Linking crimes
The term ‘Crime Linking’ is used to describe the practice of examining a series of crimes which are likely to be linked, and identifying which offences are likely to have been committed by the same offender or offenders. There are many terms associated with this practice which include; Comparative Case Analysis; Linkage Analysis; Case Linking; Behavioural Linking; Behavioural Analysis; and Crime Linking. There is a variety of ways that different researchers and law enforcement offices carry this out, however, the underlying assumptions are the same.
The practice of linking crimes rest on two main assumptions. Firstly, it is assumed that offenders are consistent in the way that they behave from one crime to another; this is known as Behavioural Consistency. Secondly, it is assumed that the way one offender behaves as a crime scene will be distinct from behaviour carried out by another offender; this is known as Behavioural Distinctiveness.
It is important to give careful consideration to the behaviours which are examined; these cannot be too specific of too general. For example, if a series of thefts were to be analysed it would be unproductive to examine whether goods were taken or not, as this is too general. Conversely, it would not be fruitful to examine behaviours which are specific to a particular crime scene, such as specific goods taken, as this may be dependent upon the context and availability.
Canter & Youngs (2009) have pointed out that crime is a socio-legal concept, meaning an act is defined as a crime by society. Therefore, if we want to understand consistency in criminal actions it is not appropriate to examine these using the legal definitions of these acts. Canter & Youngs (2009) suggest that any investigation into behavioural consistency needs to be based on well-grounded psychological theories. Canter & Youngs also suggest that criminal activity needs to be examined in terms of types of interactions and how these interactions achieve various objectives.
Youngs (2001) investigates behavioural consistency by defining criminal acts in terms of the type of gain they produce. Youngs suggests that it is possible to differentiate offending behaviours using principals proposed by Bandura (1986) in his Social Cognitive Theory. Youngs proposes that whether a particular behaviour occurs or not is determined by whether there is any incentive for the individual to perform it. Bandura (1986) identifies seven fundamental incentives which drive human behaviour and Youngs suggests that three of them are relevant to criminal behaviours. Youngs suggests that the fundamental incentives of Monetary, Power and status, and Sensory can be applied to all types of criminal activities.
Youngs (2001) suggests that the Monetary incentive may be relevant to offending behaviour where the monetary gain is unlawfully taken from others. Youngs proposes that this desire for monetary gain can be extended to the desire for material goods, as such Youngs labels this as Material gains. Offences such as burglary, robbery and fraud could all be defined as having a Material gain. The Power and status incentive refers to the desire to control other people. Youngs labels this as Power gains and suggests this could represent various forms of violent crime. Finally, Youngs proposes that Sensory incentives are based on the desire for pleasurable experiences and the avoidance of aversive experiences, including boredom. Crimes such as drug taking behaviours could be described as having a Sensory gain.
Although this is only one example of linking crime, it shows that it is possible to identify characteristic ways of dealing with the world and relating to other people that is unique to an individual, meaning it is possible to link similar crimes.
