User:Paul.mott/sandbox

This is a user sandbox of Paul.mott. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article.

One problem with the article; too many citations needed Two potential references; Criminal profiling: the reality behind the myth Forensic psychologists are working with law enforcement officials to integrate psychological science into criminal profiling. By LEA WINERMAN Monitor Staff July/August 2004, Vol 35, No. 7 Print version: page 66

https://vault.fbi.gov/Criminal%20Profiling/Criminal%20Profiling%20Part%201%20of%207/view Two questions/comments; I feel like the mini biographies of the profilers are too long. There seems to have been a lot of revision on this already based on the history. Bansheend (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I found several statements without supporting citations, and also a number of rewording and consistency issues.I also question the amount and diversity covered - Might subtopics such as the mini biographies mentioned above - be better as one or more separate articles?

When doing a literature search in Google Scholar, I found that many articles and books come from the United Kingdom, and from a handful of authors. To provide balanced coverage, Resources such as James Aaron George's article "Offender Profiling and Expert Testimony: Scientifically Valid or Glorified Results?" (George, J. A. (2008). Offender profiling and expert testimony: Scientifically valid or glorified results. Vand. L. Rev., 61, 221., Available at https://ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/198984566?accountid=6766) might be useful.

I do not know if we want to include a chronology (history to present to future), but if we do, Steven Egger's Article (Egger, S. A. (1999). Psychological profiling past, present, and future. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(3), 242-261. doi: 10.1177/1043986299015003003) might be of use.

For Dr.Council and other group members;

This article jumps around, and does not really follow the TOC and introduction. Which would be better to fix: content, or the TOC, etc.?

I also found multiple redundant descriptions in subtopics. The article is very wordy, and content cane be rephrased and/or condensed. How detailed should it be, and how repetitive? Paul.mott (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that one major problem of this article is the length and specificity of the introduction. I think that it should be more of a summary, and move the bulleted lists to within the article itself.

Jinhong, G. R. K. J. X. (2006). The Evaluation of the History of Criminal Profiling. Journal of Hebei Vocational College of Public Security Police, 4, 013.

          This would be useful in expanding the history section.

Norris, G. (2006). Criminal Profiling: A Continuing History.

          This would be an interesting source to talk more about the portrayal of criminal profiling on TV vs. real life. 

For Dr. Coucil

Is it better to have many short portions to the article, or combine them into larger groupings? (ie should we break apart the problems section into smaller pieces)

What do you think is the length limit of a good introduction?

134.129.17.109 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the Definition part of the article should be expanded on a little by taking some of the bulleted points from the intro section and integrating them into the definition section. Also, maybe define a few terms that are commonly associated with profiling as well. Vettor, Shannon, et.al. (2013). Offender Profiling: A review and critique of the approaches and major assumptions. Journal of Current Issues in Crime, 6(4) p.354-387. This would be a good article for defining some of the aspects of criminal profiling, validity of the technique and advancements. Kocsis, Richard N., et. al. (2008). Taking stock of accuracy in criminal profiling: The theoretical quandary for investigative psychology. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8(3). p244-261. This could be a good article in support of criminal profiling, however it is a little old. For Dr. Council: What topics within the area of criminal profiling do you think need to be addressed in the article that aren't yet there? Brittany.paulus (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

To Do List

Rewrite lead section

Expand on the history section but be sure to distinguish this subject from related topics (including television/pop culture references) and include a synopsis of that in the lead section.

Edit/link bios - possibly condense or link to other articles, so they fit more with the primary topic

Possibly change the Problem section to Does it work? and provide evidence for both sides rather than just the one; expand on controversy (varies with application)

Separate footnotes from references. Check for current status and accuracy. Add reference where needed or condense and remove extraneous content.

Format for clarity and consistency, ensuring that lead and TOC both meet Wikipedia guidelines and follow the desired structure and flow of the article.

Possibly add to Additional Info links.

