Abstract
A fundamental assumption in criminal profiling is that criminals who exhibit similar crime scene actions have similar background characteristics. We tested this so-called homology assumption by first classifying, with pre-existing typologies, a sample of arsons (N = 87) and robberies (N = 177) into different crime types and then comparing the background characteristics of criminals who committed the various crime types. Results showed that using pre-existing typologies to classify the crimes into mutually exclusive types was not easily accomplished. Notwithstanding classification difficulties, the homology assumption was violated in 56% of the comparisons of background characteristics between the different arson types and in 67% of the comparisons of background characteristics between the different robbery types. Overall, 73% of the effect sizes for the associations between crime type and background characteristics were low to moderate (V < .3; d < .2). The implications of these findings for profiling practices are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Similarly, it is assumed that criminals who have different offending styles will have different types of background characteristics.
In brief, these themes refer to the extent to which the arson was the result of emotional processes (expressive) or an attempt to achieve an ulterior goal (instrumental), and to the extent that the arsonist was targeting the property to get back at a specific person (person) or to simply destroy the target (object). For our classification of the arsons, 11 variables comprised the EO type, 9 variables comprised the IO type, 12 comprised the IP type, and 7 made up the EP type. Because there was no information in the database concerning which day of the week the particular arson took place or the distance between the crime scene and the offender’s home, these variables were eliminated from the typologies. The variable set fire was also excluded because it occurred in all the cases. This variable was found to be a central event in Canter and Fritzon’s SSA analysis as well, and could not be classified into any particular arson type.
For the 12 arson cases that were able to be classified, we found a difference in background characteristics for four of the nine background characteristics that were compared across the expressive-person (n = 7) and instrumental-object type (n = 5) arsons. We found that the expressive-person type arsons were more likely to be committed by juveniles and instrumental-object type arsons were more likely to have been committed by those with some sort of previous conviction, a previous conviction for criminal damage, and FTC/FTA.
Similar results were obtained when mixed arson types were removed from the analysis.
These themes refer to the extent to which the robbery was chaotic, spontaneous and involved opportunistic violence (Cowboys), haphazard (Bandits), or non-impulsive, well-planned, and tactical (Robin’s Men).
References
Alison LJ, Rockett W, Deprez S, Watts S (2000) Bandits, cowboys and robin’s men: the facets of armed robbery. In: Canter DV, Alison LJ (eds) Profiling property crimes. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp 75–106
Canter DV, Fritzon K (1998) Differentiating arsonists: a model of firesetting actions and characteristics. Legal Criminol Psychol 3:73–96
Canter DV, Heritage R (1990) A multivariate model of sexual offence behaviour: developments in ‘offender profiling’. I. J Forensic Psychiatr 1:185–212
Canter DV, Wentink N (2004) An empirical test of Holmes and Holmes’s serial murder typology. Crim Justice Behav 31:489–515
Canter DV, Bennell C, Alison LJ, Reddy S (2003) Differentiating sex offences: a behaviorally based thematic classification of stranger rapes. Behav Sci Law 21:157–174
Canter DV, Alison LJ, Alison E, Wentink N (2004) The organized/disorganized typology of serial murder: myth or model? Psychol Public Policy Law 10:293–320
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
Douglas JE, Burgess AW, Burgess AG, Ressler RK (1992) Crime classification manual: a standard system for investigating and classifying violent crime. Simon and Schuster, New York
Häkkänen H, Puolakka P, Santilla P (2004) Crime scene actions and offender characteristics in arsons. Legal Criminol Psychol 9:197–214
House JC (1997) Towards a practical application of offender profiling: the RNC’s criminal suspect prioritization system. In: Jackson JL, Bekerian DA (eds) Offender profiling: theory, research and practice. Wiley, Chichester, England; pp 177–190
Kocsis RN (2006) Criminal profiling: principles and practice. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
Melnyk T, Bloomfield S, Bennell C (2007) Classifying serial sexual homicide: validating Keppel and Walter’s (1999) model. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA, September
Mokros A, Alison LJ (2002) Is offender profiling possible? Testing the predicted homology of crime scene actions and background characteristics in a sample of rapists. Legal Criminol Psychol 7:25–37
Ressler RK, Burgess AW, Douglas JE, Hartman CR, D’Agostino RB (1986) Sexual killers and their victims: identifying patterns through crime scene analysis. J Interpers Violence 1:288–308
Woodhams J, Toye K (2007) An empirical test of the assumptions of case linkage and offender profiling with serial commercial robberies. Psychol Public Policy Law 13:59–85
Acknowledgments
We thank Sergeant John C. House for providing access to the data required to conduct this research and to Craig Bennell for providing wonderful guidance on the preparation of this manuscript. We also wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for providing insightful comments on how to improve the quality of the article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Support for the research reported in this article was provided to the first author by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and to the second author by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Appendix: Coding Dictionaries for Arson and Robbery
Appendix: Coding Dictionaries for Arson and Robbery
Arson: Crime Scene Variables
Prior Arson: The offender had previous arrests or convictions for arson.
Institution: The offender was living in an institution at the time of the offense (e.g., hospital, group home, care facility).
Drugs: The offender was under the influence of drugs when the arson occurred.
Non-Specific Trigger: There was no specific trigger or reason for the arson that was evident to the investigators.
Business: The offender targeted a business?
Daytime: The arson occurred during daylight hours?
