Forensic - Paper 3

Offender profiling

Criminal profiling.

The practice of inferring the traits of a criminal from the details of their crime and the crime scene itself.

Police use it as an investigative tool to focus their efforts and zero in on likely suspects. 

High-profile murder cases = expert profilers work with law enforcement.

Profiling methods varies.

Building a profile involves a meticulous examination of the crime scene and evidence (including witness statements).

Helps generate educated guesses about the offender's likely characteristics.

Age, background, and occupation.

There are two main approaches: 

1. Top-down approach - start with a pre-established typology, work down to assign offenders to one of two categories.

2. Bottom-up approach - work up from evidence collected to develop a hypothesis about likely characteristics and background.
   

Top-down profiling

Data assimilation, crime scene classification, crime reconstruction and profile generation.

Offenders classed as organised or disorganised.

Used by FBI.

Modern offender profiling = FBI agents Robert Ressler and John E. Douglas from the Behavioural Science Unit. 

1970s = serial crimes surged across the US, these experts dedicated themselves to halting the escalating violence.

Conducted interviews with 36 sexually-motivated killers.

Accumulated valuable insights into the traits of individuals who perpetrate serious crimes.

Like sexual crimes and murders.

Data assimilation - The profiler reviews the evidence (crime scene photos, pathology reports).

Crime scene classification - Crime scene classified as either organised or disorganised.

Crime reconstruction - Hypothesis in terms of the sequence of events, behaviour of the victim.

Profile generation - Hypotheses related to the likely offender, e.g. demographic, physical characteristics, behaviour.

Organised crime

 

Approach = planned and controlled.

Weapons = may be brought to the scene.

Evidence = destroyed or removed that could link to them.

Victims (s) = attempts to control.

Offender = unknown to victim (s), socially and sexually competent, normal to high intelligence, angry or depressed.

Disorganised crime

 

Approach = unplanned and chaotic.

Weapons = improvised.

Evidence = left at the scene which could link to them.

Victim (s) = little attempt to control.

Offender = possibly known to victim (s), socially and sexually inept, low intelligence, anxious or psychotic.

Strength of organised offender

Supporting research - Canter et al. (2004).

Assessed 100 murders by 100 serial killers in the US for the presence of 38 characteristics identified as typical of either organised or disorganised offenders using a technique called ‘smallest space analysis’.

Organised characteristics was found to be typical of most serial killers.

Like a body left in an isolated spot or use of restraints

However, disorganised characteristics did not occur in a pattern that would allow the researchers to identify a type of ‘killer’.

This adds credibility to the idea of an organised offender, but not disorganised, suggesting top-down profiling lacks some usefulness.

Weakness of top-down approach

Generalisability issues with the original research sample when the FBI were creating the top-down approach.

The typology approach was developed using interviews with 36 killers in the US.

25 of which were serial killers.

The other 11 being single or double murderers.

Critics have pointed out that this is too small and unrepresentative a sample upon which to base a typology system that may have a significant influence on the nature of the police investigation.

Canter also argued that it is not sensible to rely on self-report data with convicted killers when constructing a classification system.

This reduces the credibility of top-down profiling.

Suggests bottom-up profiling may be the better option.

Weakness of top-down profiling

Theoretical flaw - based on outdated models of personality.

The typology classification system is based on the assumption that offenders have patterns of behaviour and motivations that remain consistent across situations and contexts.

Several critics have suggested that this approach is naive and is informed by old-fashioned ideas that see behaviour as being driven by stable dispositional traits rather than external factors that may be constantly changing.

This means the top-down approach, which is based on ‘static’ models of personality, is likely to have poor validity when it comes to identifying possible suspects and trying to predict their next move.

Weakness of top-down profiling

Theoretical flaw - some research has suggested that the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive.

There are a variety of combinations that occur at any given murder scene.

Godwin (2002) = in reality, it is difficult to classify killers as one or the other type.

A killer may have multiple contrasting characteristics, such as high intelligence and sexual competence, but commits a spontaneous murder leaving the victim’s body at the crime scene.

This suggests that the organised-disorganised typology is probably more of a continuum and the original theory lacks explanatory power.

Strength of top-down profiling

Another strength of top-down profiling is that it can be adapted to other kinds of crime, such as burglary.

Critics of top-down profiling have claimed that the technique only applies to a limited number of crimes, such as sexually-motivated murder.

However, Meketa (2017) 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 retains the organised-disorganised distinction but also adds two new categories:

• Interpersonal (offender usually knows their victims and steals something of significance).

• Opportunistic (generally inexperienced young offender).

This suggests that top-down profiling has wider application than was originally assumed.

Bottom-up offender profiling

Aims to create a detailed profile of the offender.

Including their likely traits, routine behaviours, and social background, by systematically analysing crime scene evidence. 

Unlike the US top-down method, which starts with predefined categories, the UK bottom-up model is ‘data-driven’.

Meaning the profile develops through a thorough examination of the specific details of the crime.

This approach is also more closely rooted in psychological theory compared to the top-down method.