Outline

I. Lead Section - Summary only of main body content; what do we want to see in Google/related search engines?

A. Definition (short, expand in main body)

B. Similar terms/distinction

1. AKA (other names for same subject)
2. Related references - include "see Additional Info Links"
3. Differences from other terms

C. Media References and key (1-2 sentences) differences between portrayal and actual practice

D. History and Goals of Profiling

1. Brief History (theory vs. practice)
2. Goals as currently practiced (brief references to various fields/applications - e.g. prevent crime vs. solve criminal cases)
3. Approaches used in application of profiling
4. Procedures
5. 3 "waves"
6. (Transition to Does It Work/Controversy summary with reference to how others disagree or question using profiling)

II. Definitions (Brittany)

A. "Offender profiling"

B. Predictive vs Descriptive

C. (If needed) additional distinction/clarification about differences from/similarities to related terms and synonyms

II. History

A. Origins

B. Psychology

C. Historical Applications

D. Transition with shift from "then" to "now"

III. Current practice

A. Phases and basic premise

1. Phases (List)
2. Basic Premise

B. Three examples of application

1. Predicitve
2. Sexual assault (?)
3. Case Linkage

IV. Bios of Notable Profilers (include why notable)

1. Langer
2. Brussel
3. Teten
4. Keppel and Walter (resequenced to match content)
5. Douglas and Ressler
6. Canter

V. Problems and Controversy

1. Known Problems -false positives/negatives, Hettrick Case
2. Differing Opinions - Scientific validity, accuracy, reliability, supporting evidence or lack thereof
3. Potential Problems (if needed and suggested and/or supported by references) - e.g. changes in DSM criteria for deviant/abnormal behavior, need/use of trained behaviorsts/mental health professionals

VI. Footnotes

VII. References used

VIII. Additional Information/ for info re: related/synonymous terms as listed in lead section

A. FBI/BAU, Contemporary Experts/Practitioners

B. More History/Depth on Offender Profiling, including external links

C. Related terms (forensic profiling, forensic psychology, Investigative psychology, others?)

D. Different but frequently confused terms

Revised Outline from first article draft

Outline[edit source | edit]

I. Lead Section - Summary only of main body content; what do we want to see in Google/related search engines?[edit source | edit]

A. Definition (short, expand in main body)

B. Similar terms/distinction – modified for brevity

1. AKA (other names for same subject)

2. Related references - include "see Additional Info Links"

3. Differences from other terms

C. Media References and key (1-2 sentences) differences between portrayal and actual practice

D. History and Goals of Profiling – omitted from lead for brevity

1. Brief History (theory vs. practice)

2. Goals as currently practiced (brief references to various fields/applications - e.g. prevent crime vs. solve criminal cases)

3. Approaches used in application of profiling

4. Procedures

5. 3 "waves"

6. (Transition to Does It Work/Controversy summary with reference to how others disagree or question using profiling)

II. Definitions (Brittany)[edit source | edit]

A. "Offender profiling"

B. Predictive vs Descriptive

C. (If needed) additional distinction/clarification about differences from/similarities to related terms and synonyms

II. History[edit source | edit]

The first offender profile was created by police on the personality of the serial killer Jack the Ripper.

A. Origins

B. Psychology

C. Historical Applications

D. Transition with shift from "then" to "now"

III. Current practice

A. Phases and basic premise

1. Phases (List)

2. Basic Premise

B. Three examples of application

1. Predicitve

2. Sexual assault (?)

3. Case Linkage

IV. Bios of Notable Profilers (include why notable)

1. Langer

2. Brussel

3. Teten

4. Keppel and Walter (resequenced to match content)

5. Douglas and Ressler

V. Problems and Controversy

1. Known Problems -false positives/negatives, Hettrick Case

2. Differing Opinions - Scientific validity, accuracy, reliability, supporting evidence or lack thereof

3. Potential Problems (if needed and suggested and/or supported by references) - e.g. changes in DSM criteria for deviant/abnormal behavior, need/use of trained behaviorsts/mental health professionals

VI. Footnotes

VII. References used

VIII. Additional Information/ for info re: related/synonymous terms as listed in lead section

A. FBI/BAU, Contemporary Experts/Practitioners

B. More History/Depth on Offender Profiling, including external links

C. Related terms (forensic profiling, forensic psychology, Investigative psychology, others?)

D. Different but frequently confused terms

Paul.mott (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section - Paul C. Mott

[Second Draft - Citations and refinements pending as articles/books are found and/or changes are needed]

