Support and Criticisms of the Top-Down Approach

Research has both supported and criticized the organized and disorganized typology central to the top-down approach in Forensic Psychology.

Canter (2004) used smallest space analysis, a statistical technique comparing data, to assess the usefulness of the top-down approach:

• Analyzed 100 US murderers cross-referenced with 39 organized and disorganized characteristics
• Found support for organized characteristics
• Found no support for disorganized characteristics

Highlight: The lack of support for disorganized characteristics undermines the validity of the classification system, as it fails to substantiate half of its core typology.

Problems with the original sample used to develop the approach include:

• Only 36 killers in the US were studied, which is a small sample size
• 25 were serial killers, making the sample unrepresentative of other types of crimes
• 11 were single or double murderers
• The sample was limited to one culture (American)

Example: The narrow focus on American serial killers limits the approach's applicability to crimes in other cultures or to non-serial offenses.

Evaluation points:

1. Limited applicability: The approach can only be applied to certain crimes that reveal substantial information about the criminal, such as rape, arson, and cult killings. This reduces its reliability for other types of crimes like theft or fraud.

2. Outdated personality models: The typology was developed using old-fashioned personality models that assume personality doesn't change and behavior/motivation remains consistent. This assumption may not hold true in modern contexts.

3. Lack of support for disorganized characteristics: Canter's (2004) study found support for organized characteristics but not for disorganized ones, reducing the validity of the approach.

4. Sample limitations: The original sample's small size, focus on serial killers, and limited cultural representation reduce its generalizability and population validity.

Quote: "A weakness of the classification system is that it is too simplistic and cannot categorise all criminals" (Goodwin, 2002).

These criticisms highlight the need for ongoing research and refinement in criminal profiling techniques to ensure their relevance and effectiveness in modern law enforcement contexts.

Top-Down Approach to Criminal Profiling

The top-down approach to offender profiling is an investigative tool developed by the FBI to predict characteristics of unknown criminals. This American method applies crime scene evidence to pre-existing templates, categorizing offenders as either organized or disorganized based on their behavior and crime scene characteristics.

Definition: Criminal profiling is an investigative and analytical tool used to help investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of an unknown criminal.

The approach was developed through in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated killers, including notorious criminals like Ted Bundy and Charles Manson. It involves working down from a pre-established typology to assign offenders to one of two categories based on witness accounts and crime scene evidence.

Highlight: The top-down approach categorizes offenders as either organized or disorganized, each with distinct characteristics.

Characteristics of an organized offender include:

• Evidence of planning
• Targeting specific victim types
• Social and sexual competence
• High degree of control
• Often employed in skilled professions
• Married with children
• Covers tracks and leaves little evidence
• Forensically savvy and familiar with police methods
• Likely to follow news reports of their crimes

Characteristics of a disorganized offender include:

• Lack of planning
• Leaving evidence and clues at the crime scene
• Lower intelligence
• Social and sexual incompetence
• Likely to be unemployed
• Less likely to be in a relationship
• Impulsive actions
• Tendency to live close to the crime scene
• More likely to have a history of abuse

Example: An organized offender might meticulously plan a kidnapping, leaving no traces at the crime scene, while a disorganized offender might act on impulse, leaving behind fingerprints and other evidence.