Forensics: Offender Profiling

Question 1

What is the top down approach?

Answer 1

• an American method - FBI use in depth interviews and also info from the behaviour science unit.
• they combine info from the scene of crime to produce a ‘typical criminal’
• classify into ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’ crime.

Question 2

What is an organised criminal?

Answer 2

They plan the crime, show self-control at the scene, cover tracks very well (leaving few to no clues) and victim is likely to be a stranger.
- they are intelligent, have a skilled occupation and socially and sexually competent.

Question 3

What is a disorganised criminal?

Answer 3

Unplanned and haphazardous, likely to leave more clues, also more likely to be known by the victim and most likely to live more locally.
- socially inadequate, with an unskilled occupation

Question 4

What’s some evaluation of the top down approach?

Answer 4

• this method is only really useful for crimes that tell us more about the offender (e.g. rape, murder, more extreme crimes), common crimes like burglary do not lend themselves to profiling
• sample used to draw up initial categories was small (only 36 killers), 25 of which was serial killers, 11 double or single killers - not representative and based on self reports
• crime classifications is too simple, Holmes’s suggests there are 4 types of killer, visionary, missionary, hedonistic and power and control.
• Canter doesn’t support disorganised category, but there was evidence for organised offender.

Question 5

What is the bottom up approach?

Answer 5

• British method
• Canter has 5 bottom up assumptions:
  —> interpersonal coherence (investigative psychology) - consistency between way offender interacts with their victims and with others in their everyday life. Degree of domination used would give clues to physical strength
  —> time and place - time and location of crime will give clues about their own place of residence and employment
  —> criminal characteristics - help classify them, helping police investigation
  —> criminal career - crimes tend to be committed in similar fashion and can provide and indication of how their criminal activity will develop
  —> forensic awareness - offenders who show understanding of police investigations are likely to have had previous encounters with the criminal justice system

Question 6

What is geographical profiling in the bottom up approach?

Answer 6

• the location of the crime
  Marauders —> commit crime close to where they live, usually disorganised criminals
  Commuters —> commit crimes away from where they live, usually organised

Question 7

How do the 2 approaches compare?

Answer 7

Bottom up starts with raw data and work way up to conclusion
Top down looks at evidence in light of theories.
- both based on real life cases and evolved
- both are really related to male killers and not females

Question 8

What’s some evaluation of the bottom up?

Answer 8

• only appropriate for a small number of specific and serious crimes
• although crimes are rare, they are so horrific that catching the offender is paramount and any method is viable
• difficult to assess effectiveness due to rarity of the crimes
• evidence to support geographical profiling by Canter, 120 murder cases, the use of smallest space analysis. Able to identify characteristic traits of spatial consistency such as finding the offenders ‘centre of gravity’ (often offenders operational base) - also predict future crime locations
• when it goes wrong it blinkers people (e.g. Paul Britton)
• more scientific