Offender profiling is an investigative tool used by law enforcement agencies to identify likely suspects (descriptive offender profiling) and analyze patterns that may predict future offenses and/or victims (predictive offender profiling)..^{[cite pending]} Also called criminal profiling, criminal personality profiling, behavioral profiling, criminal investigative analysis and other terms, and sometimes confused with clinical behavioral diagnosis or treatment, investigative psychology, or forensic psychology, offender profiling is a distinct process with roots in psychology, sociology, and law enforcement. Offender profiling dates back to the spree of Jack the Ripper, and the theory describes how profiling will ideally work. Key considerations include behavior as a predictable, patterned trait and humans as creatures of habit. Current applications include predictive profiling, sexual assault offender profiling, and case linkage (using profiling to identify common factors in offenses and to help with suspect identification).

Holmes and Holmes (2002) list three main goals of criminal profiling: providing [law enforcement with] a social and psychological assessment of the offender; providing a "psychological evaluation of belongings found in the possession of the offender" (p. 10); and offering suggestions and strategies for the interviewing process.^[2] Ainsworth (2001) identified four main approaches to offender profiling: geographical - involving timing and location of the crime scene in order to determine where the offender lives and works, investigative psychology - the use of psychological theories of analysis to determine the characteristics of the offender by looking at the presented offending behavior and style of offense, typological - analyzing characteristics of the crime scene and allowing categorization of the offender, and clinical profiling - which applies psychiatry and clinical psychology to determine whether the offender is suffering from mental illness or psychological abnormalities.^[3]

Generating a profile includes five steps: a thorough analysis of the type/nature of the criminal act and a comparison of that act to the types of people who have committed similar crimes in the past, an in-depth analysis of the actual crime scene, an analysis of the victim’s background and activities for possible motives and connections, an analysis of other possible motives for the crime, and developing a description of the possible offender, based on detected characteristics that can be compared with previous cases.^[4] In criminology, offender profiling is generally considered the "third wave" of investigative science. The first wave was the study of clues, pioneered by Scotland Yard in the 19th century; the second wave was the study of crime itself (frequency studies and the like); this third wave - profiling - is the study of the psyche of the criminal. Notable profilers in history include Langer, Brussel, Teten, Keppel and Walter, Douglas and Ressler, and Canter [see biographies for specifics].

Entertainment media has depicted the practical use of offender profiling through television shows such as Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Profiler, Criminal Minds, Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior, and the 1991 film The Silence of the Lambs. [cite pending]. Unlike these and other popular media portrayals, offender profiling is just one of the tools, investigative methods, and techniques available to law enforcement personnel [cite pending]. Offender profiling is still controversial and often grouped with other “pseudoscience” practices due to debate and varied opinions about the accuracy and effectiveness of and evidentiary support for offender profiling, as well as the scientific validity and reliability of this investigative tool. Known problems include false positive and negative identifications, such as the Hettrick case [cite pending], and potential problems include the use of DSM [spell out] diagnoses for profiling - which diagnoses and criteria for applying them change over time, the need for trained behaviorists and/or mental health clinicians to assemble the profile, how these clinicians and approaches integrate with law enforcement and evidentiary requirements, and whether clinicians must be trained law enforcement officers or vice versa.

Paul.mott (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Revised Paul.mott (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Offender profiling Category:Law enforcement techniques Category:Forensic psychology Category:Criminal investigation Category:Pseudoscience

Lead Section - Brittany

Offender profiling is a tool used by investigators that involves the use of psychology and criminal justice fields to predict the characteristics of unknown offenders in order to catch the offender. There are five steps to creating a profile: an analysis of the nature of the criminal act, an in depth analysis of the crime scene, an analysis of the victim’s background and activities looking for motives, an analysis of the factors for motivation, and the development of the description of the offender. There are three main goals of offender profiling along with four main approaches. There are ongoing controversies concerning whether or not offender profiling actually works and if it is an accurate method of catching offenders.

Offender profiling has become more famous due to shows like Law & Order: Criminal Intent (1990s), Criminal Minds (2005), and The Silence of the Lambs (1991). Some other names for offender profiling are criminal profiling, criminal personality profiling, criminological profiling, behavioral profiling, and criminal investigative analysis.

