Forensic Psychology Flashcards
(152 cards)
Offender profiling: The top-down approach - What is offender profiling?
-Profilers scrutinise crime scene, evidence & witness reports, and generate hypotheses about the probable characteristics of an offender (ie. age/background/job/ethnicity/personality).
-Characteristics of the offender can be deduced from the characteristics of the offence.
The American approach: FBI developed top-down
-FBI interviewed 36 sexually motivated serial killers (including Bundy & Manson) & concluded that data can be categorised into organised & disorganised.
-Profilers will match what’s known about the crime to a pre-existing template the FBI developed.
-They start with a pre-established typology & work down from this to assign offenders to either organised or disorganised.
The top-down approach: Organised & Disorganised offenders
Based on idea that offenders have signature ‘ways of working’ & correlate with social & psychological characteristics.
Organised: premeditated crime, usually have deliberate patterns, controlled & precise crime, little to no evidence left, above average IQ, in skilled professions, socially competent, usually married, charismatic, cunning, familiar with investigatory methods.
-Disorganised: spontaneous crime, impulsive nature, lots of evidence, lower IQ, unskilled & unemployed, deficient social skills, history of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships, often live alone & close to scene of crime.
The top-down approach: Constructing an FBI profile
- Data assimilation - the profiler reviews the evidence (crime scene photographs, pathology reports, witness reports, etc.)
- Crime scene classification - organised/disorganised.
- Crime reconstruction - hypotheses (sequence of events, behaviour of the victim etc).
- Profile generation - hypotheses related to the likely offender (demographic background, physical characteristics, behaviour, etc).
Key things about Top-down approach
-Qualitative approach to offender profiling due to looking at the overall picture & use of typologies.
-Based on police experience & case studies, rather than psychological theory.
-More suitable for extreme/unusual cases, such as murder, rape & ritualistic crimes.
Strength of Top-down approach: Research support (Canter et al)
-Analysed 100 US murders by different serial killers using smallest space analysis to examine 39 characteristics of serial killings (e.g., torture, concealment, weapon use).
-Found that many serial killings had features matching the FBI’s organised offender typology.
Suggests this component of FBI typology has some validity.
Counter: Issues with typology!!!
-Godwin argued that killers often show a mix of organised and disorganised traits, so not mutually exclusive.
-ie. An intelligent, sexually competent killer might still commit a spontaneous murder and leave the body at the scene.
-Tuvey suggests these categories are not dichotomous but are on a continuum and can overlap.
-Douglas suggests a mixed offender category but this would reduce usefulness as it may be considered a ‘bin’ for offenders who do not fit the norm.
Organised-disorganised typology is more on continuum.
Strength of Top-down approach: Wider application
-Meketa (2017) found that applying top-down profiling to burglary led to an 85% increase in solved cases in three US states.
-New categories were added:
-> Interpersonal: Offender knows the victim and steals something significant.
-> Opportunistic: Inexperienced, young offender.
Shows top-down profiling has broader application than previously thought.
Limitation of Top-down approach: Not scientific
-Based on opinions and intuition of profilers.
-Can even be compared to horoscopes whereby the descriptions are made to fit any situation for most people (Barnum effect).
-Too subjective and based on pre-existing dispositions and personal experience.
-Wrong profiling can result in wrongful convictions.
Limitation of Top-down approach: Personality
-Assumes offenders have a consistent way of working (modus operandi) across all crimes.
-Idea is that this consistency helps link crimes together and identify the offender.
-Mischel argued that behaviour is more influenced by the situation than by stable personality traits.
-Offender behaviour at a crime scene might not reflect their everyday personality or usual actions.
-If behaviour is situational, crime scene behaviour may be unreliable for profiling.
-Makes it harder to draw accurate conclusions about the offender’s characteristics.
Risks of misleading profiles, leading investigations in the wrong direction.
Offender profiling: The bottom-up approach (Canter)
-Developed in the UK & aims to generate an offender profile by looking at the available evidence.
-Aims to generate a picture of the offender (characteristics, routine behaviour, social background etc), through analysis of the crime scene.
-Doesn’t begin with fixed typologies & instead, profile is data-driven.
-Grounded in psychological theory.
Bottom-up approach: Investigative psychology
Investigative psychology: statistical analysis + psychological theory to analyse crime scenes.
-Aims to establish patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur across crime scenes.
-This leads to the creation of a statistical database to serve as a baseline for comparisons i.e. comparing different crimes.
-Specific details matched against database to determine details (family background/history) & used to determine if offences committed by same person.
