Offender Profiling Flashcards
History
Bond (1888)
Attempted profile of Jack the Ripper
“The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition that may be called Satyriasis”
History
Brussel (1956)
Profile of the Mad Bomber
General misperception of his accuracy
Profile didn’t really lead to Metesky’s arrest
Definitions
Ainsworth (2000)
Underlying most definitions is a belief that offender characteristics can be deduced from a detailed knowledge of offence characteristics.
No universally accepted definition
Profiling in America
Holmes & Holmes 2009
Emphasis on old style profiling
- there is nothing mysterious or magical about the art of psychological profiling. It is based on paying attention to details and looking for non-physical evidence.
Be able to blend a knowlegde of sociology, psychology, psychiatry, criminology, etc.
- a profiler makes calculated guesses - there are more than wild guesses, but they are guesses nonetheless
Profiling in America
Suggested Crimes for Profile
Sexual Assault Sexual Homicide Motiveless Fire Settings Lust / Mutilation Murders Rape Occult / Ritualistic crimes Bank robberies Anonymous obscene communications
The FBI Approach
FBI Behavioural Science Unit
36 in-depth interviews-typologies developed
Attempt to identify characteristics of serious offenders
- looks an objective methodology but maybe subjective interpretation
Based on initial interviews created by typologies e,g, type of murderer.
Organised Criminal
- Planned offence
- Targeted stranger
- Personalises victim
- Controlled crime scene
- Restraints used
- Body moved
- Weapon Taken
- Little Evidence
- High intelligence
- Socially adequate
- Lives with partner
- High birth order
- Harsh childhood discipline
- Controlled mood
- Charming
- Follows media / police groupie
Disorganised Criminal
- Spontaneous Event
- Victim unknown
- Depersonalises victim
- Chaotic crime scene
- No restraints
- Body not moved
- Weapon left
- Physical Evidence
- Below-average intelligence
- socially inadequate
- lives alone
- low birth-order status
- inconsistent childhood discipline
- anxious mood during crime
- diary / news clippings
- lives / works near crime scene
Typologies
Key questions:
- how useful are they in catching a criminal?
- how well researched are they?
- should they be applied to one-off crimes?
FBI Profiling
Criticisms
e.g. Canter, 1994 - too sample a sample
Lacks scientific rigour
Jackson & Bekerian (1997) - FBI have had a wide influence on proving units in other countries,
Investigative Psychology
Canter & Youngs (2009)
- A move away from old style profiling
“the intuitively informal activity of experienced police officers speculating about the characteristics of criminals” - A new discipline of Investigative Psychology
“The central challenge for IP is to keep its feet firmly within the realms of systematic, scientific psychology…”
“It is scientific endeavour of establishing what implications can be validly drawn from what happened a crime”.
Profiling in the UK
Alison et al 2010
Traditional approaches to OP
- criminal investigative approach
- clinical practitioner approach
- statistical approach
The death of offender profilers…
Rise of BIA and BIAS.
Behavioural Investigative Advice / Advisors
- A more integrated approach - based on IP
- BIAs can contribute to an investigation in the following areas:
1) offender profiling
2) crime scene assessment
3) offence linkage
4) search advice
5) investigative suggestions
Behavioural Investigative Advice / Advisors
Other potential contributions:
1) Casting a critical eye over the investigation
- perhaps bringing a new perspective
2) Bringing new skills
- scientific considerations such as falsification & correlation vs. causation
3) Confirming thoughts
4) Providing probabilistic rationale and justification for investigation decisions
e. g. prioritisation of resources, etc.
Obstacles to Overcome
Taking all types of profiling into consideration
1) Homology Assumption
2) The accuracy / effectiveness issue
3) Profile Content
4) The police
1) The Homology Assumption
“The more similar two offenders are with respect to background, the higher the resemblance in their crime scene behaviour.”
(Makros & Alison, 2002)
- A cornerstone of traditional profiling
- Archival study of police files of 100 British stranger rapists
- Little relationship between style of offending and background characteristics (v. weak support for homology assumption).
2) The Accuracy / Effectiveness Issue
How do we define and measure ‘effectiveness’?
- criterion for success
- actual arrest
- reduction in time to arrest
Many other problems:
- lack of profilers willing to take part in studies
- type of crime and generalisability
Evaluation of OP
Copson (1995)
- coals to Newcastle
- first independent study of OP
- Major aim: whether profiling advice tells the investigating officer only what he / she already knows.
Questionnaire Survey (29Q)
Ranging from:
- officers expectations
- their use of the advice they received
- the usefulness they found in it
184 instances by profiling covered
88 provided by just two sources.
Effectiveness of Profiling - Experimental
Studies e.g. Pinizzotto & Finkel (1990) Kocsis et al (2000) Mokros & Alison (2002) Kocsis (2003x2); (2004)
What makes a good profiler?
Kocsis et al 2002
Looking at skills underlying effective performance of profiling
- profilers
- appreciation criminal mind
- investigative experience
- objective & logical analysis
- intuition
Methodology
- asked to write detailed description of offender + 45 item MCQ test + ACL for offender.
Findings
- marginal difference in MCQ
- low ppt rate n=5
- single murder case
Problems with such studies
How do we define and measure effectiveness?
Lack of profilers willing to take part in studies
Type of crime and generalisability
3) Profile Content
What do profilers include and not include in their profile?
Do they know what the police actually `want?
What do the Police from BIAs
The utility Principle
- is the advice of practical use to the police?
According to Cole & Brown (2011) SIOs want
- likely age / criminal history
- advice in writing
- house-house questionnaires
- prioritisation of messages into incident room
- assistance with team morale and welfare
- assistance throughout course of enquiry
The Content Profiles
Alison et al. 2003 - to identify the extent to which claims about the probable characteristics of offenders in offender profiles were based on substantive arguments.
Analysed 21 profiles US 5/Uk 13
Of the 8 profilers who were asked to contribute 2 refused and 2 failed to reply within 4 months.
Type of crime varied e.g. 5 sexual homicide; 6 rape cases; 2 arson; 1 threatening letter; 7 motiveless murders.
3090 statements
28% statements about characteristics of offender
72% repetition of case details
82% unsubstantiated
45% verifiable
Most statements were nothing to do with possible offender
Majority of claims made without any justification.
The content of profiles
Are things getting better with BIAs?
Almond et al 2007
- a comparison of 47 reports written in 2005
- 805 claims, only 4% no grounds
- 34% formal support
70% claims were verificable
43% were falsifiable post conviction
Claimed that analysis indicated “ a very large positive difference between the contemportary advice and previous advice in terms of susbtantiveness of their arguments”.
Issues
Police: do they want profiles / know how to use them?
