Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 49 views

    Making A Case

    Uploaded by

    ashutosh srivastava
    The document discusses approaches to offender profiling including top-down and bottom-up methods. It also examines limitations of profiling and whether profiling is effective. A case study on John Duffy is provided where profiling led to his conviction for rape and murder. The profile of Duffy created by Canter in 1986 accurately described Duffy's personal characteristics, marital status, hobbies, and criminal fantasies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Making A Case

    Uploaded by

    ashutosh srivastava
    49 views22 pages
    The document discusses approaches to offender profiling including top-down and bottom-up methods. It also examines limitations of profiling and whether profiling is effective. A case study on John Duffy is provided where profiling led to his conviction for rape and murder. The profile of Duffy created by Canter in 1986 accurately described Duffy's personal characteristics, marital status, hobbies, and criminal fantasies.

    Original Title

    Offender-profiling

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses approaches to offender profiling including top-down and bottom-up methods. It also examines limitations of profiling and whether profiling is effective. A case study on John Duffy is provided where profiling led to his conviction for rape and murder. The profile of Duffy created by Canter in 1986 accurately described Duffy's personal characteristics, marital status, hobbies, and criminal fantasies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    49 views22 pages

    Making A Case

    Uploaded by

    ashutosh srivastava
    The document discusses approaches to offender profiling including top-down and bottom-up methods. It also examines limitations of profiling and whether profiling is effective. A case study on John Duffy is provided where profiling led to his conviction for rape and murder. The profile of Duffy created by Canter in 1986 accurately described Duffy's personal characteristics, marital status, hobbies, and criminal fantasies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 22

    MAKING A CASE:

    CREATING A PROFILE
    •Top Down Typology
    • Bottom up Approaches
    • Case Study: John Duffy
    What is offender profiling?
    • Originally coined by the US Federal Bureau
    of Investigation (FBI)
    • Providing a likely description of an
    offender based on an analysis of
    – Crime scene
    – The victim
    – Other available evidence

    SARAH SHEEHAN
    What is offender profiling?
    • BUT - most controversial and
    misunderstood area of criminal detection
    (Davies 1977)
    • Distorted by media perception and
    popular fiction, eg:
    – The Silence of the Lambs
    – Cracker
    – Waking the Dead
    • Reality - a viable process but unproven,
    subjective and rarely providing specific
    identities
    Goals of profiling
    • Offender profiling does not solve crime but provides
    a means of narrowing the range of potential suspects
    • Holmes & Holmes 1996 - three major goals of
    profiling:
    1. Social and psychological assessment
    • Basic information: personality, age, race, sex,
    employment, education, marital status
    2. Psychological evaluation of belongings
    • Possessions which may associate offender with
    crime scene, eg: souvenirs, photos, pornography
    3. Interviewing suggestions and strategies
    • Specific interviewing strategies developed for
    particular offenders
    Approaches to profiling - Top Down
    The American method - a ‘top-down’ approach
    • FBI research (1978)
    1. In-depth interviews with convicted
    murderers
    2. Detailed information from behavioural
    science unit
    • Classification system for several
    serious crimes (including rape and
    murder)
    • Eg: murders classified as ‘organised’
    or ‘disorganised’ (Rossiter et al 1988)
    Approaches to profiling - Top Down
    Organised Disorganised
    Features: Features:
    Planned crimes Unplanned crimes
    Self-control Haphazard
    Leaves clues
    Covers tracks
    Chraracteristics:
    Victim is stranger
    Socially inadequate
    Characteristics:
    Unskilled
    Intelligent
    First/last born child
    Skilled occupation
    Lives alone
    Socially competent
    Knows victim
    Angry/depressed
    Confused/frightened
    Top Down Typography: Canter et al (2004)

