Student number: 601687

Geographical profiling is the example of the practical application of criminological theory to the real world of police investigation (Rossmo, 2000, p.242). Critically evaluate this position.

Student number: 601687

In the ensuing essay, the criminological theoretical framework on which geographic profiling depends will be demonstrated. Thereafter, the limitations and success of geographical profiling will be highlighted. The conclusion will attempt to establish whether or not geographical profiling serves as a practical application of the theory in police investigations.

A focus of any police investigation is the crime scene and its evidentiary contents. What is often overlooked, however, is a geographic perspective on the actions preceding the offense: the spatial behaviour that led to the crime scene. For any violent crime to occur there must have been an intersection in both time and place between the victim and offender (Rossmo, 1995). In recent years, several police departments have added computer programs to their arsenal of anti-crime tools. Although still an imprecise science, computer programs have been or are being developed that can help police locate crime hot spots, spatially relate a list of potential suspects to actual crimes, profile crimes geographically to identify where a serial criminal most likely lives, and even forecast where the next crime in a series might occur. One of the oldest approaches to using computers to analyse crime patterns is known as geographic profiling. Developed in the late 1980s, geographic profiling involves the use of computer models to spatially analyse crime sites so that investigators can determine the most likely areas where an offender lives. Geographic profiling assigns probability values to particular geographic areas, and can aid police in terms of where to look first (Rossmo, 1995). Geographic profiling is most useful in cases where the same person or group of persons has committed a number of crimes such as murders, sexual assaults, robberies, bombings, or arsons. It is particularly helpful when offenders commit crimes at different sites, where two crimes are committed at once (such as a rape in which the victims purse is also
Page 1

Student number: 601687

stolen), or in cases where an assault or theft victims credit card is subsequently used at various locations (Rossmo, 2000). Geographical profiling comes out of the larger context of location theory, which seeks to find the optimal location for a given distribution of events or demographics over a particular area (Levine, 2004). Location theory negotiates the demand side of human behaviour with the supply side of resources. By far the most common approach to this task uses mathematical functions to produce a probability surface that shows the likelihood of an offender residing at various locations around the area where their crimes were committed (Canter, Coffey, Missen and Huntley, 2000; Rossmo, 1993; Taylor et al., 2002).

Geographical profiling is not merely a set of mathematical equations, but is underpinned by and relies on many criminological theories for its success. Felson and Cohen (1998) maintain that geographical profiling has its scientific basis in environmental criminology and, more specifically, in routine activity theory and crime pattern theory. According to Rossmo (1995, pp218), research in this area represents a practical application of criminological theory to the real world of police investigation. Brantingham and Brantingham (1981) maintain that the crime setting or place, the where and when of the criminal act, makes up the fourth dimension of crime (the primary concern of environmental criminology). The roots of this perspective lie in human ecology, Jefferys bio-social learning approach and Hirschis social control theory. By reversing the reasoning and logic of these theoretical models, it may be possible to predict the most probable location of a criminals residence (Rossmo, 1995, pp219). Brantingham and Brantingham (1981) go on to state that these theories postulate that offenders typically commit crimes in areas that are familiar to them during the course of their daily routine. They applied the concept of cognitive mapping (a process by which people construct and use subjective mental representations of the objective surrounding geography) to criminals interaction
Page 2

