Criminal Geographical Profiling

8/3/2019 Criminal Geographical Profiling

1/8

Analysing the offence locations and residential base

of serial arsonists in New Zealand

MICHAEL J. EDWARDS & RANDOLPH C. GRACE

Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract

The purpose of the present paper was to test the applicability of the Canter and Larkin (1993) circle theory of environmentalrange for offending by serial arsonists in New Zealand. Police files for 45 serial arsonists convicted between 1988 and 2003

were obtained, and maps were produced for each offender indicating arson sites as well as the home address at the time ofoffending. Criminal range circles produced according to the Canter and Larkin method encompassed all offences in 84% ofcases, consistent with prior research. Offenders were classified as marauders or commuters depending on whether the homebase was contained within the criminal range circle. Contrary to previous research, a predominant marauder pattern was notfound; the present sample was equally divided between marauders and commuters. Regressions of distance between homebase and furthest offence on the distance between the two furthest offences yielded a slope of 0.93, indicating that formarauder offenders, the home base tended to be situated eccentrically near the circumference of the criminal range circle.No demographic or offence-related variables were found that reliably differentiated between marauders and commuters.Overall, these results suggest that the criminal range circle may provide only limited information for predicting the homebase of serial arsonists in New Zealand.

Psychological profiling is an investigative strategy

used by law enforcement authorities that attempts togenerate a detailed description of an unknown

offender (Bartol & Bartol, 1994; Egger, 1999). From

a practical standpoint, one of the most important

items to help identify an offender is their place of

residence. For serial offenders, the locations of

crimes can provide useful clues regarding the

offenders residence. As a result, geographical

profiling (i.e., analysis of the spatial distribution of

crime sites) has become a focus of research in

forensic psychology (Rossmo, 1997). However,

Australasian research on geographical profiling has

been limited, and there have been no studies to date

conducted within New Zealand.One of the most important assumptions in

geographical profiling is that the selection of offence

sites is related to the residential address or home base

of the offender. Brantingham and Brantingham

(1981) suggested that the everyday behaviour of

offenders (and law-abiding citizens) defined an

activity space. Because individuals return to their

home base or domicile after moving through their

activity space, it is reasonable to expect that mentalrepresentations (cognitive maps) of significant

environmental features would be determined to a

large extent by the location of their home. Thus,

serial offending may reveal a domocentric pattern

with respect to the offenders residential base.

An early pioneering study was conducted by White

(1932, cited in Pyle, 1974), who examined 481 cases

of crime against people and property in Indianapolis.

White analysed distances from the offenders resi-

dence to their offence locations. The study had two

important findings. First, that crimes against people

were committed extremely close to the offenders

home (mean distance of 0.84 miles [1.35 km]); andsecond, that crimes against property were committed

at more considerable distances from the offenders

residence (mean distance of 1.72 miles [2.77 km]).

White suggested that property offenders were more

likely to move out of their neighbourhoods to

commit their crimes, in contrast to those offending

against persons. Whites results were consistent with

Correspondence: R. C. Grace, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand.

E-mail: [email protected]

Australian Psychologist, November 2006; 41(3): 219 226

ISSN 0005-0067 print/ISSN 1742-9544 online The Australian Psychological Society Ltd

Published by Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/00050060600637626


2/8

a later study by Amir (1971), who found that crime

locations of serial rapists in Philadelphia tended to

radiate outward from a fixed point.

Canter and Larkin (1993) proposed an influential

model that is relevant for geographical profiling: the

circle theory of environmental range. They distin-

guished between the criminal range, which is a

region that includes all offence sites of the offender,and the home range, which, similar to the

Brantingham and Brantingham (1981) activity space,

is an area familiar to the offender in which they

operate in all noncriminal activities. Canter and

Larkin assumed that both the criminal range and

home range could be adequately described as circles.

Although there is a variety of ways in which the

criminal range could be specified, Canter and Larkin

suggested a simple procedure: The criminal range

was the circle whose diameter was a line drawn

between the two offence sites furthest apart. They

further proposed two possible models of the spatial

distribution of offending: the commuter and mar-

auder models, which differ in terms of whether or not

the home base is located within the criminal range.