Lead Section-Kathy

Offender (criminal) profiling is a service provided by the Critical Response Unit of the F.B.I. The official handbook for this department defines this practice as "Profiles of Unknown Offenders" https://vault.fbi.gov/Criminal%20Profiling/Criminal%20Profiling%20Part%201%20of%207/view. The unit uses details of a crime to try to determine personality traits and characteristics likely present in the offender. These aspects are then used to try to identify the offender and/or used in an effort to predict future events.

Profiling has become popular due to movies and television shows built around the practice. These programs often depict the practice almost like mind reading or magic. This presentation feeds into the controversy surrounding the validity of the practice. ~~~~

Lead Section - Tim Breider

Offender profiling is a tool used by investigators to create an understanding of an unknown criminal based on the crime committed. A profile is developed from patterns observed in evidence obtained as well as the setting of the crime. These patterns are used to determine characteristics and traits of the culprit, as well as a possible motive. This profile can then be used as a template to identify and better interview suspects.

This technique has recently gained the medias attention via popular television programs such as Law & Order: Criminal Intent and Criminal Minds. There continues to be controversy surrounding the technique and whether or not it is more effective in finding criminals.

Combined lead and article draft

Source citations and footnote references are still pending. This is just my sense of where we want to go with the whole thing, and is a very rough first draft. Paul

Lead Section - Paul C. Mott[edit source | edit]

[Second Draft - Citations and refinements pending as articles/books are found and/or changes are needed]

Offender profiling is an investigative tool used by law enforcement agencies to identify likely suspects (descriptive offender profiling) and analyze patterns that may predict future offenses and/or victims (predictive offender profiling)..[cite pending] Offender profiling dates back to {1888 and}the spree of Jack the Ripper, and the theory {what theory} describes how profiling will ideally work. Current applications include predictive profiling, sexual assault offender profiling, and case linkage (using profiling to identify common factors in offenses and to help with suspect identification).

Goals of criminal profiling (Holmes and Holmes (2002) include providing [law enforcement with] a social and psychological assessment of the offender; providing a "psychological evaluation of belongings found in the possession of the offender" (p. 10); and offering suggestions and strategies for the interviewing process.[2] Ainsworth (2001) identified four main approaches to offender profiling: geographical, investigative psychology, typological, and clinical profiling.[3]

Five steps in profiling include analyzing the criminal act and comparing it to similar crimes in the past, an in-depth analysis of the actual crime scene, considering the victim’s background and activities for possible motives and connections, considering other possible motives, and developing a description of the possible offender that can be compared with previous cases.[4] Notable profilers in history include Walter C. Langer, Brussel, Howard Teten, Robert Keppel and Richard Walter, John Douglas and Robert Ressler, and Canter [see biographies for specifics].

Entertainment media has depicted the practical use of offender profiling through television shows such as Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Profiler, Criminal Minds, Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior, and the 1991 film The Silence of the Lambs. [cite pending]. Unlike these and other popular media portrayals, offender profiling is just one of the tools, investigative methods, and techniques available to law enforcement personnel [cite pending]. Offender profiling is still controversial and subject to debate and varied opinions about the accuracy of, effectiveness of, evidentiary support for, and scientific validity and reliability of this investigative tool.

(Pending Brittany’s revisions)

Definitions[edit source | edit]

Offender profiling is a method of identifying the most likely type of person that could have committed a crime based on evidence and information found at the crime scene along with specific characteristics of the crime itself. It is not a method for finding the specific person who committed the crime.^[1] Various aspects of the criminal's personality makeup are determined from his or her choices before, during, and after the crime.[5] This information is combined with other relevant details and physical evidence, and then compared with the characteristics of known personality types and mental abnormalities to develop a practical working description of the offender.

Psychological profiling may be described as a method of suspect identification which seeks to identify a person's mental, emotional, and personality characteristics (as manifested in things done or left at the crime scene).[6] There are two major assumptions made when it comes to offender profiling: behavioral consistency and homology. Behavior consistency is the use of linkage analysis in order to find similar cases that have little evidence and link them to one offender because of the similarities that are present. Homology is the idea that similar crimes are committed by similar offenders that posses similar characteristics. ^[2]

One type of criminal profiling is referred to as linkage analysis. Gerard N. Labuschagne (2006) defines linkage analysis as "a form of behavioral analysis that is used to determine the possibility of a series of crimes as having been committed by one offender."[10] Gathering many aspects of the offender’s crime pattern such as modus operandi, ritual or fantasy-based behaviors exhibited, and the signature of the offender help to establish a basis for a linkage analysis. An offender’s modus operandi is his or her habits or tendencies during the killing of the victim. An offender’s signature is the unique similarities in each of his or her kills. Mainly, linkage analysis is used when physical evidence, such as DNA, cannot be collected.

Labuschagne states that in gathering and incorporating these aspects of the offender’s crime pattern, investigators must engage in five assessment procedures: (1) obtaining data from multiple sources; (2) reviewing the data and identifying significant features of each crime across the series; (3) classifying the significant features as either MO and/or ritualistic; (4) comparing the combination of MO and ritual/fantasy-based features across the series to determine if a signature exists; and (5) compiling a written report highlighting the findings.[10]

There are three leading approaches in the area of offender profiling: the criminal investigative approach, the clinical practitioner approach, and the scientific statistical approach. The criminal investigative approach is what is used law enforcement and more specifically by the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) within the FBI. What the BAU does is defined as "assists law enforcement agencies by their review and assessment of a criminal act, by interpreting the offender's behavior during the crime and the interactions between the offender and the victim during the commission of the crime and as expressed in the crime scene."^[2]The clinical practitioner approach focuses on looking at each case as unique, making the approach very individualistic. One practitioner, Turco, believed that all violent crimes were a result of the mother-child struggle where female victims represent the offender's mother. This is also recognized as the psychodynamic approach. Another practitioner, Copson, outlined some principles for profiling which include being custom made, interactive and reflexive. By following these principles, the profile should include advice that is unique and not from a stereotype, should be easy to understand for all levels of intelligence, and all elements in the profile should influence one another. ^[2] The Scientific approach relies heavily on the multivariate analysis of behaviors and any other information from the crime scene that could lead to the offender's characteristics or psychological processes. According to this approach, elements of the profile are developed by comparing the results of the analysis to those of previously caught offenders. ^[2]

Offender profiling is also known as criminal profiling, criminal personality profiling, criminological profiling, behavioral profiling or criminal investigative analysis.

History[edit source | edit]

In modern criminology, offender profiling is generally considered the "third wave" of investigative science:

· the first wave was the study of clues, pioneered by Scotland Yard in the 19th century;

· the second wave was the study of crime itself (frequency studies and the like);

· this third wave is the study of the psyche of the criminal.

Profiling techniques existed as early as the Middle Ages, with the inquisitors trying to "profile" heretics. Jacob Fries, Cesare Lombroso, The first offender profile was assembled by detectives of the Metropolitan Police on the personality of Jack the Ripper, a serial killer who had murdered a series of prostitutes in the 1880s. Police surgeon Thomas Bond was asked to give his opinion on the extent of the murderer's surgical skill and knowledge.[11] Bond's assessment was based on his own examination of the most extensively mutilated victim and the post mortem notes from the four previous canonical murders.[12]

In his notes, dated November 10, 1888, Dr. Bond mentioned the sexual nature of the murders coupled with elements of apparent misogyny and rage. Dr. Bond also tried to reconstruct the murder and interpret the behavior pattern of the offender and came up with a “profile” - signature personality traits of the offender - to assist police in their investigation.

Bond's basic profile included:

“The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and great coolness and daring... subject to periodic attacks of homicidal and erotic mania. The characters of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called Satyriasis”[13]

In 1912, a psychologist in Lackawanna, New York delivered a lecture in which he analyzed an unknown criminal who was suspected of having murdered a local boy named Joey Joseph. Based on the postcards which had been used to taunt the Lackawanna Police and the Joseph family, the profile ultimately led to the arrest and conviction of J. Frank Hickey.[14]

A version of profiling is thought to have been used in the 1940s, when investigations relied on mental health professionals to create a profile of an offender in order to aid the police investigation.[15] {I'm not sure what this sentence is referring to} Soon after, James Brussel was called upon to analyze the information on the Mad Bomber in New York City, and he created an accurate profile of the offender. The FBI then worked to develop a technique for profiling, based on the process used by Brussel. As time, the nature of crime, and knowledge of human motives and behaviors evolved, and with the growing addition of forensic science, profiling , too, is changing.

