offender profiling : the bottom up approach

Question 1

the bottom up approach in contrast to the top down approach uses

Answer 1

no pre established typology , but develops a profile as the crime scene and eyewitness testimonies are increasingly analysed

Question 1

the two hallmarks of the bottom up approach are

Answer 1

investigative psychology and geographical profiling

Question 2

investigative psychology is the process whereby

Answer 2

each crime is recorded onto a database , then the details of each new crime are marched with this database in order to develop hypotheses about the likely characteristics , social dmeograoghic and motivations of the culprit.

Question 3

therefore the use of investigative psychology credits the bottom up approach with having

Answer 3

more scientific methods of investigation and statistical analysis compared to the top down approach

Question 4

investigative psychology emphasises the importance of time and place as well as the idea of interpersonal coherence which suggests that

Answer 4

the manner in which the offender treats the victim reflects their interpersonal functioning / understanding in real life

Question 5

geographical profiling suggests that

Answer 5

each offender has an operational base , which can be inferred through mapping the locations of previous crimes.
this should form a circular shape where the operational base or ‘ centre of gravity ‘ is at the centre and can also be used to predict future crimes through the analysis of a jeopardy surface

Question 6

this is all based on the assumption that the way and signature of offenders is carrying out their crimes are constant thus having the same

Answer 6

’ modus operandi ‘

Question 7

offenders can be classified as

Answer 7

marauders (carrying out crimes close to the centre of gravity) or commuters (carrying out crimes far away from the centre of grvaity) according to Canter and Larkin 1933

Question 8

• the bottom up approach is almost certainly a useful method of offender profiling , but it does not always lead to the correct identification of the offender and so

Answer 8

may be considered a failure in this sense, as suggested by Copson (1995).
He found that information from an offender profile only led to the successful identification of the offender in 3% of cases, but was useful 83% of the time.
This suggests that offender profiling is best reserved for simply narrowing the field of enquiry, as opposed to being relied upon as a chief means of offender identification.

Question 9

+ A key advantage of the bottom up approach , compared to the top down approach , is its reliance on scientific methods of enquiry and use

Answer 9

of statistical analysis.
For example, many supporting studies have used the method of smallest space analysis to establish correlations between two variables or offender characteristics.
This is more scientific and based on psychological theory compared to the top-down approach, which is over-simplistic.

Question 10

+ there is evidence to support the use of smallest space analysis in geographical profiling as a way of

Answer 10

narrowing the field of enquiry and identifying offenders as either marauders or commuters, as suggested by Lundrigan and Canter (2001).
Following the smallest space analysis of 120 serial murder cases, the researchers were able to identify characteristic traits of spatial consistency, such as the presence of a jeopardy surface (which could be used to predict the locations of future crimes) as well as the centre of gravity (which was often the offender’s operational base).
Therefore, this is particularly useful in establishing the modus operandi of the offender.