Note that in terms of distinguishing between the

commuter and marauder models the home range

circle does not need to be specified, and Canter and

Larkin did not propose a method for doing so.

As shown in Figure 1, the commuter model

describes the geographical distribution of crime sites

by an offender who travels away from their home

base into another area to commit their offences.

Thus, there is no overlap between the location of the

criminal range and the offenders home base. Notethat this hypothesis does not imply that the criminal

range is unfamiliar to the offender, but rather that it

is an appreciable distance from the area in which he

[sic] habitually operates as a non-offender (Canter

& Larkin, 1993, p. 65).

The second model of the circle theory proposed by

Canter and Larkin (1993) is the marauder model.

According to this model, the offender moves out

from his or her home base to commit crimes and

then returns once the offence is completed, as shown

in Figure 2. The offence sites tend to be distributed

systematically around the home base, and there is

significant overlap between the home range and

criminal range. Thus, the marauder model implies a

relationship between the offence locations and theoffenders home, and suggests that the geographical

distribution of crimes may provide information about

the home base.

Canter and Larkin (1993) provided support for

their theory based on a study of 45 serial rapists in

London, who had committed an average of 5.6

offences each. They found that for 91% of the

offenders, all the crime sites were contained within

the criminal range circle constructed as described

above. This suggests that serial rapists may operate in

a limited geographic area, in accord with the circle

theory of environmental range. They also found that

39 (87%) of these offenders lived within the

proposed circle, consistent with the marauder model.

Canter and Larkin (1993) formulated an addi-

tional extension of the circle theory: the home range

hypothesis. They proposed that if criminals are

offending within a circular criminal range, and that

their home base is within this proposed area, it might

be possible to make some further generalisations

about the relative location of their home base within

the criminal range. Thus, the home-range hypothesis

applies only to those offenders whose criminal

behaviour is consistent with the marauder model.

The procedure developed for the home rangehypothesis concerns the relationships between two

variables: the distance between the two furthest

Figure 1. The commuter model of spatial behaviour (Adapted

from Canter & Larkin, 1993).

Figure 2. The marauder model of spatial behaviour (Adapted from

Canter & Larkin, 1993).

220 M. J. Edwards & R. C. Grace


3/8

offence sites (X) and the distance between the

furthest offence site and the offenders home base

(Y). If the home base is situated at the centre of the

criminal range, then the distance from the home base

to the furthest offence location would be half of the

maximum distance of those two furthest offences.

Thus, for a sample of marauder offenders, a

regression of maximum distance between offencesites (X) on a maximum distance from the offenders

home (Y) will have a slope between 0.50 and 1.00. A

slope near 0.50 would imply that the home base is

typically situated in the center of the circle, whereas a

slope close to 1.0 would imply that the home base is

eccentrically placed near the circumference of the

proposed circle. Canter and Larkin (1993) found

that the distance between the two furthest locations

and maximum distance from the home base to an

offence site produced a strong positive correlation,

r0.93, p50.001. The regression equation was

y0.84x 0.61, suggesting that the home base was

eccentrically placed near the circumference and

unlikely to be close to the centre. Moreover, Canter

and Larkin noted that the average minimum distance

travelled per offender was 1.53 miles (2.46 km),

which is greater than the constant term in the

regression (0.61 miles; 0.98 km). This suggests that

offenders may have a buffer zone or a minimum

distance that they are willing to travel to commit an

offence. Overall, Canter and Larkins work is

important because it suggests that serial offending

for a presumably impulsive crime such as rape may

be described in terms of systematic geographic

relationships, and that the majority of offenders areadequately characterised by the marauder model.

A limited number of follow-up studies have found

additional support for the circle theory of environ-

mental range with other types of offenders.

