Offender Profiling Flashcards
what is offender profiling
an investigate technique used to narroiw down the list of suspects by identifying the major physical and behavioural characterisitics of the offedner
what are the tweo types of profiling
- top down
- bottom up
explain how the top down approach works
- use pre established typologies and patterns of behaviour to classifiy the offenders into specirfic categories
- organised or non organised
explain an organised offender
- evidence of planning the crime
- victim targeted
- offender has high degree of control
- above average intelligence
- socially and sexually competent
explain a disorganised offender
- little evidence of planning
- impulsive
- lower than average intelligence
- live alone
explain what the top down approach is
- relies on previous experience and intuition of the profiler
- ressler, burgass and douglas created two categories: organised and disorganised
give two characteristics of the crime scene for a disorganised and organised offender
- disorganised - body not hidden, evidence present
- organised - planned, controls (restraints)
what are the 4 stages to the FBI’s top down approach
- data assimilation
- crime scene classification
- crime reconstruction
- profile generation
explain stage 1 of the top down approach
data assimilation
- map of victims travel
- background details of victim
- complete investogate report of the incident
explain stage 2 of the top down approach
crime scence classification
- profilers decide wether the crime scence represnets an organised or disorganised offender
explain stage 3 of the top down approach
crime reconstruction
- hypothesis generated about what happened during crime
explain stage 4 of the top down approach
profile generation
- profilers generate “sketch” of offender
- includes demographic and physical characterisitics
give supporting research for the top down approach
canter et al
- analysed 100 US murder cases
- revealed there seems to be a set of features which matched the FBI’s typlogies for organised offenders
give discrediting research into the top down approach
godwin
- argues cant classify killers as one or the other type
- killers may have contrasting characterisitcs
give a strength of the top down approach
- supporting evidence - canter et al
give 2 limitations of the top down approach
- discrediting evidence - godwin
- only applies to limited number of cases
- offender may start disorganised and bceome more organised as they develop their skills
strength
give a PEELH for the top down approach
- P - supporting evidence
- Eg, canter et al. reviewed 100 murder cases and found there is a set of features thsat match the typology of organised offender
- Ex - suggets offenders can be categorised based on their crime scene behaviour, reinforcing the validity of the top down approach
- L - law enforcement can use this to narrow down suspect pools, increasing the effectiveness of investigations
H - can only be applied to a limited number of crimes such as murder and rape so limits its overall applicability
limitation
give a PEELH for the top down approach
- P - oversimplifies by classifying criminals into two distinct categories
- Eg - godwin - cant classify killers as one or the other type
- Ex - the approach lacks flexibility and may lead to inaccurate profiling as real life offenders often exhibit a mix of behaviours
- L - law inforcement may be mislead
- H - can still provide useful insight into some cases
what is the bottom up approach
profilers work up from evidence collectred from the crime scene to develop hypotheses about the likely characterisitics of the offender
what is investigative psychology
a form of bottom up profiling based on statistical analysis and psychological theory
what is geographical profiling
a form of bottom up profiling based on the patterns shown by the locations of a series of crimes
what are the 5 factors to the bottom up approach
- interpersonal coherence
- time and place significance
- criminal characteristics
- criminal career
- forensic awareness
explain stage 1 of the bottom up approach
interpersonal coherence
- persons interactional style w their victims may suggest how they act w other people
- eg, if aggressive w victim may be aggressive w personal relationships
explain stage 2 of the bottom up approach
time and place significance
- location is chosen by the offender so it is significant
- offenders feel comfortable in places they know
explain stage 3 of the bottom up approach
criminal characteristics
- how the crime has been committed suggets some of the offenders characteristics
- based on evidence
explain stage 4 of the bottom up approach
criminal career
- following crimes done by the same offender chan ge due to becoming more crimninally experienced
explain stage 5 of the bottom up approach
forensic awareness
- the criminal shows knowledge of the justice system
- the criminal becomes more forensically aware
what are the 3 assumptions of geographucal profiling
- least effort principle
- distance decay
- circle of gravity theory
explain the least effort principle
- if an offender has an option between two criminally attractive places they will choose the one closest to them
explain distance decay
- the number of crimes will redcue the further away from the offenders base
- offenders leave a buffer zone around their house
explain circle of gravity theory
- crimes they commit radiate out from their homes, creating a circle
- if a circle is drawn that encompeses all of the crimes (furthest crimes on rim) then offenders base will be in m iddle of the circle
what is a maurauder offender
operates in close proximity to their home
what is a commuter offender
likelty travels a far distance away from their usual residence
give supporting evidence for the bottom up approach
lundrigan and canter
- collected info from 120 murder cases
- analysios revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killings
- the disposal site created a centre of gravity, creating a circle effect around their home base
give unsupporting evidence of the bottom up approach
capson
- only 3% of cases did it lead to accurate identification of the offender
give a PEELH for the bottom up approach
strength
- P - supported by emprical evidence
- Eg - lundrigan and canter. analysed 120 murder cases and found spatial consistency played a key role in identifying offenders
- Ex - shows offenders trend to operate within a defined geographical area
- L - strengthens the bottom up approach as it provides statistical backing, making it more reliable than top down methods
- H - may not always be successfull as not all offenders exhibit clear geographical patterns
give a PEELH for the bottom up approach
limitation
- P - not always reliable
- Eg - copson. found only 3% of cases where profiling lead to accurate offender
- Ex - the approach rarely provides conclusive results, limiting its practical application
- L - low success rates raise concerns about its overall reliability
- H - the approach has improved over time with advancements in geographical profiling, potentially injcreasing its accuracy
