TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Learning Outcomes
2. Introduction
3. Modus Operandi – Principle
4. The Elements of Modus Operandi
4.1. How Police Use Modus Operandi
4.2. Problems with the Modus Operandi System
5. Modus Operandi and Motive: The Difference
6. Summary
INTRODUCTION
Modus operandi is a Latin phrase, translated as "method of operation”. The term
is use to describe one's procedure of working, particularly in the context of
criminal investigations. It is often abbreviated as M.O. In general, modus
operandi is the behaviour indispensable for the effective commission of a crime.
Douglas & Olshaker (1998) define M.O. as "what an offender has to do to
accomplish a crime."
This expression is often used in police work when talking about a crime and
address in the techniques employed by the offenders. The use of this term is also
made while profiling the criminals, where it can help in finding clues to the
offender's psychology. It typically consists of probing the actions used by the
individual(s) to accomplish the crime, prevent its detection and facilitate escape.
An accused's modus operandi can help in his identification, apprehension, or
repression, and can also be used to determine connections between crimes.
According to Keppel (2005), the term modus operandi emerged first in 1654 in a
section called "Zootmia, because of their causes or their modus operandi" but
didn't make the leap from being a narration of animal behavior to an explanation
of human behaviour until the 1800s when the term started emerging in English
utilitarian literature (e.g., Mill's Logic). In the United States, the same term was
used for a quite some time in patent law to describe the way new inventions in
machinery worked.
By the 1890s, Scotland Yard detectives began keeping modus operandi archives
so that the known behaviour of criminals could be sketched from one district to
another (Fosdick 1916). Over the years, the Scotland Yard Method of record
keeping of modus operandi files was adopted as the method in police science, and
file systems attempted to record the following fundamentals as per the benchmark
set by the Scotland Yard:
1. Classword (the kind of property attacked)
2. Entry (the point of entry)
3. Means (any implements or tools used)
4. Object (kind of property taken)
5. Time (the time of day or any significance about the day)
6. Style (whether the criminal described themself as someone else to gain entry)
7. Tale (any disclosure by the criminal about himself)
8. Pals (whether the crime was committed with confederates)
9. Transport (how the criminal transported himself)
10. Trademark (any unusual behaviour in connection with the crime)
Criminologists have ascertained that, no matter his specialty—burglary, auto-
theft, or embezzling—the skilled criminal is incredibly seemingly to stick to his
explicit approach of operation. If, for instance, a thief begins his career by getting
into houses from the window, he will, altogether, continue this technique for as
long as he's able to work. Some burglars become therefore hooked up to their
routine that they burgle similar places or individuals again and again. It is entirely
because they feel safe in adhering to the same modus operandi, as they feel that
they would never be caught.
The construct of modus operandi then found its means into some applied and
theoretical criminology books like Sutherland's (1947) Principles of Criminology
wherever the subsequent definition was place forward: "Modus operandi is that
the principle that a criminal is probably going to use constant technique
repeatedly, and any analysis or record of that technique utilized in each serious
crime can give a method of identification in a very explicit crime."
The concept that a modus operandi may amend, evolve, or vary slightly from one
crime to another, seems to be a late twentieth century development, and might be
found within the writings of murderer profilers like in, Burgess & Ressler (1992);
Vale (1997); and Gumwood & Michaud (1999). For instance, Olshaker (1998:90)
believed that "it is a learned behavior and gets changed and formed because the
criminal gets superior and superior." One defying this subject would hold that it
looks the foremost amendment, evolution, or variation in routine would occur
with the part of "entry" wherever the bad person changes however they gain entry
upon discovery of additional "hardened targets."
False amendment within the M.O. is additionally attainable, involving the
criminal seeking out a victim of a unique race (or from a unique geographical
area) so as to throw any profilers off. It is well known that if M.O. files were the
sole issue police relied upon, authorities would possibly assume they are looking
for more than one criminal.
Most of the times the method of operation (or MO) is confused with a criminal's
"signature". It is usually observed that the criminal's MO may change over time,
but his or her signature will usually remain the same.

