Evaluation of the top down approach
David Canter (2004): Analysed data from 100 murders in the USA using smallest space analysis program.
Found evidence of a distinct organised type
S
P N/A
Cultural + gender bias: Sample they interviewed likely to be male and from US
I
A N/A
- David Canter (2004): Also found there was no distinct disorganised killer. Undermines the classification
system as a whole.
- Alison et al (2002): Argues approach is based on out-dated theories of personality being stable. Eternal
and situational factors are constantly changing and can influence the likelihood of offending.
- Grover Godwin (2002): Asks how police would classify killer with high intelligence and sexual
C competence who commits a spontaneous murder in which victims body is left at crime scene
- Holmes (1989): Felt this model was too reductionist and suggested four types of serial killers: Vision,
mission, hedonistic and power control
Moffitt (1993): Proposed that there are several distinct types of adult male offenders. Suggested that
the personality test does not fit with modern personalities
✘Reductionist: Offenders cannot fit into only two typologies. Often they have disorganised and
organised features.
✘Sample bias: Can only be applied to sexually motivated serial killers as that was the sample they
interviewed. Also, best suited to serious crimes (rape, assault, murder)
✘Based on outdated models of personality: Typology classification system is based on assumption that
E offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain consistent across situations and
contexts which isn’t true.
David Canter (2004):
✔Used smallest space analysis – reliable and accurate
D N/A
David Canter (2004): Analysed data from 100 murders in the USA using smallest space analysis program.
Found evidence of a distinct organised type
S
P N/A
Cultural + gender bias: Sample they interviewed likely to be male and from US
I
A N/A
- David Canter (2004): Also found there was no distinct disorganised killer. Undermines the classification
system as a whole.
- Alison et al (2002): Argues approach is based on out-dated theories of personality being stable. Eternal
and situational factors are constantly changing and can influence the likelihood of offending.
- Grover Godwin (2002): Asks how police would classify killer with high intelligence and sexual
C competence who commits a spontaneous murder in which victims body is left at crime scene
- Holmes (1989): Felt this model was too reductionist and suggested four types of serial killers: Vision,
mission, hedonistic and power control
Moffitt (1993): Proposed that there are several distinct types of adult male offenders. Suggested that
the personality test does not fit with modern personalities
✘Reductionist: Offenders cannot fit into only two typologies. Often they have disorganised and
organised features.
✘Sample bias: Can only be applied to sexually motivated serial killers as that was the sample they
interviewed. Also, best suited to serious crimes (rape, assault, murder)
✘Based on outdated models of personality: Typology classification system is based on assumption that
E offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain consistent across situations and
contexts which isn’t true.
David Canter (2004):
✔Used smallest space analysis – reliable and accurate
D N/A