Student number: 601687

with the environment. Offenders build up knowledge over time of their familiar areas, and this gives rise to opportunity spaces (spots within the offenders spatial experience that he/she assesses as attractive). The home of the offender generally forms a central place in his/her spatial experience, sometimes known as the awareness space (Lopez, 2004). For most offenders, the home is either the start point or the end point of his/her criminal journey, or journey to crime. Locality limitations serve as the base for environmental classifications and have evolved from the Circle Theory of Environmental Range. This theory asserts that an offenders home location can be discovered by examining information from the offenses (Ainsworth, 2001; Kocsis, Hayes and Irwin, 2002). Criminological theories also suggest a range of operation (distance of travel). The size of this range depends on the characteristics of the offender, the offense type, the characteristics of the spatial environment, and the available modes of personal transportation. Canter and Larkin (1993) defined two types of offenders in this area, viz. marauders and commuters. Marauders typically commit crimes outward from their anchor points, while commuters often travel a significant distance to commit crimes over an area that has little or no overlap with their activity space. Canter and Larkin (1993) also found that 87% of a sample of serial rapists lived inside a circle with a diameter equal to the distance between the two farthest crime scenes. This pattern they called the circle hypothesis. The strength of spatial models is that they offer a single-point prediction. This however is also the greatest weakness of these models, and will be discussed later. Probability strategies attempt to rectify this problem by creating a combination of a centre of gravity methodology with the distance decay function for every coordinate that is mapped (Canter et al., 2000). Buffer zones are often incorporated into the probability strategy to counteract this. The probable spatial behaviour of an offender can be derived from information contained in the known crime site locations, their geographic connections, and the
Page 3

Student number: 601687

characteristics and demography of the surrounding neighbourhoods (Rossmo, 2000). Criminological theories also suggest other aspects that influence the relationship between the place of residence and places of offending. The first of these is known as the principle of distance decay, or activity decay, which demonstrates a tendency to remain centralized (Canter, Coffey, Missen and Huntley, 2000). This principle proposes that within a radius, the number of offences will decrease exponentially with the increase in travel distance. Complimentary to distance decay is the least effort principle. A presumption underlying this is that offenders, when confronted with more than one possible location for committing a crime, will select the one with the greatest potential payoff and the least travel time. Using this technique gives recognition to the fact that the Circle Theory fails to acknowledge any terrain features that may limit mobility or habitation. Many theories mentioned above bring us back to a central point or centre of gravity around which crimes are committed, but at the centre of this radius, directly around the offenders home, there is a reduced likelihood of offending (Turner, 1969). This area is known as the buffer zone or safety zone. In this zone, criminals will typically not commit crimes as they believe that they are too familiar to others in this immediate vicinity, and feel more comfortable to commit these crimes immediately outside the buffer zone. Other studies mention the importance of travel direction (Godwin, 2001; Lundrigan and Canter, 2001) and environmental criminological theories point to spatial and physical characteristics of the built environment that should be taken into account. Offenders may also not always start their journey to crime from home. In some cases, offenders may start from their workplace, a friend or relatives home, or where they often hang out. Because criminals tend to move often, an address that is correct one day may be out of date the next (The National Institute of Justice, 2006). Felson and Clarke (1998) proposed another underlying theory the rational choice theory. This theory views the criminal as a rational being, constantly involved in analyzing the costs and benefits of crime (Beauregard, Rossmo and Proulz,
Page 4

Student number: 601687

2007). This theory emphasizes an offenders decision making since the basic postulate is that crime is purposeful behaviour that involves some form of benefit. It relates to geographic profiling in that it assumes that since the farthest point from the home base incurs greater costs, crimes will be committed reasonably close to home (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1990). The habits of criminals have become well known through research and data gathering to the point that Eden (1985) maintains that criminals have specific patterns of behaviour, viz. that fleeing criminals tend to turn to the left if they are right-handed, move to the right upon encountering obstacles, discard evidentiary items to their right and stay near the outside walls when hiding in large buildings.

Given the above seemingly sound theoretical basis on which geographical profiling anchors itself, the question is raised as to why it is not used more often and more successfully? English (2008) states that a small percentage of law enforcement agencies use geographical profiling software. One of the most common critiques of geographical profiling studies is the small sample sizes (Paulsen, 2006a). This is due partly to the difficulty of finding good data; the time and effort needed to run large data sets through complicated software could restrict sample sizes. Research is also limited by having only a few geographical profiling applications in existence. Because geographical profiling is based on the concepts of cognitive mapping and locations theories, the predictive models assume the offender is operating from a stable anchor point. When geographical profiling looks at a commuter-type offender, it will produce erroneous results. Paulsen (2007) goes on to say that there is currently no way to reliably classify an unknown serial offender as a commuter or marauder with any certainty, and little research has been done in this area. Paulsen continues to state that more research needs to be done around the degree of crime scene clustering, the area within the
Page 5

Student number: 601687

convex hull, and the average number of days between crimes in order to find ways to improve the accuracy of commuter-marauder prediction. English (2008) adds that some serial offenders do not fall into either classification, and because investigators are not able to reliably classify unknown serial offenders, geographical profiling may be inadvertently applied to an invalid case. Geographical profiling also requires a series of crimes to be correctly linked to a single offender. Investigators are not always able to accurately link the two and this may result in the wrong crimes being attributed to an offender (Canter, Coffey, Huntley and Missen, 2000). Geographical profiling does also not work well with mentally ill offenders, as they are driven by irrational delusions. It equally does not work well with spree killers who do not behave in the same manner as serial offenders (Rossmo, 2000). OLeary (2006) argues that the current spatial and probability strategies themselves contain a flaw: the anchor point and high probability areas identified by models always lie within the convex hull. However, geographic features (such as large bodies of water) can cause a serial offender to commit crimes in a commuter pattern out of necessity. In this way his/her home base is excluded from the centre of the crimes. The effective use of geographical profiling depends on a number of assumptions, viz: The profile must be based on multiple crime scenes The crime scenes must be linked to the same offender There cannot be a great distance between the residence of the offender and the area of criminal activity The crime scenes must be fairly evenly distributed around the offenders home or anchor point The offender cannot move anchor points or operate from multiple anchor points during the crime series (Bennell and Corey, 2007). These assumptions have a direct correlation to the effectiveness of geographical profiling.
Page 6

Student number: 601687

The size of range of operation depends on the characteristics of the offender, the offense type, the characteristics of the spatial environment, and the prevalent modes of personal transportation, and empirical studies also show that the distance of travel (range of operation) of an offender is not constant (Lopez, 2004). From a software point of view (after reading literature on Rigel Analyst, CrimeStat and Dragnet) it is also evident that the existing programs pose one of two limitations, viz. either the application is too costly to purchase and implement, or it is too difficult and timeconsuming for everyday use. Rossmo (2000) maintains that no matter how valid or reliable a particular investigative technique, it will have little practical value if it cannot be effectively used by police in the real world of crime investigation.

Although geographic profiling would appear to only work within a strict and limited range of parameters, there are many areas where it has been successful. Geographic profiling has been used effectively for cases such as serial rape, a series of burglaries, serial murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, arson, and bombings. Had it been developed in the sixties, it might have even provided better information about the Zodiac's cognitive map. The program most widely used in Canada once pinpointed the workplace of a man who was robbing credit unions during lunch, and it also reduced a database of over three thousand suspects in a murder to merely a handful (Turvey, 1999). Geographic profiling has been successfully used by law enforcement agencies around the world, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Scotland Yard and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ScienceDaily, 2011). One of the advantages attributed to geographic profiling is the reduction of the surface area to be explored before localizing an offenders base of operations. According to the research available, geographic profiling could reduce the territory of investigation by 90% (Bennell, Snook, Taylor, Corey and Keyton, 2007). Research conducted by Beauregard and Rossmo
Page 7

