Top-down

• Origin of the Top-Down approach

  Originated in the US with the FBI in the 1970s

  • Used data from interviews of 36 sexually motivated murders
  • Concluded data could be split into two categories (organised and disorganised)
  • Each had certain characteristics which meant if in a future situation, some of the characteristics were matched to one category the characteristics of the other category were less likely
• Organised offenders

  • show evidence of having planned the crime, a deliberate target and likely has a 'type' they look for
  • maintain a high degree of control during the crime and operate with precision
  • little clues or evidence left
  • tend to be above-average intelligence, skilled, professional and socially and sexually competent.
  • usually married and may have kids
• Disorganised offenders

  • Little evidence of any planning, suggesting it may have been spontaneous
  • crime scene tends to reflect the impulsiveness, often leaving the body behind and appears that the offender didn't have a huge amount of control over the situation
  • Tend to have lower IQ, unskilled in work or unemployed and often have a history of sexual dysfunction and failed realtionships
  • tend to live alone and often close to the crime scene
• Four stages of constructing an FBI profile

  • data assimilation, profiler reviews information
  • crime scene classification, either organised or disorganized
  • Crime reconstruction, hypotheses in terms of sequence of events, behaviour or victim etc.
  • Profile generation- hypotheses related to the likely offender e.g. background, physical characteristics, behaviour etc.
• Research Support for the top-down approach

  A strength of the approach is support for a distinct organised category of offender. To test the disorganised-organised typology which is central to the top-down approach, David Canter et al. analyzed 100 US murders each committed by a different serial killer. Using small space analysis to assess the co-occurrence of the 39 aspects of serial killings, it showed there seems to be a subset of features of many serial killings matching the FBI's typology for organised offenders. Suggesting a key component of the FBI typology approach has some validity.
• Counterpoint to the research support for the top-down approach

  Studies suggest the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive. There are a variety of combinations that occur at any given murder scene. Godwin argues that in reality it is difficult to classify a killer as one or the other. A killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics, such as high intelligence and sexual incompetence, but commits a spontaneous murder, leaving the body behind. Suggesting the organised-disorganised typology is probably more of a continuum.
• Wider application for the top-down approach

  A strength is it can be adapted to other kinds of crimes like burglary. Critics claim it only applies to limited crimes such as sexually motivated murder. However, Maketa (2017) reports it has been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states. The detection method also adds two new categories, interpersonal (knows the victim and steals something significant) and opportunistic (generally inexperienced young offender). This suggests it has a wider application than originally assumed.