Constructing an FBI Profile

The FBI profile construction process follows four key stages in the top-down approach to offender profiling:

1. Data Assimilation: Reviewing all available evidence, including photos and pathology reports.
2. Crime Scene Classification: Determining whether the crime scene is organized or disorganized.
3. Crime Scene Reconstruction: Developing hypotheses about the sequence of events and victim behavior.
4. Profile Generation: Creating hypotheses about the likely offender, including demographic information, physical characteristics, and personality traits.

Highlight: The top-down approach has limited application and can only explain certain types of crimes, including rape, cult killings, sadistic torture, arson, and dismemberment of the body.

This limitation stems from the fact that these specific crimes tend to reveal more about the criminal's personality and motivations. The approach's applicability to modern crime is questionable due to its development using outdated personality models from the 1970s.

Vocabulary: Temporal validity refers to the extent to which research findings remain relevant and applicable over time.

The top-down approach assumes that personality is unchanging and that the motivation and behavior of criminals remain consistent. However, this assumption may not hold true in the context of modern crime and evolving criminal behaviors.

Example: While the approach might be effective in profiling a serial killer who follows a specific pattern, it may be less useful in understanding cyber criminals whose methods and motivations can rapidly evolve.

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.

Page 4: Critical Evaluation

The final page provides a comprehensive evaluation of the approach's strengths and limitations.

Highlight: The approach's validity is questioned due to its small, culturally-specific sample size of 36 US killers.

Example: The limitation of temporal validity is demonstrated by the approach's reliance on outdated personality models that assume unchanging behavior patterns.

Definition: Population validity refers to how well research findings can be generalized to other populations, which is limited in this case due to the small, specific sample used.

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.