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.
The Theoretical Framework of the Geographic Profiling
Geographic profiling operates in tandem with various theories and models that are the main sources of assumptions and ideas in the methodology. The key theories as Rossmo (2010) suggests the routine activity, the rational choice, and the crime pattern theories. The Routine Activity Theory, for instance, is a subset of the crime opportunity model (Henrys and Brown, 2012). Its core premise is the fact that any crime is rarely affected by social aspects like inequality, unemployment or poverty (Sapp and Horbert, 2014). A classic case from which the theory draws its assumptions is the aftermath of the first world war. Then, the Western countries faced an economic boom in addition to the expansion of the States’ welfare (Felson, 2011). But even then, the crime rates rose at an alarming rate as Felson (2011) observes. A pictorial representation of the theory is here below.
(Retrieved December 12, 2015 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/)
As such, Mburu and Helbich (2015) concludes that the probable reason for such increase lies on the nature of the contemporary society that gives way to crime and facilitates its occurrence. The microcosms of this model define motivated offenders not only as those capable of committing a crime but also those willing to engage in criminal activities (Clarke and Felson, 2013). Likewise, suitable targets may either be objects or persons whom the offenders deem susceptible or attractive. The susceptibility of a particularly suitable target is, however, dependent on the situation and the specific crime (Wortley, 2010). So, the theory postulates that anyone can commit a crime provided the opportunity exists (Simpson, 2010).
Conversely, the Rational Choice theory draws from the utilitarian assumption that man is a reasoning actor. As such, they weigh means and ends in addition to benefits and costs then makes the most informed choice out of the available alternatives (Santos, 2012). As opposed to the previous model, this theory mainly assists in the prevention of situational crimes. The main premise of this theory is that an offender would only commit crimes to meet their specific needs, for instance, money or excitement (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2014). To meet such needs, one may be required to make some irrational and rudimentary decisions depending on the prevailing situation. The following diagram summarizes the choice process from which the model draws its key operational principles.
(Retrieved December 12, 2015 from http://ij-healthgeographics.biomedcentral.com)
In connection with geographic profiling, the rational choice theory outlines some of the major principles of operation. Firstly, it assumes that people are rational actors (Clarke and Felson, 2013). Rationality, in this case, involves the projection and calculation of the outcome of any activity. So, from the calculations, one can choose any behavior they deem fit whether societally unacceptable or otherwise. On that note, the second principle of the theory states that the state through its various mechanisms and institutions is responsible for containing various human actions for the sake of order and societal wellbeing. Finally, the magnitude and swiftness of the punishment are the major determinants in examining the ability of any mechanism aimed at controlling human behavior (Clarke, 2010).
The Geographic Profiling Software
According to Lersch (2009), the inception of the geographic profiling technique has seen several software programs being developed to facilitate the operations. However, the major programs include ‘Rigel’, ‘CrimeStat’, and ‘Dragnet’ all with more or less similarity regarding functionality. Rigel, for instance, is a geographic profiling software workstation incorporating the GIS capability, an analytic engine, visualization tools as well as the data management system (Santos, 2012). In the program, crime locations are noted depending on the address, digitization, and longitude or latitude. But first, the location has to be dismembered according to its type, for example, murder and victim encounter. Theoretical analysis of the crime locations then ensues. A Z-score histogram working alongside the software then evaluates the probable addresses of the suspect. It is from the histogram that the various crimes are classified; that is, it can prioritize sex offenders among other criminals. With the aid of the diagram below, a sample case can be used to better the understanding of how the software operates.
(Retrieved December 12, 2015 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/nij/mapping/ch6_1.html)
The geo-profile above presents an analysis of 32 armed robberies throughout a period estimated at 12 months. Here, the purple colors indicate areas with the lowest likelihood of being an offender’s residence while the yellow and orange shadings in the center are highly likely to harbor a criminal. MacKay (2012) explains that all the three software listed above form a grid over the area then compute the likelihood of the criminal’s base of operations. The output of the software is displayed on the Geographic Information System to pinpoint the streets and various landmarks. On a similar note, Clarke (2010) notes that the application of the geographic profiling software continues to get popular with the advances in the computer mapping techniques.
The Use of Geographic Profiling in UK and Internationally
The greatest manhunt in British history, according to Rossmo (2010) is the operation Lynx. It was the first operation that demonstrated and tested the effectiveness of geographic profiling as a crime prevention and management tool. The police had approximately 12,122 suspects spread throughout a large swathe of the land of 7046km2 (Rossmo, 2010). He further explains that the operation was a test case that would reveal how the various methods could be put to use and examine their level of success away from their theoretical constructs. The search operation went on incessantly for several months but bore fruit on 19th March 1998 following more than 940 hours of painstaking operation (Rossmo, 2010). Clive Barwell was finally taken into custody and charged with the Nottingham rape. Since its maiden application, geographic profiling has found application in most law enforcement institutions in the UK. Among the most recent instance of the geographic profiling includes the investigation of the sequence of arson attacks in the Chester-Le-Street close to Durham as well as in the apprehension of the knife-point robbery offender in South London (Henrys and Brown, 2012). The case is similar throughout the world. Over 725 persons drawn from more than 350 police agencies worldwide have received training on geographic profiling (Wortley, 2010). Some of the police agencies include the FBI, UK’s National Crime Agency, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. China, through the Shandong State Police, have also acquired the Rigel software introducing the technique in the country (Sapp and Horbert, 2014). Agreeably, geographic profiling has changed the way the world tackles serial crime. The technique informs how a surfeit of problems are addressed and managed ranging from terrorism to epidemics. In the US’s state of Texas, for instance, the Rigel software has found another unlikely application.
The institution, in collaboration with the US Border Control, is using the software to manage and control illegal immigration (Mburu and Helbich, 2015). O’Grady (2011) adds that the contemporary military analysts also use geographic profiling to identify enemy locations so as to curb rocket-propelled grenade invasions in Afghanistan. In medicine, the method has been used to study cholera in London as well as malaria in Cairo (Mburu and Helbich, 2015). In both studies, it was agreed that geographic profiling is a critical instrument of control strategies for infectious illnesses as it improves targeting of the interventions. From the preceding evaluation, it is apparent that the method is not only used in criminology but has a host of other uses throughout the world. The benefits and merits of GP make it the most preferred over the methods of measuring spatial central tendency (Mburu and Helbich, 2015).
Importance of GP in Criminology
This is the basis of the discussion. Through the discussion, one will be able to determine whether the central claim above holds water. At this point, though, the entire geographic profiling process has been overviewed, and its criticalness is clear. A geographic profile assists the investigation process in two ways. Firstly, it helps in prioritizing information that is relevant to the investigation. The searches conducted on the database, suspects, and the leads may then be ranked by the correct location the data is matched on the geographic profile (Holmes and Holmes, 2014). As such, those suspects residing on the upper contour are investigated before those at the next highest contour. Also, database searches are narrowed to the respective addresses within the uppermost contours. Secondly GP also assists in the efficient allocation of the available resources as well as the extension of the limited resources. By focusing on the particular highest probability sections, the criminal agencies can canvas certain neighborhoods thereby increasing their success rate (Canter, 2013).
Precisely, geographic profiling relies on the two chief assumptions previously stated. As a recap, the first assumption dictates that the set of offenses, in this case, are of a similar series. The validation of the assumption, therefore, depends on the various police strategies and methods. It is from the police strategies employed that a conclusion will be drawn whether the particular crimes are a doing of the same person. The second postulation gives an accurate geographic modeling aimed at showing the proximity of the crime sites with respect to the committed offenses. Also, the valid modeling also gives the type of the offender and the location of study. In this manner, the geographical profiling technique connects the geographical features of the offense with the certain propensities of the criminals. The technique there efficiently and effortlessly assists in determining how the criminals choose their victim as well as the location for their actions. The resultant map is a clear pictorial representation of the area of the criminal activity. But as already discussed, the crime locations belie a particular rational choice as the Rational Choice Theory dictates. It is on such grounds that the investigators will be able to track and ultimately apprehend the offender at his place of residence. Another major advantage of the geographical profiling method is its flexibility. The technique can be twitched and manipulated to fit any scale of investigation. When necessary, geographical profiling can be adjusted to match a global scale of investigation and vice versa. Even then, Brantingham and Patricia (2011) observes that most of the geographical profiling activities, thus far, happen at medium scale. The area of crime is always estimated to cover relatively tiny areas like single buildings, neighborhoods or cities. Still, within a building, geographical profiling can still be applied to determine, for instance, whether the crime happened in the kitchen, the bedroom of the elevator (Simpson, 2010). Offender locations are never certain, and it cannot be taken that an offender will stay mobile after or before committing a crime.
While some criminals may choose to stay in particular areas, others will travel longer distances to commit the crime (Sapp and Horbert, 2014). The rational choice theory predicts that this kind of choice depends on how the offender would want their activity to be perceived by the public. Also, it is intended to make tracking of the criminal challenging to the investigators (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2014). The likelihood of a criminal being mobile or stationery depends on the predatory motivations, the suitable mode of ambush, means of transportation and the sense of individual security (Lersch, 2009). On that note, Henrys and Brown (2012) concludes that the more crimes an offender can commit successfully makes them feel better about their deeds, and they would want to expand their territory of action. In summary, geographic profiling eases the investigation in a glut of ways. It helps with the selection of the most suitable strategy for investigation, running searches on the DNA (MacKay, 2012) and other databases, among other benefits previously listed. The right number of resources allotted for any investigative procedure are, therefore, exact, and no wastefulness may occur. As such Wortley (2010) explains that majority of the law experts have expressed confidence in the outcomes of the geographic profiling as opposed to the other traditional methods of investigation.
Drawbacks of Geographic Profiling relative to those of the Traditional methods
Even though geographic profiling has proven its worth as a tool for criminal investigation, it has some setbacks. The technique focuses only on the spatial behavior of the serial criminals. It would, therefore, disregard other important aspects of the investigation. Apparently, geographic profiling is unable to differentiate between several criminals operating in the same region with the same modes of operation (Canter, 2013). In such a case, a wrong suspect could be apprehended for a crime they did not commit. However, experts argue that regardless of the crime, the apprehended criminal still committed an offense. The argument is controversial as it may lead to, say, a maximum life sentence for someone who did not deserve that magnitude of punishment. Besides, justice is not served in this scenario. Finally, no computer system, despite its sophistication, is a hundred-percent efficient (Mburu and Helbich, 2015). Rigel, for instance, would not be able to analyze all the information drawn from a series of crimes. It is advisable to use more than one software and average the results for improved accuracy and efficiency. Determining the efficiency of the geographic profiling is not only done by highlighting its operational merits. Such an examination can also be done by comparing the demerits of these methods. Criminal profiling that is a traditional profiling method focuses on educated assumptions (Felson, 2011). As such, one the offender is out of the profile, they can easily get away with the offense as the investigators will only concentrate on the assumed profile. Instead of educated assumptions, geographic profiling narrows down and pinpoints the exact location of residence of the criminal. Traditional methods are also based on general assumptions that have, in most cases, turned out untrue (Clarke, 2010). For example, a serial rapist must not always be single, and a bank robber is not necessarily poor as beheld by the assumptions. Such stereotypes may lead to the apprehension and prosecution of the wrong individuals at the expense of justice.
So, in all dimensions, geographic profiling is more efficient and effective compared to the traditional methods. Away from the systems such as the CGT by Rossmo, other systems like the GPS, local police databases, and even the digital photography invaluably aids police investigations (Simpson, 2010). The spatial analysis that is the product of geographic profiling gives the investigators and edge over the criminals. It also simplifies the investigation process and cuts on the time spent on investigation, therefore, makes the prosecution happen within the shortest time (MacKay, 2012). On that note, O’Grady (2011) notes that the chief advantage of geographic profiling is that reduces the wastage of effort, time and resources by directing the investigators to the most likely region of the residence of the offender. Instead of using the available resources over a large area marred by uncertainties, the police investigators can now channel their time and resources to a narrower location from which they are likely to find the offender. Geographic profiling completely erases guesswork from the investigation process.