Approaches to Profiling

The US (top-down) approach
1. modern offender profiling began with the FBI in the US in the '70s
2. Behavioural Science Unit began researching family backgrounds, personalities, behaviours, crimes and motives of serial killers with sexual aspects to their crimes
  1. included in-depth interviews with 36 convicted murderers
3. FBI developed a classification system for several serious crimes, including murder and rape
  1. each 'type' of criminal displayed a different set of characteristics
4. analysis of the crime scene indicates the type of offender so the classification can be used to determine the characteristics they might have
  1. crime scene analysis
5. A top-down approach
  1. crime reconstruction and profile generation are driven from 'above' by the crime scene classification
The British (bottom-up) approach
1. assumes that individuals are consistent
  1. interpersonal coherence
    1. suggests that evidence about the offender's behaviour at a crime scene will reflect the way they act in day-to-day life
2. the victim group may also reveal something about the criminal
3. Data analysis
  1. statistical techniques are used in the UK approach
4. Forensic awareness
  1. patterns in precautions that the offenders take to avoid detection are useful
5. A bottom-up approach
  1. builds a profile from crime scene information
  2. bottom-up process - it is driven from 'below'
The US - Evalutation
1. Limited use
  1. limited to crimes which leave significant evidence and are multiple offences such as serial murder, rape and arson
  2. while such offences are relatively rare, it's worthwhile if profiling contributes to solving them
    1. however, the very rarity means there are few examples on which to base the technique
2. Does it work?
  1. far from guarantees a conviction
    1. 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
3. Poor methodology
  1. FBI agents used an opportunity sample of 36 serial murderers (manipulative, so unreliable)
  2. interviews were not standardised and the typologies were developed in an informal way
  3. classification was based on offenders who had been caught, who may differ from those who are still at large
4. Too simplistic
  1. validity of the typology has been questioned
    1. Canter (2004) found no such distinct subsets of characteristics
The British - Evaluation
1. Supporting evidence
  1. there is methodologically rigorous evidence to support UK profiling methods
  2. House (1997), using Smallest Space Analysis, showed that different types of rape could be identified by characteristics from the crime
    1. Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) - based on data from many incidents, this can identify the most useful crime scene evidence
  3. Santtila (2003) found consistent patterns among juvenile fire-setters
2. Does it work?
  1. Britton (1992) sent questionnaires to CID chiefs, who reported that profiles were neither accurate nor contributed to arrests
    1. however, Copson (1995), also using questionnaires, asked police officers who had used profiling whether they felt it was useful
      1. >50% felt it provided something extra and 80% said the information had been useful
      2. however, 14% said it had assisted in solvinga case and <3% said it resulted in the identificatio of a suspect
  2. the value of profiling seems to be to offer reassurance that an investigation was on track
3. How predictable are offenders
  1. Mokros and Alison (2002) found no significant correlations between characteristics such as age, educational level or previous convictions in offenders with similar crime scene behaviour
    1. instead they found other important variables, such as whether crimes were committed in the day or at night

Next up

Approaches to Profiling

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Hayd23 almost 11 years ago

	Copied by tomrees6 almost 11 years ago