Offender Profiling Flashcards
Offender profiling
a behavioural and analytic tool that is intended to help investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown criminals
Copson found that police need 4 pieces of info from a profiler to help in a case
- Type of person
- Future threat
- Possible link to other cases
- Interview strategies to be used on offender
Top down approach (FBI)
- qualitative approach due to looking at overall picture and using typologies
- based on police experience
- suitable for extreme crimes eg murder, rape, ritualistic crimes
- Interviewed 36 serial killers including Ted Bundy & Charles Manson. From this they were able to invent a classification system and combined it with officers’ experience
4 step FBI profiling process
Step 1
Data assimilation
- data compiled from police reports, post mortems, crime scene photos etc
4 step FBI profiling process
Step 2
Crime classification
- profilers decide if crime scene is organised or disorganised
4 step FBI profiling process
Step 3
Crime reconstruction
- hypotheses about crime sequence, offender + victim behaviour etc
4 step FBI profiling process
Step 4
Profile generation
- offenders physical, demographic and behavioural characteristics
organised offenders
- plan crime in advance
- victim deliberately targeted “type”
- little evidence left at crime scene
- higher than average IQ and skilled occupation
disorganised offenders
- little evidence in planning (spontaneous)
- crime scene reflects impulsiveness of attack
- lower than average IQ
- offences tend to be close to where they live
strength of top down - real life application
E: useful in identifying offenders in particular for crimes such as rape, murder. It allows police to identify patterns in behaviour as well as being able to distinguish between organised + disorganised offenders
C: allows offenders to be caught quicker preventing more victims. positive for legal system - more correct convictions
limitation of top down - only used for certain crimes
E: only used for rape, murder, cult killings. not good for common crimes like burglary + vandalism. because these crimes don’t reveal much about offender so difficult to make a profile
limitation of top down - simplistic view of crime
E: reduces behavior down to simplistic categories eg. organised/disorgaised. many offenders don’t fall neatly into these categories + can display both types of characteristics
C: if you miscategorise an offender it weakens profile which means police may be searching for wrong person
limitation of top down approach - small sample size + outdated
E: top down approach developed by interviewing 36 male offenders in 1970s. sample is androcentric as only males
C: conclusions of top down approach can only be applied to men. creates implications on creating a profile for potential female offenders as we’re unable to see if women exhibit criminal behaviour in same way as men. 1970s - so difficult to apply to more recent criminals
bottom up approach - British
- profilers start with what evidence they have from crime scene to develop hypothesis of who offender might be
- don’t used fixed typologies eg disorganised
- based on more psychological theories
geographical profiling
spatial consistency - where the offender’s operational base + possible future offences are revealed by the geographical location of prev offences
Canter’s circle theory
- marauder - offender operates close to home base
- commuter
pattern of offending is likely to form a circle around their usual home - reveals details of offender eg. mode of transport, age etc
investigative psychology
- aims to establish patterns of behaviours across the crime scene
- creates a statistical database which will help highlight characteristics of offender eg. personality, background
interpersonal coherence
- way in which offender behaves at crime scene
- way in which they act with victim
- these may shed light on how offender behaves in more everyday situations
strength of bottom up - scientific basis
E: uses research + psychological theory whereas top down approach is more based on officer’s experiences / hunches
C: makes bottom up more reliable in comparison
strength of bottom up - evidence to support geographical profiling
E: Lundrigan + Canter (2001) gathered evidence from 120 murders in US. results revealed spatial consistency - location of body disposal was in different direction from previous creating “centre of gravity”
C: supports Canter’s ideas that spatial information of killings is key to determining where offender’s base is
strength of bottom up - used on wide range of crimes
E: top down criticised as it’s only effective for certain crimes whereas bottom up approach is better suited to wider range. using spatial consistency is effective in identifying offenders that have committed more serious crimes eg. murder
C: strength as it makes the approach more applicable to all crimes
limitation of bottom up - mixed results for profiling
E: case of Rachel Nickell highlights what can happen when profile generated is inaccurate. actual killer (Robert Napper) was excluded from investigations because he was ‘taller’ than what profile had stated. he then killed a mother and her daughter a year later
C: negative implication on legal system as innocent people may fit criteria and the guilty may nit be convicted. so, more victims can be harmed as it’s unsafe