Modus Operandi – Principle

A criminal finds a particular technique in committing a criminal offense effective
and by making use of that technique he will do his "job/crime" while not being
caught, and then he has no reason to vary the strategy utilized by him. In cases of
murder wherever the assassin used the same weapon say a knife, for example and
also the same methodology of committing a criminal offense, like stabbing in the
back, shows that there's only one perpetrator of these cases. There’s a distinct
method in however every criminal functions and it is known as "modus
operandi."
The Elements of Modus Operandi
The criminal’s modus operandi is comprises the learned behaviour that can
progress and develop over time. M.O. is dynamic and always changing with
experience therefore it becomes highly unlikely to find a connection between the
cases using M.O. Modus operandi is not static and gets refined over time as an
offender becomes more knowledgeable, sophisticated and confident. It can also
become less proficient and less dexterous over time, decompensating by the
virtue of a waning mental state, etc.
In either case, an offender’s modus operandi behaviour is functional in nature. It
most often serves:
1. Protection of offender’s identity
2. Successful accomplishment of crime
3. Facilitation of offender’s escape
How Police Use Modus Operandi
Police can use the modus operandi information in apprehending the criminals and
more so in obtaining the investigative leads. The police can find recurring patterns
of crime committance that reveal a criminal's modus operandi. For instance the
point of entry, instruments used, time of the day or night when the crime was
committed and means of transportation used by the offender. By determining
repetitive patterns, the police can exclude criminals from their investigation who
are known to use different methods with a differently demonstrated modus
operandi, as well as can link seemingly irrelevant cases.
Problems with the Modus Operandi System
According to criminal investigation specialists John E. Douglas and Stephen A.
Douglas (former Chief of the inquiring Support Unit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Academy) and Corinne Munn, the procedure conjointly features
variety of drawbacks for investigators putting an extreme amount of implication
thereon.
As recommended by them, the procedure is dynamic; thus, its changes reinforced
the criminal's experiences. As an example, a beginner thief might use force to
interrupt a glass, fearing the noise might alert somebody, he rushes to the property.
The same person, however, having learned from his previous approach, can use
quieter strategies to breakin, to make it seem like a distinct person's act.
Imprisonment is additionally a reason to vary procedure, because the previous
methodology has proved unsuccessful.
Modus Operandi is often regarded equivalent to the "success of crime". The better
the Modus Operandi, more are the chances of success in the committance of
crime. It depends on various factors like:
I. Victim/location selection, means of attack, use of weapon, planning, means of
transport
II. Valuables taken
III. Evidence left behind
Signature is considered to be equal to "needs and patterns of offender", like:
I. Wound patterns, sex acts, means of control, rituals, talk
II. Souvenirs taken
III. Evidence destroyed
The signature is usually referred to as a "trademark" or "calling card" and reflects
a compulsion on the part of criminals to travel on the far side simply committing
the crime to "express themselves" in how that reflects their temperament (not
their whole personality in some psychological sense, however one thing regarding
the addictive, repetitive, or compulsion-oriented a part of their character). The
core of a signature can never amend (Keppel 2005), though it can worsen over
time (e.g., grievance of the victim might increase from victim to victim). Stephen
A. Douglas et al. (1992) regard the signature as communicative of violent
fantasies that progress incrementally over time.
Modus Operandi and Motive: The Difference
Modus operandi and motive are two distinct things.
A criminal is compelled to commit a specific crime for a specific reason; that
reason, be it cash, anger, revenge, power or lust, is his motive. However motive
is a way lot sophisticated than simply providing a 'reason' why a criminal commits
a criminal offense.
For example, even as each individual has his own signature that is proven on
paper once they sign their name; similarly a criminal can have a motive with
behavior that is a 'signature' to them alone.

Fig 1: Reasons for committing crime

So while a murderer in New York may kill out of anger, and another murderer in
Atlanta does the same thing, they will do it differently, with different appealing
'signature behavior.' Their motive will meet a requisite they have say, an
emotional or psychological want. But neither their motive nor their signature
behavior should be puzzled with the technique they use to commit their
criminality. This is because crime methods are known as modus operandi (or
"MO"): they have nothing to do with crime motive.
Modus Operandi (MO): The Method a Criminal Uses to Commit a Crime
If a criminal is inspired by greed to commit robbery, one of his signature
behaviors while at the crime scene could include the slashing of any particular
furniture item in the home. He might be annoyed at a parent or spouse about that
particular furniture item and an argument that resulted about it, so he may act out
in retaliation at each of his robbery crime scenes by slashing that particular
furniture item. This 'signature' would just be a supplementary aspect of his
original motive: a desire to gain money from stealing.
Other burglars would probably not be doing this in the same city, so at each of
this burglar's crime scenes he is leaving police an insight into his motivation. But
none of this is his modus operandi, since none of it is obligatory for the
commission of the offence of burglary.
In other words, he doesn't have to slash that furniture item in order to burglarize
the houses. So anything a criminal doesn't have to do to commit his crime will
not be considered part of his "MO".
Modus operandi pertains only to the method used to commit a crime. It does not
have anything to do with the motive that drives the criminal or the signatures he
might use during the crime, unless they overlap with his MO somehow.
Example of a Modus Operandi
The MO of a particular burglar could be that during the burglary he wears a utility
repairman's outfit to lend credibility for why he is in the neighbourhood. He
would do this in case someone was to question him. This particular MO would
help him to evade capture, since it would be assumed he was present for a
legitimate reason.
Thus, this criminal's motive would be money; his signature behaviour would be
slashing the furniture item, and his MO would be wearing the utility company
uniform when committing the crime.

Summary
Modus Operandi is a process in which an action or procedure is executed by a
person as a matter of habits, etc.
Modus operandi of crime aids to identify the individual behind such crime as
different individuals have their own exclusive way of doing things or executing
crimes.
Modus operandi is the conduct, which is deemed necessary for the effective
commission of a crime. Douglas & Olshaker (1998) define M.O. as "what an
offender has to do to accomplish a crime."
This expression is often used in police work when talking about a crime and
addressing the techniques employed by the offenders. The use of this term is also
made while profiling the criminals, where it can help in finding clues to the
offender's psychology. It typically consists of probing the actions used by the
individual(s) to accomplish the crime, prevent its detection and/or facilitate
escape. An accused's modus operandi can help in his identification, apprehension,
or repression, and can also be used to determine connections between crimes.
 It is also used in criminal profiling, where it can help in finding clues to the
offender's psychology
Police can use the modus operandi information in apprehending the criminals
and more so in obtaining the investigative leads.
The criminal’s modus operandi comprises the learned behavior that can
progress and develop over time.
M.O. is dynamic and always changing with experience therefore it becomes
highly unlikely to find a connection between the cases using M.O. Modus
operandi is not static and gets refined over time as an offender becomes more
knowledgeable, sophisticated and confident. It can also become less proficient
and less dexterous over time, decompensating by the virtue of a waning mental
state etc.