Offender profiling – tool employed by police when solving crimes. Bottom-up approach – aims to generate a profile of the offender by
(Narrows field of enquiry) looking at the available evidence.
Top-down approach (American) - Data driven approach uses statistical analysis of the available
1. FBI interviewed 36 sexually motivated serial killers to spot patterns of evidence to emerge a profile of the offender.
behaviour - Statistical information is analysed to find relationships between
2. Concluded Murderers / rapists can be classified. crimes, patterns of behaviour, & create a baseline for comparison.
Modus Operandi – idea offenders have certain ‘ways of working’ which Investigate psychology assumptions:
correlate to a set of social & psychological characteristics. - Interpersonal coherence – suggests the suspect behaves
Crime scene Characteristics consistently at the crime scene and in real life e.g. violent crimes
Organised Planned crime scene, ↑average IQ (rape) will reflect how they treat women in real life.
- Ted Bundy = law restraints & weapons Socially & sexually - Time & Place – can indicate mode of travel or base.
student, ‘charming’, Victim targeted competent - Forensic awareness – ‘covering tracks’ at crime scene suggests
targeted attractive ↑control / precision Profess occupation a suspect of previous police investigations.
brunette women Little evidence left behind Married & children. Geographical profiling – assumes serial offenders restrict work to
Disorganised Impulsive attack ↓average IQ familiar geographical area
- Charles Manson – Opportunistic Unemployed Crime mapping – maps the location of each crime, to inference the
victims all ages, Little planning Sexual dysfunction likely home or base of the offender.
male & female, Little control Failed relationships - Creates hypothesis of offenders modus operandi
gruesome crime Body/ objects left behind Live alone & close - Provides ‘centre of gravity’ likely to include base.
scenes. to crime scene - Allows educated prediction of ‘jeopardy surface’ (place of
Constructing Profile/ Methods offenders next strike)
1. Data assimilation – reviews the evidence at crime scene Canter’s 1993 circle theory – offender’s base is central to their
2. Crime scene classification – matched to pre-existing org/ disorg crimes.
3. Crime reconstruction - hypothesise sequence of events, victim - The marauder – operates close to proximity of home base
behaviour - The commuter – travels a distance away from usual residence
4. Profile generation of offender - background, demographic, physical Strength Weakness
characteristics Canter’s smallest space analysis Copson 1995 ‘useful’ in 83%
- This profile will inform all future generations of police investigation of 120 serial killers found ‘centre cases but only 3% lead to
- Only offenders with this profile will be investigated. of gravity’ where base was accurate identification
Strength Weakness always found Rachel Nickell – criminal profiler
Meketa 2017 – ↑85% solved Interviews of only serial killers - Spatial info must be key to Paul Britton targeted Colin
burglary cases when adapted into 2 - cannot be applied to common determine base. Stagg as offender for 5mo. At
new categories. crimes (burglaries) - More noticeable in marauder’s court the judge threw it out as
Canter 2004 – smallest space - Serial killers unlikely to be & commuter’s are harder to the only link to Stagg was
analysis on 100 USA murders found honest, small sample size, geographically profile profile. Later Stagg found
cases to corelate with certain informal Q. Scientific & objective – not innocent
characteristics. Evidence of Oversimplistic - not exclusive, trying to fit a typology & - Profile cannot = guarantee
organised offender. limited application, may be a grounded in evidence offender
‘mixed offender’ - AI can manipulate data to - Diff to know how much of
Top-down Bottom-up provide insights & results profile is correct & what to
which assist investigation. believe
Fixed typologies – 2 profiles Data driven, profile emerges
Enables prediction. - Makes money & time a
with evidence & unique to
waste
offender
Casual & informative interviews Psychological research
Police experience, subjective, Scientific – uses stats database
, Explanations of offending: Biological Explanation
Genetic explanation - offenders inherit genes that predispose them to crime. Explanations of offending: Historical Approach
Candidate genes Atavistic characteristics – physiological markers of
- Shortened MAOA associated with violent crime = ↓serotonin & ↑dopamine criminals
- CDH13 – abnormality associated with ADHD & substance abuse. Lombroso – examined facial & cranial features of 4000+
Twin Studies (Raine) – MZ 52%, DZ 21% Italian convicts (living & dead), using stats analysis & lab
Diathesis Stress –genetic vulnerability & an environmental trigger needed? investigation of their features.
