Offender Profiling, Making A Case

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Lily
  • Created on: 11-03-13 11:20

2.3.1 TOP-DOWN TYPOLOGY (BACKGROUND)

2.3.1 TOP-DOWN TYPOLOGY- US/FBI (BACKGROUND)

Uses a classification system made up of information already gathered about other criminals and classifies using information gathered from interviewing victims/ witnesses and information from the crime scene.

4 Stages of Profiling: 1) data assimilation- collection of all information. 2) crime classification- crime put into category. 3) crime reconstruction- hypthesis developed about criminal's behavious and modus operendi. 4) profile generation- profile of the criminal is developed.

CLASSIFICATION TYPES: ORGANISED/ DISORGANISED:

-organised: offence planned, victim is a stranger, body & weapon hidden, restraints used (likely to have a family, professional job, intelligent, nice lifestyle, normal sex life)

-disorganised: spontaneous, depersonalises victim, body/weapon present, sexual acts after death (unemployed, live alone, lives near crime scene, sexual incompetence)

1 of 5

2.3.1 TOP-DOWN TYPOLOGY (RESSLER ET AL)

2.3.1 TOP-DOWN TYPOLOGY (RESSLER ET AL)

Criminal ProfilingPrject- 36 offenders, 118 victims. Research focused on development of offender classication from examination of various features of their crimes- and to see whether there were any consistent features.

Ressler used interviews, to get information, and found that 2 thirds of offenders were classified as organised ther other 12 were disorganised. From looking at aspects of the crime scenes they found that organised criminals are more likely to: plan, use restraints, commit sexual acts with live victims, emphasise control over victims, hide the weapon/ body and use a car/truck.

Disorganised: left bodies and weapons, performed sexual acts with the body, depersonalised the body, didn't use a vehicle.

This approach to profiling is very reductionist and also very subjective. It is quick and easy to use. Low validity- ignores other reasons.. e.g. for leaving a body.

2 of 5

2.3.2 BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (BACKGROUND)

2.3.2 BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (BACKGROUND)

Looks for consistencies in criminal behaviour during crime, helps us predict how they will act in other aspects of life. Initial assumptions aren't made, detailed info is gathered from the crime scene, statistical analysis is carried out- time and location of offenses.

CIRCLE THEORY & GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING: If a circle is drawn which encompasses all of a series of linked crimes, the offender will usually be based within the circle. The number of offences lessens with increasing distance from the base.

Marauder- criminal has home base within crime circle, returns to base. Familiar with area, can make informed decisions about where to commit crimes.

Commuter- travels away from where they live to commit crimes, similar circle pattern of crimes, but offender lives outside the circle.

3 of 5

2.3.2 BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (GODWIN & CANTER)

2.3.2 BOTTOM-UP APPROACH (GODWIN & CANTER)

-"Circle Hypothesis" is a main focus. "Serial offenders will function within an area which they are comfortable with."

Spacial behaviour of 54 US serial killers investigated, had killed at least 10 times. Relationship of the offenders home, to the locations at which he encountered and dumped bodies of victims, over time.

85% were Marauders, the offender would travel some distance in the opposite direction for each offence to dump the body. As the number of offences pregressed the offender was more likely to dump the body closer to home - due to growing confidence?

More holistic than Top-down, more scientific as data analysis is used- so less subjective, objective computer analysis, not assumptions. 

4 of 5

2.3.3 CASE STUDY- JOHN DUFFY (RAILWAY RAPIST)

2.3.3 CASE STUDY- JOHN DUFFY (RAILWAY RAPIST)

24 sexual assaults, 3 murders commited near railways in North London.

Attacker seemed to try to relate to the victim, suggesting previous abusive relationships, minimum force was used to dominate the victim- suggests a weak insecure individual. Canter also built up a geographical profile, which suggested the offender was a MARAUDER. He proposed the offender: lived with wife/girlfriend, no children, mid to late 20s, right handed, semi skilled/skilled job, weekend work, knowledge of railway system- attacks were all near railway, and had a criminal record involving violence- said this as pubic areas of victims were burned.

Actual- known to the police for ****** his wife at knifepoint, trained as a british rail carpenter, 28 years old, married & infertile, lived in North London.

5 of 5

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all resources »