offender profiling Flashcards
what is offender profiling
Offender profiling is based on the idea that the characteristics of an offender can be deduced from the characteristics of the offence and the particulars of the crime scene. It is an investigative tool used by the police when solving crimes, the main aim is to narrow the field of enquiry and the list of likely suspects. Professional profilers will often be called upon to work alongside the police especially during high profile murder cases. Methods vary, but the compiling of a profile will usually involve careful scrutiny of the crime scene and analysis of the evidence in order to generate hypotheses about the probable characteristics of the offender.
What is the top down approach
- Originated in the US from the work of the FBI in the 1970s.
- FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit drew upon data gathered from interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
- They then concluded that the data could be categorised into the pre-existing categories of organised or disorganised crimes/murders.
- Each category had certain characteristics (described below) which are based on the idea that serious offenders have certain signature ‘ways of working’ (modus operandi).
- This means that if, in a future situation, the data from a crime scene matched some of the characteristics of one category, we could then predict other characteristics that would be likely. This can then be used to find the offender.
- Offender profilers who use the top-down approach will collect data about a murder (characteristics of the murderer, the crime scene, etc.) and then decide on the category the data best fits.
examples of organised and disorganised offenders
ORGANISED
® Showed evidence of planning
® Killer or rapist usually has a ‘type’ of victim
® Little evidence or clues left behind
® Above average intelligence
® Skilled professional occupation
® Socially and sexually competent
® Usually married and may even have children
DISORGANISED
® Show little evidence of planning
® Offence may have been spontaneous
® Body usually still at the scene
® Lower than average IQ
® Unskilled work or unemployed
® History of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships
® Live alone
® Live close to where the offence takes place
Evaluation of top-down approach
WIDER APPLICATION
P - One strength of the top-down approach is that it can be adapted to other kinds of crime such as burglary.
E - Critics of top-down profiling have claimed that the technique only applies to a limited number of crimes, such as sexually-motivated murder. However, Meketa (2007) has reported that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states by applying the organised-disorganised distinction but also adding two new categories: interpersonal and personal.
E - this shows that the top-down profile has wider application than was originally assumed.
COUNTER
® However, it is not as effective for burglary as the crime scene does not have as much evidence as a murder as less is needed to be covered up, leaving little to know about the offender, makes it difficult to create a profile - whether offender is organised or disorganised
RESEARCH SUPPORT
P - One strength of the top-down approach is that there is support for a distinct organised category of offender.
E - Canter et al. conducted an analysis of 100 US murders each committed by a different serial killer. A technique called smallest space analysis was used to assess the co-occurrence of 39 aspects of serial killings. This included things such as whether the body was hidden, the weapon used and the cause of death. This analysis revealed that there does seem to be a subset of features of many serial killings which matched the FBI’s typology for organised offenders.
E- This suggests that a key component of the top-down approach has some validity.
COUNTER
However, many studies suggest that the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive. There are a variety of combinations that occur at any given murder scene. Critics argue that it is hard to classify killers as one or the other type. A killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics, such as high intelligence and sexual competence, but commits a spontaneous murder leaving the victim’s body at the crime scene. Additionally, Mischel (1968) argues that people’s behaviour is much more driven by the situation they are in than by a thing called ‘personality’. This suggests that the organised-disorganised typology is likely more of a continuum.
FLAWED EVIDENCE
P - One limitation of top-down profiling is the evidence on which it is based.
E - FBI profiling was developed using interviews with 36 murderers in the US - 25 of which were serial killers, the other 11 being single or double murderers. At the end of the process, 24 of these individuals were classified as organised offenders and 12 were disorganised. Canter et al. have argued that the sample was poor - the FBI agents did not select a random or even a large sample nor did the sample include different kinds of offender. There was no standard set of questions, so each interview was different and therefore not really comparable.
E - This suggests that top-down profiling does not have a solid, scientific basis.
What is the bottom up approach
- Developed in the UK by David Canter.
- Thought to be more scientific than the top-down approach.
- The aim is to generate a picture of the offender, their likely characteristics, routine behaviour and social background, through analysis of evidence at the crime scene.
- This approach makes no assumptions about the person you’re dealing with. Instead, a profiler will gather all the information then build a logical description based on that.
what are the 2 main types of profiling
- investigative psychology
- geographic profiling
what is investigative psychology
Investigative psychology uses statistics and psychological theory to analyse crime scenes. It allows the profiler to see whether a series of offences have been committed by the same person. Patterns of behaviour that occur across crime scenes help build up a statistical database. Specific details of an offence can then be matched against the database to reveal important details about the offender, e.g. their personal history, family background, etc.
Central to the approach is ‘interpersonal coherence’ which states that the way an offender behaves at the scene, including how they interact with the victim, may reflect their behaviour in everyday situations. For example, a rapist might treat his victim with some care and may be apologetic and this might be how he treats other women in his everyday life (workmates, girlfriends, etc.).