Lundrigan and Canter (2001) analysed the body

disposal sites selected by 126 U.S. and 29 British

serial killers convicted since 1960. They found that

the offenders lived within the criminal range circle in

89% and 86% of the American and British cases,

respectively. Kocsis and Irwin (1997) studied serial

rapists, arsonists, and burglars in Australia (N24,

22, and 27, respectively). Most offenders in each

group lived in city or metropolitan areas. They foundthat the criminal range circle encompassed all

offending for 79%, 82%, and 80% of each sample,

respectively. The home base was located inside the

criminal range for 71%, 82%, and 48% of cases,

indicating that the marauder model described the

majority of serial rapists and arsonists. Burglars,

however, were equally likely to be marauders or

commuters. This suggests that geographical pattern-

ing might not be the same for all types of offenders,

and so the utility of the circle theory may be limited.

Because this result was based on a relatively small

sample size, Kocsis, Cooksey, Irwin, and Allen

(2002) examined the offences committed by a larger

sample of burglars (N58) in four rural Australian

towns. Similar to the Kocsis and Irwin (1997)

results, only 50% of offence distributions were

consistent with the marauder model. They also

examined a number of potential demographic

correlates (e.g., gender, ethnicity), but found thatnone was reliably associated with marauder versus

commuter offence patterns.

Overall, prior research suggests that the circle

theory of environmental range and the marauder

model in particular may apply to different types of

serial crime, including rape, arson, and murder.

Burglary appears to be different, perhaps because it is

a crime for which the motivation is generally

instrumental (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler,

1992). Nevertheless, the number of studies examin-

ing the predictions of the Canter and Larkin (1993)

model is still relatively small and so its generality may

be limited. Thus, the present study examined the

geographical patterning of fires set by serial arsonists

in New Zealand. This country likely represents a

different profile in terms of environmental and

geographic factors that impinge on offending beha-

viour compared to prior research, which has studied

offenders in primarily urban (Canter & Larkin, 1993;

Kocsis & Irwin, 1997) or rural (Kocsis et al., 2002)

areas. Parks and nature reserves are relatively

common within even urban environments in New

Zealand, offering many potential targets for arso-

nists. Moreover, the present sample was nationwide

and thus more heterogeneous in terms of a mixtureof urban and rural environments. Finally, in addition

to testing the predictions of the circle theory of

environmental range and the marauder model, we

were also interested to determine whether there were

any reliable correlates with marauder versus com-

muter offending patterns.

Method

Data sample

Official records of all arsonists convicted between

January 1988 and June 2003 were obtained from theNew Zealand Police and Fire Service. We selected

the 45 most recent serial arson offenders for

inclusion in the study. Participants were required to

be 14 years or older at the time of their first arson

offence. In addition, each offender must have

committed a minimum of three arson offences, and

had no regular prior contact with the targets before

committing the offence. The offenders had to reside

at a fixed home base for at least a minimum of two

arson offences. Eight offenders who were identified

as having no fixed home base were excluded from the

Serial arsonists 221


4/8

study. After the maps had been constructed, we

discovered that one offender had been acting as a

hired torch for another person who had selected

the targets. This offender was excluded from the

study, leaving a final sample size of 44.

All participants were required to have committed

their multiple arson offences within the specified

international criteria that define serial offences(Douglas et al., 1992). That is, the offender must

have committed at least three arsons, successive

offences had to have been committed on separate

days (24-hr time frame), and no more than 52 weeks

apart. The first wave of serial offences at their first

home base was used for the study. If an offender

committed multiple offences before and after 2 years

in prison, then the first phase of serial offences was

used for that offender. Serial offending was deter-

mined by the offence dates and times as identified on

offenders records. If the offender had committed

spree (i.e., multiple fires, different locations, within a

24-hr time frame) or mass (i.e., multiple fires,

same location, within a 24-hr time frame) offences

on a particular day, the first offence was identi-

fied and used for the study, with the remaining

offences excluded from the study. The majority

of the offenders in this sample (72%) were serial-

only offenders. The offenders address at the time

of the arsons was recorded, as well as each offence

site.

Once the sample had been identified, contact was

made with various police stations in order to access

file information for the offenders. The police files

supplied information such as the gender, ethnicity,age, police districts where the serial arsons had been

committed, arson charges, sentences imposed, occu-

pation, previous criminal convictions, marital status,

accomplices involved, total number of arsons, other

offences, and the type of arsons committed.

