Also known as the typology approach, where evidence from the crime scene and other details are used to fit into either of the pre-existing categories of organised or disorganised offender
They maintain a high degree of control during the crime and may operate with almost detached surgical precision
They leave little evidence or clues behind at the crime scene
They are generally high in intelligence, socially and sexually competent, they usually live with a partner, have a car in good working order and follow their crimes in the media
Random selection of victim suggesting the offence may have been spontaneous or spur of the moment
Very little control during the crime and often impulsive so the body/evidence is usually left at the crime scene
Tend to have a lower than average IQ and be in unskilled work or unemployed and often have a history with sexual dysfunction and failed relationships and they tend to live alone
A profile is then constructed of the offender which includes hypotheses about the offender's characteristics including likely background, personality, habits and physical appearance
More common offences such as burglary and destruction of property do not lend themselves to profiling because the resulting crime scene reveals very little about the offender
Analysis of the types of crime did not clearly separate the organised and disorganised crimes and found no distinction between some crimes such as serial murders
Canter suggested that other factors such as individual personality differences between offenders (such as those used by investigative psychology) needs to be considered
The original data on which the organised/disorganised classification is based on interviews with 36 of the most dangerous and sexually motivated murderers (including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson)
Vague evidence of the crime could be manipulated to fit into the characteristics of a particular type of offender (organised or disorganised) as part of the crime classification stage