Forensics
1) Offender profiling: Top-down approach
Offender profiling- behavioural and analytical tool that is intended to help investigators
accurately predict characteristics of unknown criminals
Top-down approach- qualitative approach to offender profiling due to looking at overall picture
and using typologies. (Based on police experience & case studies)
Organised offender- offender showing evidence of planning, targets specific victims and is
socially and sexually competent with high IQ
Disorganised offender- offender showing little evidence of planning, leaves clues and is socially
and sexually incompetent with low IQ
Offender profiling
Tool used to solve crimes by police- aim to narrow list of likely suspects and create hypotheses
about likely offender.
American approach
1970s- FBI interviews with 36 sexually-motivated murderers. Data from crime scene categorised
into organised or disorganised crimes/murders. Each category had certain characteristics which
could then predict other characteristics
Organised and disorganised offenders
Organised killer/ rapist- showing evidence of planning, targets specific victims and is socially
and sexually competent with high IQ
Disorganised killer/ rapist- shows little planning evidence, spontaneous offences, leaves clues,
little control, low IQ, unemployed, socially and sexually incompetant and live alone and near
offence
Constructing an FBI profile
1) Data assimilation- profiler reviews evidence (crime scene photographs, pathology reports,
witness reports)
2) Crime scene classification- either organised or disorganised
3) Crime reconstruction- hypotheses in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of victim
4) Profile generation- hypotheses related to likely offender, e.g. of demographic background,
physical characteristics, behaviour, etc
Evaluation:
-top down approach- support for a distinct organised category of offender (100 US murders.
Statistical technique (smallest space analysis) identifying correlation across behaviour).
Suggests key components of FBI typology approach has some validity
-top down profiling- adapted to other crime (burglary) (top-down profiling led to 85% rise in
solved burglary cases) Suggests top-down approach has wider application than originally
assumed
-evidence of which it’s based (interviewed small sample, similar kind of offenders, non-standard
questions) Suggests top-down profiling doesn’t have ‘a sound’
, 2) Offender profiling: Bottom-up approach
Bottom-up approach- Profilers work up from evidence collected from crime scene to develop
hypotheses about likely characteristics and social background of offender
Investigative psychology- matches details from crime scene with statistical analysis of typical
offender behaviour patterns
Geographical profiling- principle of spatial consistency- offender’s operational base and future
offences are revealed by geographical location of previous crime
Investigative psychology
Interpersonal coherence- way an offender behaves at the scene, interaction with victim, reflects
behaviour in everyday situations
Significance of time and place- indicates where offender’s living
Forensic awareness- individuals’ behaviour may show how mindful they are of ‘covering tracks’
Geographical psychology
Crime mapping is based on spatial consistency (crimes committed within limited geographical
space). ‘Centre of gravity’ likely to include offender’s base (circle theory)/
The marauder- who operates in close proximity to their home base
The commuter- who is likely to travel a distance away from usual residence
Evaluation:
-evidence (66 sexual assaults, used smallest space analysis, consistent behaviour pattern)
Suggests people are consistent in behaviour
-evidence supporting geographical profiling (120 US serial killer cases, place where bodies left
created a circle of gravity, pointing to home base) Supports geographical info can be used to
find offender
-geographical info not sufficient on its own (recording of crime is inaccurate (75% not reported)
age and experience are factors) Suggests geographical info may not lead to successful
captures
3)Biological explanations: An historical approach
Atavistic form- Offenders are primitive, ill suited to conform to rules of modern society.
Distinguished by certain facial and skull features
Lombroso
- Criminal’s are genetic throwbacks
- Offending behaviour is innate, so offender not at fault
- Atavistic form- strong jaw, high cheekbones, asymmetric face, dark skin, unemployed, tattoos,
extra toes/nips/fingers
- murderer= bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears
- examined 3839 living convicts and 383 dead, 40% had atavistic form