Bottom up approach Flashcards
What is the bottom up approach?
Developed in Britain–> David Canter
Aims to generate picture of offender through evidence analysis.
Focuses on:
Characteristics
Rountine behaviour
Social background
Define term ‘investigate psychology’
Statistical analysis + psychological theory to analyse crime scenes
Aims to establish patterns of behaviour likely to occur across crime scenes.
Creates statistical database –> baseline for comparison
Define interpersonal coherence:
How offender interacts with the crime scene + victim relfects theri everyday behaviour.
Define significance of time + place:
where crime takes place may indicate where offender lives.
Define ‘Forensic awareness’
Behaviour may be indicative of previous criminal experience.
e.g: being more mindful on covering up crime scene as they already been interrogated by police before.
Define geographical profiling:
Rossmo (1997)
Uses info about location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about likely base of offender.
—> Spatial consistency = offenders stick to certain area
What does Geographical Profiling involve?
Looking at the location of crimes to determine the likely home of the offender.
What is the ‘centre of gravity’ in geographical profiling?
The base or residence of an offender, determined by the locations of their crimes.
What is the ‘jeopardy surface’ in geographical profiling?
A prediction of where an offender is likely to commit their next crime.
What does Canter’s Circle Theory propose?
Two models: the marauder and the commuter.
What characterizes the marauder model?
Operates in close proximity to their home.
What characterizes the commuter model?
Travels a distance away from their residence.
What are the two subtypes of the criminal consistency hypothesis?
Interpersonal consistency and spatial consistency.
Fill in the blank: According to the Circle Theory, criminals have one of two spatial mindsets: M___________ or C__________.
Marauder or Commuter.
What did Canter and Heritage (1990) find regarding sexual assault?
Analysis of 66 SA cases
Nature of the offence correlated with particular types of behavior
–> e.g: use of interpersonal language. –> (support for interpersonal coherence)
Helped to establish whether 2 or more offences commited by same person.
Suggests statistical techniques can be used in identifying behaviour patterns (supports investigate psychology)
What did Lundrigan and Canter (2001) discover in their study of serial killers?
Found in 120 murder cases US, bodies were disposed of in various locations forming ‘centres of gravity’.
Residence of killer always located in the middle.
Especially for marauders.
Supports use of geographical profiling to apprehend killers + determine base.
What is a strength of the bottom-up approach?
Can be applied to a large number of crimes.
More scientific + targeted –> doesn’t rely on subjective typologies.
Available evidence used to create profile,rather than attempting to fit offenders into pre-existing subjective templates.
Case study evidence to support Bottom up approach:
John Duffy:
Railway Rapist.
23 women aged15-32
Canter analysed geographical info from crime scene + combined with details of similar attacks.
Lots of true facts about duffy linked with canters profile. e.g: martial artist + 5’4
B4 geographical profiling Duffy was 1/2000 suspects
After profiling became 1 out of 2
Successful
What incident illustrates weaknesses in bottom-up profiling?
The murder of Rachel Nickell and the involvement of Colin Stagg.
Nickell stabbed 47x infront of 2 yr old son.
Robert Napper ruled out at early dtage due to being several inches taller than profile.
Real murder convicted 16 years later.
Wrongful convictions–> wider implications on society
What was the outcome of Copson’s 1996 report for the Home Office?
Used questionaire for police who used profilers.
184 qs returned (60% murders)
Mixed results for profiling;
80% found profilers gave useful advice,
but only 14% said it helped solve cases.
Only 3% led to identification of offender.
