Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: summary
Offenders have a modus operandi that tend to correlate to particular set of social and psychological characteristics, these are organised into organised and disorganised
Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: How
Evidence collected from crime see and other aspects of the crime or victim, these are used to fir the offender into there-existing categories
Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: How profile constructed
Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: Organised Characteristics
Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: Disorganised Characteristics
Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: Origins of the approach
Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: AO3 Point One, Scientific Basis
Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: AO3 Point Two, Wider Application
Offender Profiling, Top Down Approach: AO3 Point Three, Reductionist
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: created by
David Canter
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: definition
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: super important
NO FIXED TYPOLOGIES
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: Investigative Psychology
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: Geographical Profiling
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: Canter’s Circle Theory
Categories criminals in two ways
- Commuter Model: go elsewhere to commit crimes in a confided area
- Marauder Model: Commits cromes in familiar confided area
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: IP and GP are based on, DETAIL
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: What IP and GP are based on simple
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: AO3 Point One, Case Study Evidence
Railway Rapist:
- Canter made a profile of the killer that matched 12/17 characteristics of the killer John Duffy
- This highlights the usefulness and validity of the bottom up approach
However: Rachel Nickell:
- Time and money spent to catch a man that fit the profile (Colin Stagg) but it wasn’t him, investigation by Paul Briton
- The actual killer Robert Napper was ruled out for being to tall
- Highlights where BU appraoch can go wrong
BUT: we shouldn’t just use case studies
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: AO3 Point Two, Research Evidence
Canter and Heritage:
- Analysis of 66 SAs with small space analysis and found a common behavioural patters
- Supports behavioural consistencies and the BU approach
Canter and Larkin:
- Studied 45 sexual assaults that showed support for circle theory -> ads to validity
HOWEVER: 91% were marauders, so there is perhaps limited application to the theory
Offender Profiling, Bottom Up Approach: AO3 Point Three, Wider Application and Scientific Basis
However:
- There is an argument there is a wider application to BU, as the top down approach tends to focus on extreme cases whereas BU is more applicable to every day crimes like vandalism
There is also an objectivity to BU which makes it more generalisable due to being data driven.
- However, there are limits to this as it is only as good as the daft that is inputted
- And 75% of crimes are not reported, big loss in data
- Also lacks the intuitive nature from police found in the TD approach which makes it more scientific but lacks input from experienced police offers -> points to the TD and BU approach being better used in conjunction
Biological Explanations, Atavistic Form: Based on who
Lombroso
Biological Explanations, Atavistic Form: what
Biological Explanations, Atavistic Form: example of features, criminals
Biological Explanations, Atavistic Form: Example of features, murderes