Elliot Cooper, Daniel Fuchs Naureen Gharani, Priya Parmar Steven Phillips Homology Assumption in Criminal Profiling

Forensic Psych

Summary The purpose of the study was to find and examine the connections between backgrounds of criminals and the crimes that they commit. Because there have only been a few tests of this assumption it is important totest the extent to which CP (criminal profiling) is supported empirically (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 63). Because the study is archival and not experimental, Doan and Snook pose two questions instead of hypotheses: 1) Can characteristics of crimes in one location be used to classify those in another? 2) Is there any support for the homology assumption (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 63). In the first study, 87 arsons committed from 1991-1995 in Newfoundland, Canada were examined. Thirty nine crime scene characteristics were applied to the four different types of arson (expressive-object, instrumental-object, expressive-person, and instrumental-person) and nine background characteristics were applied to the criminals. The type of arson was determined initially by using Canter et al.s criterion for assigning crimes to types (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 64). A percentage is taken by dividing the amount of criteria for that type present in the crime by the total criteria. If one percentage equals more than the other three combined, then that is the type of crime committed. However, Doan and Snook could not adequately determine the types of arson using this method. There were too many mixed types; what happens when the criterion can not be met. Instead of using the whole equation which was not working, we simply used the largest percentage of crime scene behaviours to assign each criminals crime to a

Elliot Cooper, Daniel Fuchs Forensic Psych Naureen Gharani, Priya Parmar Steven Phillips dominant type of arson (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 64). One of the types (EO) was not used because the sample was too small. Once the type of arson was established, the nine criminal background characteristics were applied to the offender that committed the arson (prior convictions, age, psychiatric treatment, warnings, theft charges, vandalism, burglary charges, assault charges, failure to appear/comply with court [FTC/FTA]) (Doan & Snook, 2008). The results showed that those committing EP type arsons were most likely to have received past psychiatric treatment and FTC/FTA (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 64) and that juveniles without records were more likely to commit IO type arsons (Doan & Snook, 2008). Age played a large role in determining the associations between arson and crime. The difference between criminals who commit expressive and instrumental type arsons appears to be due to differences in the time required to develop criminal history rather than any real differences in backgrounds (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 65). Criminals that committed object and mixed type arsons were just as likely to have any type of previous conviction, be a juvenile, and have had previous warnings (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 70). These findings support the opinion that different types of criminals have different types of backgrounds (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 66). The second study looked at 177 solved robbery cases from 1978-2001. They used the same procedure from the first study, only with different typology. There were three types of robberies: 1) Cowboys, 2) Bandits, 3) and Robins Men. There were fourteen new criminal characteristics including whether or not they are a career criminal, arrests for multiple different charges and the presence of a tattoo. The Robins Men group was

Elliot Cooper, Daniel Fuchs Forensic Psych Naureen Gharani, Priya Parmar Steven Phillips thrown out because there werent enough of them to provide reliable results (Doan & Snook, 2008). They found that Bandits were more likely than Cowboys to have previous incarcerations, arrests for violent behavior, previous weapons arrests, and to have previous robbery arrests (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 68). However, the findings evidenced that there is little support for the homology assumption (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 68).

Strengths and Weaknesses

As a group we really struggled to come up with anything positive to say about the article. The major weaknesses revolve around their use of the data. Initially it was so useless they could not properly conduct their study, and had to modify it very liberally in order to go on. Doan and Snook themselves state that our research should have ceased at this point and that it was liberal and unrealistic (2008, pg. 64). They also had to throw out one type of arson (leaving three) and one type of robbery (leaving only two) which impacted how broad their comparisons could be. For the second study their database of background characteristics do not accurately match the one they were measuring it against which seemed to impact their data. The authors described these variables as not actually existing (Doan & Snook, 2008). The characteristics of the crimes and criminals did not seem to translate well from the U.K. to Canada. Their coding dictionary and arson types were a replication of a British study. It does not seem that British and Canadian criminals are similar enough to

Elliot Cooper, Daniel Fuchs Forensic Psych Naureen Gharani, Priya Parmar Steven Phillips properly apply the British techniques to the Canadian sample. Classifying a sample of arsons fromCanada based on a typology created using a sample of U.K. arsons is not easily accomplished (Doan & Snook, 2008, pg. 64). The only strengths that we can attribute to the article is that it adds to the information pool to assist in further studies and research and that it is consistent with past studies in that they came up with similar results (albeit using liberal methods).

Conclusions

The authors drew the correct conclusions from their results. Points made about their results accurately reflect the data provided. Empirical support for the homology assumption was not found, and the authors faith in it was diminished.

Future Research

For future research, we suggest that studies should be conducted in one country, rather than comparing Canadian data with U.K. characteristics. Building on this however, for a separate study it could be interesting to see if crimes are different according to region (clearly the Canadian and U.K. crimes were) or if there are any similarities. The background characteristics for future studies should be properly reclassified to fit the location. One coding dictionary should be used consistently.

What We Learned

Elliot Cooper, Daniel Fuchs Naureen Gharani, Priya Parmar Steven Phillips

Forensic Psych

We learned that it is relatively difficult to conduct this kind of study with useable data. We also have learned that there is not much support for the homology assumption. Given the past research and this studys futile attempt to find empirical evidence for it, there is strong evidence to support the notion that similar criminals have similar backgrounds.

Work Cited

Doan, B., & Snook, B. (2008). A failure to find empirical support for the homology assumption in criminal profiling. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 23 (2). 61-70. doi: 10.1007/s11896-008-9026-7