Bottom down approach-EVAL Flashcards
one STRENGTH of the bottom up approach is that there is evidence to SUPPORT its use.
David Kanter conducted an ANALYSIS of 66 sexual assault cases and several behaviour were identified as COMMON in different samples of behaviour e.g. impersonal language and lack of REACTION to the victim.
Each individual displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviours and this can help establish whether TWO or more offences were committed by the SAME person.
This SUPPORTS one of the key features of investigative pysch and the BU approach that criminals are CONSISTENT in their behaviour.
HOWEVER, case linkage depends on the DATABASE and this will only consist of HISTORICAL crimes that have been solved. The fact that they WERE solved may be bc it was STRAIGHTFORWARD to link these crimes together in the first place which makes this a circular argument.
Therefore this is an ISSUE was investigative psych/bu approach may STRUGGLE to tell us much about crimes that don’t have many links between them and have remained UNSOLVED.
one STRENGTH of the BU approach is that there is EVIDENCE for geographical profiling:
120 murder cases involving serial killers int he US, smallest space analysis revealed spatial CONSISTENCY in the behaviour of the killers, with each body disposal site creating a CENTRE OF GRAVITY, offenders start from home base and go in diff direction but this creates a circular effect around the home base.
Therefore this suggests that the geographical profiling from the BU approach can be used to IDENTIFY the offender and so it supports its use in offender profiling.
An ISSUE with geographical profiling is that it may NOT be enough on it’s OWN to develop an offender profile.
This is because geographical profiling may rely on the quality of the data and recording of crime ISN’T always accurate and 75% of crimes aren’t even reported (Dark Crime figure)
Therefore it could be suggested that the info given on crimes may LACK validity which means that they may lead to INACCURATE profiling. Also, neither of these approaches are sufficient on their OWN and may need to be used in CONJUNCTION with other information e.g. TIMING of the offence or AGE of offender.
one STRENGTH of BU offender profiling is that it has been proven to be a USEFUL tool.
Has a MIXED history. 48 police departments found advice provided by the profiler was useful in 83% cases.
This therefore suggests that it is a VALID tool in to offender profiling.
HOWEVER, it can also be MISUSED. (Rachel Nickell.) and the same study above revealed accurate identification in only 3% of cases.
Therefore offender profiling using the BU approach can be A PROBLEM as it can lead to WRONGFUL convictions and can also REJECT possible suspects who end up being the criminal.
FURTHER research by KOSIS even found that CHEM students were more ACCURATE in offender profiling on a solved murder case than experienced senior detectives which SERIOUSLY questions the BU approach to profiling suggesting an ENTIRE lack of validity.
