93653
Approaches to Profiling
- The US (top-down)
approach
- modern offender profiling began
with the FBI in the US in the '70s
- Behavioural Science Unit began researching family
backgrounds, personalities, behaviours, crimes and
motives of serial killers with sexual aspects to their crimes
- included in-depth interviews with 36 convicted murderers
- however, not a representative
sample; murderers are
manipulative, so unrelieable
- however, not a representative
sample; murderers are
manipulative, so unrelieable
- included in-depth interviews with 36 convicted murderers
- FBI developed a
classification system
for several serious
crimes, including
murder and rape
- each 'type' of criminal
displayed a different set
of characteristics
- however, Canter (2004)
found no such distinct
subsets of characteristics
- however, Canter (2004)
found no such distinct
subsets of characteristics
- classification was based on
offenders who had been
caught, who may differ from
those who are still at large
- each 'type' of criminal
displayed a different set
of characteristics
- crime scene
analysis
- analysis of the crime scene
indicates the type of offender
so the classification can be
used to determine the
characteristics they might have
- limited to crimes which leave
significant evidence and are
multiple offences such as serial
murder, rape and arson
- limited to crimes which leave
significant evidence and are
multiple offences such as serial
murder, rape and arson
- analysis of the crime scene
indicates the type of offender
so the classification can be
used to determine the
characteristics they might have
- A top-down approach
- crime reconstruction and
profile generation are
driven from 'above' by the
crime scene classification
- crime reconstruction and
profile generation are
driven from 'above' by the
crime scene classification
- far from guarantees
a conviction
- however, Douglas (1981)
reviewed the costs and benefits
of profiling; profiling rarely led
directly to the offender (15 / 192
cases) but in 77% it helped to
focus the investigation
- however, Douglas (1981)
reviewed the costs and benefits
of profiling; profiling rarely led
directly to the offender (15 / 192
cases) but in 77% it helped to
focus the investigation
- modern offender profiling began
with the FBI in the US in the '70s
- The British (bottom-up)
approach
- Canter argues that people
behave consistently; their
criminal behaviour reflects their
normal behaviour
- EG. a rapist who shows
controlling / abusive behaviour
towards his victims will show
this traits to people in general
- EG. a rapist who shows
controlling / abusive behaviour
towards his victims will show
this traits to people in general
- the victim group can be
used to reveal something
about the criminal
- EG. Ten Bundy killed
+30 students, whilst he
was a student
- EG. Ten Bundy killed
+30 students, whilst he
was a student
- behaviour that is uncommon can
suggest that a number of crimes
might have been committed by
the same person
- EG. apologising
after a rape
- EG. apologising
after a rape
- Smallest Space Analysis
(SSA) - based on data
from many incidents; can
identify the most useful
crime scene evidence
- Santilla (2003) found consistent
patterns among juvenile fire-setters
- Santilla (2003) found consistent
patterns among juvenile fire-setters
- "bottom-up" because the
emphasis is on piecing
together a profile from the
crime scene info
- Britton (1992) - profiles were
neither accurate, nor
contributed to arrests
- however, Copson (1995) found
that more than half of police officers
felt it provides something extra, an
80% said the info used was useful
- however, he also found that 14%
said that it had assisted in solving a
case, and 3% said it resulted in the
identification of a suspect
- however, he also found that 14%
said that it had assisted in solving a
case, and 3% said it resulted in the
identification of a suspect
- however, Copson (1995) found
that more than half of police officers
felt it provides something extra, an
80% said the info used was useful
- British approach assumes that
criminals with similar
characteristics would show
similar crime scene behaviour
- however, Mokros & Alison (2002)
found no significant correlations
between characteristics such as
age / previous convictions
- however, they did find
important variables such
as the time of day
- however, they did find
important variables such
as the time of day
- however, Mokros & Alison (2002)
found no significant correlations
between characteristics such as
age / previous convictions
- Canter argues that people
behave consistently; their
criminal behaviour reflects their
normal behaviour
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.