OFFENDER PROFILING: THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH
DESCRIPTION (AO1)
Offender profiling is a method of helping to identify the perpetrator of a crime based on the
nature of the offence and the manner in which it is committed. The main aim is to narrow list of
suspects.
This is done by professional profilers and the police, who use evidence and the crime scene to
generate hypotheses about the characteristics of the offender, such as their age, occupation etc.
The top-down approach originates in the USA and as created when the FBI interviewed 36
murderers and used this data, together with characteristics of their crimes, to create two categories
(organised and disorganised). If the data from a crime scene matched some of the characteristics of
one category we could predict other characteristics that would be likely.
ORGANISED AND DISORGANISED TYPES:
These distinctions are based on the idea that offenders have certain signature ‘ways of working’.
These generally correlate with a particular set of social and psychological characteristics that relate
to the individual.
ORGANISED DISORGANISED
Evidence of planning the crime – victim Little evidence of planning, suggesting the offence
deliberately targeted and the killer/rapist may may have been spontaneous.
have a ‘type’ of victim.
High degree of control during the crime and little The crime scene reflects the impulsive nature of
evidence left behind at the scene. the act e.g. body still at the scene and the crime
shows little control on the part of the offender.
Above-average IQ – in a skilled/professional job Below-average IQ – may be in unskilled work or
unemployed.
Usually married and may even have children. A history of failed relationships and living alone,
possible history of sexual dysfunction.
FBI PROFILE CONSTRUCTION:
1. DATA ASSIMILATION – review of the evidence (photos, forensic evidence, police reports etc.)
2. CRIME SCENE CLASSIFICATION – organised or disorganised
3. CRIME RECONSTRUCTION – generation of a hypotheses about what happened (the behaviour and
events).
4. PROFILE GENERATION – generation of hypotheses about the offender (background, physical
characteristics, etc.)
, EVALUATION OF OFFENDER PROFILING: THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH (AO3)
STRENGTHS
THERE IS RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR AN ORGANISED CATEGORY
Canter et al. looked at 100 US serial killers. Smallest space analysis was used to examine the details
of each case with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical of organised and
disorganised killers.
This analysis revealed a subset of behaviours of many serial killings which match the FBIs typology
for organised offenders.
This suggests that a key component of the FBI typology approach has some validity.
POLICE WHO HAVE USED FBI METHODS BELIEVE IT IS USEFUL
Copson questioned 184 US police officers and 84% said the technique was operationally useful and
over 90% said they would use it again.
The technique may not result in an actual identification of the offender, but Scherer and Jarvis
defend the use of top-down processing by looking at other professional contributions beyond the
identification of the offender.
For example, the approach offers investigators a different perspective, opens up new avenues for
investigation and may prevent wrongful conviction.
LIMITATIONS
EVIDENCE FOR TOP-DOWN PROFILING WAS FLAWED
Canter et al. argues that the FBI agents didn’t select a random or large enough sample, nor did it
include different kinds of offenders.
There was no standard set of questions so each interview was different and therefore not really
comparable.
This suggests that top-down profiling doesn’t have a sound scientific basis.
IT’S ONLY APPROPRIATE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES
Top-down profiling works well for serial murders, cult killings and arson attacks where a person’s
personality might be apparent from the crime scene.
But it is unlikely to be useful for something like a burglary or a single murder where a person’s
personality is unlikely to be obvious.
MAY NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO SUCCESSFUL IDENTIFICATION
Top-down approach is based on behavioural consistency – that serial offenders have characteristics
ways of working so crime scene characteristics helps identification.
Mischel argued that people’s behaviour is much more driven by the situation they’re in rather than
‘personality’.
This suggests that a profiling method based on behavioural consistency may not always lead to
successful identification of an offender.
, OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
DESCRIPTION (AO1)
Developed in the UK by David Canter and aims to generate a profile of the offenders’
characteristics, routines and background by looking at the available evidence.
Starts with small details and creates the big picture. No initial assumptions are made about the
offender and the approach relies heavily on computer databases (data-driven approach).
It can be the little details that are often overlooked that can be crucial to the success of a case.
There are no fixed typologies (as in the US system) that will be attempted to be matched to the
offender. Instead, a profile should emerge solely from the evidence of each case.
INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY – AN EXAMPLE OF THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Aim is to establish patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur or co-exist across crime scenes.
This is in order to develop a statistical ‘database’ which then acts as a baseline for comparison.
Specific details of an offence, or related offences, can then be matched against this database to
reveal important details about the offender, their personal history, social background etc.
This may also determine whether a series of crimes are linked in that they’re likely to be committed
by the same person.
A central concept is interpersonal coherence – the way an offender behaves at the scene
(including how they interact with the victim) may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations (e.g.
controlling, apologetic etc.).
GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING
Geographical profiling uses information to do with the location of linked crime scenes to make
inferences about the likely home or operational base of an offender – known as crime mapping.
Serial offenders will restrict their ‘work’ to areas they are familiar with, so an understanding of the
spatial pattern of their behaviour provides investigators with a centre of gravity which is likely to
include the offender’s base.
Location can be used alongside psychological theory to create hypotheses about the offender.
Canter’s circle theory proposed two models of offender behaviour:
THE MARAUDER – who operates in close proximity to their home base.
THE COMMUTER – who is likely to have travelled to commit the crime.
The pattern of offending is likely to form a circle around their usual residence, and this becomes more
apparent the more offences there are. This can offer the investigative team important insight into the
nature of the offence and characteristics of the offender.
