Psychology - Forensics

what is offender profiling?

• an investigative tool employed by the police when solving crimes which aims to narrow the list of likely suspects in high profile murder cases

• the scene and other evidence is used to generate hypotheses about characteristics of offender

what is the top down approach?

• originated in the USA

• based on 36 interviews with sexually-motivated murderers to create 2 pre-existing typologies for offenders: organised and disorganised

• data about murderer is collected from crime scene and then its decided which category they belong in

how are organised offenders characterised?

• (organised and disorganised distinction is based on idea that serious offenders have signature ‘ways of working’ - modus operandi)

• evidence of planning the crime e.g. stalking or a specific type of victim is targeted

• high degree of control during crime & operate with surgical precision

• little evidence left behind

• above average IQ

• sexually and socially competent - usually married with children

how are disorganised offenders characterised?

• little evidence of planning e.g. crime was spontaneous

• evidence left behind at scene reflecting impulsive nature of crime

• below average IQ

• sexually and socially incompetent - history of failed relationships and living alone

what are the main stages in the construction of an FBI profile

1. data assimilation → the profiler reviews the evidence e.g. crime scene photographs

2. crime scene classification → offender categorised as organised or disorganised

3. crime reconstruction → making hypotheses about the behaviour and events

4. profile generation → making hypotheses about offender e.g. background or physical characteristics

AO3 strengths of top-down approach

• ✅ Research support for organised category → Canter et al (2004) looked at 100 US murders committed by a different serial killer, and identified correlations between different samples of behaviour e.g. attempts to hide the body or torture and found there is a subset of behaviours of many serial killings that match FBIs typology for organised offenders ∴ high validity

Counter → ❌disorganised and organised categories aren’t mutually exclusive as an offender may show both, disorganised crimes isn’t a distinct type

• ✅Can be adapted to other crimes → Meketa (2017) reported top-down profiling was applied to burglary, increasing solved cases by 85% in 3 US states by adding interpersonal (offender knows victim) and opportunist (inexperienced offender) categories. ∴ Increases practical applicability and generalisability of approach + further increases ecological validity by applying to more real life crimes other than murder

Counter → ❌ solved cases not increased by 100% meaning method is still flawed

AO3 weaknesses of top-down approach

• ❌Flawed evidence → e.g. top-down approach is based on unstructured interviews with no standardised set of questions with a unrepresentative, small and not random sample of 36 murderers in US. This means there is no scientific basis and the results may be influenced by individual differences, subjectivity and interviewer bias, decreasing reliability and generalisability of typologies. ∴ a nomothetic approach would’ve been better than the idiographic approach which is harder to generalise

• ❌Reductionist → e.g. it limits offenders into only 2 categories: organised and disorganised. This oversimplifies offending behaviour by ignoring complexity and individuality of offenders as many criminals show characteristics of both categories. ∴ this reduces the explanatory power of the approach and weakens its ability to explain and understand criminal behaviour, decreasing validity

what is the bottom-up approach

• originated in Britain

• a data driven approach where profilers work up from evidence collected from the crime scene to develop hypotheses about the likely characteristics, motivations and social background of the offender.

• doesn’t begin with fixed typologies as no initial assumptions are made about offender

How does bottom-up profiling use investigative psychology

• statistical analysis → detect patterns of behaviour that are likely to occur across crime scenes to develop a database that acts as a comparison

• interpersonal coherence → psychological concept that suggests the way an offender behaves at the scene reflects their everyday behaviour

Canter (1994) suggests that central psychological principals to bottom-up are?

• interpersonal coherence

• significance of time and place → offender needs to feel in control so chooses a specific location

• forensic awareness → describes behaviour of offenders who have had previous interactions with police and are more mindful to cover up tracks and mislead investigation

what is geographical profiling

• focuses on location of crime as clues to where offender lives and operates, known as crime mapping which can create hypotheses about their modus operandi

• this can give insight to offenders’ mental maps

• studies spatial consistency → offenders restrict their crime to areas they are familiar with

What is Canter’s circle theory

• pattern of offending forms circle around offender’s home base and their spatial decision-making provides insight of nature of offence, e.g. planned v opportunistic

• states an offender is either:

• marauder → operates close to home base

• commuter → travels far from home to commit crime

AO3 strengths for bottom-up approach

• ✅Evidence for investigative psychology → e.g. Canter analysed 66 sexual assault cases and found each individual displayed patterns of behaviours he identified e.g. using impersonal language that helped establish whether two or more offences were committed by the same person ∴ this supports basic principles of investigative psychology that people are consistent in their behaviour (interpersonal coherence)

❌Counter → the database was made up of solved cases (hence why he could tell offences were committed by same person) which are likely to be straightforward and easily linked together so tells us little about unsolved crimes with few links between them

• ✅Evidence for geographical profiling → Canter analysed 120 murder cases and found spatial consistency was evident as the offenders left their homes in different directions but created circular effect around their home base, supporting marauders. ∴ increasing geographical profiling’s validity as it can be used to identify offenders

Counter → only used to identify murderers, decreasing generalisability

AO3 weaknesses for bottom-up approach

• ❌Geographical profiling is insufficient on its own → e.g. it relies on recorded crime data which is not always accurate + 75% of crimes aren’t recorded so patterns used to predict an offender’s location may be incomplete or inaccurate, ↓ profile accuracy + focuses on spatial consistency & ignores other important factors like timing of the offence ∴ ↓ validity, may be best used alongside other investigative methods as alone it may not lead to successful capture of offender

• ❌Geographical profiling has mixed results → Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police departments and found they said it was useful in 83% of cases whereas it only correctly identified offender in 3% of cases ∴ GP has little practical value when solving cases

what are the biological explanations for offending behaviour

• atavistic approach

• genetic and neural explanation

• what is the atavistic approach for offending behaviour

• Lombroso suggested