Define crime
Crime refers to any behaviour that is unlawful and punishable by the state.
It is an act that is harmful to an individual, group or society as a whole.
However, defining crime has historical and cultural issues because what counts as criminal behaviour changes over time and across cultures.
Define offender profiling
‘Criminal profiling’ , a behavioural and analytical tool that is intended to help investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown criminals.
What is offender profiling used for
1 Used to narrow down pool of suspects
2 Scrutiny of the crime scene
3 Analysing evidence and witness reports
4 Generate hypotheses about probable characteristics of offender [age/background/etc]
Top down profiling
Profilers start with a pre-established typology and work down in order to assign offenders to one of two categories based on witness accounts and evidence from the crime scene.
Top down approach - an American approach
Originated in America in the 1970s
Came about from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated serial killers
Police in Britain tend to use the bottom-up approach.
Profilers use a pre-existing template to match what they know about the crime to the offender
4 main stages of top down approach
Organised offenders
Disorganised offender
Top down approach constructing a profile
The decision as to whether a crime scene is organised or disorganised is based on evidence of planning on the offender’s part.
Disorganised crime scene - suggests unplanned, chaotic behaviour, whereas
Organised crime scene - suggests control and forethought.
The profile eventually constructed will often go beyond the typical characteristics of organised/disorganised offenders and include information extrapolated from the crime scene about the offender’s physical characteristics, employment/skill set, sexual history, age and ethnic group (which are usually similar to the victim’s).
Canter et al 2004
100 American serial murders were analysed
the results showed that the label organised/disorganised could not easily be applied to the crimes and that there may be a subset of organised characteristics that typify serial murder, whereas disorganised murder rarely fits into a distinct typology
Strength of TDA - useful approach
The TDA may be useful for identifying (and subsequently apprehending) sexually-motivated murderers due to the standardised template which can be applied to such crimes
Has been successfully used in Canada and the Netherlands to solve some high profile crimes and the FBI claim that it is a very useful tool in helping to solve murder cases, especially where it appears that there is a series of connected crimes.
Strength of TDA - successful
The TDA has been used successfully in 17% of case, which may seem like a negligible number; however, it means that the perpetrators of some very serious crimes were caught before they could harm anyone else (Holmes, 1998)
Weakness of TDA - lacks temporal validity
The TDA is based on interview data from 36 serial killers in the 1970s, which means that it lacks temporal validity and may suffer from several types of bias (e.g., social desirability bias, confirmation bias), which would damage the validity of the approach
Weakness of TDA - overly simplistic
The binary of organised offender and disorganised offender may be too simplistic as it’s likely many offenders won’t fit neatly into either category.
For example, it’s possible that a high IQ person could commit a spontaneous and unplanned murder in a fit of rage.
However, high IQ is a characteristic of the organised profile, but a spontaneous crime is characteristic of the disorganised profile and so sticking too rigidly to these offender profiles could lead to inaccurate profiling.
3 methods to measure crime
Official Statistics
Victim Surveys
Offender Surveys
Each method attempts to estimate the frequency and types of crime, but all have limitations.
Offender surveys
Offender surveys ask randomly selected offenders to report:
The types of crimes they have committed
The frequency of these crimes
Over a specific time period (e.g., the last year)
These surveys are recorded by the Offender Crime and Justice Survey.
They are particularly useful for government organisations, as they help identify patterns and risk factors for crime at a national level, which can inform crime prevention and management strategies.
Official statistics
Official statistics refer to crimes that have been reported to and recorded by the police.
The data are processed and published annually by the Home Office.
They provide an official record of crime levels in the UK.
However, they may not accurately represent real crime levels because many crimes are never reported or recorded.
Victim surveys
Victim surveys collect information from victims of crime.
Around 50,000 randomly selected households are asked to self-report crimes committed against them in the past year.
The results are published annually by the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW).
This method captures crimes that may not have been reported to the police, helping reveal the ‘dark figure’ of crime.
Offender surveys have been useful in informing crime prevention
and management strategies due to showing the patterns and risk factors of offending behaviour.
Therefore, this demonstrates a real-life practical application.
data collected from Offender Surveys may be distorted or biased because it has been collected from offenders.
These offenders may want to over-exaggerate their crimes to give themselves a feeling of accomplishment and grandeur, or under-exaggerate their crimes to diminish responsibility.
This means that too much reliance cannot be placed upon the honesty and integrity of offenders in self-report measures.
Victim surveys have the advantage, over official statistics
the ‘dark figure’ of crime is less likely to be concealed or evident due to the self-report technique, where individuals may feel that there are less repercussions for their actions.
Problem with official statistics is its susceptibility to concealing the ‘dark figure’
75% of crime goes unreported.
This may be due to a lack of standardisation of police recording policies in relation to crime, as well as the victim fearing revenge/retribution or feeling untrustworthy of the police.
The effects of these indiscrepancies was demonstrated by Farrington and Dowds (1985) who found that sudden increases in incidence rates of theft could be explained by a change in police recording policies, where thefts under £10 were recorded.
This suggests that official statistics may be an inaccurate representation of crime!
Bottom up approach - British approach
The bottom-up approach to offender profiling, unlike its American counterpart, was largely developed in the UK and is most closely associated with the work of David Canter.
Canter’s work is wide-ranging and Canter has contributed much to the field of offender profiling in moving it into a more scientific and empirical domain.
2 Examples of the bottom-up approach: investigative psychology and geographical profiling.
Bottom up approach
Profilers work up from evidence collected from the crime scene to develop hypotheses about the likely characteristics, motivations and social background of the offender.