Offender Profiling Ao3 Flashcards
(8 cards)
Research support for top down
A strength of the top-down approach is that research provides some support for the distinction between organised and disorganised offenders. For example, Canter et al. (2004) used smallest space analysis of 100 US serial killer cases and found that the characteristics of organised offenders (e.g., planning, intelligence) were more common than those of disorganised offenders. This suggests that the classification has some validity and can help bring offenders to justice. However, Canter et al. found no clear evidence for the disorganised type, suggesting the classification system may be too simplistic and lack reliability
Counterpoint to research support for top down
P: However many studies suggest that the organized and disorganized types may not mutually exclusive
E: Maurice Godwin (2002) - it is difficult to classify killers as one or the other type.
E: Could have multiple contrasting characteristics.
• High intelligence and sexual competence, but commit a spontaneous murder, leaving the body at the crime scene.
Could mean that the typology is more of a continuum, rather than one or another.
L: this limits how useful the top down approach is in using a profile to catch offenders
Limited wider application of top down
A further criticism is that the top-down approach only applies to certain types of crimes, such as rape, murder, and sadistic crimes. It is not useful for more common offences like burglary or financial fraud, as these crimes do not involve crime scene evidence that can be used for profiling. This reduces the practical usefulness of the approach in modern policing. In contrast, the bottom-up approach, which focuses on patterns of behaviour rather than categories of criminals, can be applied to a wider range of crimes.
weakness of top down - poor sample
P; the top down approach was based on interviews conducted with 36 murderers, 25 of which were serial killers, then classed as either organised or disorganised.
E: however this sample is poor. unrepresentative of other criminals in prison. the sample was neither large or random. there were no standardised procedures used so comparisons between interviews were not possible.
E: relied on self report from criminals which may be inacc eg lie due to soc des and not admit crimes due to hope of appeal or exaggerate their crimes for fame
L: thus top down approach doesn’t have a sound scientific basis.
Scientific and statistical methods (bottom up)
A strength of the bottom-up approach is that it uses scientific and statistical methods to analyse criminal behaviour. Unlike the top-down approach, which relies on intuition, bottom-up profiling is based on data analysis and probability. For example, Canter and Heritage (1990) conducted a content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases using smallest space analysis and identified common patterns of behaviour across offences. This suggests that investigative psychology is grounded in empirical evidence, making it more reliable and scientific.
Evidence for geographical profiling (bottom up)
P: Lundrigan and Canter (2001) collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US. EE: Smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers.
• The location of each body disposal site created a centre of gravity,
• Offenders start from their home base they go in different directions each time they dump body, but in the end this creates a circular effect around the home base.
• The offenders base was invariably located at the centre of the pattern
• Especially with marauders.
L; This supports the view that geographical information can be used to identify an offender.
Limited application of bottom up
A further issue is that the bottom-up approach is more useful for some crimes than others. For example, geographical profiling is most effective for crimes involving multiple offences, such as serial murders or rapes. However, for crimes like burglary or one-off murders, there may not be enough data to identify patterns. This means that while bottom-up profiling is a valuable investigative tool, it has limited applicability in certain cases.
Strength of bottom up - irl app
Another strength is that the bottom-up approach has been successfully applied to real-life investigations. For example, David Canter’s profile of the “Railway Rapist” (John Duffy) helped police narrow down suspects based on geographical profiling. This demonstrates that the method can have practical benefits in solving crimes. However, success stories are rare, and some argue that profiling is not always useful in catching offenders, limiting its overall effectiveness.
