top-down

Question 1

what is another word for this approach

Answer 1

typology

Question 2

who does the top-down approach originate from

Answer 2

FBI in the USA

Question 3

how was the approach developed

Answer 3

interviewed 36 of the most serious sexually motivated killers in America (including Bundt and Manson)

Question 4

what’re offenders classified into

Answer 4

organised or disorganised offenders

Question 5

what characters do organised offenders have

Answer 5

plans the crime in advance
high degree of control
may show extreme precision
little/no clues left
usually married
above average IQ/professional occupation
deliberately chosen victim
socially/sexually competent
may be proud of their crime

Question 6

what characteristics do disorganised offenders have

Answer 6

lack of planning/control
clues left behind (eg a body)
unlikely to have a partner
victim not targeted
low intelligence
socially awkward
poor employment history
little interest in their crime

Question 7

what’re the 4 main stages in FBI profile construction

Answer 7

•Data assimilation (profilers review evidence)
•Crime scene classification (disorganised/organised)
•Crime reconstruction (hypothesis of sequence of events, behaviour etc)
•Profile generation (likely characteristics/demographic)

Question 8

what’re 4 negative evaluation points for the top-down approach to offender profiling

Answer 8

oversimplifying classification with organised/disorganised

only applies to very severe crimes

sample/interview issues

based on behavioural consistency (modus operandi)

Question 9

what’re 2 positive evaluations for the top-down approach

Answer 9

application to other types of crime

smallest space analysis

Question 10

how is the smallest space analysis a positive evaluation for top-down

Answer 10

Canter looked at 100 US serial killings, using smallest space analysis, assessing co-occurrence of 39 aspects of serial killers, finding a subset of behaviours of many killings matching the FBI’s typology. since many behaviours matches the validity of the top down approach is supported for offender profiling

Question 11

how does applicability support top-down

Answer 11

Meketa reports that recently too-down was applied successfully to burglary, with an 85% rise in solved cases in 3 states, adding ‘interpersonal’ and ‘opportunistic’ categories. this shows it’s greater applicability via burglary increasing its generalisability and usefulness in offender profiling

Question 12

what is the ‘interpersonal’ category

Answer 12

used in burglary, the offender knows the victim and steals something personal

Question 13

what is the ‘opportunistic’ category

Answer 13

used in burglary and is often an unplanned and inexperienced young offender

Question 14

how is the organised/disorganised classification a negative evaluation of top-down

Answer 14

someone may not conform as expected, eg a sexually competent and intelligent person can still act impulsively and leave evidence, with arguments saying the classification should be more of a continuum

Question 15

how does the traditional nature of top-down act as a negative evaluation

Answer 15

namely applies to rape/murderer with the vast majority of these crimes committed by male perpetrators. lowers generalisability (namely less severe crimes) of the approach

Question 16

how does canters criticism of sampling/standardisation negatively impact the top-down approach

Answer 16

no random or even large sample, didnt include different kinds of offenders. no standard questions so each interview was different and incomparable, removing the scientific basis of the approach and limiting its validity

Question 17

how does modus operandi negatively evaluate the top-down

Answer 17

based on behavioural consistency (modus operandi), as crime characteristics help identification. Mischel argues crime more driven by situations than ‘personality’, suggesting that the method may not always lead to successful offender identification