Student number: 601687

(2007) is even more optimistic. According to them, the proportion of surface area that should be examined by police would be 7.1% for robbery, 5.1% for homicides, 4.7% for sexual assault and 2.2% for arson. These results are the same in terms of size as those obtained by Laukkanen and Santtila (2006), who obtained a median research area equivalent to 4.69% of the area covered by crimes. Canter and Larkin (1993) observed a median research area of 1.07% when the paths of offenders seem to correspond to the circle heuristic. However, when the offender travelled to the crime scene, predictions were much more inaccurate, with the median research area covering 24.06% of the total surface area. Helms maintains that computer models are not a magic bullet, but they are powerful tools that give police a better starting place for following up leads and checking out lists of known offenders (National Institute of Justice, 2006). To illustrate his point, Helms cites the case of the Las Vegas, Nevada, police who used CrimeStat and other computer models to identify a probable area where a serial killer lived. Based on that information, police canvassed a large apartment complex in that area and questioned residents if they had seen anyone who matched the description of the killer. Normally, the police might have overlooked that apartment complex because it was not the residence of any known suspect; however, because of the information provided by CrimeStat, they staked out the complex and ultimately arrested a suspect. In this case, CrimeStat gave police an insight into crime and criminals not available before (National Institute of Justice, 2006). The case of the blue bandana bandit in Glendale, Arizona, is another example of the value of computer models in solving crimes. In this case, police knew that a suspect wearing a blue bandana had committed a series of robberies at a chain of convenience stores. Glendale crime analysts and police detectives used a geographic information system to plot where the robberies had occurred and then used CrimeStat to predict where the next one might take place. Police staked out that convenience store and made an arrest (National Institute of Justice,
Page 8

Student number: 601687

2006). A well-known case in the US was the Southside rapist in Lafayette, Louisiana. A task force was formed 14 years after the first crime and examined 14 rapes, six linked through DNA, the other eight linked through the rapists behaviour. They had in the vicinity of 2000 tips and 1000 suspects. A geographic profile was done with the investigator, which aided in narrowing the probable area. The police revisited their suspect list and managed to be more precise in their focus. The rapist was a police sergeant - they said if it hadnt been for the geographic profile, they would never have prioritised him because of who he was (Bourque, LeBlanc, Utzschneider and Wright, 2009).

There are many instances where geographical profiling has been effective and aided the investigation process. It has also been highlighted however that geographical profiling has many limitations. Geographical profiling is not the silver bullet or panacea in resolving crimes, and no single police technique will work every time for every case. After reading literature around the topic, it is clear (especially from the leading thinkers in this area) that geographical profiling is a technique established to aid and support an investigation, and was never intended to be the sole source of the solution. Geographical profiling provides probabilities across a region, and not a point location. Therefore, geographical profiling is designed to narrow the search base, not to find an individual. Hogarth (1987), Meehl and Rosen (1955), and Swets, Dawes and Monahan (2000) maintain that although actuarial techniques are not likely to guarantee perfect decisions, it is often argued that they will yield better decisions on average than human judges. Rossmo (1995, pp232) himself maintains geographic profiling infers spatial characteristics of the offender from target patterns. This method uses qualitative and quantitative approaches that attempt to make sense of the pattern from both subjective and objective perspectives. He continues to say not all types of offenders or categories of crime can be geographically profiled. In appropriate
Page 9

Student number: 601687

cases, such a spatial analysis can produce very practical results. Geographic profiling therefore seems to have significant investigative value in certain types of criminal cases. This value is derived through the translation of criminological theory into a practical tool that aids the criminal justice problem.

Page 10

Student number: 601687

List of References Ainsworth, P. (2001). Offender profiling and crime analysis. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing. Beauregard, E., Rossmo, K. and Proulx, J. (2007). A descriptive model of the hunting process of serial sex offenders: A rational choice perspective . Journal of Family Violence, 22, pp. 449-463. Bennell, C. and Corey, S. (2007). Geographic profiling of terrorist attacks. In R. N. Kocsis, (Ed.), Criminal Profiling: International Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 189-203). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc. Bennell, C., Snook, B., Taylor, P., Corey, S. and Keyton, J. (2007). Its no riddle, choose the middle. The effect of crimes topographical detail on police officer predictions of serial burglars home location. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 34 (1), pp. 119-132. Bourque, J., LeBlanc, S., Utzschneider, A. and Wright, C. (2009). The effectiveness of profiling from a national security perspective. Canadian Human Rights Commission Hills, CA: Sage. Brantingham, P. I. and Brantingham, P. L. (1981). Environmental criminology. Beverly Brantingham, P. J. and Brantingham, P. L. (1990). Environmental Criminology. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Canter, D., Coffey, T., Huntley, M. and Missen, C. (2000). Predicting serial killers home base using a decision support system. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, pp. 457 478. Canter, D. and Larkin, P. (1993). The environmental range of serial rapists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, pp. 6369. Eden, R. (1985). Dog training for law enforcement. Calgary, CAN: Detselig.

