Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Crim & Forensic Psychology > Offender Profiling > Flashcards

Offender Profiling Flashcards

1
Q

What is offender profiling? 📝

A

Identifying characteristics of a perpetrator of a crime based on analysis of the nature 🏃🏽 and the manner🙅🏽 in which it was committed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What indicates aspects of a criminals’ personality?

A

Their choice of actions before, during and after the crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the predominant crimes we can profile?

A

Mostly contact crimes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the basic premise of offender profiling?

A

What + how + when + where + why = WHO

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What principles are used to profile an offender?

A

Behavioural, correlational and psychodynamic principles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the core objectives of offender profiling?

A

Reduce the scope of an investigation, reduce the problem of an information overload, permit strategic allocation of resources, assist in linkage of crimes, predict future offences, ease the burden of public fear, media interest and political pressure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Goals of offender profiling

A

Social and psychological assessment of offenders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Core variables to know about offender

A

Age, gender, race, employment, marital status, sexual maturity, religion, reaction to police questioning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is a psychological evaluation of offender belongings used for

A

To aid understanding of how certain possessions tie the suspect to the crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What does psychological evaluation of offender belongings predict?

A

What items a suspect likely to have in their possession, to build case for prosecution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Why would psychological evaluation of offender belongings be invaluable at trial?

A

Can ultimately lead to the conviction of the perpetrator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is crime linkage analysis?

A

Investigative decision process of deciding whether 2 or more crimes are committed by same offender

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Preferred type of evidence in linkage analysis

A

Hard evidence, or in absence of this- observable behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is linkage blindness

A

Don’t know crime is committed by same person (could have prevented victimisation Ghubin et al (1997)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

2 reasons for crime linkage (Santtila et al, 2005)

A

Reduce number of potential suspects, accumulate evidence concerning a particular offender

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Process of crime linkage

A

Look at offence behaviours then compare to relevant for similar offences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Assumptions of behavioural crime linkage

A

Consistency (similarity across related crime scenes) and variability (what random set of behaviours they used)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What technology is the gold standard to facilitate linkage by (Collins et al., 1998)

A

Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System (ViClas)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Critical evaluation of computerised systems (Bernell et al., 2012): 4 assumptions

A

Data in systems must be coded reliably
Data are accurate
Serial offenders exhibit consistent but distinctive patterns of behaviour
Analysts have ability to use behaviour to link crimes accurately

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Approaches to offender profiling

A

FBI- Inductive approach, Canter’s signature vs. Modus operandi and geographical profiling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What type of approach is the FBI-inductive approach

A

Top-down approach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Profiling process (FBI Inductive approach

A

Data assimilation, crime classification (organised or disorganised) crime reconstruction (hypotheses) and profile generation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Assumptions in FBI inductive approach

A

Unknown offenders share common characteristics.

Past offenders culturally similar to current offenders (environmental conditions + motivations)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Disorganised Asocial offender

