AO3

• Bottom-Up Approach: Evaluation Points

  • Supporting Evidence
  • Support for geographical profiling
  • Conflicting evidence
• Bottom-Up Approach: Supporting Evidence

  In 1990, Canter and Heritage used smallest space analysis on 66 sexual assault cases to identify correlations across behaviour patterns. For example, impersonal language and lack of reaction to the victim are common characteristics and it is useful in understanding how offenders behaviour changes over a series of offences. This shows how statistical techniques can be applied to investigate psychology
• Bottom-Up Approach: Support for Geographical Profiling

  Canter and Ludrington, 2001, collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers. They used smallest space analysis to reveal spatial consistency and they found that the offenders base was almost always in the centre of patters. This supports Canter's claims that spatial information is a key factor in locating the offenders base, increasing the reliability.
• Bottom-Up Approach: Conflicting Evidence

  There are mixed results for the bottom-up approach's use in profiling. For example, Copson 1995 surveyed 48 forces. It was previously suggested that it was 83% useful, there was only an accurate identification of offenders in 3% of cases. This suggests that it is questionable how effective in real life the approach is the catching the criminal.