English, W. (2008). Geoprofile: Developing and establishing the reliability of a new geographic profiling system. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology Felson, M. and Clarke, R. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief. Practical theory for crime prevention. Police Research Series, 98. London, UK: Home Office.

Student number: 601687

Felson, M. and Cohen, L. (1998). Human ecology and crime: a routine activity approach, Human Ecology, Vol. 8, nr. 4, pp. 389-405. Godwin, G. (2001). Criminal psychology and forensic technology. A collaborative approach to effective profiling. Boca Raton, FA: CRC Press Hogarth, R. (1987). Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. Chichester, UK: Wiley. http://www.ecricanada.com/wp-content/themes/arjuna-x/images/new-scientist.pdf Kocsis RN, Irwin HJ. 1997. An analysis of spatial patterns in serial rape, arson, and burglary: the utility of the circle theory of environmental range for psychological profiling. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 4: pp.195206. Kocsis, R., Hayes, A., and Irwin, H. (2002). Investigative experience and accuracy in psychological profiling of a violent crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17 (8), pp. 811823. Laukkanen, M. and Santtila, P. (2006). Predicting the residential location of serial robbers. Forensic Science International, 157, pp.71-82. Levine, N. (2004). CrimeStat: A spatial statistics program for the analysis of crime incident locations, version 3.1. Retrieved 2004, Ned Levine and Associates: Houston, TX/ National Institute of Justice, Washington D.C. Website: www.icpsr.umich.edu/CrimeStat Lopez, J. (2004). The spatial behaviour of residential burglars. RCM-advies, The Netherlands Lundrigan, S. and Canter, D. (2001). Spatial patterns of serial murder: An analysis of disposal site location choice. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 19, pp. 595-610. Meehl, P. and Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, pp. 194216. National Institute of Justice, Journal No. 253, January 2006 O'Leary, M. (2006). A new mathematical technique for geographic profiling. Poster session presented at the NIJ Conference, Washington, DC.

Student number: 601687

Paulsen, D. (2006a). Connecting the dots: Assessing the accuracy of geographic profiling software. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 29, pp. 306-334. Paulsen, D. (2007). Improving geographic profiling through commuter/marauder prediction. Police Practice and Research, 8, pp. 347-357. Rossmo, K. (1993). Multivariate spatial profiles as a tool in crime investigation . In C. R. Block, M. Dabdoub, and S. Fregley (Eds.), Crime analysis through computer mapping (pp. 6597). Washington: Police Executive Research Forum. Rossmo, K. (1995). Place, space, and police investigations: Hunting serial violent criminals. Simon Fraser University, BC Canada, V5A 1S6. Rossmo, K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton: CRC Press. ScienceDaily, May 17, 2011 Swets, J., Dawes, R. and Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, pp. 126. Taylor, P., Bennell, C., and Snook, B. (2002). Problems of classification in investigative psychology. In K. Jajuga, A. Sokolowski, and H.-H. Bock (Eds.), Classification, clustering, and data analysis: Recent advances and applications (pp. 479487). Heidelberg: Springer. Turner, S. (1969). Delinquency and distance. In T. Sellin, and M. E. Wolfgang (Eds.), Delinquency: Selected studies (pp. 1126). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Turvey, B. (1999). Criminal Profiling. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.