What is geographic profiling
Geographic profiling uses the locations of crimes to determine the likely home or operational base of an offender (crime mapping). The assumption is that serial offenders will restrict their ‘work’ to areas they are familiar with and the pattern of offending is likely to form a circle around their usual residence. This means that the offender’s base is often found in the middle of this area.
Canter believed there were two types of offenders:
The marauder – who operates in close proximity to their home base.
The commuter – who is likely to have travelled a distance away from their usual residence.
Geographic profiling also helps profilers make educated guesses as to where the offender is likely to strike next and it can provide valuable insight into the nature of the offence, e.g. whether it was planned or opportunistic, mode of transport used, employment status, age, etc.
Evaluation of bottom-up approach
John Duffy:
P - one strength of the bottom-up approach is there is evidence to support its usefulness
E - John Duffy carried out 24 sexual attacks and 3 murders on women near railway stations in North London. Canter analysed geographical information from the crime scenes and combined this with details of similar attacks in the past supplied by the police, drawing a profile of Duffy leading to his arrest and conviction.
E - this supports the view that geographical information can be used to identify an offender, as well as supporting one of the basic principles of investigative psychology that people are consistent in their behaviour.
Geographic Information insufficient
P - One limitation is that geographical profiling may not be sufficient on its own.
E - As with investigative psychology, the success of geographical profiling may be reliant on the quality of data that the police can provide. Unfortunately, recording of crime is not always accurate, can vary between police forces and an estimated 75% of crimes are not even reported to police in the first place. This calls into question the utility of an approach that relies on the accuracy of geographical data. Even if this information is correct, critics claim that other factors are just as important in creating a profile, such as the timing of the offence and the age and experience of the offender.
E - This suggests that geographical information alone may not always lead to the successful capture of an offender.
Rachel Nickel
P - One limitation of offender profiling is that police can be blinded to other possibilities of offenders
E - Rachel Nickell was stabbed 47 times and sexually attacked in 1992. The police launched a massive manhunt and enlisted criminal profiler Britton to help. The investigation quickly targeted Colin Stagg, a local man who fit the offender profile that was created, even taking him to trial. However, in 2008 Robert Napper was convicted of Rachel’s murder, a man who was ruled out of the enquiry at an early stage because he was taller than the profile.
E - this is a limitation as this could lead to miscarriages of justice and prolonging the time it takes to capture the true offender.
Comparison between top-down and bottom-up
TYPES OF CRIME - DIFFERENCE
P - A difference between the top down approach and bottom-up approach is the different types of crime in which they are used for.
E - The bottom-up approach can be applied to a wide range of offences, for example techniques such as crime mapping and spatial consistency can be used when investigating smaller crimes like burglary and theft, as well as more serious crimes like murder and sexual assault.
E - Therefore, it can be argued that the bottom-up approach is the more useful way of profiling offenders as the top-down approach is thought to only be used for rape and murder.
E - The top-down approach is not as effective for smaller crimes as the crime scene does not leave as much evidence as a murder crime scene as less is needed to be covered up, leaving little to know about the offender.
E - This makes it difficult to create a profile and determine whether they are organised or disorganised.
COUNTER POINT
However, Meketa (2017) reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states. The detection method retains the organised-disorganised distinction but also adds two new categories: interpersonal and opportunistic, suggesting that top-down profiling has wider application than was originally assumed.
EVIDENCE FROM THE CRIME SCENE - SIMILARITY
P - One similarity of the two profiling approaches is that they both use evidence from the crime scene to predict the type of person who committed the crime.
E - Methods vary for the top-down approach, but the compiling of a profile will usually involve careful scrutiny of the crime scene and analysis of the evidence in order to generate hypotheses about the probable characteristics of the offender, such as their history of relationships. Similarly, the aim of the bottom-up approach is to generate a picture of the offender, their likely characteristics, routine behaviour and social background through systematic analysis at the crime scene, also being able to predict an offender’s history of relationships by seeing how they ‘interact’ with the victim.
E - Therefore, both approaches understand the importance of what is left at the crime scene to narrow down the list of suspects.
TIME CONSUMING - DIFFERENCE
P - Another difference is that the top-down approach is less time consuming compared to the bottom-up approach.
E - The top-down approach is argued to be reductionist as the classification system is too simple. Often offenders are not simply organised or disorganised and they may have elements of both of the fixed typologies to their crimes. An offender may start off being disorganised and become more organised as they develop their modus operandi.
E - Because this approach is simplistic, it does not require as much time as the bottom-up approach due to it being easier to do.
E - In comparison, for the bottom-up approach, the profile is ‘data-driven’ and emerges as the investigator engages in deeper and more rigorous scrutiny of the details of the offence, being more grounded in psychological theory than the top-down approach.
E - As there are no assumptions going into the crime scene, it requires more time to generate a profile, for example it took 16 years to capture Rachel Nickell’s murderer, Robert Napper, using the bottom-up approach.
