Geographical profiling Flashcards
1
Q
Geographical profiling
A
- Examination of spatial features of crime to help establish patterns relating to specific crimes and offenders
- Assist detection and prevention
2
Q
Key areas of geographical profiling
A
- Studies of criminal spatial activity
- Development of decision- support tools based on research findings
- Exploring the effectiveness of these support tools in helping police investigations
3
Q
What is the focus of this method?
A
Establish how the location of a crime scene can provide vital clues about the offender.
- Tries to assess and predict key profile information - where they work/live.
4
Q
Procedures for developing a geographical profile
A
- Examination of the case file including witness statements, psychological and autopsy reports
- Analysis of crime scene
- Discussion with crime-investigating team
- Analysis of demographic data and local crime-scene statistics
- Study of local transport, neighbourhood and street maps
5
Q
The least effort principle
A
- Identifies with everyone - people will choose the one course of action that requires less effort
- Crime will be committed where it involves least effort to get to commit them = own neighbourhood
6
Q
Circle hypothesis
A
- Supported by Canter, 1993 sexual assaults
- Crime zone and the most likely area - buffer zone, crime zone and outside the crime zone.
7
Q
Criminal Geographic Targeting (CGT)
A
- Spatial data relating to the distance, movement and time to and from a crime scene are analysed to produce a 3D model = Jeopardy surface
- Useful in investigating spatial behaviour patterns of offending populations and trends.
8
Q
Jeopardy surface
A
- Can be superimposed on a map of the crime-scene area
- Provides the investigating team with a computer-derived indication of where the offender may live and work.
9
Q
Does offender profiling work?
A
- Been widely embraced and used by a substantial number of law enforcement agencies across the globe.
10
Q
Areas that evaluate offender profiling
A
- Customer satisfaction surveys
- Comparative profiler ability surveys
11
Q
Customer satisfaction surveys
A
- Most direct way to evaluate is to ask the user’s how satisfied they are - police asked their satisfaction
= Valid and useful profiles would lead to greater police levels of satisfaction. - Many surveys = all indicate that the police generally believe profiles benefit their investigation in some way but exact nature and extent is still unclear.
- Methodological flaws - police satisfaction with profiles doesn’t provide proof of true accuracy of offender profile.
- Barnum effect = individuals belief about professional standing of the profiler + their own beliefs in profiling = likely to lead to positive attitudes on such surveys.
12
Q
Pinizzotto (1984)
A
- 77% of police departments reported the FBI profiles significantly helped their investigations
- 17% stated the produfles lead directly to the suspect being identified.
13
Q
Comparative profiler ability surveys
A
- Evaluations indicate is that there are still clear gaps in a scientific assessment of how profiling impacts on the ‘real world’ outcomes and performance in actual police investigations.
14
Q
Fox and Farrington (2015)
A
- Conduct experimental evaluation on the effect of offender profiles when applied in active ongoing police investigations.
- What they set out to do was to compare police agencies using profiling with ones that used ‘traditional’ police methods.
- Measure impact profiling had on burglary arrest rates over a one-year period
- Based in Florida
- 1st task = find 4 police departments that were well matched before the experimental intervention.
- Took into account; jurisdiction size, location and number of serving officers
- Undertook careful analysis of burglary stats and data for 4 years prior to the study + try to match as near as possible on this.
- Baseline data = form foundation for comparison with the same data for the year after experimental intervention in the ppt groups.
- The experimental intervention consisted of using the SPOT burglary profiles - 3 week training period = class-based and field activities with the chosen police department at all levels.
- After 3 weeks of training, the burglary arrest rates and data were collected for just under a year.
- Other three police departments received no training and were unaware the study was taking place.
- Stat analysis was complex - the comparison was made with the 4-year baseline data and the experimental year.
- Stat conclusions = arrest rates were three times higher for burglary in the experimental department compared with the control ones.
= Offender profiling intervention had a positive effect on this first controlled experimental study in the field.
15
Q
Field experiments and cause and effect
A
Fox and Farrington;
- IV = training
- DV = burglary arrest rate
- Shortcomings = experimental group not being randomly chosen = convenient sample as it was closer to researchers’ workplace.
- Police officers’ prior attitudes to profiling weren’t monitored or controlled
- No discussion or exclusion of cases already underway.
- More arrests could be due to more attention on burglary cases after profiling training.
- Hawthorne effect = improvements in workforce productivity in a series of 1930s studies at the Hawthrone works of the general electric company in the US - interest shown in the workers by the researchers rather than the changes imposed.
- If effect does occur - spike in improved results declines within 8 weeks.
- Extended one-year data collection period would be overly affected.