When the home base and all offence locations had

been identified by street address for the sample, the

New Zealand Fire Services computerised geo-

graphic information system was used to construct

the maps. For each offender, home base and offence

sites were located in terms of gridpoint coordinates.

Once the point coordinates were encoded, straight-

line distances from the home base to each offencewere computed and later converted into travelling

kilometres.

Procedure

For each offender, a map was printed on an A3-sized

sheet, with home base and offence site locations

marked. In some cases (such as walkways in wildlife

reserves) the site locations were plotted at the

midpoint of the target pathway or street. The

criminal range was then determined according to

the Canter and Larkin (1993) method by measuring

the distance in millimetres between the two furthest

offence sites using a standard ruler. A circle was

drawn using this distance as the diameter. Next, we

assessed how many offence sites for each offender

were contained within the proposed criminal range

circle, and whether the home base was located within

the circle. Cases where the home base or offence sitesfell on the circumference of the criminal range were

counted as being within the circle. If the home base

fell within the circle the offender was classified as

a marauder; otherwise they were designated a

commuter.

The Canter and Larkin (1993) home range

hypothesis was tested using the group of offenders

classified as marauders. This required obtaining the

distance between the two furthest offence sites (X)

and the distance between the home base and the

offence site furthest from the home base (Y) for each

marauder. Distances were measured as straight lines

in millimetres and converted to kilometres. The

home base to furthest offence site distances were

then regressed on the distances between the two

furthest offence sites.

All statistical tests used the .05 significance level.

Results

Of the 44 arsonists in the sample, 39 (89%) were

male and five (11%) were female. Thirty-eight (86%)

were Caucasian ethnicity and six (14%) were Maori.

The average age at the time of apprehension was 25

years (range: 14 52 years; SD9.10). The 44arsonists committed a cumulative total of 214 arson

offences, with the mean arson series analysed

comprising 4.86 offences (range: 3 14; SD2.91).

Offences were committed in police districts across

New Zealand. Twelve arsonists committed their

offences in Wellington, 10 in Christchurch, five in

Central (Taumarunui, New Plymouth, Palmerston

North), three in North Shore (Waitakere), Auckland

City, Waikato, Eastern (Hastings, Gisborne), two

in Counties Manukau, and one each in Northern

(Whangarei), Bay of Plenty, Tasman (Nelson,

Blenheim), and Southern (Dunedin, Invercargill).

One offender committed arsons in the police districtsof both Auckland City and Waikato. The district

with the most offenders was Wellington (n12).

First, we tested the circle theory of environmental

range by determining the number of offenders for

which all offence sites were contained in the criminal

range. The criminal range encompassed all offence

sites in 37 of 44 cases. This percentage (84%) is

similar to that obtained in previous studies and

provides additional evidence that the Canter and

Larkin (1993) assumption that criminal range can be

described in terms of a circle is valid.



5/8

Next we determined the number of cases for which

the home base fell within the criminal range. Visual

inspection of the maps indicated that the offenders

home base fell within the criminal range in 22 out of

44 cases (50%). This percentage is smaller than

those previously reported by Canter and Larkin

(1993) and Kocsis and Irwin (1997), and indicates

that offenders choice of arson locations were equallylikely to be described in terms of the marauder and

the commuter models.

The Canter and Larkin (1993) home range

hypothesis was tested using results from those

offenders who were classified as marauders. The

first prediction of the home range hypothesis is that

the distance between the offenders home base and

the furthest offence (Y) has a strong positive

correlation with the distance between the two

furthest offences (X). Figure 3 shows a scatterplot

of the distances between the home base and

the furthest offence, and the distance between

the two furthest offences. The correlation was

r0.99, p5 .001, consistent with the home range

hypothesis.

