Offender Profiling (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Top-down Approach
The top-down approach is a profiling method where forensic psychologists apply their expertise and knowledge to develop a profile of a potential offender based on crime scene evidence. This approach relies heavily on the experience and intuition of the profiler to analyse violent crimes, particularly murder cases, which is why it's sometimes referred to as crime scene analysis.
Core assumptions
The top-down approach operates on several key assumptions that form the foundation of this profiling method. Jackson & Bekerian (1997) suggest that inferences about criminals can be drawn from crime scenes, and these insights enable cases to be solved.
The approach focuses on the modus operandi (MO) - how offenders commit crimes and why they select particular situations. This concept is central to understanding criminal behaviour patterns.
A fundamental assumption is that criminals tend to operate consistently, reflecting their personality traits. This consistency means the MO remains relatively stable across crimes, ensuring that crime scenes and distinctive behaviours will show consistent patterns.
The seven-stage process
The top-down approach emerged in the 1970s with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and employs a systematic seven-stage process to narrow down potential suspects. Initially, all evidence must be gathered from the crime scene, including photographs of victims, before the scene is disturbed. The seven decision-making tools are then applied:
1 Murder type
This stage determines whether the killing represents an isolated incident or forms part of a series. Classifications include:
Key Classifications:
- Serial killer: Three or more murders by the same person over at least a month, with 'cooling-off' periods between killings
- Spree killer: Multiple killings in one time period across several locations
- Mass murderer: Multiple killings in one location during one time period
Initially, a serial killer might be classified as a 'one-off' killer until additional murders are discovered. Once multiple murders are established, an MO becomes apparent, providing a more detailed picture. The distinction between different killer types is important for establishing the initial profile framework.
2 Primary intent
This examines whether the murder was deliberate and premeditated, which substantially affects profile development. A murder committed as a consequence of another crime creates a very different criminal picture compared to someone who deliberately sets out to commit murder.
3 Victim risk
This assesses victim vulnerability levels. Some victims are classified as high risk whilst others as low risk based on their circumstances. Children, elderly people, and sex workers (where prostitution isn't legal) exemplify low-risk targets due to their limited resistance capabilities. Understanding why an offender targeted a low-risk victim provides valuable information to profilers.
4 Offender risk
This evaluates the level of risk the criminal actually faced when committing the crime, offering insights into their character. Attacking someone on a busy street in daylight represents high risk for the criminal, so choosing such circumstances tells profilers about the type of person police should seek.
5 Escalation
This aspect examines how much the crime has escalated from previous offences or its potential to escalate further. This provides profilers with behavioural patterns and may assist in preventing future crimes.
6 Time factors
The timing of when crimes are committed offers clues about the criminal's daily routine and provides information about risk levels.
7 Location factors
Similar to time factors, this can inform profilers about the criminal's environment, transport options, and potential residential area.
Typological classification
Following the seven-stage analysis, a picture emerges that helps classify the criminal as either organised or disorganised. This classification system has led to the approach being termed typological profiling.
Key differences between organised and disorganised offenders
| Aspect | Organised | Disorganised |
|---|---|---|
| Behaviour towards victim | Victim targeted, Aggressive, Controls conversation | Victim selected randomly, Crime unplanned, Avoids conversation |
| Crime scene detail | Weapon absent, Body hidden from view, Body transported from original murder point, Crime scene orderly, Attempts to clear up | Weapon present, Sexual activity after death, Body left in view |
| Characteristics of criminal | High intelligence, Socially competent, Sexually competent, Skilled occupation, Monitors media coverage of crimes | Average intelligence, Socially immature, Sexually incompetent, Poor work history, Lives alone, Lives/works close to crime scene, No interest in media coverage |
| Background of criminal | High birth order (eldest), Inconsistent discipline as child | Low birth order (youngest), Harsh discipline as child |
Key Definitions:
Organised type of offender: An antisocial law-breaker whose crimes are premeditated and carefully planned, leaving few clues at crime scenes.
