Forensic Psychology: Paper 3 Flashcards
(169 cards)
What is the top-down approach
A01: The Top-Down Approach
Technique developed by the FBI in which 36 convicted murderers were interviewed. As a result of their responses, 24 were classified as organised offenders and 12 as disorganised offenders.
This is the typology of the top down approach.
What happens in the data assimilation stage?
A01: The Top-Down Approach
Data assimilation refers to information gathered from the crime scene such as choice of victim and location.
All information, even if trivial is included and possible suspects should not be considered yet as it may bias info collected.
Based on the data collection, what offender types have been created?
A01: The Top-Down Approach
Profilers have created pre-existing categories of offender types called organised and disorganised offenders based on the data collected.
What is an organised offender?
A01: The Top-Down Approach
An organised offender leads an ordered life and kills after some sort of critical life event. Their actions are premeditated and planned, they are likely to bring weapons and restraints to the scene. They are likely to be of average to high intelligence and employed.
What is a disorganised offender?
A01: The Top-Down Approach
A disorganised offender is more likely to have committed the crime in a moment of passion. There will be no evidence of premeditation, and they are more likely to leave evidence, such as blood, semen, murder weapon, etc., behind. This type of offender is thought to be less socially competent and more likely to be unemployed.
How is a criminal profile constructed using the top-down approach?
A01: The Top-Down Approach
To generate a profile of the offender, the profiler
- Review the evidence gathered from the crime scene and other material evidence
- The crime scene is classified as organized or disorganized
- The crime is reconstructed – based on the evidence gathered hypotheses are made about what has occurred in terms of order of events, behaviour of the offender and of the victim.
What is determined then to identify suspects?
A01: The Top-Down Approach
These elements are then compared to the typographies and a profile is generated.
A range of inferences are then made such as demographic assumptions (gender, age etc), physical features and expected behaviours to identify potential suspects,
The Top-Down Approach is too simplistic as it reduces criminal behaviour into two categories.
A03: The Top-Down Approach
Top-down profiling is reductionist, as the classification system (organized/disorganized) is too simple.
Offenders are not simply either disorganized or organized.
It may be that there are both organized and disorganized features to all their crimes.
An offender may start off being disorganized and become more organized as they develop their modus operandi.
Not applicable to all crimes
A03: The Top-Down Approach
Only suitable to crimes which reveal a lot about the criminal.
Common crimes such as burglary or destruction of property cannot be aided with this method because the crime reveals little about the offender this means that it is a limited approach to identifying a criminal
Snook provides research support for the effectiveness of top-down approach.
A03: The Top-Down Approach
Snook found that Canadian major crime officers agreed that criminal profiling helps solve 94% of cases and is a valuable investigative tool.
Positive customer feedback through customer satisfaction surveys would suggest that detectives feel offender profiling is effective in helping with their work.
Sample bias
A03: The Top-Down Approach
There is a sample bias. The original interviews were carried out using 36 serial killers in the USA (cultural bias), thus meaning the sample is biased as many were serial killers with potentially unique characteristics.
It is too small and unrepresentative upon which to base a typology system that may have a significant influence on the nature of the police investigation.
Alison provides contradictory evidence for the effectiveness of top-down approach.
A03: The Top-Down Approach
Alison argues that many of the predictions in profile are ambigious.
Alison gave two groups of police detectives the same profile, but each group was provided with the details of two very different offenders. In each group, 75% rated the profile as somewhat accurate and 50% as generally/very accurate.
This suggests that police are adding meaning to what are ambiguous statements and is an extension of Barnum effect (whereby vague evidence of the crime could be manipulated to fit characteristics of particular type of offender).
Evidence does not support the existence of a ‘disorganised offender’
A03: The Top-Down Approach
Evidence does not support the ‘disorganised offender’- Canter et al used smallest space analysis and analysed data from 100 murderers in the USA.
The details of each case were examined using 39 characteristics that were ‘typical’ of organised and disorganised offenders. The findings showed evidence of a distinct organised type, but not for disorganised.
Therefore, it appears that the classification of the ‘disorganised’ offender has very little basis in reality according to his findings.
Effective in real-life applications
A03: The Top-Down Approach
A strength of the top down approach is that it has application to real life.
By using the organised/disorganised typology, the police were able to successfully arrest Arthur Shawcross.
He murdered 11 women in New York. The key part of his profile was the belief he would return to the dead victims later to re-experience the pleasure of killing. As a result of this, police set up surveillance and caught him.
This is a strength because this practical application increases validity
Another strength of the top down approach to profiling is that it can be adapted to other kinds of crime such as burglary.
Provide research support…
A03: The Top-Down Approach
Tina Merketa (2017) reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in the US states.
The detection method used for burglary retains the organised-disorganised distinction but also adds two new categories: interpersonal and personal.
This suggests that top-down profiling has wider application than originally assumed.
Unscientific, perhaps the bottom-up approach is more sufficient…
A03: The Top-Down Approach
The process is not based on any science or theory and so the accuracy of the profiles may be very subjective, and this can be explained yet again by the Barnum effect.
Perhaps, it may be better to use the bottom-up approach compared to using the top-down approach as it is more scientific and based on psychological theory compared to the top-down approach, which is over-simplistic.
What is the bottom-up approach?
A01: Bottom-Up Approach
- A bottom-up approach that starts with small details and creates the big picture. No initial assumptions are made about the offender, and the approach relies heavily on computer databases.
This approach believes that it is the little details that are often overlooked that can be crucial to the success of a case.
What is investigate psychology?
A01: Bottom-Up Approach
- This aims to use computer databases and a program called Smallest Space Analysis, where patterns are identified, and attempts to see if it is possible that a series of offenses are linked.
What is interpersonal coherence?
A01: Bottom-Up Approach
- Central to this approach is the concept of interpersonal coherence.
This means the behaviour of the offender at the time of the crime will be comparable to what they’re like in everyday life.
For example, degrees of violence used in serious crimes, especially rape, may reflect how the criminal treats other women in his non-criminal life.
What is geographical profiling?
A01: Bottom-Up Approach
- Geographical Profiling is used to make inferences about where an offender is likely to live. This is also known as crime mapping. It assumes that locations of crime and not random. This assumption helps investigators narrow down their search areas.
What theories have developed as a result of the geographical approach?
A01: Bottom-Up Approach
- The circle hypothesis suggests that because offenders operate according to a limited spatial mindset crimes radiate out from their home base creating a circle.
- Canter’s Circle theory (1993) proposed two models of offender behaviour. Offenders are classified as either marauders (who commit crimes close to home, within the circle) or commuters (who travel away from home to offend).
*This therefore works on the principle that criminals have a mental map or schema of spatial information. The information about the location of the crime scene reflects the offender’s mental map. These maps are unique to the individual such as their job, age and employment.
A strength is the approach has a scientific basis
A03: Bottom-Up Approach
Canter argues that the bottom-up approach is more objective and scientific than top-down.
Investigators can use geographical, biographical and psychological data to produce data to assist in the investigation.
Investigative psychology has also expanded to include areas like suspect interviewing and examination of material presented in court – supporting its use in the judicial process and thus its real life application in real world settings , increasing the ecological validity of this research.
A strength is evidence supports circle hypothesis
A03: Bottom-Up Approach
Canter and Larkin showed 87% of a sample of 45 British serial sexual assaulters were marauders.
This supports the circle hypothesis and the idea that choice of the place of the crime is a significant factor in offender behaviour.
A strength is wider application of the approach
A03: Bottom-Up Approach
The bottom-up approach can be applied to a wide range of offences compared to the top-down approach.
Techniques can be used in the investigation of crimes from burglary/theft to murder/rape.
This means that the bottom-up approach is more valuable than the top-down approach as an investigative technique.