Creating a profile EV

Question 1

Validity

Answer 1

FBI:
-The crimes were analysed using statistical analysis.
-Shows a weakness in the validity of organised/disorganised typologies, hence showing how profiles can be invalid.
BU:
More accurate
DUFFY:
Canter did not predict that there would be an accomplice.

Question 2

Sample

Answer 2

FBI - Canter:

Large sample 100 serial killers – the results are therefore likely to be highly reliable.

Question 3

Ecological Validity

Answer 3

the study analysed real crimes.

Question 4

STRENGTH CANTER FBI

Answer 4

Standardised analysis: every 3rd crime was studied. This allowed the development of the modus operandi of each criminal.
Unlike Hazelwood and Douglas (1980), Canter et al (2004) accounts for individual differences.

Question 5

Ethnocentrism

Answer 5

CANTER FBI: The results and conclusions cannot be generalised to other crimes as the only crimes studies were the third crime of a serial killer.

Question 6

BOTH (Source)

Answer 6

The source material used showed both concurrent validity and reliability.

Question 7

Scientific

Answer 7

TD:
Not scientific
BU:
Highly scientific and Objective

Question 8

Useful

Answer 8

FBI:
- Useful in increasing the validity of Police suspect selection.
- TD = quick
BU:
- Narrower list of suspects
- Time consuming therefore reduced usefulness.
DUFFY:
Profiling proofed to be useful in the apprehension of Duffy, however erroneous profiling can cause the police to miss real evidence.
BOTH:
- Help with interrogation
- only applicable to certain types of crime ie. those that stem from psychopathology.

Question 9

Androcentrism

Answer 9

DUFFY: Only one male (two with accomplice) studied. (Centered on males)

Question 10

Reliability

Answer 10

As these crimes are rare eg. crimes of violence or sexual deviance, the database is limited consequently impacting accuracy and reliability of results, as there is very little empirical evidence as to its effectiveness.

Question 11

Reductionist

Answer 11

The Top-Down approach is reductionist as it fits every crime scene into one of a couple a big categories and makes predictions based on that.

Question 12

Holistic

Answer 12

Where as the Bottom-Up approach takes the other end of the spectrum as it tries to be holistic and include as many details about crime and the offender as possible, rather than just focus on the things that fit into a “type” as the top down approach assumes.

Question 13

Canter FBI reliability

Answer 13

Canters study on the reliability of the FBI typology proves that only two factors matched the crime-scenes at a level greater than chance; concealing the body 70%, and sex acts performed 75%. Most of the other crime-scene behaviours FBI profilers look for occurred at a chance level; this suggests they are key features of serial killers in general, rather than in a particular type of serial killer

Question 14

Conclusions OVERALL

Answer 14

• Profiling only useful for particularly unusual or serial crimes.
• Top-down = common patterns, helpful introducing a list of potential suspects.
• Bottom-up = examine statistical correlations from clues found at the scene with other, similar crimes. Other correlations look for geographical location and consistencies in behaviour patterns.
• Case study illustrates bottom-up profiling. Canter’s most successful attempt and gave hope that these techniques would transform the search for suspects in murder cases.