Offender Profiling - Forensic Psychology

Question 1

TDA: Supporting evidence (M + G)

Answer 1

Gregg McCrary and Ed Grant
- used TDA to develop a profile of the man responsible for murders in the late 1980s
- profile ended up being a close match

Question 2

TDA: Based on evidence – support

Answer 2

developed from interviews and data from 36 US murderers

Question 3

TDA: Conflicting evidence (P+F)

Answer 3

Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990)
- compared the accuracy of profiles created by 6 TDA against profiles created by control groups
- found the trained profilers were no more accurate than profiles created by control groups

Question 4

TDA: Limited Application

Answer 4

• only works for certain types of crimes
• crimes need a particular modus operandi
• reveal information about their character

Question 5

TDA: Overly Simplistic

Answer 5

organised/disorganised offender may be too simplistic
- some don’t fit into either category
- some may have high IQ but commit an unplanned murder in a fit of rage

Question 6

BUA: Investigative psychology evidence

Answer 6

David Canter used BUA to develop ‘Railway Rapist’
- developed the profile of a man with a criminal record + who lived near the crime scenes
- profile turned out to closely match the details

Question 7

BUA: Geographical profiling evidence

Answer 7

Canter and Larkin (1993)
- plotted the locations where 120 serial killers disposed of bodies and analysed data
- found killer’s home tended to be in the centre of the plotted area

Question 8

BUA: wide range of application

Answer 8

applied to a much wider range of crimes

Question 9

BUA: Conflicting evidence

Answer 9

Copson (1995)
- surveyed 184 UK police officers
83% = useful
3% = profiles resulted in the identification of the offender