Disorganised type of offender: A socially inadequate, unintelligent law-breaker who carries out unplanned crimes and tends to leave clues at crime scenes.
The final step involves compiling the profile using all these factors. The profile contains demographic and physical characteristics, discusses likely perpetrator behaviour, and includes defining characteristics.
Case study: Arthur Shawcross
Case Study: Arthur Shawcross Serial Killer Investigation
Theorist: McCrary & Grant
Year: 1988
Case: Arthur Shawcross serial killer investigation
Background: In the USA, Arthur Shawcross had previously served prison time for murdering a ten-year-old boy and an eight-year-old girl. He received a 25-year sentence in 1972, served 15 years, and was released in 1987. March 1988 marked the beginning of a prolonged string of murders, where Shawcross targeted sex workers as victims. Over two years, he murdered 11 sex workers, with many bodies discovered near the Genesee River in New York State. Victims were typically strangled, beaten, and sometimes mutilated.
Procedure: Criminal profiler Gregg McCrary from the FBI was consulted to assist with the investigation. Working with investigator Ed Grant, they examined crime scenes and case files. They identified a clear pattern suggesting the same perpetrator was responsible for half the murders.
Profile developed: Based on available evidence, McCrary and Grant suggested the murderer was:
- White
- Male
- In his late twenties/early thirties (though they noted this was probably his mental age rather than actual age)
- A previous offender of violent crimes
- In a low-paid job
- The driver of a cheap, basic car
- Probably married
- Living or working near the Genesee River
- Interested in hunting or fishing
Findings: The murderer had begun leaving bodies where they were initially found and returning later to dismember them. McCrary and Grant advised police to locate a body before it was mutilated and conduct surveillance rather than removing it. They believed the murderer would revisit the location and could potentially be apprehended.
Outcome: This prediction proved accurate. Shawcross returned to a body, which enabled police to arrest him. The profile created by McCrary and Grant was remarkably accurate, with the only incorrect aspect being age estimation - Shawcross was older than suggested, though in some respects, this was still correct regarding his mental age.
Shawcross was found guilty and, despite pleading insanity, was deemed sane by the court. He received a 250-year prison sentence.
Evaluation:
- Strengths: Demonstrates the accuracy level achievable through typological profiling when properly applied. The profile proved highly accurate in this case.
- Weaknesses: Represents a single case study and cannot establish the profiling method's universal correctness.
Evaluation of the top-down approach
The top-down approach has both significant strengths and notable limitations that must be considered when evaluating its effectiveness as a forensic tool.
Strengths:
- The Arthur Shawcross case demonstrates that typological profiling can achieve high accuracy levels when properly implemented
- Provides a systematic framework for analysing violent crime scenes
- Has practical applicability in murder and rape investigations
- Offers law enforcement a structured approach to narrowing suspect pools
Weaknesses:
- Lacks theoretical foundation, relying more on intuition than scientific principles, which some argue reduces its credibility
- Depends heavily on profiler intuition, making personal emotions and memories potentially influential factors
- Limited applicability - only really effective for crimes like murder and rape, unlike geographical approaches which examine crime patterns more broadly
- Oversimplifies criminal behaviour by having just two main categories (organised/disorganised), making it probable that criminals don't fit neatly into either category, thus limiting the distinction's usefulness
- Each crime scene contains unique variables that should be considered, making typological definitions challenging to apply accurately
- Alison et al. (2002) argue the approach relies on outdated personality theories assuming stability, whilst continually changing situational factors also influence criminal behaviour and should be considered
Key Points to Remember:
- The top-down approach uses profiler experience and intuition to create offender profiles from crime scene analysis
- The seven-stage process systematically examines murder type, primary intent, victim risk, offender risk, escalation, time factors, and location factors
- Offenders are classified as either organised (premeditated, planned) or disorganised (spontaneous, chaotic) types
- The Arthur Shawcross case demonstrates the approach's potential accuracy but also shows it's based on individual cases rather than universal principles
- Key limitations include lack of theoretical foundation, oversimplification through binary classification, and restricted applicability to violent crimes only