Offender profiling: the “top-down” approach
Offender Profiling:
A behavioural and analytic tool that is intended to help investigators accurately predict and
profile the characteristics of unknown criminals (help investigators predict likely of- fenders).
What is the top-down approach?
● It was developed in America by the FBI (behavioural science unit).
● Based on data gathered from in-depth interviews from 36 sexually motivated serial
killers including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
● Based on police experience and not psychological theory.
How does it work?
Conceptual categories (templates) are pre-existing in the mind of the profiler. Evidence from
the crime scene and other details of the crime such as witness accounts are then used to fit
the crime into one of the two pre-existing categories helping determine the of- fender as one
type or another. This will then inform the police investigation. Murders/ rapists are usually
classified, using this method, into one of two categories:
1. Organised
2. Disorganised.
Organised offender:
Organised offenders show evidence of having planned the crime in advance, the victim is
del;ibratly targeted and will often reflect the fact that the killer or rapist has a “type”. They
remain a high degree of control during the crime and may operate with almost detached
surgical precision. There is little evidence or clues left behind at the scene. They tend to be
of above average intelligence, in a skilled/professional occupation, and are socially and
sexually competent. They are usually married and may even have children.
Disorganised offender:
Disorganised offenders show little evidence of planning, suggesting the offence may have
been spontaneous. The crime scene tends to reflect the impulse nature of the attack - the
body is usually still at the scene and there appears to have been very little control on the part
of the offender. They tend to have a lower than average IQ, be in unskilled work or
unemployed, and often have a history of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships. They
tend to live alone and often relatively close to where the offense took place.
Evaluating offender profiling the top down approach
● Point one:
There is research evidence to support the organised category in the top-down
approach.
Therefore: such characteristics fit well into the organised offender, validating this
category proposed by the approach.
● Point Two:
Further to this there is research evidence to support the usefulness of the top-down
approach.
,Evidence: Copson questioned a variety of police officers, of whom 82% said the
technique was operationally useful and over 90% said they would use it again
Therefore: although the approach may not result in specific identification, it does
offer a method that the police force can use in order to help them identify the
perpetrator offering a different perspective when investigating crimes.
● Point Three:
However, this approach only applies to certain types of crimes.
Evidence: it is best suited to crimes that reveal important information about the
suspect for example; rape and murder. More common offences such as burglary do
not lend themselves to profiling as the crime scene reveals very little about the
suspect.
Therefore: at best it is a limited approach to identifying an offender.
● Point four:
Further to this the top-down approach categories are based on a limited sample.
Evidence: 36 serial sex offenders from the USA.
Therefore: it has been pointed out that the sample is too small and unrepresentative.
Ultimately challenging the ability to generalise the categories to the wider population.
Offender profiling: top-down approach
Offender profiling the bottom-up approach:
The aim of this approach is to generate a picture of the offender - their likely characteristics,
routine behaviour, and social background - through systematic analysis of evidence at the
crime scene.
So unlike the US Top-Down, the British Bottom-up model does not begin with fixed
typologies. Instead profiles are data driven. It is about psychological theory it begins with
details of the crime scene (bottom) and works up to developing a hypothesis of the likely
characteristics of the offender.
Geographical profiling
This is a form of bottom-up profiling. Geographical profiling uses information to do
with the location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about the likely home or
operational base of an offender - crime mapping. The assumption is that serial
offenders will restrict their “work” to geographical areas they are familiar with and so
understanding the spatial patterns of their behaviour helps in- vestigators identify a
centre point which is likely to include the offender's base (often the middle of the
spatial pattern). From this they can make an educated guess about where the
offender is likely to strike next.
Canter's circle theory proposed two models of offender behaviour:
● The marauder: operate in close proximity to their home
● The commuter: likely to have travelled a distance from their residence.
, Geographical mapping allows investigators insight into factors such as whether the
crime was planned or opportunistic, mode of transport, employment status, approx.
age. Geographical mapping is often used in conjunction with investigative
psychology.
Research into bottom-up approach
● John Duffy: The railway rapist 24 sexual attacks in the 1980s and 3 murders
in railway stations across North London.
● David Canter analysed geographical information from similar crime scenes
and details of similar attacks to draw up a surprisingly accurate profile of Duffy
using bottom-up profiling techniques.
Investigative Psychology:
Investigative psychology is another form of the bottom-up approach which involves
applying statistical databases and psychological theory when analysing the crime
scene evidence. Essentially it matches evidence from the crime scene to typical
offender behaviour for that crime which is based on psychology theory. It will use
statistical data from databases on similar crimes that have been committed in order
to make predictions about the offender. It will also allow investigators to see if crimes
committed are linked and potentially by the same offender. Essentially patterns that
occur across crime scenes are used to generate data about the offender.
Central to the approach is interpersonal coherence - This is the way in which an
offender behaves at the scene. How they interact with the victim may indicate how
they act in everyday life.
Significance of time and place - this may indicate where the offender is living if the
crimes take place within the same forensic "centre of gravity.
Forensic awareness - This focuses on those who have been the focus of police
attention before. Their behaviour may denote how mindful they are of covering their
tracks.
Evaluating the bottom-up approach
● Point one:
There is research evidence to support investigative psychology.
Evidence: Canter and Heritage (1990) conducted analysis of 66 sexual assault
cases using a statistical database called smallest space analysis which identified
correlations across patterns of behaviour. This allowed for common characteristics to
be linked across cases allowing an understanding of whether the cases are linked to
the same offender.