DESCRIPTION (AO1)
Offender profiling is a method of helping to identify the perpetrator of a crime based on the
nature of the offence and the manner in which it is committed. The main aim is to narrow list of
suspects.
This is done by professional profilers and the police, who use evidence and the crime scene to
generate hypotheses about the characteristics of the offender, such as their age, occupation etc.
The top-down approach originates in the USA and as created when the FBI interviewed 36
murderers and used this data, together with characteristics of their crimes, to create two categories
(organised and disorganised). If the data from a crime scene matched some of the characteristics of
one category we could predict other characteristics that would be likely.
ORGANISED AND DISORGANISED TYPES:
These distinctions are based on the idea that offenders have certain signature ‘ways of working’.
These generally correlate with a particular set of social and psychological characteristics that relate
to the individual.
ORGANISED DISORGANISED
Evidence of planning the crime – victim Little evidence of planning, suggesting the offence
deliberately targeted and the killer/rapist may may have been spontaneous.
have a ‘type’ of victim.
High degree of control during the crime and little The crime scene reflects the impulsive nature of
evidence left behind at the scene. the act e.g. body still at the scene and the crime
shows little control on the part of the offender.
Above-average IQ – in a skilled/professional job Below-average IQ – may be in unskilled work or
unemployed.
Usually married and may even have children. A history of failed relationships and living alone,
possible history of sexual dysfunction.
FBI PROFILE CONSTRUCTION:
1. DATA ASSIMILATION – review of the evidence (photos, forensic evidence, police reports etc.)
2. CRIME SCENE CLASSIFICATION – organised or disorganised
3. CRIME RECONSTRUCTION – generation of a hypotheses about what happened (the behaviour and
events).
4. PROFILE GENERATION – generation of hypotheses about the offender (background, physical
characteristics, etc.)
, EVALUATION OF OFFENDER PROFILING: THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH (AO3)
STRENGTHS
THERE IS RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR AN ORGANISED CATEGORY
Canter et al. looked at 100 US serial killers. Smallest space analysis was used to examine the details
of each case with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical of organised and
disorganised killers.
This analysis revealed a subset of behaviours of many serial killings which match the FBIs typology
for organised offenders.
This suggests that a key component of the FBI typology approach has some validity.
POLICE WHO HAVE USED FBI METHODS BELIEVE IT IS USEFUL
Copson questioned 184 US police officers and 84% said the technique was operationally useful and
over 90% said they would use it again.
The technique may not result in an actual identification of the offender, but Scherer and Jarvis
defend the use of top-down processing by looking at other professional contributions beyond the
identification of the offender.
For example, the approach offers investigators a different perspective, opens up new avenues for
investigation and may prevent wrongful conviction.
LIMITATIONS
EVIDENCE FOR TOP-DOWN PROFILING WAS FLAWED
Canter et al. argues that the FBI agents didn’t select a random or large enough sample, nor did it
include different kinds of offenders.
There was no standard set of questions so each interview was different and therefore not really
comparable.
This suggests that top-down profiling doesn’t have a sound scientific basis.
IT’S ONLY APPROPRIATE FOR CERTAIN CRIMES
Top-down profiling works well for serial murders, cult killings and arson attacks where a person’s
personality might be apparent from the crime scene.
But it is unlikely to be useful for something like a burglary or a single murder where a person’s
personality is unlikely to be obvious.
MAY NOT ALWAYS LEAD TO SUCCESSFUL IDENTIFICATION
Top-down approach is based on behavioural consistency – that serial offenders have characteristics
ways of working so crime scene characteristics helps identification.
Mischel argued that people’s behaviour is much more driven by the situation they’re in rather than
‘personality’.
This suggests that a profiling method based on behavioural consistency may not always lead to
successful identification of an offender.
, OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
DESCRIPTION (AO1)
Developed in the UK by David Canter and aims to generate a profile of the offenders’
characteristics, routines and background by looking at the available evidence.
Starts with small details and creates the big picture. No initial assumptions are made about the
offender and the approach relies heavily on computer databases (data-driven approach).
It can be the little details that are often overlooked that can be crucial to the success of a case.
There are no fixed typologies (as in the US system) that will be attempted to be matched to the
offender. Instead, a profile should emerge solely from the evidence of each case.
INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY – AN EXAMPLE OF THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Aim is to establish patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur or co-exist across crime scenes.
This is in order to develop a statistical ‘database’ which then acts as a baseline for comparison.
Specific details of an offence, or related offences, can then be matched against this database to
reveal important details about the offender, their personal history, social background etc.
This may also determine whether a series of crimes are linked in that they’re likely to be committed
by the same person.
A central concept is interpersonal coherence – the way an offender behaves at the scene
(including how they interact with the victim) may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations (e.g.
controlling, apologetic etc.).
GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING
Geographical profiling uses information to do with the location of linked crime scenes to make
inferences about the likely home or operational base of an offender – known as crime mapping.
Serial offenders will restrict their ‘work’ to areas they are familiar with, so an understanding of the
spatial pattern of their behaviour provides investigators with a centre of gravity which is likely to
include the offender’s base.
Location can be used alongside psychological theory to create hypotheses about the offender.
Canter’s circle theory proposed two models of offender behaviour:
THE MARAUDER – who operates in close proximity to their home base.
THE COMMUTER – who is likely to have travelled to commit the crime.
The pattern of offending is likely to form a circle around their usual residence, and this becomes more
apparent the more offences there are. This can offer the investigative team important insight into the
nature of the offence and characteristics of the offender.
