Ways of offender profiling

• Define ‘offender profiling’.


  An investigative tool employed by the police when solving crimes. It is used to help focus the investigation and narrow the list of likely suspects.
• Identify the 3 ways of offender profiling.

  Top-down approach, bottom-up approach, and geographical profiling.
• Outline the top-down approach to offender profiling.

  The top-down approach was developed from the work of the FBI who found, based on their interviews with serial killers, that there are two types of offenders: organised and disorganised.

  An organised offender shows evidence of planning, leaves little evidence behind, and has a type of victim whereas a disorganised offender shows little evidence of planning, leaves a lot of evidence, and the victim is random.
• Outline the top-down approach to offender profiling.

  These signature ways of working are associated with their social and psychological characteristics e.g. organised offenders are likely to be more socially and sexually competent, have a higher IQ, and are more likely to work in a skilled profession.

  The top-down approach therefore beings with the profiler being mindful that an offender can be organised or disorganised.
• Outline the top-down approach to offender profiling.


  They then identify whether the offender is organised or disorganised by analysing the type of crime, evidence at the crime scene, the victim and where the crime took place.

  Based on this, they can predict the offenders social and psychological characteristics e.g. if they are disorganised they may predict they have lower than average IQ, are unemployed, not in a relationship etc.
• Evaluate the top-down approach to offender profiling: it is subjective.


  It involves the profiler assessing the crime scene and then coming to an opinion as to whether the criminal is organised or disorganised. This is a limitation as it makes it an unscientific way of offender profiling. In contrast, the bottom-up approach is considered a more scientific way because it is a more data-driven approach and is therefore considered more objective.
• Evaluate the top-down approach to offender profiling: relies on offenders being consistent i.e. consistently organised or disorganised.


  This is because if an unanticipated event occurred that caused an organised offender to lose control, their crime scene would be assess as disorganised. This is a limitation as it would lead to an incorrect identification of whether the offender was organised or disorganised and, as a result, what their social and psychological characteristics are likely to be. In turn, this could mislead the police investigation, wasting police time and money.
• Evaluate the top-down approach to offender profiling:


  will not be useful when there is a lack of data i.e. no obvious crime scene/the crime scene is lacking detail. E.g. common offences such as burglary typically result in a crime scene that reveals very little about the offender. This is a limitation because it would result in the profiler being unable to identify whether the criminal is organized or disorganised and, in turn, what their likely characteristics will be.
• Outline the bottom-up approach to offender profiling. 


  The bottom-up approach is a British, data-driven approach to offender profiling.

  One example of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling is investigative psychology which involves analysing evidence at the crime scene and then inputting this onto the police database.
• Outline the bottom-up approach to offender profiling.


  They then compare this to statistical data on previous, similar crimes to make predictions about the characteristics of the likely offender of the current crime.

  E.g. if data on similar crimes show they have all been previously committed by unemployed Caucasian men, then the offender may also match this criteria.
• Outline the bottom-up approach to offender profiling.


  Investigative psychology may also determine whether a series of unsolved offences are linked in that they are likely to have been committed by the same person (e.g. if data from the crime scene analyses are very similar).

  As a result, the bottom-up approach assumes that offenders display consistent behaviour across their crimes.
• Evaluate the bottom- up approach to offender profiling: objective.

  This is because it is a data-driven approach that relies on statistics from police data bases to create the offender profile. This is a strength because it makes it a scientific way of offender profiling. In contrast, the top-down approach is considered less scientific because it relies on the profiler’s subjective hunch when making a decision as to whether the offender is likely to be organised or disorganised.
• Evaluate the bottom- up approach to offender profiling: relies on offenders being consistent in their crimes. 


  Relies on comparing data from crimes to assess whether it is likely they were committed by the same person or someone similar. This is a limitation because not all offenders will commit crimes in consistent ways e.g. an unanticipated event may mean a criminal might deviate from what they would normally do. This is a limitation because it makes it difficult to compare crimes and, in turn, identify whether it is likely they would be carried out by a similar/same offender.
• Evaluate the bottom- up approach to offender profiling: will not be useful when there is a lack of data i.e. when profiling rare crimes.


  This is because it requires statistical information from similar crimes which may not exist. This is a limitation because if there is a lack of/no previous data, there profiler will not be able to make assumptions about what type of person the criminal is likely to be.
• Outline geographical profiling.


  Geographical profiling involves studying the spatial behaviour of crimes (i.e. where they are being committed).

  The aim is to identify clues as to where the offender may live, work and socialise.
• Outline geographical profiling.


  This is because it is based on the assumption that serial offenders will restrict their crimes to areas they are familiar with.

  This means that, in most cases, the pattern of offending is likely to form a circle around where the offender lives, and this becomes more apparent the more offences there are.
• Outline geographical profiling.


  Geographical profiling may also help investigators make educated guesses about where the offender is likely to strike next (i.e. in other areas within the circle).

  As a result, geographical profiling uses data from crime scenes (where the crime took place), local crime statistics (where similar crimes have taken place), and local transport links (to identify ways in which the offender may be commuting).
• Evaluate geographical profiling: objective. 


  This is because it relies on data from police data bases create an analysis of where crimes are being committed. This is a strength because it makes it a scientific way of offender profiling. In contrast, the top-down approach is considered less scientific because it relies on the profiler’s subjective hunch when making a decision as to whether the offender is likely to be organised or disorganised.
• Evaluate geographical profiling: relies on offenders being consistent in where they commit their crimes. 


  This is because geographical profiling relies on the offender commiting crimes in or around their area so that where they live/work/socialise or might strike next can be predicted. This is a limitation because some offenders (e.g. commuter criminals) commit crimes a long distance away from their home and can drastically change the locations of their crimes. This would result in difficulties when trying to predict where they may live/work/socialise or where they may strike next.
• Evaluate geographical profiling: not be useful when there is a lack of or incomplete data. 


  This is because police data on crimes tends to be limited in that not all crimes are reported to the police or recorded by the police. This is a limitation because geographical profiling requires accurate data on crimes that have been committed in an area to identify the approximate location in which the offender may live/work/socialise and to identify possible areas in which they may offend next. If this data is not complete, it could impair or mislead the offender profile.
• Compare the ways of offender profiling.


  The bottom-up approach and geographical are considered more scientific. This is because the bottom-up approach and geographical profiling both rely on statistical data to make predictions about the likely offender and where they may live/work.

  The top-down approach is considered less scientific because it relies on the profiler’s hunch whether the offender may be organised or disorganised. This is based on their subjective analysis of the crime scene, meaning the offender profile is less likely to be objective.
• Compare the ways of offender profiling.


  All rely on the offender being consistent. The top-down approach relies on the offender showing consistent signs of being organised or disorganised. Meanwhile, the bottom-up approach relies on the offender being consistent so that their crimes can be compared to historical crimes on the police database to identify whether they are likely to have been committed by a similar person. Finally, geographical profiling relies on the offender consistently committing crimes in areas where they live/work to make an accurate prediction of their location.
• Compare the ways of offender profiling.


  All may be of little use when data/evidence is limited. The top-down approach is of little use when the crime scene reveals very little about the offender. The bottom-up approach is of little use when statistics on previous crimes are lacking or incomplete, meaning the profiler cannot use this data to make predictions. Geographical profiling is of little use when crime data is incomplete as it relies on prior data to build a picture of where the offender has previously committed their crimes to predict where they may live/work.