Offender Profiling Introduction
Bond (1888)
Attempted profile of Jack the Ripper
“The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually that may be called Satyriasis”
Brussel (1956)
Profile of the ‘Mad’ Bomber
General misperception of his accuracy
Profile didn’t really lead to Metesky’s arrest
Definition
Ainsworth (2000): “underlying most definitions is a belief that offender characteristics can be deduced from a detailed knowledge of offence charact eristics”
No universally accepted definition of profiling
FBI Behavioural Science Unit
Based on 36 in-depth interviews – typologies developed
Attempt to identify characteristics of serious offenders
Looks an objective methodology, but maybe subjective inter pretation
FBI
FBI Profiling
Based on the initial intervi ews, created typologies e.g. type of murderer
Organised vs. Disorganised
Organised –
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 discipline in childhood, Controlled mood, Charming, Follows media / police groupie
Disorganised
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, Received harsh/inconsistent discipline in childhood, Anxious mood during crime, May keep diary or news clippings, Lives/works near crime scene
Typologies
Can we really pigeon-hole offenders?
Some questions to consider regarding typologies:
How useful are they in catching a criminal?
How well researched are they?
Should they be applied to ‘one -off’ crimes?
Do they have cross-cultural merit?
Should the UK police try to develop similar typologies?
Criticisms of FBI profiling
Criticisms: e.g. Canter, 1994 – too small a sample, Lacks scientific rigour
Jackson & Bekerian (1997) – FBI have had a wide influence on profiling units in other countries
Police perspectives
Alison et al (2010), Traditional approaches to OP in UK:
Criminal investigative approach
Clinical practitioner approach
Statistical approach
How do the ‘end -users’ view profiling?
Oldfield (1997) – limited usage At a strategic level only…
Stevens (1997) - more positive viewpoint o
Additional tool, not standalone
o
Successful use of OP
o
Usage beyond murder & rape
o
OP has much to offer, but...
“…it will be some time before we have a system which is a fully functional tool for operational detectives.” (p91)
OP Evaluation
Copson (1995) o
Coals to Newcastle
o
First independent study of OP (?)
o
Major aim – whether profiling advice tells the investigating officer only what he/she already knows
Questionnaire Survey (29 questions) o
Ranging from:
o
Officers expectations
o
Their use of the advice they received
o
The usefulness they found in it
184 instances of profiling covered o
88 provided by just two sources
The Study
29 sources of profiles:
4 Forensic Psychiatrists
5 Academic Psychologists
4 Clinical Psychologists
6 Forensic Psychologists
3 Therapists
4 British Police Officers
1 British Police Scientist
1 British Police Data System
1 American Law Enforcement Agency
Profilers
What role do they play in an investigation? Pre-trial only
Do offer new ideas on the case
Do not deliver expert evidence in court
Generally how do they do it? o
E.g. FBI vs. British Approach
FBI BSU – thought processes involved
UK: Statistical vs. Clinical
Why do they do it? o
Payment?
o
Sense of public duty?
o
To inform research?
What do they ask?
What do they ask for?
What do they give?
What do the police want?
Variability in reports:
o
written vs. verbal (111:73)
o
number of advisory points (9-96)
length of report (2-24 pages
Advice
For example: o
Features of the offence
o
Character of the offender ©
o
Origins of the offender
o
Present circumstances of the offender*
o
Criminality of the offender*
o
Geography of the offender*
o
Predicted future behaviour of the offender
o
Interview strategy to be adopted
Differences in advice by type of profiler (e.g. clinical© vs. statistical*)
Profiling Confidence
Reasoning behind advice: o
7% - 48% of elements explained (Mean = 16%)
Advice as possibilities: o
10% - 26% of elements as possibilities
Advice as positive (unqualified): o
45% - 76%!
Are these categories made explicit to the Police?
Success rate of profilers
Key issue
Is a very successful profile a very accurate profile?