A

Spontaneous, Unknown, messy, weapon left

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
How should police interview a disorganised asocial offender
Show empathy, non-threatening, counseller approach, interview them at night
26
Organised non-social offender
Evidence of planning (body moved, weapon taken), intelligent, controlled mood, charming. After crime volunteers info, anticipates questioning
27
How should police interview an organised non-social offender?
Direct strategy, aware that answers are usually well-read
28
Criticisms of FBI inductive approach
Generalises from limited population, lacks theoretical rationale, relies on interviews, failure to compare profiles with actual offenders
29
Boon and Davis (1992) deductive approach
Get details of crime and build up specific associations between offences and offender characteristics
30
Deductive methods assumptions
No offender acts without motivation so each offence should be investigated as its own behavioural and motivational existent
31
Positives of deductive methods
Profiles more specific and reduces investigator bias
32
Limitation of deductive methods
Time consuming and involves a multi-disciplinary team
33
Canter's approach to offender profiling
Inductive and deductive as FBI dichotomy is too simplistic
34
Canter's Signature vs Modus operandi
Signature- each crime has their own signature | Modus operandi- dynamic, learned behaviour which changes over time as offender gets more experienced
35
Geographical profiling (Rossmo, 2000)
Suggests that criminals offend close to their homes e.g. Burgle and rape
36
Geographical profiling aims
Identify which cases are linked Predict characteristics Understand link between offence and location
37
Geographical profiling preparation
Exam case files, inspect scene and photos, discuss with identifications, analyse the neighbourhood crime stats, study the street
38
Assumptions in geographical profiling
- individuals construct mental maps of areas they know | - victim location and availability are key to determining where offences will occur
39
Jeopardy surface in geographical profiling
Computerised analysis of point pattern target sites (produces 3D probability distribution)
40
Routine activity theory of geographical profiling
A motivated offender, a suitable victim and the absence of a capable guardian
41
Limitation of routine activity theory
Doesn't address why offenders commit crimes
42
Support for geographical profiling
Godwin and Canter (1997): 85% offences lived within circle compassing offences Koscis and Irwin (1997): arson attacks in AUS Snook et al (2005): younger travelled shorter distances. Higher IQ travelled further
43
Search and attack methods in geographical profiling include
Victim and attack search methods
44
Victim search methods (geographical profiling)
Hunter (search based from home, go out and look) Poacher (search based on own activity e.g. Business) Troller (opportunistic) Trapper (under their control)
45
3 methods of attack (geographical profiling)
Raptor (Attacks upon encounter) Stalker (follows victim, then attacks) Ambusher (entices victim to location, then attacks)
46
Evaluation of geographical profiling
Canter's approach similar | However, generalising between EU and USA
47
2 distinct issues with offender profiling (Petherick, 2005)
Accuracy (would suggest direct relationship between profile and offender) and Utility (waste of resources)
48
Hazel wood et al (1995) criticism of offender profiling
Only an investigative tool used to narrow down a pool of suspects (not to identify)
49
What is successful offender profiling?
Number of hits scored by profiles (Jackson et al 1997) Must assist in decision making process (Rossmo et al., 2000)
50
Criticism of offender profiling literature (Dowden et al 2007) content analysis
Majority of profiling research are discussion papers and they lack a systematic testing of theories
51
What assumptions are being tested in offender profiling?
Stability of offender profiling over time, consistency of offender's behaviour between his criminal/ non criminal domains, associations between crime and background of offender
52
How accurate is offender profiling? (Holmes, 1989)
- 192 offender profiled cases | - only 17% contributed to the arrests
53
Criticisms of Holmes (1989)
No control group for comparison, stats techniques not described and most info gained by police
54
Circle theory of environmental range
(Rossmo, 2000) suggests that criminals offend close to their homes
55
Three central elements of offender profiling
Produces 8 possible crime location sets Victim encounter sets suggests the organisation and mobility of offender Research has shown high consistency in crime set by serial offenders
56
How useful is offender profiling?
Cops on (1995) found 100% for arson and abduction (but small cases)
57
Aspects of usefulness of offender profiling (Copson, 1995)
- lead to identification (3%) - furthered understanding of case/offender (61%) - reassured officers' judgements (52%) - offered structure for interview (5%) - not useful (17%)
58
How useful is offender profiling operationally? (Copson, 1995)
83%
59
Problems with assessing accuracy of offender profiles
Turvey (1999): issue of subjectivity in interpretations, accuracy can only be proven once caught and even when caught not FACTUAL evidence of guilt/innocence.
60
Villiejoubert and colleagues (2008): cognitive study on how receivers of profiles interpret the claims study details
- 70 ptps - online questionnaire - manipulated quantifiers used
61
Criticism of uncertainty phrases (Collins and Alison, 2002):
- content analysis of 26 profiles by different profilers | - only 54% had uncertainty phrase
62
However, recently Almond et al (2007) found (unqualified phrases)
Only 18% of claims were unprofiled | Therefore improvement in practice
63
Villejubert et al (2008) findings
Most can't be certain of claims: mere levels of probability, need a probability qualifying phrase e.g 60% chance as claims interpreted differently for different people - verbal as opposed to numerical associated with higher judgements and level of dangerousness- more likely to be thought true
64
Recommendations of offender profiling (Villejubert et al, 2008)
Need to counterbalance effects in communications (e.g. If dangerous claim is made, reduce a probable to a possible) to make less likely to be thought true

Crim & Forensic Psychology (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions