Offender Profiling Flashcards
1
Q
Offender Profiling
A
- Behavioural & analytical tool used when trying to solve crime
- Intended to help investigators narrow down suspects through prediction of probable characteristics
- Uses evidence from the crime scene
2
Q
Top-Down
A
- Typology approach
- Profilers have pre-existing conceptual categories of offenders
- Use CS evidence to fit into these categories and categorise the offender as one type or another
3
Q
Process of the Top-Down approach
A
- American FBI aproach
- Based on idea that offenders have signature MOs - correlate with particular charateristics
- Organised v Disorganised
- CS evidence, details of crime, victim, context used to categorise
- Profile includes hypotheses about likely demographic, background, physical characteristics, behaviours, beliefs
4
Q
Douglas (2006): Top-Down Method
A
- INPUT - reports/evidence/theory
- DECISION - organised/disorganised
- ASSESSMENT - match characteristics to reports
- PROFILE - make predictions for police
- ASSESSMENT - police apply model and report
- REVIEW - improve/review/report for future
5
Q
Developing Types of Offender
A
- TD approach originated in USA - work carried out by FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit in 1970s
- Drew upon data generated from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers (eg. Bundy)
- A thorough analysis of crime details and intuition of experienced police created classifications of organised v disorganised
6
Q
Evaluation of TD - Copson (1995)
A
- 184 US police officers surveyed
- 82% thought TD was useful
- 90% would use again
7
Q
Evaluation of TD - Schrerer & Jarvis (2014)
A
- TD methods reduced wrongful conviction
- Did not increase conviction rates or speed of investigation
8
Q
Evaluation of TD - Snook et al (2008)
A
- Found TD profilers were not more accurate than psychics
- Courts easily misled by convincing sounding profilers
9
Q
Evaluation of TD - Jackson & Bekerian (1997)
A
Many offenders with good forensic awareness knew about profiling methods and were actively avoiding detection
10
Q
Evaluation of TD - Canter (2004)
A
- Disputes validity of organised v disorganised dichotomy
- Analysed 100 UK SKs using statistical methods and found organised subtypes
- No evidence of disorganised model - suggested spectrum or probability model
11
Q
Bottom-up
A
- When profilers look at evidence from the crime and use this to develop likely hypotheses of what the offender is like
- Use knowledge of psychological theories
12
Q
Process of the Bottom-up Approach
A
- UK method
- Uses objective evidence to predict things about offenders rather than using subjective theories/methods
- Criminal Geographic Targeting (Rossmo 1996)
- ‘Spatial Consistency’ determined by computer programmes with details of crimes
- Computer presents a ‘jeopardy surface’ - map with probability gradients of work/residence
13
Q
Canter - 5 Factor Model
A
- INTERPERSONAL COHERENCE - consistency between offenders’ interactions w/ victims v others
- TIME & PLACE - will communicate something about their own place of residence/employment
- CRIMINAL CHARACTERISTICS - can help classify offenders
- CRIMINAL CAREER - crimes tend to be committed in a similar pattern by offenders - indicates development of activity
- FORENSIC AWARENESS - those who show understanding of police investigations are likely to have had previous encounters with CJS
14
Q
Evaluation of BD - Copson (1995)
A
- Surveyed 48 police forces
- 75% said profilers’ advice was useful
- 3% said it materially helped catch offenders
15
Q
Evaluation of BD - Rossmo (1999)
A
- CGT ineffective for multiple offenders
- CGT dropped by his own department in 2001
- Kept on for serial offence cases - only used for these since 2010