Strength Weakness - Narrow sloping brow, Strong prominent jaw, High
Mendick – 14427 adoptees, Adoptive & bio criminal parent = 25%, 1 bio Twin Studies cheekbones, Facial asymmetry, Dark skin, additional
criminal parent = 20%, 1 adoptive criminal parent = 15% No criminal parent – MZ share fingers/ toes.
= 13.5% greater - Tattoo’s, unemployment, insensitivity to pain.
Crowe – adoptees with criminal bio mother had 50% risk of criminal record environmental - Subtypes: Murderers = blood shoots eyes,
by 18, control adoptees = 5% similarity. Fraudsters = thin lips
Brunner – Dutch family were extremely aggressive committing crimes such Not with law Atavistic = reverting to a former ancestral type
as rape. Found all 5 males had no MAOA gene - suggested criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ of a
previous species that lack evolutionary
Neural Explanation - Irregular NTs caused by genes.
development.
↑dopamine – causes pleasure & drug addiction creates a biology craving that crime e.g. theft
- Untamed nature means they cannot adjust to
may satisfy.
demands of civilised society and turn to crime.
↓serotonin – linked with ability to control impulsivity,
- Assumes crime is an innate tendency & determined
↑noradrenaline – role in fight/flight, leads to high aggression, ↓ means offender cannot resist
by look.
emotional/ behavioural urges.
↓activity in prefrontal cortex – processes decision making & emotional control, so cannot Strength Weakness
supress strong urgers to crime & violent behaviour. Influential Shift of Scientific racism
↓limbic system – processes guilt, empathy, compassion, an abnormality means offenders crime - away from - Features common to
commit crimes with little of these emotions. moralistic to a scientific African cultures & only
Weakness & creditable realm males
which used objective - ↓credibility, instead
Raine – many offenders have APD= ↓empathy & emotional regulation.
methods. racism
- EEG scans on those with APD = ↓activity in pre-frontal cortex, ↓11% in volume in
Cognitive – immature RM – only Italian, researcher
grey matter, lowered EEG arousal.
pre-conventional bias
- those with head injury had greater ↓activity
reasoning Goring 1913 compared 3000
Correlational – no cause & effect of NTs, link to ADP but not offending.
Biological – innate criminal & 3000 non-
Not consistent with Law
Eysenck – innate, criminal. No evidence
Kysers – asked offender’s with APD to empathise & their mirror neurone activated
immature conditioning, offenders distinct in
- Suggests offenders are not without empathy but have a switch of on/off. Process of socialisation
- Criminal behaviour is developmentally immature (selfish & wants
Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality (Psychological immediate gratification) This is because…
explanation) - Criminals have a NS difficult to condition, so are not taught to delay
Biological basis – personality traits are determined by the Nervous gratification or social sensitivity during childhood. This means
system (NS) we inherit which affects the process of socialisation. criminals do not respond to antisocial behaviour with anxiety & engage
- Criminals inherit an unstable NS at birth, criminality is determined & in crime.
innate. Eysenck’s personality Inventory (EPI) – argues personality can be
- This unstable NS is difficult to condition. measured.
Extraversion (E) Neuroticism (N) - Questionnaire measures E, N and P using Likert scale.
under aroused NS seek Over reactive NS react to Strength Weakness
excitement & stimulation neutral stimuli with great degree Eysenck & Eysenck 1977 – Farrington 1982 – offenders score
engage in risk-taking behaviours unpredictable behaviour compared male prisoners with ↑P but not E & N. No diff in EEG
Criminal personality – score high E AND high N control on EPI measures.
