Evaluation

• Research support

  One strength of the top-down approach is that there is support for a distinct organised category of offender:

  • Canter analysed 100 US murders committed by serial killers
  • Analysed 39 aspects using smallest space analysis
  • Found that there is a subset of behaviours that match FBI's 'organised' behaviours
  • This suggests that a key component of offender profiling has validity
• Counterpoint to Canter


  • Many studies suggest that organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive
  • Godwin - Murderers can have multiple contrasting characteristics, it is hard to classify them as just one type
  • Therefore, the organised and disorganised typologies are more likely a continuum
• Wider application

  One strength of top-down profiling is that it can be adapted to different types of crime, such as burglary:

  • Meketa found an 85% rise in solved burglary cases across 3 US states using top-down profiling
  • Retains the organised-disorganised distinction but adds two new categories; interpersonal (offender knows their victim and steals something of significance) and opportunistic (generally inexperienced young offender)
  • This suggests that top-down profiling has wider uses than was originally assumed
• Flawed evidence


  One limitation of top-down profiling is the evidence on which it is based:

  • Canter et al. argue that the sample was poor - not a random or large sample and didn't include different types of offender
  • Interviews also weren't standardised
  • Therefore, top-down profiling does not have a sound, scientific basis