Offender Profiling:
A behavioural and analytic tool that is intended to help investigators accurately predict and
profile the characteristics of unknown criminals (help investigators predict likely of- fenders).
What is the top-down approach?
● It was developed in America by the FBI (behavioural science unit).
● Based on data gathered from in-depth interviews from 36 sexually motivated serial
killers including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
● Based on police experience and not psychological theory.
How does it work?
Conceptual categories (templates) are pre-existing in the mind of the profiler. Evidence from
the crime scene and other details of the crime such as witness accounts are then used to fit
the crime into one of the two pre-existing categories helping determine the of- fender as one
type or another. This will then inform the police investigation. Murders/ rapists are usually
classified, using this method, into one of two categories:
1. Organised
2. Disorganised.
Organised offender:
Organised offenders show evidence of having planned the crime in advance, the victim is
del;ibratly targeted and will often reflect the fact that the killer or rapist has a “type”. They
remain a high degree of control during the crime and may operate with almost detached
surgical precision. There is little evidence or clues left behind at the scene. They tend to be
of above average intelligence, in a skilled/professional occupation, and are socially and
sexually competent. They are usually married and may even have children.
Disorganised offender:
Disorganised offenders show little evidence of planning, suggesting the offence may have
been spontaneous. The crime scene tends to reflect the impulse nature of the attack - the
body is usually still at the scene and there appears to have been very little control on the part
of the offender. They tend to have a lower than average IQ, be in unskilled work or
unemployed, and often have a history of sexual dysfunction and failed relationships. They
tend to live alone and often relatively close to where the offense took place.
Evaluating offender profiling the top down approach
● Point one:
There is research evidence to support the organised category in the top-down
approach.
Therefore: such characteristics fit well into the organised offender, validating this
category proposed by the approach.
● Point Two:
Further to this there is research evidence to support the usefulness of the top-down
approach.
,Evidence: Copson questioned a variety of police officers, of whom 82% said the
technique was operationally useful and over 90% said they would use it again
Therefore: although the approach may not result in specific identification, it does
offer a method that the police force can use in order to help them identify the
perpetrator offering a different perspective when investigating crimes.
● Point Three:
However, this approach only applies to certain types of crimes.
Evidence: it is best suited to crimes that reveal important information about the
suspect for example; rape and murder. More common offences such as burglary do
not lend themselves to profiling as the crime scene reveals very little about the
suspect.
Therefore: at best it is a limited approach to identifying an offender.
● Point four:
Further to this the top-down approach categories are based on a limited sample.
Evidence: 36 serial sex offenders from the USA.
Therefore: it has been pointed out that the sample is too small and unrepresentative.
Ultimately challenging the ability to generalise the categories to the wider population.
Offender profiling: top-down approach
Offender profiling the bottom-up approach:
The aim of this approach is to generate a picture of the offender - their likely characteristics,
routine behaviour, and social background - through systematic analysis of evidence at the
crime scene.
So unlike the US Top-Down, the British Bottom-up model does not begin with fixed
typologies. Instead profiles are data driven. It is about psychological theory it begins with
details of the crime scene (bottom) and works up to developing a hypothesis of the likely
characteristics of the offender.
Geographical profiling
This is a form of bottom-up profiling. Geographical profiling uses information to do
with the location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about the likely home or
operational base of an offender - crime mapping. The assumption is that serial
offenders will restrict their “work” to geographical areas they are familiar with and so
understanding the spatial patterns of their behaviour helps in- vestigators identify a
centre point which is likely to include the offender's base (often the middle of the
spatial pattern). From this they can make an educated guess about where the
offender is likely to strike next.
Canter's circle theory proposed two models of offender behaviour:
● The marauder: operate in close proximity to their home
● The commuter: likely to have travelled a distance from their residence.
, Geographical mapping allows investigators insight into factors such as whether the
crime was planned or opportunistic, mode of transport, employment status, approx.
age. Geographical mapping is often used in conjunction with investigative
psychology.
Research into bottom-up approach
● John Duffy: The railway rapist 24 sexual attacks in the 1980s and 3 murders
in railway stations across North London.
● David Canter analysed geographical information from similar crime scenes
and details of similar attacks to draw up a surprisingly accurate profile of Duffy
using bottom-up profiling techniques.
Investigative Psychology:
Investigative psychology is another form of the bottom-up approach which involves
applying statistical databases and psychological theory when analysing the crime
scene evidence. Essentially it matches evidence from the crime scene to typical
offender behaviour for that crime which is based on psychology theory. It will use
statistical data from databases on similar crimes that have been committed in order
to make predictions about the offender. It will also allow investigators to see if crimes
committed are linked and potentially by the same offender. Essentially patterns that
occur across crime scenes are used to generate data about the offender.
Central to the approach is interpersonal coherence - This is the way in which an
offender behaves at the scene. How they interact with the victim may indicate how
they act in everyday life.
Significance of time and place - this may indicate where the offender is living if the
crimes take place within the same forensic "centre of gravity.
Forensic awareness - This focuses on those who have been the focus of police
attention before. Their behaviour may denote how mindful they are of covering their
tracks.
Evaluating the bottom-up approach
● Point one:
There is research evidence to support investigative psychology.
Evidence: Canter and Heritage (1990) conducted analysis of 66 sexual assault
cases using a statistical database called smallest space analysis which identified
correlations across patterns of behaviour. This allowed for common characteristics to
be linked across cases allowing an understanding of whether the cases are linked to
the same offender.
