.
o It suggested he lived locally in Kilburn and person had some association with railway and was
found to be true of Duffy and he was a carpenter for railway.
o Supports investigative psych as looking at cases of serial rape/murder allowed consistent patterns
to build an accurate profile of Duffy.