The second prediction was that the regression

equation for X and Y will have a slope between 0.50

and 1.00. A slope near 0.50 indicates that the home

base tends to lie near the centre of the criminal

range, whereas slopes near 1.0 mean that the home

base tends to be close to the circumference. The

regression equation was Y0.35 0.93X. This

indicates that the home range generally lies within

the criminal range circle, but suggests that it is not

close to the centre but tends to be eccentricallyplaced near the circumference of the circle, similar to

the Canter and Larkin (1993) results.

Visual inspection of Figure 3 indicates that there

are three outliers that might have an undue influence

on the regression parameters. Thus, we repeated the

analysis with these points removed. The resulting

regression equation was Y0.040.79 X. Although

there was some decrease in the slope, it still indicates

that the home base tended to be nearer the

circumference than the centre of the circle.We also examined whether there was evidence for

a safety area or buffer zone around the home base.

Existence of a safety area would be suggested by a

constant term in the regression that is positive but

less than the average minimum distance of offence

sites from the home base. The average minimum

distance of offences from the home base for these

offenders was 0.51 km. The constant terms of

0.35 km and 0.04 km in the regressions reported

above are less than the average minimum offence

distance. This is evidence for a minimum distance

that an arsonist is willing to travel to commit their

offences from their home base. These results are

consistent with the Brantingham and Brantingham

(1981) proposed buffer zone around the marauding

offenders residential base.

Examination of New Zealand Police records

established that the offenders in the study did have

a home base at the time of their offences, and in

every serial episode except one (an offender who

committed arsons in two police districts) their home

address was in the same police district as their

offence locations. Using straight-line distances it was

found that 82% of the offenders set fires within 5 km

of their home address, and 68.5% of offences(pooled across offenders) occurred within 5 km of

the home. The mean travelling distances from the

Figure 3. Scatterplot of the relationship

between distance of the two furthest

offence sites and distance between the

offenders home and furthest offence site.

The line is the best-fitting regression

equation, Y0.35 0.93X.



6/8

home base to the offence sites was 6.63 km, with a

standard deviation of 10.71 km. Across the sample,

the minimum distance travelled was 0.00 km and the

maximum was 66.01 km.

We investigated whether there were any demo-

graphic or offence-related variables that might be

correlated with the commuter versus marauder

offending pattern. However, the two offender groupsdid not differ significantly on any of the variables. For

marauders and commuters, respectively, the average

age (in years) was 26.32 and 23.68, t(42)0.96, n.s.;

the average sentence imposed (months of imprison-

ment) was 20.23 and 20.00, t(42)0.03, n.s.; the

average number of arsons committed in the serial

episode was 5.36 and 4.36, t(42) 1.14, n.s.; and the

average number of total convictions in their criminal

history (i.e., including crimes other than arson) was

25.95 and 43.91, t(42) 1.15, n.s. Marauders and

commuters were equally likely to be male (91% vs.

86%, respectively, w20.23, n.s.), to be Caucasian

rather than Maori ethnicity (82% vs. 91%, w20.77,

n.s.), to be single rather than married or in a de facto

relationship (91% vs. 77%, w20.89, n.s.), to have

committed their offences alone rather than with an

accomplice (41% vs. 59%, w21.45, n.s.), and to

have set fires to vegetation and bush rather than to

man-made structures and objects (e.g., schools,

houses, vacant buildings, rubbish bins, etc; 36% vs.

32%, w20.10, n.s.).

Finally, we examined whether the population of

the community in which the offender lived, differed

for marauder- versus commuter-type offenders. The

home bases represented a wider range of urban andrural locations than previous studies, and it is

possible that the failure to find a predominant

marauder pattern might depend on this variation.

Population data were obtained from the 2001 census

(Statistics New Zealand, 2001). However, the

correlation between marauder versus commuter

and population was not significant, Spearmans

r0.21, n.s. Thus, we could find no demographic

or offence-related variable that was correlated with

the marauder versus commuter pattern.