- Prisoners had ↑E,N & P RM – social desirability bias &
(Narrows field of enquiry) looking at the available evidence.
Top-down approach (American) - Data driven approach uses statistical analysis of the available
1. FBI interviewed 36 sexually motivated serial killers to spot patterns of evidence to emerge a profile of the offender.
behaviour - Statistical information is analysed to find relationships between
2. Concluded Murderers / rapists can be classified. crimes, patterns of behaviour, & create a baseline for comparison.
Modus Operandi – idea offenders have certain ‘ways of working’ which Investigate psychology assumptions:
correlate to a set of social & psychological characteristics. - Interpersonal coherence – suggests the suspect behaves
Crime scene Characteristics consistently at the crime scene and in real life e.g. violent crimes
Organised Planned crime scene, ↑average IQ (rape) will reflect how they treat women in real life.
- Ted Bundy = law restraints & weapons Socially & sexually - Time & Place – can indicate mode of travel or base.
student, ‘charming’, Victim targeted competent - Forensic awareness – ‘covering tracks’ at crime scene suggests
targeted attractive ↑control / precision Profess occupation a suspect of previous police investigations.
brunette women Little evidence left behind Married & children. Geographical profiling – assumes serial offenders restrict work to
Disorganised Impulsive attack ↓average IQ familiar geographical area
- Charles Manson – Opportunistic Unemployed Crime mapping – maps the location of each crime, to inference the
victims all ages, Little planning Sexual dysfunction likely home or base of the offender.
male & female, Little control Failed relationships - Creates hypothesis of offenders modus operandi
gruesome crime Body/ objects left behind Live alone & close - Provides ‘centre of gravity’ likely to include base.
scenes. to crime scene - Allows educated prediction of ‘jeopardy surface’ (place of
Constructing Profile/ Methods offenders next strike)
1. Data assimilation – reviews the evidence at crime scene Canter’s 1993 circle theory – offender’s base is central to their
2. Crime scene classification – matched to pre-existing org/ disorg crimes.
3. Crime reconstruction - hypothesise sequence of events, victim - The marauder – operates close to proximity of home base
behaviour - The commuter – travels a distance away from usual residence
4. Profile generation of offender - background, demographic, physical Strength Weakness
characteristics Canter’s smallest space analysis Copson 1995 ‘useful’ in 83%
- This profile will inform all future generations of police investigation of 120 serial killers found ‘centre cases but only 3% lead to
- Only offenders with this profile will be investigated. of gravity’ where base was accurate identification
Strength Weakness always found Rachel Nickell – criminal profiler
Meketa 2017 – ↑85% solved Interviews of only serial killers - Spatial info must be key to Paul Britton targeted Colin
burglary cases when adapted into 2 - cannot be applied to common determine base. Stagg as offender for 5mo. At
new categories. crimes (burglaries) - More noticeable in marauder’s court the judge threw it out as
Canter 2004 – smallest space - Serial killers unlikely to be & commuter’s are harder to the only link to Stagg was
analysis on 100 USA murders found honest, small sample size, geographically profile profile. Later Stagg found
cases to corelate with certain informal Q. Scientific & objective – not innocent
characteristics. Evidence of Oversimplistic - not exclusive, trying to fit a typology & - Profile cannot = guarantee
organised offender. limited application, may be a grounded in evidence offender
‘mixed offender’ - AI can manipulate data to - Diff to know how much of
Top-down Bottom-up provide insights & results profile is correct & what to
which assist investigation. believe
Fixed typologies – 2 profiles Data driven, profile emerges
Enables prediction. - Makes money & time a
with evidence & unique to
waste
offender
Casual & informative interviews Psychological research
Police experience, subjective, Scientific – uses stats database
, Explanations of offending: Biological Explanation
Genetic explanation - offenders inherit genes that predispose them to crime. Explanations of offending: Historical Approach
Candidate genes Atavistic characteristics – physiological markers of
- Shortened MAOA associated with violent crime = ↓serotonin & ↑dopamine criminals
- CDH13 – abnormality associated with ADHD & substance abuse. Lombroso – examined facial & cranial features of 4000+
Twin Studies (Raine) – MZ 52%, DZ 21% Italian convicts (living & dead), using stats analysis & lab
Diathesis Stress –genetic vulnerability & an environmental trigger needed? investigation of their features.
