Forensics - Top Down Approach to Offender Profiling

Question 1

Research Support

+ COUNTERPOINT

Answer 1

Canter et al

Support for distinct organised category offender. Analysis of 100 US murders by different serial killers.

SMALLEST SPACE ANALYSIS - identification of correlations across different samples of behaviour. 37 specific behaviours like torture, attempt to conceal body. Found that a set of features of a majority of the killings matched the typology that the FBI had for serial killers. FBI typology approach has some validity.

COUNTERPOINT
Godwin
Organised and disorganised traits are not mutually exclusive. It is difficult to categorised a killer into one of the types e.g. someone could show high intelligence and sexual competence but kill spontaneously and leave the body at he crime scene. A continuum for the organised/disorganised offender types would be more appropriate than distinct categories.

Question 2

Wider application

Answer 2

Meketa

Top down profiling can be adapted for use in other crimes. When used of burglary lead to 85% rise in solved cases (US). Counterpoint for criticism of profiling as limited and specific. More useful than originally presumed.

Question 3

Basis of profiling is flawed

Answer 3

Developed using interviews with 36 killers - 25 of them serial killers. 24 classed as organised and 12 disorganised. Sample was small, no random and only covered 1 type of offender. Interviews were not comparable. Used different questions each time. No scientific basis.

Question 4

Issues with personality

+ COUNTERPOINT

Answer 4

Based on behavioural consistency. Modus Operandi does not change.
Evidence of this should be found across crime scenes making it easier to link them to an offender.

COUNTERPOINT
Mischel et al.

Behaviour during crime is driven by situational factors rather than dispositional factors such as personality. Behaviour demonstrated at crime scene only shows little of behaviour in everyday life.