Offender profiling: top-down approach

What is the main aim of offender profiling

To narrow the list of likely suspects

What is the American approach to offender profiling called

The top-down approach

How did the top-down approach originate in the US

The FBI’s Behavioural Science unit used data gathered from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated murderers including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. They concluded from this that the data could be categorised into organised

What do offender profilers using the top-down approach do

Collect data about a murderer (characteristics of the murderer, crime scene) then decide on the category that the data best fits

What do organised offenders show and what are typical signs

Evidence of having planned the crime in advance - they maintain a high degree of control during the crime, little clues left behind, tend to have above average intelligence, usually married and may have children

What do disorganised offenders show and what are typical signs

They show little evidence of planning - crime scene reflects impulsive nature, tend to have lower than average IQ, be in unskilled work or unemployed, often have a history of sexual dysfunction, tend to live alone and often live close to where the offence took place

What are the 4 main stages in the construction of an FBI profile

1) Data assimilation

2) Crime scene classification

3) Crime reconstruction

4) Profile generation

What is a strength of the top-down approach

There is support for a distinct organised category of offender. David Canter et al. (2004) conducted an analysis of 100 US murders each committed by a different serial killer. A technique called smallest space analysis was used - a statistical technique that identifies correlations across different samples of behaviour. The analysis was used to assess co-occurence of 39 aspects of serial killings (including whether there was torture or restraint, whether there was attempt to conceal the body, the form of weapon used etc.) Analysis revealed there does seem to be a subset of features of many serial killings which matched the FBI’s typology for organised offenders - increases validity

What is a counterpoint to the previous evaluation point

Many studies suggest that the organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive.- there are a variety of combinations that occur at any given murder scene. Maurice Godwin (2002) argues that 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 and leaves the body at the scene. Suggests that the organised-disorganised typology is probably more of a continuum

What is another strength

It can be adapted to other types of crime - like burglary. Tina Meketa (2017) reports that top-down profiling has recently been applied to burglary, leading to an 85% rise in solved cases in 3 US states. The detection method keeps the disorganised and organised distinction but also adds two new categories: interpersonal (offender knows the victim and steals something of significance) and opportunistic (inexperienced young offender). Suggests the top-down approach has wider application than originally assumed

What is a limitation

The evidence on which it is based. FBI profiling was developed using interviews with 36 murderers in the US. At the end of the process, 24 were classified as organised and 12 disorganised. Canter et al. argued the sample was poor - they didn’t select a random or even large sample. There was also no standard set of questions so each interview was different and therefore not really comparable. Suggests the approach doesn’t have a scientific basis