Top-down approach to profiling

Question 1

where was it first developed

Answer 1

in the USA by the FBI in the 1970’s from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually-motivated serial killers including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson

Question 2

what was it used for

Answer 2

information gave initial profiles for what criminals are and were used as starting points to track down and figure out the motives for similar cases

Question 3

step 1…

Answer 3

data is collected including details of crime scene (incl. pics) ,victim background information and details of the crime (weapon, cause of death autopsy report)

Question 4

step 2…

Answer 4

profiler organises information into patterns considering murder type (mass/spree/serial), time factors (short/long time, during day/night), location (crime scene same as murder scene?)

Question 5

step 3…

Answer 5

was it organised or disorganised?

Question 6

what are the characteristics of an organised crime

Answer 6

it was planned, the victim is targeted, no evidence is left behind. the criminal usually has high intelligence, a professional job and is married with kids

Question 7

what are the characteristics of a disorganised crime

Answer 7

it was spontaneous, there is evidence left behind. the criminal usually has a low iQ, a low skill job and lives alone

Question 8

step 4…

Answer 8

the profile is generated including a hypothesis of motives, background, habits and what actually happened

Question 9

lastly…

Answer 9

a written report is given to the police and people who match the profile are taken in for questioning

Question 10

E-validity- best suited to crime scenes…

Answer 10

that reveal important details bout the suspects (rape/arson/murder/sadistic torture). only when these crimes are committed can we generate profiles o compare against future cases. more common crimes (robbery/property destruction) can’t be used as they reveal very little about the offenders so can use in the future

Question 11

E-validity- it assumes offenders have behaviours patterns and motives that are consistent across other criminals/situations/contexts/time periods…

Answer 11

many critics say this is naive as it sees criminality being driven by personality rather than external factors that constantly change

Question 12

E-generalising- original profile was built on 36 sexually-motivated serial killers… problem…

Answer 12

this sample is too small and unrepresentative to base an entire approach around that is significantly used to catch similar criminals.

Question 13

E-generalising- based on self report…

Answer 13

this is not sensible to rely on self-report data from convicted killers as they are likely to lie about their motives/other aspects of their lives. if this data is false how can the police expect to use it to profile

Question 14

E-genealising- Carter analysed what? what did evidence suggest?

Answer 14

Carter analused data from 100 murders in the USA. the details of each case were examined with reference to the 39 characteristics thought tho be typical of organised/disorganised crime. evidence suggested there was consistent patterns for organised crimes but not disorganised. we cannot use this criteria to generalise disorganised crimes

Question 15

E-effectiveness- police say…

Answer 15

82% have said it is operationally useful and 90% said they would use it again.

Question 16

E-effectiveness- misleading?

Answer 16

if the profiles were truly useful we would expect the initial profile to closely match the actual characteristics of the offender. in a study, police were given a profile to work from; one of the actual offender and the other a fake. in the fake condition, 50% of the police said it accurately matched the offender. so we can make profiles fit if needed

Question 17

E-effectiveness- Snook et al argues that profilers do little more than psychics…

Answer 17

the process is based on having the ability to ‘read behaviour’ and a wealth of knowledge of similar cases. it is not based on science/theory so quite often courts regard the conclusions as ‘junk science’. ambiguous descriptions can be made to fit any situation which has the potential to cause harm as it may mislead the investigation. smart criminals can read police techniques and leave misleading clues