offender profiling: the top - down approach evaluation

Question 1

the top-down approach only applies to particular crimes

Answer 1

POINT: the top-down approach is best suited to crime scenes that revealed an important detail about the suspect, such as rape, arson and cult killing as well as crimes that involve such macabre practices as sadistic torture, dissection of the body and acting out fantasies

EVIDENCE: most common offences such as burglary and destruction of property (or even murder or assault during the course of committing these) do not tend themselves to profiling because the resulting crime scene reveals very little about the offenders

EXPLANATION: this means that at best it is a limited approach to identifying a criminal

Question 2

the top-down approach is based on outdated models of personality

Answer 2

POINT: typology classification system is based on the assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain constituent across situations and contests

EVIDENCE: several critics e.g. (Alison et al 2006) have suggested that this approach is naive and is informed by old fashioned models of personality that see behaviour as being driven by stable dispositional traits rather than external factors that may be constantly changing

EXPLANATION: This means the top-down approach, which is based on “static” models of personality, is likely to have poor validity when it comes to identifying possible suspects and/or trying to predict their next move

Question 3

the evidence does not support the “disorganised offender “

Answer 3

POINT: David Canter et al (2004), using s technique called “smallest space analysis”, analysed data from 100 murders in the USA

EVIDENCE: The details of each case were examined with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical of organised and disorganised killers

EXPLANATION: Although the finding did indeed suggest evidence of a distinct organised type, this was not the case for disorganised which seems to undermine the classification system as a whole

COUNTERPOINT:
Nevertheless, the organised/ disorganised distinction is still used as a model for professional profilers in the US and has widespread support

Question 4

the classifications for the top-down approach is too simplistic

Answer 4

POINT: the behaviours that describe each of the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive, a variety of combinations could occur in any given murder scene

EVIDENCE: Grover Godwin (2002) asks how police investigators would classify a killer with high intelligence and sexual competence who commits a spontaneous murder in which the victim’s body is left at the crime scene.
This prompted other researchers to propose more detailed typological models
e.g. Ronald Holmes (1989) suggests the are four types of serial killers:
-visionary
-mission
-hedonistic
-power/control whilst Robert Keppel and Richard Walker )(1999) focus more on the different motivations
Killers might have rather than trying to determine different “types”

EVIDENCE: This represents a challenge to the typology approach because a criminal does not necessarily fit into one of these two categories so this of two types of serial killers is flawed.
Having four types of serial killers is possible more useful but then there may be more difficult to identify a category because a killer will have characteristics that belong to more than one type.

Question 5

original sample

Answer 5

POINT: As mentioned, the typology approach was developed using interviews with 36 killers in the US.
25 of which were serial killers, the other 11 being single or double murderers

EVIDENCE: Critics have pointed out that this is too small and unrepresentative a sample upon which to base a typology system that may have a significant influence on the nature of the police investigation
Canter has argued that it is not sensible to reply on self0 report data with convicted killers when constructing a classification system

EXPLANATION: Self-report information from converted criminals may be inaccurate for a couple of reasons:
1. they may lie due to social desirability and not wanting to admit their heinous crimes to an interviewer. If they are hoping to form an appeal, committing crimes may hinder this

2. they may exaggerate their crimes because they want notoriety and fame for their actions, so again the whole truth may not be given, leading to inaccuracies