Investigative psychology: Central to approach
-Interpersonal Coherence: how the offender interacts with the crime scene & victim may reflect their everyday behaviour.
-Significance of Time & Place: where the crime takes place may indicate where the offender lives (geographical profiling).
-Forensic Awareness: behaviour may be indicative of previous criminal experience (i.e. being more mindful on covering up the crime scene because you have already been interrogated by the police before).
Bottom-up approach: Geographical profiling
-Rossmo (1997) developed geographical profiling (crime mapping), which looks at linked crimes to work out the likely home location of the offender.
-Centre of gravity: Can combine with psychological theories to build hypotheses about: Offender’s thinking, their modus operandi (M.O.) & likely residence.
-Can also predict likely future offences (jeopardy surface)
Patterns:
-Offending usually forms a circle around the offender’s home.
-Crime locations reveal if offences were planned.
-Can indicate mode of transport, age, employment status, etc.
Geographical profiling: Mental maps & Canter’s circle theory
Mental maps:
-People build mental representations of areas they know.
-Offence distribution may reflect the offender’s mental map.
-Mental maps are shaped by personal experience and perspective, not always accurate.
Canter’s circle theory:
Marauder: Operates close to home/base.
Commuter: Travels away from home to commit crimes.
Bottom-up approach: Criminal consistency hypothesis
-Criminals show consistency & similarities within their crimes (ie. bank robbers will continue to rob banks).
-Commuter model: where the crimes tend to be closer together, in similar areas (architecture,ethnicities), there’s spatial consistency & similar features.
-Marauder model: where crimes are more spread out and there’s more familiarity and more attempt to distinguish identity.
Criminal consistency hypothesis: 2 subtypes
-Interpersonal consistency: criminals will have a level of social ……. to convince peope to come to where the crime will be committed, may act similar to personal lives.
-Spatial consistency: you’ll commit crime in an area you know well (ie. Adrian Bobb in Birmingham).
Strength of Bottom-up approach: Evidence for investigative psychology
-Canter and Heritage (1990) analysed 66 sexual assault cases.
-Used smallest space analysis to find common behaviours:
-> Use of impersonal language.
-> Lack of reaction to victim.
-Offenders showed consistent patterns of behaviour.
-Helps with case linkage - identifying if multiple offences were committed by the same person.
Supports investigative psychology’s key idea of behavioural consistency.
Counter: Circular argument
-Case linkage relies on existing databases of solved crimes.
-These cases might have been solved because they were easy to link in the first place (circular argument).
-Investigative psychology might not be useful for crimes with fewer obvious links that remain unsolved.
Strength of Bottom-up approach: Evidence for geographical profiling (Lundrigan & Canter)
-Analysed 120 US murder cases involving serial killers.
-Used smallest space analysis to examine spatial behaviour.
-Found spatial consistency in where killers disposed of bodies.
-Disposal sites formed a ‘centre of gravity’ around offender’s home base.
-Offenders often chose different directions, but overall pattern was circular around home.
-This pattern was stronger in marauders (offenders who stay close to home).
Supports geographical profiling - offender’s location can be identified from spatial patterns.
Limitation of Bottom-up approach: Geographical profiling insufficient
-Geographical profiling depends on quality of police data.
-Crime recording can be inaccurate and varies between forces.
-75% of crimes are not reported (‘dark figure of crime’).
-If data is flawed, profiling accuracy is reduced.
-Other factors (timing of offence, age and experience of offender - Ainsworth, 2001) are also important.
Suggests that geographical data alone is not enough for successful offender profiling.
Limitation of Bottom-up approach: Mixed results
Mixed views among police on usefulness of offender profiling.
-Copson (1995):
Surveyed 48 police departments.
Profiling advice was ‘useful’ in 83% of cases.
But only 3% of cases led to correct offender identification.
-Kocsis et al. (2002):
Chemistry students produced more accurate profiles than experienced detectives.
Suggests profiling is not consistently reliable and has variable effectiveness.
Biological explanation: Historical approach/Atavistic form (Lombroso 1876)
-Criminals are a genetic throwback.
-Cannot adjust to demands of society, so they turn to crime.
-Primitive sub-species, who are biologically different to non-criminals.
-Criminals can be clearly identified due to shared characteristics.
Atavistic approach: A biological approach
-Lombroso argued offenders lack evolutionary development.
-They have a ‘savage and untamed nature’, meaning they can’t adjust to civilised society and are ‘naturally’ criminal.
-Suggested criminal behaviour is innate and rooted in genetics.
-His ideas were revolutionary at the time as they challenged moral blame.