Creating a Profile

The Top-Down Approach

This approach to offender profiling examines facts and puts them into a categories similar to astrology and as a result there are typologies of criminals. First the criminal type is identified and then predictions are made for their next behaviour.

FBI researcher Robert Ressler investigated the crimes of offenders in prison and categorised them according to organised offender and disorganised offender (Hazelwood and Douglas, 1980)

Evaluate this approach to offender profiling by looking at these thoughts to each word below;

• INVALID Can offenders really be fitted into categories? Would some offenders fall into both categories?
• THE SCIENCE PART Ressler didn’t allow others to read his work so how accurate are the categories? His sample was also very small (36 murderers) and not representative. Canter (Forensic Psychologist) suggests the categories are random and subjective
• REDUCTIONIST Every crime scene fits into one of two categories and then predictions are made but this allows for a rapid solving of the crime

Canter et al (2004) suggested that there shouldn’t be two categories as all crimes have a certain organised element about them and instead the focus should be on individual differences.

The Bottom Up Approach

This approach focuses on gathering together information without making any assumptions and then building a description such as a fortune teller giving a prediction after you have drawn the cards from her pack.

Canter began this approach in this country and he developed the criminal consistency hypothesis that suggests there is a consistency in a criminal’s behaviour; you will be able to draw parallels to his every day behaviour and his criminal activity. He feels categories are unnecessary and that every offender is distinctive. This approach is much more psychological than the American approach. Canter identified ‘commuters’ who will travel to commit a crime and ‘marauders’ who will commit a crime close to home.

Canter and Heritage (1990) carried out a content analysis of 66 sexual offences and five variables were found to be central to all sexual offences and this means that the police are able to identify if an offence has been committed by the same person.

The 5 central variables are;

• Œ Impersonal language
•  Surprise attack
• Ž Vaginal Intercourse
•  Lack of reaction to the victim
•  Victim’s clothes disturbed

Evaluate this approach to offender profiling by looking at these thoughts to each word below;

• THE SCIENCE PART More valid approach as much evidence to support the consistency hypothesis and as this approach looks at the activity of the offender and not the motives (Like the Top Down Approach) so more scientific
• HOLISTIC The approach includes many details about the crime and the offender and computers need to analyse a lot of data. Therefore it isn’t reductionist like the Top Down approach
• LENGTH OF TIME Due to this the police could take a very long time to solve a crime because of so much detail

CASE STUDY: John Duffy

CANTER’S PROFILE DETAILS                         JOHN DUFFY’S DETAILS

Living in Kilburn                                                 Married and infertile

Love of weapons                                               Martial arts member

Semi skilled job                                                 Collector of weapons

Fantasies about sex                                         5 ft 4 in

No contact with public                                      two male friends

Small                                                                   violent

Interested in body building                              separated from wife

This led directly to the arrest of the rapist but Canter had time to reach conclusions and today DNA fingerprinting would be used.