Scribd
Upload
75 views

Making A Case

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.

Uploaded by

ashutosh srivastava
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
75 views

Making A Case

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.

Uploaded by

ashutosh srivastava
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 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

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy