Geographic profiling is a methodology of crime investigation that is concerned with analyzing the geographical locations of a network of crimes (Wortley, 2010). According to Santos (2012), the primary goal of this technique is to determine the probable location of residence of the criminal. Additionally, the technique is primarily employed in cases that involve investigation of serial and violent offenses. On the same note, O’Grady (2011) explains that the methodology is one of the information systems whose purpose and design focus on investigations, suspects, and tips, prioritization, and strategy. A case in point is sexual crimes as well as stranger violence. Most of these cases can be complex and would require a more complex and harmonized methodology to unearth its particulars. Brantingham and Patricia (2011) thinks the complexity of the cases arise from the fact that the investigation can result in thousands of suspects and tips that translate into information overload. On that note the authority, chiefly the police, require integrated means of handling and prioritizing the collected data for efficient deployment of the available resources. Geographic profiling is one such methodology that makes use of both the quantitative and qualitative techniques to understand the spatial behavior of a criminal (Clarke, 2010). In this manner, the method reduces the search area to the community as illustrated in the diagram below. The typical application of geographic profiling includes arson, robbery, rape, and bombing among others (Clarke and Felson, 2013). The following discussion seeks to prove that this technique is not only effective but also efficient in terms of resource usage. But majorly, geographic profiling takes advantage of the link that exists between the behaviors of the criminal and their normal life. The diagram below is an illustration of how the technique works. 
(Retrieved December 12, 2015 from http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/maps/pages/gp.aspx)
Development, Assumptions, and Aims
The concept, as Felson (2011) argues, came to be in 1980 following the analysis of the crime scene locations of the Yorkshire Ripper. The police investigator then worked out the ‘center of gravity’ he assumed had a direct connection with the case. Fortunately, the method precisely pointed to the exact location of the offender. From then, a myriad of research works and scientific expeditions have delved into the field not only to learn how it works but also improve it. The major expeditions came ten years later according to Simpson (2010). Among the other outcomes, the research works established that a majority of the crimes happen near the offender’s residence (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2014). Besides, the trip of such crimes follows distance-decay functions. Also, the postulations found out that juvenile criminals move lesser distances in comparison to their adult counterparts. Finally, the crime type is a chief determinant of the pattern of the crime trip distances (Canter, 2013).
In simpler terms, the prime aims and focus of the technique are the geography of the particular offense, case instances, surfaces and how the methodology works. Also, the method concentrates on the hunting behavior of the offender and the target selection, the typology of the site of crime and the child murder jeopardy as well as the connection with linkage analysis according to Holmes and Holmes (2014). Depending on the type of crime, a variety of strategies are applicable. Most of these strategies are compatible with the geographic profiling and include patrol surveillance and saturation, tip prioritization and ZIP Code prioritization (Lersch, 2009). Additionally, mail-out of information requests, searches and canvases, mass DNA screening and address-based tracking can also make use of geographic profiling. Even then, MacKay (2012) notes that geographical profiling does not solve cases but only assists with management of the humongous volumes of information associated with crime investigations.