Discussion

The present study tested whether the circle theory of

environmental range proposed by Canter and Larkin

(1993) was applicable to serial arsonists in New

Zealand. In particular, we were interested to

determine whether the marauder model, according

to which offenders move away from a fixed home

base to commit their crimes, adequately charac-

terised the majority of crime sites of arsonists, as it

has for every type of serial offender except burglars in

prior studies (Canter & Larkin, 1993; Kocsis &

Irwin, 1997; Kocsis et al., 2002; Lundrigan &

Canter, 2001). We found that circles with a diameter

determined by a straight line between the two

furthest offence sites contained all offences in 84%

of cases. This is comparable to the percentages

reported previously (91% for rapists, Canter &

Larkin, 1993; 79%, 82%, and 70% for rapists,

arsonists, and burglars, Kocsis & Irwin, 1997; and

71% for burglars, Kocsis et al., 2002). Thus, ourdata provide further support for the generality of the

circle theory and its assumption that serial offenders

tend to commit crimes within a well-defined

geographic area.

Offenders were classified as marauders or com-

muters depending on whether the home base fell

within the criminal circle. Contrary to previous

research (Kocsis & Irwin, 1997), offenders were

equally likely to fit the marauder and the commuter

patterns. This result represents the first failure to find

a dominant marauder pattern with serial offenders

other than burglars. It suggests that the utility of the

Canter and Larkin (1993) circle theory and mar-

auder model for geographical profiling may be

limited. In our study, knowing the criminal range

provided no additional information in terms of

predicting the offenders home base.

Canter and Larkin (1993) further specified a home

range hypothesis for those offenders whose crime

sites were consistent with the marauder model. Their

approach involves regressing the distance between

the home base and the furthest offence on the

distance between the two furthest offences. The

slope is interpreted as where the home base is

typically situated relative to the circle, with valuesnear 0.50 indicating a home base near the centre and

values approaching 1.0 suggesting that the home

base is eccentrically placed near the circumference.

Our slope was 0.93, which suggests that the home

base was usually near the circumference. This value

is higher than that obtained in previous studies (0.84

for Canter & Larkin, 1993; 0.77, 0.60, and 0.65 by

Kocsis & Irwin for rapists, arsonists, and burglars,

respectively; and 0.85 by Kocsis et al., 2002),

although when three potential outliers were removed

the slope decreased to 0.79. Whether or not these

outliers are included, the results suggest that for

those offenders consistent with the marauder pat-tern, the criminal range circle provides relatively little

information in terms of predicting the location of the

home base. Given that our sample was equally

divided between marauders and commuters to begin

with, the predictive power of the Canter and Larkin

(1993) model for the present data is clearly limited.

One difference between the current study and

prior research is that our sample was obtained across

a wider geographical range (from Whangarei in the

far north of New Zealand to Invercargill in the deep

south) and there was greater variability in terms of



7/8

offenders residing in urban versus rural areas. Thus,

one possible reason for our failure to find a

consistent geographical pattern in offence site loca-

tions was the hetereogeneity of the New Zealand

environment. From the perspective of environmental

psychology (Stokols, 1995), one would expect that

increased variability across a sample in terms of

population density and features of the natural andman-made landscape would increase the variability

of behaviour.

Presumably there are some factors that influence

whether a serial offenders choice of crime locations

is consistent with a marauder or commuter pattern.

Yet we could find no demographic or offence-related

variable that reliably differentiated between marau-

ders and commuters in our study. However, it is

possible that the failure to find any significant

correlates of geographical patterning may have been

due to a lack of statistical power.

Brantingham and Brantingham (1981) proposed

the existence of a safety zone around the offenders

home base; that is, a minimum distance that he or

she was willing to travel before committing an

offence. Similar to previous studies, we found that

the average minimum distance travelled by the

marauder-type offenders was larger than the inter-

cept in the regression analysis to test the home-

range hypothesis. This suggests that arsonists prefer

to move away from their home base before setting a

fire.

Although we found evidence for a safety zone,

previous research on criminal mobility has shown

that criminals do not travel very far (e.g., just a fewkilometres) from their home base to commit their

offences. A study of arsonists in England by Fritzon

(2001) found that the mean distance travelled from

home to an offence site was 2.06 km. We found that

the average distance travelled was 6.63 km, suggest-

ing that arsonists in New Zealand travelled relatively

longer distances when offending. However, 68.5% of

all the offences occurred within 5 km of the

offenders home base. Thus, the majority of fires

were still started near the offenders home base.

