Modus Operandi and Signature

There are similarities and differences to the Modus Operandi and Signature, all of which are important in linking various crimes to their perpetrators. Notably, these patterns are identified through the criminals’ patterns leading to the completion of the offense, the duration of time taken to plan and complete the crime, and also the acts employed during the crime. Modus Operandi is a Latin term meaning, mode of operation, and it refers to the procedure used by the criminal. While Modus Operandi relates to the tools and techniques, Signature is a unique criminal behavior associated with rituals and fantasies, but both are critical to link a criminal to a crime. 

Modus Operandi: Background 

First, the Modus Operandi applies to criminals whose primary intention is to complete the crime successfully. For this reason, the perpetrator may use different methods to achieve their purpose. For example, in the case of concealing their identity, a criminal might decide to use gloves or clean fingerprints after they are done committing the crime. For Modus Operandi, the criminal uses a deliberate set of actions to commit the crime. Secondly, the criminal will develop their technique over a period to suit the needs of the intended purpose, and finally, the criminal will only engage in a required set of actions to complete the crime. According to Bouhana, Johnson & Porter (2016), Modus Operandi refers to the methodology employed in serving the purpose of committing the crime. It refers to the procedure as indicated by the Latin word which means “Mode of Operation.” Therefore, it is a set of methods, techniques, and behavior that build up the crime. For Modus Operandi, the procedure is most likely to grow as individuals master the art. The term was coined by Constable Atcherley in the 19th century who also identified factors that determine the mode of operation including place of the crime, entry method, and time, mode of transportation, tools, and alibi among others (Douglas &Mann, 1992). The Modus Operandi will evolve by changing these factors to increase their effectiveness and avoid detection. 

Signature (Behavior and Aspect): Background 

Unlike the Modus Operandi, a signature is unique to the criminal, and therefore, it is a constant pattern that remains unchanged throughout their life. Often, such patterns are based on the fantasies of the criminal or a ritual which means that the actions during the crime override the basic needs of completing the offense. Ebisike (2007) argues that the purpose of the Signature is not to merely commit the crime, but rather to fulfill specific emotional and psychological needs for the criminal. Therefore, for the signature, the procedure is rather personal and not intended to avoid detection. Since the actions of the criminal are based on fantasies, the patterns remain consistent, although they may become more refined with time. The fantasies behind these consistent patterns begin during their early development years, and through mental rehearsal, they turn into obsessions (Turvey & Freeman, 2011). Additionally, the criminal forces the victim to coincide with their fantasies. 

Example of Modus Operandi 

A perfect example of Modus Operandi is that Of Nathaniel Code who was convicted of 8 murders in 3 separate occasions in 1989. The jury was positive that Code was guilty in spite of the discrepancies noticed in the three cases between 1984 and 1987. In the first incidence, Code used material from the crime scene to gag the Victim, but he had duct tape for the other three victims. Also, the first victim was stabbed and slashed while the rest had gunshot wounds and had signs of ligature strangulation. Although his victims were all African American, they ranged from the ages of 8 to 74 and included members of both sexes. Such inconsistencies often make it harder to link criminals to crimes, however, for the case of Code, he left his calling card at his last crime scene, thus leading to his arrest (Douglas &Mann, 1992). 

Example of Signature 

An excellent example of a signature is the case of Ronnie Shelton, a serial rapist who was convicted for 28 rape cases although he committed more than 50, earning him over 1,000 years in jail. His signature was manifested in his verbal and sexual patterns. First, Shelton was both vulgar and degrading to his victims by stating that he had seen the victim with their lovers before, for example, “I have seen you with your boyfriend,” which were terrorizing. Sexually, Shelton would vaginally rape his victims before ejaculating on their breasts or stomachs. In other cases, he would ejaculate on his victims multiple times, or force them to give him oral sex before using the victims clothing to wipe off the ejaculation. He was also notorious for having oral sex with his victims and forcing them to swallow his ejaculation (Douglas &Mann, 1992). 

Conclusion 

Modus Operandi can be identified in every criminal activity, but the signature is associated with fantasies and rituals common in serial offenders such as serial killers. Notably, Modus Operandi refers to various factors leading to the execution of a crime, and a criminal alters these factors to improve efficiency and avoid detection and detention. For criminals like Nathaniel Code, the Modus Operandi evolves by improving tools and techniques, but in the case of a signature, criminals like Shelton are hardly concerned about detention, but instead, the fulfillment of psychological needs. The main reason why signatures are hard to change is that they are based on fantasies rehearsed mentally through childhood. As a result, the modus operandi, though significant in crime linkages, it can make it difficult to solve a crime when used as a sole factor. 

References  

Bouhana, N., Johnson, S. D., & Porter, M. (2016). Consistency and specificity in burglars who commit prolific residential burglary: Testing the core assumptions underpinning behavioral crime linkage. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(1), 77-94. 

Douglas, J. E., & Munn, C. (1992). Violent crime scene analysis: Modus operandi, signature, and staging. FBI L. Enforcement Bull., 61, 1.

Ebisike, N. (2007). The Use of Offender Profiling Evidence in Criminal Cases. 

Turvey, B. E., & Freeman, J. (2011). Case linkage: Offender modus operandi and signature.