The top-down approach

• The main aim of offender profiling is to narrow the field of enquiry and the list of likely suspects
• Professional profilers are employed to work alongside the police especially in high-profile murder cases
• The scene and evidence are analysed to generate hypotheses about the probable characteristics of the offender (e.g. age, background, occupation, etc)
• Matches crime/offender to pre-existing templates
• The pre-existing template was developed by the FBI- murderers or rapists are classified in one of two categories (organised and disorganised) based on this evidence. This then informs the investigation
• Organised offenders:

  • Evidence of planning the crime- victim is deliberately targeted and the killer/rapist may have a ‘type’ of victim
  • High degree of control during the crime and little evidence left behind at the scene
  • Above-average IQ- in a skilled/professional job
  • Usually married and may have children
• Disorganised offenders:

  • Little evidence of planning, suggesting the offence may have been spontaneous
  • The crime scene reflects the impulsive nature of the act- body still at the scene and the crime shows little control on the part of the offender
  • Below-average IQ- may be in unskilled work or unemployed
  • A history of failed relationships and living alone, possible history of sexual dysfunction
• Stages in the construction of the FBI profile:

  1. Data assimilation- review of the evidence (photographs, pathology reports, etc.)
  2. Crime scene classification- organised or disorganised
  3. Crime reconstruction- generation of hypotheses about the behaviour and events
  4. Profile generation- generation of hypotheses about the offender (e.g. background, physical characteristics, etc.)
• Limitation: only applies to particular crimes

  Top-down profiling is best suited to crime scenes that reveal important details about the suspect, e.g. rape, arson, murder and sadistic torture. Common offences, e.g. burglary, destruction of property, do not lend to themselves to profiling because the crime reveals little about the offender. This means that, at best, it is a limited approach to identifying a criminal
• Limitation: little support for ‘disorganised‘ offender

  Canter et al. used smallest space analysis of 100 murders in the US. Each case was examined against 39 characteristics typical of organised and disorganised killers. The findings showed evidence of a distinct organised type but not a disorganised type- which undermines the whole classification system. Despite this, the organised/disorganised distinction is still used as a model for professional profilers in the US and has widespread support
• Limitation: classification system to simplistic

  Behaviours describing organised/disorganised offendeds are not mutually exclusive. So there are more detailed typologies. Holmes suggests four types of serial killer: visionary, mission, hedonistic, power/control. Kepler and Walter suggest we focus on motivations of killers rather than ‘types’. The conflicting typology versions and approaches suggest that classification systems for criminals may be too simplistic.
• Limitation: way the typology approach was developed

  Interviews were used with 36 killers in the US (25 serial killers, 11 single or double murderers)- a small, unrepresentative sample on which to base a typology system that may have a significant influence on the nature of the police investigation. Canter has argued that it is not sensible to rely on self-report data with convicted killers when constructing a classification system. this methodological criticism of the way the approach was developed questions the validity of the top-down approach as a whole.