Strength Weakness - Narrow sloping brow, Strong prominent jaw, High
Mendick – 14427 adoptees, Adoptive & bio criminal parent = 25%, 1 bio Twin Studies cheekbones, Facial asymmetry, Dark skin, additional
criminal parent = 20%, 1 adoptive criminal parent = 15% No criminal parent – MZ share fingers/ toes.
= 13.5% greater - Tattoo’s, unemployment, insensitivity to pain.
Crowe – adoptees with criminal bio mother had 50% risk of criminal record environmental - Subtypes: Murderers = blood shoots eyes,
by 18, control adoptees = 5% similarity. Fraudsters = thin lips
Brunner – Dutch family were extremely aggressive committing crimes such Not with law Atavistic = reverting to a former ancestral type
as rape. Found all 5 males had no MAOA gene - suggested criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ of a
previous species that lack evolutionary
Neural Explanation - Irregular NTs caused by genes.
development.
↑dopamine – causes pleasure & drug addiction creates a biology craving that crime e.g. theft
- Untamed nature means they cannot adjust to
may satisfy.
demands of civilised society and turn to crime.
↓serotonin – linked with ability to control impulsivity,
- Assumes crime is an innate tendency & determined
↑noradrenaline – role in fight/flight, leads to high aggression, ↓ means offender cannot resist
by look.
emotional/ behavioural urges.
↓activity in prefrontal cortex – processes decision making & emotional control, so cannot Strength Weakness
supress strong urgers to crime & violent behaviour. Influential Shift of Scientific racism
↓limbic system – processes guilt, empathy, compassion, an abnormality means offenders crime - away from - Features common to
commit crimes with little of these emotions. moralistic to a scientific African cultures & only
Weakness & creditable realm males
which used objective - ↓credibility, instead
Raine – many offenders have APD= ↓empathy & emotional regulation.
methods. racism
- EEG scans on those with APD = ↓activity in pre-frontal cortex, ↓11% in volume in
Cognitive – immature RM – only Italian, researcher
grey matter, lowered EEG arousal.
pre-conventional bias
- those with head injury had greater ↓activity
reasoning Goring 1913 compared 3000
Correlational – no cause & effect of NTs, link to ADP but not offending.
Biological – innate criminal & 3000 non-
Not consistent with Law
Eysenck – innate, criminal. No evidence
Kysers – asked offender’s with APD to empathise & their mirror neurone activated
immature conditioning, offenders distinct in
- Suggests offenders are not without empathy but have a switch of on/off. Process of socialisation
- Criminal behaviour is developmentally immature (selfish & wants
Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality (Psychological immediate gratification) This is because…
explanation) - Criminals have a NS difficult to condition, so are not taught to delay
Biological basis – personality traits are determined by the Nervous gratification or social sensitivity during childhood. This means
system (NS) we inherit which affects the process of socialisation. criminals do not respond to antisocial behaviour with anxiety & engage
- Criminals inherit an unstable NS at birth, criminality is determined & in crime.
innate. Eysenck’s personality Inventory (EPI) – argues personality can be
- This unstable NS is difficult to condition. measured.
Extraversion (E) Neuroticism (N) - Questionnaire measures E, N and P using Likert scale.
under aroused NS seek Over reactive NS react to Strength Weakness
excitement & stimulation neutral stimuli with great degree Eysenck & Eysenck 1977 – Farrington 1982 – offenders score
engage in risk-taking behaviours unpredictable behaviour compared male prisoners with ↑P but not E & N. No diff in EEG
Criminal personality – score high E AND high N control on EPI measures.
- Prisoners had ↑E,N & P RM – social desirability bias &