    • Aim: To test reliability of


    organised/disorganised typologies
    • Method: Content analysis using psychometric
    method of multi-dimensional scaling (MDS)
    • MDS applied to 100 cases to see if features of
    typographies distinctively different
    • Procedure: Cases: published accounts of serial
    killers in USA collected over many years by
    independent researcher
    • Third crime of each serial killer analysed
    • Crime Classification Manual (Douglas, 1992)
    used to classify crimes as organised or
    disorganised
    Top Down Typograpy: Canter et al (2004)
    • Results:
    - Twice as many disorganised as organised
    crime-scene actions identified
    - Only two crime scene behaviours co-occurred
    in organised typographies; body concealed
    (70%), & sexual activity (75%)
    - Only sex acts & vaginal rape occur in two
    thirds of disorganised crime
    - Most other behaviours co-occur regularly in
    less than half crimes committed
    - Further stats analysis: failed to separate
    organised & disorganised variables
    Top Down Typography: Canter et al (2004)
    • Conclusions:
    - No real distinction between two types of serial
    murder: all crimes have organised element
    - Distinctions between serial killers: function of
    different ways they exhibit disorganised aspects
    of their activities
    - Better to look at individual personality
    Bottom Up Approach
    The British method - a ‘bottom-up’ approach
    • Later start and less organised
    • Canter (1980s)
    • Based on psychological theories and
    methodologies (cognitive social)
    • Theories formulated to show how and why
    variations in criminal behavior occur
    • Consistencies within actions of offenders
    • Differences between them
    • More objective & reliable (than Top Down)
    Bottom Up Approach:
    Main factors
    1. Interpersonal coherence
    • Degree of violence/control
    • Type of victim (eg: Ted Bundy: all young
    women)
    2. Significance of time and place
    • When and where crime takes place
    3. Forensic awareness
    • Police records of previous offenders -
    links to subsequent crimes
    Bottom Up Approach: Canter & Heritage
    (1990)
    • Aim: To identify a behaviour pattern from
    similarities between offences
    • Method: Content analysis (smallest-space
    analysis)
    - 66 sexual offences from various police forces
    (committed by 27 offenders)
    - 33 offence variables found linked to behaviour
    characteristic (eg; variable 2 - ‘surprize attack’)
    • Results: Following variables central to 66 cases:
    - vaginal intercourse - impersonal language
    - No reaction to victim - surprise attack
    - Victim’s clothing disturbed
    Bottom Up: Canter & Heritage (1990)
    • Results (continued):
    - Suggests pattern of behaviour: impersonal
    attack & irrelevant response to victim
    - Less central elements : attempted intimacy,
    sexual behaviour, overt violence &
    aggression
    • Conclusions:
    • -Useful as all five aspects contribute to all
    sex offences ( but in different individual
    patterns)
    • - Can determine whether two or more
    offences were committed by same person
    • - Analysis extended to other crimes: useful
    patterns of behaviour
    Limitations of profiling
    Limitations
    • Only appropriate for small number of
    specific crimes (Holmes & Holmes 1996):
    1. Sadistic torture (sex assaults)
    2. Evisceration (tearing out gut/bowels)
    3. Postmortem slashing/cutting
    4. Rape
    5. Motiveless fire starting
    6. Satanic and ritualistic crime
    • Problem of assessing profiling: cases rare;
    difficult to analyse effectively
    Limitations of profiling
    Other problems
    • Reliability of interviewing (to provide
    basis for theories)
    • Insufficient empirical investigation
    • Too instructive/intuitive
    • Bias in police analysis (Barnum effect)
    • Ethics
    Does profiling work?
    See surveys
    • Copson G. (1995) ‘Is offender profiling
    really necessary?’ - a study of offender
    profiling (Police research group)
    • Questionnaires to police officers - results:
    – 80% - profiling useful
    – 14% - assisted in solving case
    – 3% - provided ID of offender
    – Conclusions
    • Satisfaction depended on individual profiler
    • Little consistency of approach
    Does profiling work?
    Surveys (contd)
    • Pinizzotto & Funkel (1990) research: ‘Are
    professional profilers more accurate than
    laypersons?’ Compared groups of:
    – Profilers
    – Detectives
    – Psychologists
    – Students
    • ..in their ability to write profiles of a
    homicide and sex offence (closed cases)
    • Results: profilers significantly more accurate
    on sex offence but detectives more accurate
    on homicide
    Does profiling work?
    • Case of Rachel Nickell murder
    investigation in 1994
    • Elaborate profiling - failed conviction
    Case Study: John Duffy
    • Case of John Duffy: the railway rapist
    • Canter 1994 - profiling led to Duffy’s 1988
    conviction for rape & murder of several women
    • Nov 2000: admitted to 25 offences between
    1975 & 1986. Attacks on women (aged 15 -
    32)
    • Profiling:
    • Analysis of 24 sexual assaults and two
    murders in London over previous four years
    – What was said to victims?
    – Were clothes pulled/torn/cut?
    – How did attacker deal with victim after
    assault?
    Case Study: John Duffy
    • Computer used to analyse patterns
    • Canter’s social psychology analysis of
    behaviour at crime scene focusing on:
    – Relationship (if any) to victim
    – Degree of domination over victim
    – Clues to relationships with others and how
    powerful/secure in everyday life
    – Geographical profiling - use of mental maps
    • Profile created July 1986
    Canter’s profile of John Duffy

    Profile Duffy
    Lives in Kilburn/Cricklewood Lived in Kilburn
    Married, no children Married, infertile
    Has marriage problems Separated
    Loner, few friends Only two friends (co-offenders)
    Physically small, unattractive 5ft 4in with acne
    Martial artist, body-builder Member of martial arts club
    Needs to dominate women Violent, attacked wife
    Fantasies of rape, bondage Tied up his wife before sex
    An extraordinarily accurate profile

    • Duffy originally placed as 1,505th on list


    of 2,000 suspects
    • Post-profile large-scale surveillance
    operation
    • Arrested November 1986

    You might also like