Offender Profiling

Offender Profiling

1. 1. Intro

   • Two main approaches; typology and geographical
     • Both identify personality characteristics of an offender based on the crime scene
       • Allows police to narrow down field of suspects

2. 2. Typology Approach

   • Description: "Top down" - starts with big picture of crime scene and then fills in details about the offender
     • By the FBI - classified offenders into organised and disorganised
       • Interviews with 36 serial killers and sex offenders. Can be applied to sexually motivated murders.
         • Evidence of planning, weapon removed, body hidden = organised - likely to be of average to high intelligence, be living with a partner and in a skilled profession.
   • Evaluation
     • Effectiveness and real world application = Arthur Shawcros
       • Profile took evidence from 11 murders of women in NY, was a lone male, aged at least 35, low skilled job, he would return to the scene
         • Surveillance caught Shawcross on a nearby bridge - criminal fitted the profile
     • Canter (2004) - needs to be used with caution because it is based on an outdated understanding of personality, little evidence that it has predictive validity
     • Very small sample of sex offenders voluntarily interviewed
       • Cannot be generalised
     • Oversimplification of behaviour into two types
       • FBI responded by introducing 3rd category - 'mixed offender'
     • Can only be applied to sexually motivated murders and some cases of arson

3. 3. Geographical Approach

   • "Bottom up" - starts with small details about scene and builds up to bigger picture of offender. Assumes criminals like to operate in an area they know well and looks for consistencies in offender's behaviour
     • Canter and Gregory - offenders who commit crimes in their neighbourhood (marauders), offenders who travel to commit crimes (commuters). Based on Bartlett's idea of schemas and mental maps
       • Uses timings - eg. between 3pm and 4pm is likely to be teenagers as it is when school ends.
   • Evaluation
     • Effectiveness and real world application = The Railway Rapist
       • Canter profiled perpertrator of 24 sexual assaults on women over four years
         • Patterns found that weren't previously linked eg. what he said to victims, how clothes were removed, threats made, sort of sexual activity, treatment after attack
           • Profile - sexually experienced man, mid to late 20s, with wife or girlfriend, semi skilled job, been arrested before
             • Knowledge of the railway and it suggested where he lived
               • John Duffy was arrested after surveillance- had not been a prominent suspect before but fitted profile
     • Methodologically rigorous evidence supporting
       • House (1997) - different types of rape can be identified by characteristics from the crime
       • Santtila et al (2003) - consistent patterns found among juvenile fire-setters
     • Questionnaire sent to CID Chiefs reported profiles weren't accurate and didn't contribute to arrests. Only 14% of police said it assisted and 3% said it resulted in identification - validity?
       • But 80% said they were useful and more than half said they provided something extra - shows it offers reassurance

4. 4. Conclusion

   • Both have limited use, limited to crimes which leave significant evidence and happen multiple times eg. murder, rape, arson
     • Geographical has wider applications- A filter was developed to prioritise burglary suspects and geographical data was most useful
       • Both approaches have shown effectiveness, however profiling doesn't solve crimes, only provides police with useful information and narrows down suspects