One limitation of the study should be acknowl-

edged. The practice in New Zealand for arson files

held by police is that they are destroyed after 5 yearsif the damage to property or target were less then

$20,000. However, for arsons in which the targeted

property was valued at more than $20,000, files are

stored in archives. Thus, small-time arsonists could

have been underrepresented in this study, because

the available police files would have dated back to

only 1999. Thus our results may be applicable only

to arsonists who commit relatively serious offences.

The Canter and Larkin (1993) circle theory is

based on the two furthest offence sites, which are

used to develop the criminal range of a serial

offender. The effectiveness of the circle theory to

establish the offence region might be improved if

other pertinent features are taken into account.

Features such as topographical and geographical

characteristics could be beneficial when constructing

the criminal range. For example, urban structures,

arterial roads, highways, zoning, land use and rapid

transit stations, bus stops, physical and psychologicalboundaries, and natural barriers such as coastlines

may all be useful when determining the offence

region of the serial arsonist.

Overall, our results suggest that the applicability of

the Canter and Larkin circle theory of environmental

range to offending by serial arsonists in New Zealand

may be limited. Although the criminal range circle

encompassed all offences in the large majority of

cases, the circle provided little information in terms

of predicting the offenders home base. Our sample

was equally divided between marauder and commu-

ter patterns. Of course, no single profiling tool such

as the circle theory will prove decisive in all

investigations. For a successful profiling strategy we

must also use other tools such as pattern analysis of

temporal and target selection, crime scene analysis,

and method of operation. Despite our failure to find

evidence that serial arsonists in New Zealand could

be described as predominantly marauders or com-

muters, the circle theory remains a useful framework

for spatial analysis of offending patterns and addi-

tional research should improve its utility for

investigators in Australasia. For example, future

studies could explore potential correlates of spatial

patterning in serial arsonists, including whetherfactors such as expressive and instrumental motiva-

tions might play a role in determining choice of

offence locations and travelling distances to offend

(Fritzon, 2001).

Acknowledgements

We thank Dave Haslett and Mark Chubb for their

help with this study.

ReferencesAmir, M. (1971). Patterns in forcible rape. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (1994). Psychology and law: Research

and application (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks.

Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1981). Notes on the

geometry of crime. In P. L. Brantingham, & P. L. Brantingham

(Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 27 54). Beverley Hill:

CA Sage.

Canter, D., & Larkin, P. (1993). The environmental range of serial

rapists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 63 69.

Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K.

(1992). Crime classification manual. New York: Lexington

Books.



8/8

Egger, S. A. (1999). Psychological profiling: Past, present,

and future. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 242

261.

Fritzon, K. (2001). Examination of the relationship between

distance travelled and motivational aspects of firesetting

behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 45 60.

Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., Irwin, H. J., & Allen, G. (2002). A

further assessment of the circle theory in psychological

profiling of burglary crimes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35, 17 42.

Kocsis, R. N., & Irwin, H. J. (1997). An analysis of spatial patterns

in serial rape, arson and burglary: The utility of the circle

theory of environment range of psychological profiling.

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 4, 195 206.

Lundrigan, S., & Canter, D. (2001). Spatial patterns of serial

murder: An analysis of disposal site location choice. Behavioral

Sciences and the Law, 19, 595 610.

Pyle, G. F. (1974). The spatial dynamics of crime. (Department of

Geography Research Monograph no. 159). Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago.

Rossmo, D. K. (1997). Geographic profiling. In J. L. Jackson, &

D. A. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research and

practice (pp. 159 176). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Statistics New Zealand (2001). 2001 Census of population and

dwellings - final counts. Retrieved on 30 June 2005 from: http://

www.stats.govt.nz/census/final-counts.htm

Stokols, D. (1995). The paradox of environmental psychology.

American Psychologist, 50, 821 837.


Criminal Geographical Profiling

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Geographical Profiling