Many people have encountered the terms “criminal signature” and “modus operandi” either on the news or in detective novels. Few, however, know that the two notions are not identical. While both terms are used to describe criminal behavior, each of them has a distinctive set of characteristics (Offender’s signature vs. Modus Operandi, 2011). Every crime has a modus operandi, and a criminal signature, unique to the criminal that committed it. This distinction is used when analyzing criminals during police investigations, in order to understand how criminals operate and what motivates them (Offender’s signature vs. Modus Operandi, 2011). These concepts are extensively used in modern criminology and victimology, and are particularly useful when investigating serial killers and rapists. This paper will cover the definitions of both terms, highlight key differences between them, describe the background and key driving forces behind modus operandi and criminal signature, and give the examples of both.
Definitions
Modus Operandi, or method of operation, describes conscious and deliberate actions taken by the criminal in order to commit a particular crime. It includes preparations and usage of items and tools, sequences of actions, times and dates of actions, etc. Modus operandi typically varies from one crime to another, since it includes actions tailored for particular situations (Modus Operandi definition, 2016). For example, modus operandi of a criminal during a kidnapping may include the use of a gag to control the victim and prevent calling for help. Other examples include the use of gloves to avoid fingerprints, choosing to pursue victims after dark, or using a particular weapon to commit the crime. While the pattern may remain the same, it is prone to evolving as the criminal adapts to the changing circumstances and becomes more proficient in what he or she is doing. Thus, the main driving force behind modus operandi is the necessity, which depends on a criminal’s intellectual and physical characteristics, as well as on the availability of resources (Modus Operandi definition, 2016).
Criminal signature describes traits and elements of the crime scene that are largely unnecessary to the commitment of the crime, and serve for the criminal’s emotional or psychological gratification as a personal imprint (Offender signature, 2016). These rarely change throughout repetitive cases and are often useful in studying and understanding the psychology of the perpetrator. In addition, this can be used to recognize whether or not the same criminal committed crimes. An example of a criminal signature includes the level of the victim’s injury – some criminals are meticulously accurate in their attacks, while others prefer to mutilate the victim. Leaving a note or an object at the crime scene, and collecting personal items from victims can also be used to form a crime signature for a particular criminal. Thus, the core motivations behind a criminal signature are strictly emotional (Offender signature, 2016).
Key Similarities and Differences
Using the definitions given above, it is possible to outline a list of similarities and differences between the two notions:
Similarities:
- Defining Modus Operandi and criminal signature of a criminal is significant and useful in linking crimes one to another.
- Both definitions include actions performed by the criminal during the crime (Criminal signature vs. MO Venn diagram, 2016).
Differences:
- Modus Operandi includes deliberate actions committed by the criminal in order to accomplish his or her crime, while actions that define a criminal signature are motivated by the mental and emotional state of the criminal rather than a deliberate agenda (Criminal signature vs. MO Venn diagram, 2016).
- Actions included in Modus Operandi develop over time, are suited to particular crimes and are subject to change, while the criminal signature is more akin to a ritual that is repeated during every crime and is rarely, if ever, changed (Criminal signature vs. MO Venn diagram, 2016).
- Modus Operandi typically includes actions that are necessary for the completion of the crime, while criminal signature describes actions that are unnecessary, and serve only for the criminal’s emotional and psychological gratification (Criminal signature vs. MO Venn diagram, 2016).
Modus Operandi and Criminal Signature in an Example Case
In order to demonstrate the importance of identifying Modus Operandi and criminal signature, let us review the famous case of Nathaniel Code, Jr., of the year 1989. Between years 1984 and 1987, Nathaniel Code murdered a total of 8 Afro-Americans (Douglass & Munn, 2013). This case is very informative, since the criminal’s Modus Operandi changed from one murder to another, while his criminal signature remained the same. This allowed connecting all three murders one to another and establish the culprit.
In all three cases, the offender gagged the victim. During the first murder, he used a piece of cloth he found on the site. However, after evaluating his first experience, Cole concluded that it would be better to come prepared. He brought duct tape for his next two crimes (Douglass & Munn, 2013). The criminal’s attacks also differed from one another. The first victim died from repetitive stabbing and slashing, while the other victims were shot or strangled. The criminal’s victims were from 8 to 74 years old (Douglass & Munn, 2013). The only part in common about them was that they were all Afro-American. In addition, the offender robbed the house in one case but abstained from it in the other two. In some cases, the murderer turned on TV sets, radios, and air conditioners, to suppress the screams and sounds of gunshots. In his second and third attacks, the man shot the adults first, as they represented a threat to him, and did not waste bullets on the children. After the first attack, he controlled the victims by separating them in different rooms. As it is possible to see, Nathaniel’s Modus Operandi was very irregular – his attack patterns did not match, his victims were seemingly chosen at random, and his motivation seemed to change from one assault to another. However, there were also some similarities spotted, such as the use of a gag or duct tape to silence the victim (Douglass & Munn, 2013).
However, the analysis of criminal signature showed a different picture. In all three cases, the assailant used excessive force in order to kill and mutilate his victims. All victims were forced to kneel on the floor and look away, which indicated that the criminal enjoyed expressing dominance over them. He even forced the mother to witness her daughter’s death – this was determined by finding the daughter’s bloodstains on the woman’s clothes (Violent crime scene analysis, 2010). The overkill witnessed in all 8 victims likely happened due to the victim doing something that further incited the criminal’s rage. Although some of the victims were female, there were no indications of sexual assault, which means that the criminal was motivated by rage rather than lust and desire for sexual gratification (Violent crime scene analysis, 2010). In order to restrain his victims, he used electrical cords and wires found on the site, instead of bringing a rope or using his duct tape. This indicated that using electrical cords was part of a ritual of some sort, and was psychologically appeasing to the criminal (Violent crime scene analysis, 2010).
The analysis of criminal signature was one of the factors that convinced the court that Nathaniel Code was guilty of all three attacks. The man was declared guilty.
Conclusion
The concepts of Modus Operandi and criminal signature are important in a criminal investigation. They are useful tools, which allow understanding the criminal and how he operates, as well as linking separate cases to one another. Both factors are extensively analyzed during cases involving serial rapists, robbers, and murderers. Understanding criminals allow the police to predict their next move and prevent even more crimes from happening.
References
Criminal signature vs. MO Venn diagram. (2016). Web.
Douglas, J.E., & Munn, C. (2013). Violent crime scene analysis: Modus Operandi, signature, and staging. Web.
Modus Operandi definition. (2016). Web.
Offender signature. (2016). Web.
Offender’s signature vs. Modus Operandi. (2011). Web.
Violent crime scene analysis: Modus Operandi, signature, and staging. (2010). Web.