Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Efficacy of Ideographic Models for Geographical Offender Profiling

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Current ‘geographical offender profiling’ methods that predict an offender’s base location from information about where he commits his crimes have been limited by being based on aggregate distributions across a number of offenders, restricting their responsiveness to variations between individuals as well as the possibility of axially distorted distributions. The efficacy of five ideographic models (derived only from individual crime series) was therefore tested.

Methods

A dataset of 63 burglary series from the UK was analysed using five different ideographic models to make predictions of the likely location of an offenders home/base: (1) a Gaussian-based density analysis (kernel density estimation); (2) a regression-based analysis; (3) an application of the ‘Circle Hypothesis’; (4) a mixed Gaussian method; and (5) a Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) analysis. These tests were carried out by incorporating the models into a new version of the widely utilised Dragnet geographical profiling system DragNetP. The efficacy of the models was determined using both distance and area measures.

Results

Results were compared between the different models and with previously reported findings employing nomothetic algorithms, Bayesian approaches and human judges. Overall the ideographic models performed better than alternate strategies and human judges. Each model was optimal for some crime series, no one model producing the best results for all series.

Conclusions

Although restricted to one limited sample the current study does show that these offenders vary considerably in the spatial distribution of offence location choice. This points to important differences between offenders in the morphology of their crime location choice. Mathematical models therefore need to take this into account. Such models, which do not draw on any aggregate distributions, will improve geographically based investigative decision support systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Paulsen (2005) provides findings for a number of different crime types; in Table 7 the findings obtained for the residential burglary series in his sample are used (being more directly comparable to the sample in the present study).

  2. Paulsen’s (2006) sample also consists of a range of crime types; however, only five residential burglary series were included and this was deemed too small a number of cases against which to make comparisons. Therefore findings for the whole multiple crime type sample are provided for comparison in Table 7.

  3. ‘Top Profile Area’ is not included in Table 7, as it was not deemed useful for comparison given that the ideographic models being evaluated do not generate profile areas.

References

  • Bennell C, Snook B, Taylor PJ, Corey S, Keyton J (2007a) It’s no riddle, choose the middle: the effect of number of crimes and topographical detail on police officer predictions of serial burglars’ home locations. Crim Justice Behav 34(1):119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennell C, Taylor P, Snook B (2007b) Clinical versus actuarial geographic profiling strategies: a review of the research. Police Pract Res 8(4):335–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennell C, Emeno K, Snook B, Taylor P, Snook B (2009) The precision, accuracy and efficiency of geographic profiling predictions: a simple heuristic versus mathematical algorithms. Crime Map J Res Practice 1(2):65–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Block R, Bernasco W (2009) Finding a serial burglar’s home using distance decay and origin destination patterns: a test of empirical Bayes journey-to-crime estimation in the Hague. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 6(3):187–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D (2007) Mapping murder: the secrets of geographical profiling. Virgin Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D (2009) Developments in geographical offender profiling: commentary on bayesian journey-to-crime modelling. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 6:161–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Hammond L (2006) A comparison of the efficacy of different decay functions in geographical profiling for a sample of US serial killers. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 3:91–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Hammond L (2007) Prioritising burglars: comparing the effectiveness of geographical profiling methods. Police Pract Res 8(4):371–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Hodge S (2000) Criminal’s mental maps. In: Turnball LS, Hallisey-Hendrix E, Dent BD (eds) Atlas of crime. Oryx Press, Phoenix, pp 187–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Larkin P (1993) The environmental range of serial rapists. In: Canter D, Alison L (eds) Criminal detection and the psychology of crime. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Shalev K (2008) Putting crime in its place: psychological process in crime site location. In: Canter D, Youngs D (eds) Principles of geographical offender profiling. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Youngs D (eds) (2008a) Principles of geographical offender profiling. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Youngs D (eds) (2008b) Applications of geographical offender profiling. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Youngs D (2009) Investigative psychology: offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D, Coffey T, Huntley M, Missen C (2000) Predicting serial killers’ home base using a decision support system. J Quant Criminol 16(4):457–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanzo CM, Halperin WC, Gale N (1986) Criminal mobility and the directional component in journeys to crime. In: Figlio R, Hakim S, Rengert G (eds) Metropolitan crime patterns. Willow Tree Press, Monsey

    Google Scholar 

  • Duin R (1976) On the choice of the smoothing parameters for parzen estimators of probability density functions. IEEE Trans Comput C-25(11):1175–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emeno K, Bennell C (2011) The effectiveness of calibrated versus default distance decay functions for geographic profiling: a preliminary examination of crime type. Psychol Crime Law. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.621426

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwill A, Alison L (2005) Sequential angulation, spatial dispersion and consistency of distance attack patterns from home in serial murder, rape and Burglary. Psychol Crime Law 11(2):161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond L (2009) Spatial patterns in serial crime: modelling offence distribution and home-crime relationships for prolific individual offenders. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: University of Liverpool

