Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
37 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
what is top down typology |
first apply a bigger visionary "bigger picture" then apply the smaller details to back up the bigger picture |
|
|
what does top down typology look at first |
disorganised or organised |
|
|
what are organised offendrs |
-planned -little evidence gathered -socially competent -high inteligence -probably employed -intention of crime |
|
|
what are disorganised offenders |
-didn't intend to commit crime -no planning -reckless -leaving DNA -less intelligent -socially incompetent |
|
|
why are typologies refered to as mixed |
there is more than one offender |
|
|
what study backs up top down typology |
canter et al. |
|
|
what is the aim of canter et al |
test the reliability of organised and disorganied typologies |
|
|
what was the methodology of canter et als study |
a content analysis of multi dimentional scaling applied to 100 cases |
|
|
what were the cases were studied in Canter et al. study |
100 CASES from published accounts of serial killers in USA |
|
|
what was used to analyse the cases as organised or disorganised in canter et als study |
the crime classification manual |
|
|
what was findings of canter et als study |
twice as many disorganised crimes that organised this suggests disorganised is more common |
|
|
which two crimes co occured in organised typologies significantly above chance |
concealed body in 70% of cases 75% in sexual cases |
|
|
which crimes most common in disorganised crimes |
sexual and rape 2/3 of the time |
|
|
what did canter et al conclude |
instead of two categories of organised or disorganised. All crimes have elements of organisation to them. Takes into account individual differences and personalities.
|
|
|
what is bottom up typology |
building a bigger picture from smaller details. commonly used in british forensics |
|
|
what is the study behind bottom up typology |
canter and heritage |
|
|
what was the aim of canter and heritage |
identify similar behaviour patterns between offences |
|
|
what was canter and heritages methhodology |
a content analysis of 66 sexual offences by 27 offenders. |
|
|
what did canter and heritage do |
to find 33 offender variables clearly linked to a potential behaviour characteristic. |
|
|
give an example of the canter and heritage offender variable |
surprise attack. yes or no |
|
|
why was sexual offences studied |
chosen because there is great deal of detail about the offender action
|
|
|
what is small space analysis |
a way of interpreting data based on the assumption that the behaviour we are interested in is being tested in the relationship between every variable and every other variable in examined. A computer usually does these correlations. correlations are then compared. |
|
|
what were the variables centrally common to the 66 cases |
-vaginal intercourse -no reaction to the victim -impersonal language -surprise attack -disturb victims clothing |
|
|
what did canter and heritage conclude |
useful as the 5 variables are common throughout but in different patterns and individuals |
|
|
what was the case study called in creating a profile |
Case of John Duffy |
|
|
what was the year range of the attacks in the railway killers case study |
1975-1986 |
|
|
how many victims were there in the case study of john Duffy |
23 women |
|
|
where did the attacks mostly happen in the case of John duffy |
the railway stations in and around london |
|
|
how did canter profile the perpetrator. Was it commuter or marauder |
marauder |
|
|
what does commuter mean |
travel to commit crimes away from home |
|
|
what does marauder mean
|
commit crimes close to home |
|
|
what was canters starting point for the case of john duffy |
was it one or two people |
|
|
what were the two themes canter identified referring to the way the offender commits the crimes |
-how the offender deals with the victims -how much dominance is used |
|
|
what was concluded about dominace of John duffy |
weak as weak victims were selected |
|
|
what was John duffys preliminary profile |
physical-Mid to late twenties. Light Hair, about 5’9″, right-handed occupation- less contact with public, semi-skilled casual labour personality-keeps to himself,little contact with people, knows railway well sexual activity- considerable sexual experience. Criminal record- probably arrested before, but not for rape, more like drugs/drinking |
|
|
how did they find John Duffy |
In November 2000 John Duffy who was serving life for the rape and murder of several women, confessed that he was responsible for many more and that he committed some of the rapes with an accomplice: David Mulcahy |
|
|
give example of things that canter's profile got right |
canter said-"lived in kilburn" John Duffy lived in kilburn canter said-"married, no children" John duffy was married and infertile canter said-" martial artist/ body builder" John Duffy was part of martial arts club |