Associated with the work of David Canter.

Two key types of profiling that use the bottom-up approach are: 

• Investigative psychology 

• Geographical profiling

Investigative psychology

Interpersonal Coherence:

• An offender's behavior at the crime scene, particularly their interaction with the victim, can mirror their typical behavior in daily life.

• For example, some rapists seek dominance and humiliation, while others are more apologetic (Dwyer 2001).

• Potentially revealing broader patterns in their relationships with women.

Forensic Awareness:

• An offender's understanding of forensic evidence, police techniques, and how their crime scene actions can lead to their identification.

• This awareness is often heightened by prior contact with the police and criminal justice system, providing insights into evidence collection, analysis, and investigative procedures.

• As a result, experienced offenders may actively try to conceal their involvement and avoid leaving incriminating evidence.

Time and Place:

• Fundamental element in investigative psychology, particularly within the framework of geographical profiling.

• Analysing these spatiotemporal patterns can provide crucial insights into the behaviour and characteristics of the offender, most notably offering clues about their anchor point, which is often their residence or another significant base of operations.

Geographical profiling

David Canter proposed that offenders reveal aspects of themselves through their crime location choices.

This forms the basis of offender profiling known as crime mapping, which infers an offender's likely home base by analysing the geographic patterns of their crimes. 

Assumes that most offenders prefer to operate in familiar areas near their residence or frequented locations.

Research has indicated that many offenders have a limited crime range, sometimes as small as 2 miles.

Circle Theory (1993):

• Developed by Canter and Larkin in 1993, is a key component of geographical profiling.

• The core idea is that if you draw a circle encompassing all the known crime locations committed by a serial offender, the geographical spread of crimes can provide investigators with a ‘center of gravity,’.

• Indicating the most probable location of the offender's residence. 

Canter and Larkin identified two main types of offenders based on this theory: marauders and commuters.

Marauders = offenders who commit crimes within a relatively close proximity to their home base or a significant anchor point (e.g., workplace, social venue).

They may take this approach as they have a better understanding of targets and escape routes and the familiarity feels more comfortable.

Commuters = are offenders who travel a significant distance from their home base or anchor point to commit their crimes.

They ‘commute’ to a different area to offend and then return.

They may take this approach to avoid recognition or for target availability.

Individuals develop schemas that store information about their daily lives and experiences, including familiar routes and social networks. 

A central assumption = serial offenders tend to restrict their criminal activities to areas within their schema, places they know and understand.

Analysing the spatial pattern of their crimes = investigators can identify a center of gravity, which is the most probable area containing the offender's base of operations, often located centrally within the crime locations. 

Allows investigators to make educated predictions about potential future crime locations, a concept known as the jeopardy surface.

Investigators can also infer other aspects of their experiences, such as their interests, employment, and relationships, based on the geographical context of their offences.

Strength of investigative psychology

Supporting research - Canter and Heritage (1990).

Content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases.

The data was examined using the statistical technique smallest space analysis.

Identifies correlations across patterns of behaviour.

Several characteristics were identified as common in most cases such as the use of impersonal language and lack of reaction to the victim.

These characteristics will occur in different patterns in different individuals.

Understanding of how an offender’s behaviour may change over a series of offences, or in establishing whether two or more offences were committed by the same person.

This supports the usefulness of investigative psychology because it shows how statistical techniques can be applied.

Strength of geographical profiling

Supporting research - Lundrigan and Canter (2001).

Collated information from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in the US.

Smallest space analysis revealed spatial consistency in the behaviour of the killers.

The location of each body disposal site was in a different direction from the previous sites, creating a ‘centre of gravity’; the offender’s base was invariably located in the centre of the pattern.

The effect was more noticeable for offenders who travelled short distances (marauders).

This supports Canter’s claim that spatial information is a key factor in determining the base of an offender.

Weakness of bottom-up profiling

Effectiveness of data-driven profiling can be questioned as there are mixed results.

Some significant failures = Colin Stagg who was wrongly accused of killing Rachel Nickell in 1992 due to a profile created by Paul Britton.

Furthermore, Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police forces and found that the advice provided by the profiler was judged to be ‘useful’ in 83% of cases, but in only 3% of cases did it lead to accurate identification of the offender.

This reduces the credibility of offender profiling and its usefulness within a criminal investigation, potentially resulting in wasted police time or miscarriages of justice.

Weakness of geographical profiling

Theoretical flaw of geographical profiling is that it may not be sufficient on its own.

As with investigative psychology, the success of geographical profiling may be reliant on the quality of data that the police can provide.

Unfortunately, recording of crime is not always accurate, can vary between police forces and an estimated 75% of crimes are not even reported to police in the first place (criminologists often refer to this as the 'dark figure of crime').

Questions the utility of an approach that relies on the accuracy of geographical data.

Even if this information is correct, critics claim that other factors are just as important in creating a profile, such as the timing of the offence and the age and experience of the offender.

This suggests that geographical information alone may not always lead to the successful capture of an offender.