offender profiling - top down approach Flashcards
offender profiling
behavioural & analytical tool that’s intended to help investigators accurately predict & profile characteristics of unknown offenders
the top-down approach
profilers start with pre-established typology & work down to lower levels in order to assign offenders to one of two categories based on witness accounts & evidence from crime scene
organised offender
offender who shows evidence of planning, targets a specific victim & tends to be socially/sexually competent with higher-than-average intelligence
disorganised offender
offender who shows little evidence of planning, leaves clues & tends to be socially/sexually incompetent with lower-than-average intelligence
main aim of offender profiling
to narrow list of likely suspects
what does compiling a profile include
scrutiny of crime scene & analysis of other evidence to generate hypothesis about probable characteristics of offender
history of top-down approach
- originated in US by FBI’s work in 1970s
- FBI’s behavioural science unit drew data from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually-motivated murderers eg. ted bundy
- concluded data could be categorised into organised/disorganised crimes
modus operandi
signature ‘ways of working’ of serious offenders
characteristics of organised offenders
- planned crime
- target victim (‘type’ of victim they seek)
- high degree of control during
- little evidence or clues left
- above-average intelligence
- in skilled/professional occupation
- socially & sexually competent
- usually married/may have children
characteristics of disorganised offenders
- unplanned crime (spontaneous)
- crime scene reflects impulsive nature of attack
- body usually still at scene
- lower-than-average IQ
- unskilled work/unemployed
- history of sexual dysfunction/failed relationships
- live alone
- live relatively close to attack
(+) research support
P: support for distinct organised category of offender
E: canter et al. (2004) conducted analysis of 100 US murders committed by different serial killers using technique called ‘small space analysis’. this is a statistical technique which identifies correlations across samples of behaviour. the analysis was used to assess co-occurrence of 39 aspects of serial killings (eg. torture/restraint, attempt to hide body, cause of death). this analysis highlighted that there seems to be a subset of features which match the FBI’s typology for organised offenders.
T: suggests the top-down approach obtains some validity
(-) counterpoint to research support
P: many studies suggest organised/disorganised types aren’t mutually exclusive & there’s a variety of combinations which occur at murder scenes
E: godwin (2002) argues it’s difficult to classify murderers as one type as a killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics (eg. high intelligence and sexual competence but commits a spontaneous murder leaving the body)
T: suggests the organised-disorganised typology is a continuum
(+) wider application
P: adapted to other crimes eg. burglary
E: meketa (2017) reports top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary which led to 85% increase in solved cases across three US states. the detection method includes two new categories: interpersonal (offender knows individual & steals something significant) or opportunistic (mostly inexperienced young offenders)
T: top-down profiling has wider application
(-) flawed evidence
P: based on flawed evidence
E: FBI profiling developed via interviews with 36 sexually-motivated murderers in the US, where 25 were serial killers. at the end of the process, 24 were classified as organised & 12 disorganised. canter et al. argued the sample was poor as the sample of murderers chosen was small, different types of offenders & not at random. also, the interviewers were not given questions so each interview was different and not comparable.
T: top-down profiling is ungeneralisable and doesn’t obtain a scientific basis
