offender profiling: bottom-up approach

Question 1

aim

Answer 1

create picture of offender, & their likely characteristics, routine behaviour & social background, through systemic analysis of crime scene

Question 2

how does bottom-up profiling differ from the top-down approach

Answer 2

• it doesn’t begin with fixed typologies
• the profile is data-driven & emerges as investigator digs more deeply into details of offence
• much more grounded in psychological theory

Question 3

describe investigative psychology

Answer 3

• attempt to apply statistical procedures (alongside psychological theory) to analysis of crime scene evidence
• aim is to establish patterns likely to occur across crime scenes
• develop statistical database which acts as a baseline for comparison across crimes
• specific details of offence/related offences can be matched against database to reveal important information about offender
• may also help determine if series of offences are linked

Question 4

what 3 concepts are central to this approach

Answer 4

1. interpersonal coherence = the way an offender behaves at scene (eg. how they interact with victim may reflect behaviour in everyday lives)
   - eg. while some rapists want to maintain control & humiliate victims, others are more apologetic (dwyer 2001)
   - may tell police something about how offender relates to women generally
2. significance of time & place
   - may indicate where offender is living
3. forensic awareness = describes individuals who’ve been subject to police interrogation prior & their behaviour may who how mindful they are of ‘covering their tracks’

Question 5

describe geographic profiling

Answer 5

• uses info about location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about likely home/base of offender = crime mapping (based on spatial consistency)
• can be used alongside psychological theory to create hypotheses about how offender is thinking & their modus operandi
• assumption: offenders constrict crimes to familiar geographical areas

Question 6

describe canter’s circle theory (canter & larkin 1993) - based on geographical profiling

Answer 6

• pattern of offending forms circle around offenders home base
• distribution of offenders allows us to describe offender in one of two ways:
  1. marauder = operates in close proximity to home base
  2. commuter = likely to have travelled distance from residence

Question 7

AO3 (+) research support for investigative psychology

Answer 7

E: canter & heritage (1990)
- conducted analysis of 66 sexual assault cases
- data examined using smallest space analysis
- several behaviours identified as common in different samples of behaviour (eg. impersonal language, lack of reaction to victim)
- each individual showed characteristic pattern of behaviours & this helped establish whether 2+ offences were committed by same person (‘case linkage’)

T: supports one of basic principles of investigative psychology/bottom-up approach that people are consistent in their offending behaviour

Question 8

AO3 (+) research to support geographical profiling

Answer 8

E: lundrigan & canter (2001)
- collated information from 120 murder cases involving american serial killers
- smallest space analysis showed spatial consistency in their behaviours
- location of body disposal sites create ‘centre of gravity’ likely because, when offenders start from home bae they may go a different direction each time they dispose a body which creates circular effect around house
- effect more noticeable for those who travelled shorter distances (marauder)

T: shows how geographical profiling can be used to identify offender

Question 9

AO3 (-) geographical profiling may not be sufficient if used on its own

Answer 9

E:
- success may be reliant on quality of data police provide
- recording of crimes isn’t always accurate & can vary between police forces
- estimated 75% of crimes not reported to police in first place (‘dark figure of crime’)
- questions utility of approach which relies on accuracy of geographical information
- critics claim other factors important in creating profile eg. timing of offence, age/experience of offender (ainsworth 2001)

T: suggests geographical profiling when used alone may not always lead to successful capture of offender

Question 10

AO3 (-) case of rachel nickel

Answer 10

• in 1992, at 21 years old, she was stabbed 47 times & sexually assaulted on wimbledon common
• 2 year old son was only witness
• police launched manhunt & enlisted offender profiler paul britton to help with enquiry
• targeted colin stagg = local man who often walked dog & fitted offender profile britton had configured
• ‘honey trap’ = over course of 5 months, undercover policewoman pursued stagg as romantic interest & tried to get him to confess
• in 2007, robert napper arrested after forensic evidence but he had been ruled out at early stage of enquiry as he was several inches taller than profile