Remained: The offender returned to the scene of the arson, or remained at the scene.
Multiple Items Fired: Multiple items were set on fire.
Multiple Seats of the Fire: Multiple fires were set.
Spree: The offender set more than one fire in a 24-hour period.
Multiple Offenders: More than one offender participated in the arson.
Miscellaneous: The property that was set on fire was derelict or uninhabited.
Illegal: The offender used the fire to cover up another crime.
Theft: The offender stole items from the scene of the arson.
School: A school was the target of the arson.
Outside: The arson took place outside, not inside a building or structure.
Public View: The arson took place where it was observable by the public.
No Alert: The offender alerted someone of the fire.
Threats of Arson: The offender had threatened to commit arson.
Car: A vehicle was the target of the fire.
Accelerant Used: An accelerant (e.g., gasoline) was used to fuel the fire.
Material Brought: Material was used for the arson was brought to the scene (e.g., matches).
Alcohol: The offender was under the influence of alcohol when the arson occurred.
Planned: There was evidence that the offender had planned the arson.
Witness: There was a witness(s) present for the arson.
Argument: The arson followed an argument.
Trigger-Specific: There was a specific trigger evident for the arson (e.g., an argument).
Partner: The victim of the arson was the offender’s partner.
Suicide Note: The offender left a suicide note.
Self: The offender set fire to him/herself.
Lives Deliberately Endangered by Location: The arson endangered lives by the location of the arson.
Lives Deliberately Endangered: The offender deliberately set the fire to harm others.
Residence: The targeted property was used for residential purposes.
Own Home: The offender set fire to his/her own home.
Targeted Property: There was evidence that a specific property was targeted.
Victim Known: The victim of the arson was known to the offender.
Public: The fire occurred at a building that the public had access to.
Prior Threats: Previous threats were made by the offender towards the victim.
Forced Entry: The offender made an effort to get inside the building (e.g., break window).
Arson: Background Variables
Previous Convictions: The offender had previous convictions of any kind.
Juvenile: The offender was in school and under the age of 16; even if they did not attend.
History of Theft: The offender had a history of theft offenses.
History of Burglary: The offender had a history of burglary offenses.
Caution: The offender had been previously come to attention to police, but not formally charged.
Assault: The offender had an arrest history for assault.
Criminal Damage: The offender had a history of vandalism or damaging property.
Fail to Appear/Fail to Comply: The offender had an arrest history for not appearing in court or abiding by probation/compliance orders.
Psychiatric Treatment: The offender was under psychiatric care when the offense occurred.
Robbery: Crime Scene Variables
Premises: Type of premises targeted (e.g., convenience store, bank).
Video: There was a closed-circuit TV security system on the premises.
Cash: Cash was taken.
Cigarettes: Cigarettes was taken.
Alcohol: Alcohol was taken.
Other: Other items were taken.
Style: The confrontation style of the robber during the robbery (e.g., surprise attack or delayed).
Behavioral Demeanor: The behavioral demeanor of the robber during the robbery (e.g., restrained or aggressive).
Type of Weapon: Type of weapon used to commit the robbery (e.g., gun, knife, tool).
Implied: The weapon used in the robbery was not seen, but implied.
Violence: The robber used violence towards the victim during the robbery.
Pushing: The robber pushed the victim during the robbery.
Punching: The robber punched the victim during the robbery.
Stabbing: The robber stabbed the victim during the robbery.
Shooting: The robber shot the victim during the robbery.
Aggressive: What style of aggression the robber(s) were during the robbery (e.g., controlling or used gratuitous violence) towards employees/customers during the robbery.
Threats: The robber threatened violence towards the victim during the robbery.
Nature of Threats: The threats made by the robber were spontaneous or in response to resistance by the victim.
Announced: The robbery was announced by the robber.
Demand: The robber demanded cash or an item.
Instruct: The robber directed the victim to comply with requests.
Reassure: The robber reassured the victim.
Apologize: The robber apologized to the victim.
Justifies: The robber justified the robbery to the victim.
Foul: The robber used foul language.
Delay: The robber told the victim to delay reporting the robbery.
Floor: The victim was required to lie on the floor during the robbery.
Bind: The robber bound the victim.
Blindfold: The robber blindfolded the victim.
Disguise: The robber used a subtle or overt disguise.
Lookout: The robber had an accomplice who kept a lookout while the robbery took place.
Tamper: The robber tampered with any security measures on the premises.
Disable: The robber disabled the telephone.
Robbery: Background Variables
Tattoo: The offender has tattoos.
Previous Arrests: The offender had a previous arrest.
Prolific: The offender has been arrested for more than three crimes.
Convictions: The offender had a previous conviction.
Incarcerated: The offender was previously incarcerated.
Property: The offender had an arrest history of property-related offences.
Violent: The offender had an arrest history for violent offences.
Deception: The offender had an arrest history for fraud-related offences.
Weapons: The offender had an arrest history for a weapon-related offence.
Robbery: The offender had an arrest history for robbery.
Burglary: The offender had a history for burglary.
Others: The offender had an arrest history of other offences.
Age: Age of the offender.
Last Arrest: The number of days since the offender was last arrested.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Doan, B., Snook, B. A Failure to Find Empirical Support for the Homology Assumption in Criminal Profiling. J Police Crim Psych 23, 61–70 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-008-9026-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-008-9026-7