- Offender typologies are based on the idea that each type of offender will use a distinct modus operandi (MO) which distinguishes them and the characteristics of their crimes
- An MO is like an offender’s signature in that it includes details and features of their crimes and may help to identify them from other similar offenders e.g. Homer always leaves doughnut crumbs at the site of his crimes compared to other thieves who do not
- An example of an MO is that some offenders may bring items to the crime scene or take items with them (e.g. ‘souvenirs’ of the crime) and this can tell investigators about the personality and behaviours of the offender
Organised offenders
|
Disorganised
|
Evidence of the crime having been planned
|
Crime scene is chaotic with no evidence of it having been planned
|
Very little physical evidence
|
Physical evidence may be abundant
|
Victim may have been restrained or attacked with tools brought to the scene by the offender
|
Offender had to improvise and use tools already at the scene
|
Victim is likely to be a stranger who cannot be traced back to the offender
|
Victim may be a stranger but could just as equally be known to the offender
|
Indication that the offender has exercised control at the scene
|
Offender may have exercised little or no control at the scene
|
The victim’s body may have been moved to a different location and/or concealed
|
There is little or no attempt to move or conceal the victim
|
- Based on the above typologies Ressler and his colleagues concluded that organised offenders:
- are likely to have a high IQ and be in a professional or skilled occupation
- are socially competent and have several friends and colleagues
- are likely to be in a relationship
- may have been suffering from some kind of negative mental state e.g. depression, anxiety, anger when the crime was committed
- are aware of media interest in and coverage of the crime (some offenders may even communicate with the police or media as a way of prolonging their involvement in the crime)
- Based on the above typologies Ressler and his colleagues concluded that disorganised offenders:
- are likely to have a low IQ and be in an unskilled or semi-skilled occupation (or unemployed)
- are socially incompetent with few friends and colleagues
- are likely to live alone or have a problematic relationship history
- are likely to have been abused as a child
- are likely to show confusion, fear and panic at the crime scene and in general when confronted with stressful situations
- are more likely to live near the crime scene
- The FBI TDA in summary consists of:
- Reviewing crime scene evidence
- Categorising the offender as organised or disorganised
- Reconstructing the crime in light of the evidence gathered and the type of offender identified e.g. what might have occurred, how the victim was apprehended, why the attack took place, what the offender might have brought to the scene, how the offender might have left the scene
- Producing a profile of the offender e.g. their personal, professional and social characteristics
Research which investigates the top-down approach to offender profiling
- Snook et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of profiling research and concluded that most profiling was based on little more than common-sense justifications and that profilers were not significantly better at predicting offence behaviours than non-profilers, but were slightly better at identifying overall offender characteristics
- Canter et al. (2004) - 39 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
Evaluation of the top-down approach to offender profiling
Strengths
- 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
- 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)
Weaknesses
- 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
- The TDA is not necessarily appropriate for every type of crime as its basis lies in the documenting of (mainly) sexually-motivated serial murder which means that it lacks consistency (and, by association, reliability) across crimes
Link to Issues & Debates:
The TDA typology is overly reductionist and does not account for variability across crimes or that an offender may be organised for one crime and disorganised for another crime (an offender may also combine features of both typologies at the same crime scene) . Additionally the TDA assumes that typology is stable yet human behaviour fluctuates i.e. people do not always act in exactly the same, unchanging way per situation.
There are many TV shows, films, books etc. on offender profiling but for each sensational murder or famous serial killer there are victims and each victim has left behind people who loved and cared for them. Researchers should be mindful of not perpetuating the myth of the serial killer when they publish their research as there is a tendency to present such offenders as somehow legendary or worthy of respect. This links to the ethical implications of research i.e. how the findings of the research will be viewed and treated by other agencies, institutions and individuals. Any glorification of people who have wrought great harm on others is, obviously, to be avoided at all costs as by doing so the victims and their loved ones are made to suffer all over again.