  • Hammond L, Youngs D (2011) Decay functions and criminal spatial processes: geographical offender profiling of volume crime. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 8(1):90–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries K, Le Beau J (2007) Issues in the geographic profiling of crime: review and commentary. Police Pract Res 8(4):321–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitner M, Kent J (2009) Bayesian journey to crime modelling of single and multiple crime type series in Baltimore County, MD. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 6:213–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitner M, Kent J, Oldfield I, Swoope E (2007) Geoforensic analysis revisited—the application of newton’s geographic profiling method to serial burglaries in London, UK. Police Pract Res 8(4):359–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine N (2002) Crimestat II: spatial modeling. Report for the US Department of Justice, August 13th, 2002

  • Levine N (2005) CrimeStat III. Crime Mapping News. 7(2), Spring. 8–10

  • Levine N (2009) Introduction to the special issue on bayesian journey-to-crime modelling. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 6(3):167–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine N, Block R (2011) Bayesian journey to crime estimation: an improvement in geographic profiling methodology. Prof Geogr 63(2):213–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine N, Lee P (2009) Bayesian journey-to-crime modelling of juvenile and adult offenders by gender in Manchester. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 6:237–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundrigan S, Canter D (2001) Spatial patterns of serial murder: an analysis of disposal site location choice. Behav Sci Law 19:595–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundrigan S, Czarnomski S (2006) Spatial characteristics of serial sexual assault in New Zealand. Aus NZ J Criminol 32(2):218–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunez-Garcia J, Kutalik Z, Cho K-H, Wolkenhauer O (2003) Level sets and minimum volume sets of probability density functions. J Approx Reason 34(1):25–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parzen E (1962) On the estimation of a probability density function and mode. Annal Mathem Stat 33:1065–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen DJ (2004) Geographic profiling: Hype or hope?—preliminary results into the accuracy of geographic profiling software. Paper presented at the UK Crime Mapping Conference, London, UK

  • Paulsen D (2005) Connecting the dots: assessing the accuracy of geographic profiling software. Polic Int J Police Strat Manag 29(2):306–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen D (2006) Human vs. machine: a comparison of the accuracy of geographic profiling methods. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 3(2):77–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich T, Shively M (2004) A methodology for evaluating geographic profiling software: final report. Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich T, Shively M, Adedokun L (2004) NIJ roundtable for developing an evaluation methodology for geographic profiling software. Abt Associates, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossmo DK (2000) Geographic profiling. CRC Press, LLC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith W, Bond JW, Townsley M (2009) Determining how journeys-to-crime vary measuring inter- and intra-offender crime trip distributions. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Gerben J, Bruinsma N (eds) Putting crime in its place. Filiquarian Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Snook B (2004) Individual differences in the distances travelled by serial burglars. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 1:53–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Snook B, Canter DV, Bennell C (2002) Predicting the home location of serial offenders: a preliminary comparison of the accuracy of human judges with a geographic profiling system. Behav Sci Law 20:109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snook B, Taylor PJ, Bennell C (2004) Geographic profiling: the fast, frugal, and accurate way. Appl Cogn Psychol 18:105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snook B, Zito M, Bennell C, Taylor PJ (2005) On the complexity and accuracy of geographic profiling strategies. J Quant Criminol 21(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PJ, Bennell C, Snook B (2009) The bounds of cognitive heuristic performance on the geographic profiling task. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:410–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonkin M, Woodhams J, Bond JW, Loe T (2010) A theoretical and practical test of geographical profiling with serial vehicle theft in a UK Context. Behav Sci Law 28:442–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen PJ, De Keiser JW (1997) Desisting distance decay: on the aggregation of individual crime trips. Criminology 35(2):505–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen MV, Elffers H, Ruiter S (2011) When to refrain from using likelihood surface methods for geographical offender profiling: an ex ante test of assumptions. J Invest Psychol Off Prof 8(3):242–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren J, Reboussin R, Hazelwood RR, Cummings A, Gibbs N, Trumbetta S (1998) Crime scene and distance correlates of serial rape. J Quant Criminol 14(1):35–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolberg, J. (2005) Data analysis using the method of least squares: extracting the most information from experiments. Springer: ISBN 3540256741

  • Yeung DY, Chow C (2002). Parzen-window network intrusion detectors. Proceedings of the sixteenth international conference on pattern recognition 4: 385–388

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Research Centre for Investigative Psychology, University of Huddersfield, Ramsden Building, Queensgate Campus, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK

    David Canter, Laura Hammond, Donna Youngs & Piotr Juszczak

Authors
  1. David Canter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Hammond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donna Youngs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Piotr Juszczak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Canter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Canter, D., Hammond, L., Youngs, D. et al. The Efficacy of Ideographic Models for Geographical Offender Profiling. J Quant Criminol 29, 423–446 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9186-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9186-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation