Offender profiling

• Offender profiling is the idea that you can make assumptions about the characteristics of an offender by careful analysis of the offence they commit.
• Offenders have a modus operandi, which is a distinctive way of how they commit the crimes. This can also be referred to as a criminal signature.
• Profilers make the assumptions of the offender based on the nature of the crime. This includes demographics, such as their age, gender, ethnicity, occupation and education level.
• The top-down approach was first introduced in America, and is when profilers have pre-existing categories of offender types, known as organised and disorganised offenders. They use evidence collected from crime scenes and other contextual information to fit the offender into one of these types (this tends to be based off personal experience and intuition of the profiler).
• The bottom up approach was first introduced in Britain, and it is when profilers gather information from the crime scene, such as location and criminal / victim behaviour. Statistical analysis is then used, comparing the details of the crime to the data collected from a large number of previously similar crimes (eg - how far the offender travels from the base of operations to the location of the crime).
• Steps of the top-down approach:

  1. Data assimilation - Information gathered from crime scene (eg - autopsy, witnesses, photographs) and other information (eg - choice of victim and location).
  2. Crime scene classification - Analysis of the information suggests the criminal type.
  3. Crime reconstruction - The sequence of both the offender and victim's behaviour before and during the offence is hypothesised.
  4. Profile generation - A range of interferences are made, such as demographic assumptions (eg - gender, age, ethnicity), physical featured and expected behaviours.
• Characteristics of organised offenders:

  • Planned offence.
  • Victim is targeted and chosen, suggesting a 'type'.
  • High degree of control.
  • Little evidence or clues left at the scene.
  • Above average intelligence.
  • Socially and sexually competent.
  • In a skilled and professional occupation.
  • Usually married and has children.
• Characteristics of disorganised offenders:

  • Spontaneous offence with no planning.
  • Lack of control reflects the impulsive nature of the attack.
  • Very little control.
  • Lower than average IQ.
  • In an unskilled work environment or unemployed.
  • History of sexual dysfunction.
  • Failed relationships.
  • Tend to live alone and close to the location of the crime.
• Strengths of the top-down approach:

  • Supporting evidence - Ressler developed definitions of organised and disorganised offenders through extensive interviews with real serial offenders like Ted Bundy. As 24 could be classified as organised and 12 disorganised, this suggests there are distinct 'types' of offenders that may aid in predicting behaviour.
• Strength of the top-down approach:

  • Research support - Canter looked at 100 US serial killings. Smallest space analysis was used to assess the co-occurrence of 39 aspects of the serial killings. This analysis revealed a subset of behaviours of many serial killings which match the FBI’s typology for organised offenders. This suggests that a key component of the FBI typology approach has some validity.
• Strengths of the top-down approach:

  • Adaptable to the type of crime - Meketa reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in three US states. The detection method adds two new categories; interpersonal (offender knows their victim, steals something of significance) and opportunistic (inexperienced young offender). This suggests that top-down profiling has wider application than was originally assumed.
• Limitations of the top-down approach:

  • Flawed evidence base - Canter argues that the FBI agents did not select a random or even large sample, nor did it include different kinds of offenders. There was no standard set of questions so each interview was different and therefore not really comparable. This suggests that top-down profiling does not have a sound, scientific basis.
• Limitations of the top-down approach:

  • Organised and disorganised are not mutually exclusive - Godwin argues that, in reality, most killers have multiple contrasting characteristics and don’t fit into one ‘type’. A killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics, such as high intelligence and sexual competence, but commits a spontaneous murder leaving the victims body at the crime scene. This suggests that the organized disorganized typology is probably more of continuum.
• Steps of the bottom-up approach:

  1. Interpersonal coherence - Interactional style with the victim is the same as with other people in their lives (eg - aggressive, shy, manipulative).
  2. Time and place - Location is often chosen by the offender and so is significant to them.
  3. Criminal characteristics - How the crime has been committed.
  4. Criminal career - How following crimes change due to experience.
  5. Forensic awareness - Does the criminal show knowledge of the criminal justice system and reduce the evidence left at the scene?
• Geographical profiling is a branch of investigative psychology and focuses on where an offender is likely to be based, not personal characteristics. It assumes the location of the crime is not random which helps the investigators narrow down their search areas.
• Steps to geographical profiling:

  1. Least effort principle - If there are multiple equal potential locations to commit a crime, the offender will pick the one closest to their home base.
  2. Distance decay - Number of crimes will decrease the further away they are from the offenders home base. BUT there is a 'buffer zone' immediately around their base to decrease the chance of being recognised.
  3. Circle hypothesis - Offenders operate according to a limited spatial mindset so crimes radiate outside their base creating a circle.
• Jeopardy surface is a more complex version of geographical profiling which includes geographical data and features of the environment to create a 3D heat-map of where the offenders base may be located.
• Strengths of the bottom-up approach:

  • Evidence to support investigative psychology - Canter & Heritage conducted an analysis of 66 sexual assault cases using smallest space analysis. Several behaviours were identified in most cases (using interpersonal language). Each individual displayed a pattern of such behaviours, helps establish whether two or more offences were committed by the same person (‘case linkage’). This supports one of the basic principles of investigative psychology (and the bottom-up approach) that people are consistent in their behaviour.
• Strengths of the bottom-up approach:

  • Evidence supporting geographical profiling - Lundrigan & Canter collated information from 120 murder cases in the US. Smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency – a centre of gravity. Offenders leave home base in different directions when dumping a body but created a circular effect, especially in the case of marauders. This supports the view that geographical information can be used to identify an offender.
• Limitations of the bottom-up approach:

  • Limited explanation for geographical profiling - Recording of crime is not always accurate, can vary between police forces. An estimated 75% of crimes are not even reported to police. Ainsworth suggested even if crime data is correct, other factors matter (eg - timing of the offence and age and experience of the offender). This suggests that geographical information alone may not always lead to the successful capture of an offender.