Using solved cases:
Take elements that can be verified and compare to outcome
In 50 solved cases – 46% of elements not verifiable! e.g. value judgements about demeanour and personality
Accuracy ratios (2.2:1) o
Clinical Profilers: 2.9 : 1
o
Statistical Profilers: 1.8 : 1
Range: 1.5 : 1 – 6.8 : 1
Value of Advice
Did the advice:
YES (%)
NO(%)
Assist in solving the case?
14.1
78.3
Open new lines of e f enquiry?
16.3
82.1
Add anything to inf ormation supplied?
53.8
38.6
Prove operationally usef ul?
82.6
17.4
Operational usefulness of advice
Aspects of usefulness
(N)
(%)
Led to ID of offender?
5
2.7
Furthered understanding of case
112
60.9
95
51.6
/ offender
Expert opinion reassured own judgement
Offered structure for
10
5.4
32
17.4
interviewing
Not useful How successful are profilers
Pinizzotto & Finkel (1990)
Aim of study o
Is profiling of experts accurate? Process differences?
Methodology o
5 categories of participants – but low numbers
o
Homicide case & Sex offence case
o
Write profile + answer 20 MCQs re: suspect + line-up task
Findings o
For the written profile, Profilers richer in detail than non-profilers
o
For the MCQs, no differences amongst groups for the homici de case
Evaluation o
Differences due to type of crime
o
Methodology might have played a (big) role
What makes a good profiler
Kocsis et al. (2000)
Aim of study o
Looking at skills underlying effective performance of profiling (based on Hazelwood et al. (1995)
Profilers
Appreciation of Criminal Mind (Psychologists)
Investigative Experience (Experience Police Officers)
Objective & Logical Analysis (Uni. Science/Economic Students)
Intuition (Professional Psychics)
Methodology o
Asked to write detailed description of offender + 45 item MCQ test + ACL for offender
Findings o
Marginal differences for MCQs until re-analysed!
o
But low participation rate of Profilers (N=5)
o
It was just a single murder case
Professional and legal issues
The science vs. art debate
Are there underlying theories or just intuitions?
Frailties of human thinking e.g. o
Inappropriate heuristics (e.g. anchoring)
o
Look for data to support rather than reject
o
Group Effects (if profiler becomes part of a team)
Legal issues o
e.g. Admissibility
Professional and ethical issues
Keeping detailed documents
Avoid forgetting / misinterpreting
Allows profiler to answer challenges
Sources of inferences
Need to cite basis for inf erences
Publication in reputable journals
Peer review Preventing distortion
Avoid biases (e.g. request all the facts)
Competence and Impartiality
Only give an opinion / offer a service if you are competent to do so
Possible questions? 1.
Regarding the solving of crimes, how effective is Offender Profiling (profiles and profilers)?
2.
How can this area be researched?
3.
Can the effectiveness of Profiling be improved? If so, how?
References
Ainsworth, P. B. (2001). Offender Profiling and Crime Analysis. UK: Willan Publishing
Alison, L., Smith, M. D. & Morgan, K. (2003). Interpreting the Accuracy of Offender Profiles. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(2) , 185-195.
Alison, L., Goodwill, A., Almond, L., van den Heuvel, C. & Winter, J. (2010). Pragmatic Solutions to Offender Profiling and Behavioural Investigative Advice. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 15(1) , 115-132.
Almond, L., Alison, L. & Porter, L. (2007). An Evaluation and Comparison of Claims Made in Behavioural Investigative Advice Reports Compiled by the National Policing Improvements Agency in the UK. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 4 , 71-83.
Bennell, C., Corey, S., Taylor, A. & Ecker, J. (2008) What Skills Are Required for Effective Offender Profiling? Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(2) , 143-157.
Canter, D. & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative Psychology. Wiley.
Canter, D. (2000). Offender Profiling and Criminal Differentiation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5 , 23-46.
Canter, D. & Alison, L. (eds.) (1999). Profiling in Policy and Practice. Aldershot: Ashworth.
Copson, G. (1995). Coals to Newcastle? Part 1: A Study of Offender Profiling (Paper 7). London: Police Research Group Special Interest Series, Home Office.
