Offender profiling

• Offender profiling-

  • Investigation toll used to narrow down the suspected field
  • Generates a hypothesis of probable characteristics of the offender
• Offender profiling - top down approach

  • 1970s developed by the FBI
  • used unstructured interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers
  • used with evidence from each crime scene to fit pre-existing categories
  • determines the ‘type’ of offender
• Offender profiling - top down approach

  Jackson + Bekerian

  • Only useful for serial crimes — often have a distinct way of working

  1. Data assimilation = forensic evidence, witness statements, victims post-mortem
  2. Crime classification = either ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’
  3. Crime reconstruction = hypothesis of what happened, sequences, victim and offenders relationship, reasonings
  4. Profile generated = demographics, physical characteristics, behavioural characteristics
• Offender profiling - top down approach

  Evaluations-

  W- temporal validity — based on killers from the 70s = cant be applied to modern criminals + less known modern serial killers

  W- negative implications — wrongful identification or conviction

  W- unstructured interviews — no standardisation = difficult to compare

  W- validity — participants could’ve lied for social desirability
• Offender profiling - top down approach

  Evaluations-

  S- application to other crimes — burglary can be dis/organised — Meketa found that when the types were identified 85% rise in solved cases

  S- Carter — 100 US murders unsung smallest space analysis = 39 aspects of serial killing features shown and shared

  W- simplistic — only 2 categories, offenders could be both/neither — opportunity and inter-personal categories found
• Offender profiling-

  • Organised = evidence of planning, victim ’type’, above average IQ, skilled occupation, married with kids, precise crime, little evidence left
  • Disorganised = spontaneous, live alone, unemployed/unskilled work, body left at scene, history of sexual/family dysfunction, lower than average IQ
• Offender profiling - Bottom up approach

  • British approach
  • data driven approach — crime scene, witnesses
  • using statistical information — police database, official crime statistics
  • Based off of investigative psychology and geographical profiling
• Offender profiling - Bottom up approach

  Investigative psychology

  • interpersonal coherence = everyday behaviour reflected in the treatment towards the victim at the scene — rapists could be apologetic to society or wanting to keep power
  • forensic awareness = previously had a police investigation so know how to remain innocent
  • time and place = indicates where the offenders have important locations
• Offender profiling - Bottom up approach

  Geographical profiling

  • Studied spatial behaviour of offenders + crimes
  • Uses data from the crime scene and surrounding areas to get information on the offender
  • E.g - home, work, social, hobbies, victim type
  • Canters circle theory = Marauder - crimes around home | Commuter - travelled to commit crimes
• Offender profiling - Bottom up approach

  Evaluations

  CPS- validity = uses statistical evidence with the crime scene

  CPW- relies on the accuracy of the police reports + they fail to reflect on unreported crimes
• Offender profiling - Bottom up approach

  Evaluations

  S- Lundrigan + Carter = 120 serial USA murders used smallest space analysis — consistent behaviour of killers = GP

  S- Canter + Herritage = 66 sexual assaults — correlation between language used + lack of reaction = IC

  S- ecological validity = geographical can be used with other crimes - robberies

  W- Copson - 85% of police forces found profiling ‘useful’ but only 3% had correct identifications

  W- negative implications = wrongful convictions + waste police time/resources - Nickell