AO3

• Top-Down Approach: Evaluation Points

  • Validity of organised-disorganised typology: Canter 2004
  • Wider application
  • Flawed evidence
• Top-Down: Validity of O-D typology

  In 2004, Canter conducted a study using a statistical technique, smallest space analysis to identify correlations among 39 variables associated with serial killing, such as torture, restraints, cause of death, type of weapon and attempt to conceal the body. Results showed a distinct set of common characteristics exhibited by organised offenders, validating the typology.
• Top-Down: Validity of O-D typology Counterpoint


  Research suggests that organised and disorganised offenders are not mutually exclusive. There are a variety of combinations that occur at any given murder scene. For example, Maurice and Godwin (2002) argue that it is difficult to classify mudrerers based on organised or disorganised as they may have contrasting characteristics and murder style, such as high intelligence and sexually competent but commit a spontaneous murder and leave evidence behind. This suggests that organised-disorganised typology is a continuum.
• Top-Down: Wider Application

  The top-down approach can be applied to other crimes such as burglary. Some argue that it can only be applied to a few crimes, such as sexually-motivated murder. However, Meketa suggests that it has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in 3 states. This detection method keeps the organised-disorganised distinction but adds two new categories; interpersonal, the offender knows the victim and steals something of significance and opportunistic, the offender is inexperienced and young.
• Top-Down: Flawed Evidence

  FBI profiling was developed using interviews with 36 murderers in the US, 25 who were serial killers and 11 single/double murderers. 24 of these were organised, 12 were disorganised. Canter argues that the sample was poor as it was a small sample that was not selected randomly and lacked different kinds of offenders. There was also not a set list of interview questions so each interview was different and not comparable. This suggests that the top-down approach is flawed as there is no scientific, sound basis.