Notable Profilers

Throughout the 20th century there have been many prominent figures in offender profiling. In 1943 Walter C. Langer developed a profile of Adolf Hitler that hypothesized his response to losing the war. James Brussel was a psychiatrist who rose to fame by creating an accurate profile that led to the capture of New York City's Mad Bomber in 1956. He continued to work with NYPD for 15 years earning him the name "The Sherlock Holmes of the Couch".^[3]

In 1972, the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI was formed by Patrick Mullany and Howard Teten; they increased the abilities of detectives by examining the evidence for signs of mental disorders and other traits of the perpetrators.^[4] After successes including identification of serial killers by their "souvenirs", this system of techniques grew into the modern Criminal Investigative Analysis Program. Following Teten's departure John Douglas and Robert Ressler created a typology of sex murderers and formed the National Center for Analysis of Violent Crime which further studied behavioral patterns and characteristics that advanced offender profiling as a science.^[5]

Investigations of notorious serial killers Ted Bundy and the Green River Killer were preformed in 1974 by Robert Keppel and psychologist Richard Walter. They went on to develop the four subtypes of violent crime and the Hunter Integrated Telemetry System (HITS) database which compiled characteristics of violent crime for research.^[6]  

Problems[edit source | edit]

Offender profiling is not without problems or those who say it is invalid.

Incorrect information from profiling can lead to false positives or false negatives. Investigators may find a suspect who appears to fit an incorrect profile and ignore or stop investigating other leads. The opposite of the false positive is the false negative: the profile yields incorrect information which would cause investigators to ignore a suspect who is actually guilty.

Some profilers such as Brent Turvey, as quoted by journalist Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker[23] have questioned its scientific validity. Many profilers and FBI agents are not psychologists, such as Turvey, and some researchers who looked at their work found methodological flaws. B

Although criminal profiling is quite popular and is often used as a tool in criminal investigations, it lacks empirical evidence to support its use. In a review by Eastwood et al. (2006), existing research on the validity of criminal profiling was analyzed, to determine whether this technique can be counted on to aid in criminal investigations. One of the studies that was noted in the review was by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990), and involved asking different groups of people, including actual profilers, university students, police detectives and clinical psychologists, to create a profile based on details about a particular crime. The results showed that the trained criminal profilers did not do any better than the other groups in creating an accurate profile which could predict who the culprit was. Similar results were obtained in another study, which assessed police officers, psychologists, students, psychics and profilers on their ability to create a predictive profile. Again, results showed that profilers were not significantly better at creating a profile than any of the other groups (Kocsis et al., 2000). From these results, Eastwood et al. concluded that there is no compelling evidence that criminal profilers are more capable of predicting the characteristics and traits of a criminal than those who are not trained in the field. Thus, if criminal profiling cannot be shown to be a valid instrument for narrowing down the suspect pool and potentially targeting a guilty individual, it is questionable whether it should be used in investigations and courtrooms at all.

Besides its validity, other aspects of criminal profiling are problematic as well. Snook et al. (2008) outline several problems with the practice. First, the typologies that are used in criminal profiling have not been empirically shown to be accurate in matching the behavior of criminals. The practice of criminal profiling is based on the psychological theory that underlying dispositions are what make individuals engage in criminal behavior. It is now known that this theory is flawed, but it is still a central component of profiling.

Three psychologists from the Universities of Liverpool and Hull are questioning the basic presumption that you can draw conclusions about a person from a single instance of behaviour under such special circumstances. "The notion that particular configurations of demographic features can be predicted from an assessment of particular configurations of specific behaviors occurring in short-term, highly traumatic situations seems an overly ambitious and unlikely possibility. Thus, until such inferential processes can be reliably verified, such claims should be treated with great caution in investigations and should be entirely excluded from consideration in court."[24]

Critics of the practice of offender profiling have mainly contended that few studies have produced clear, quantifiable, evidence of a link between crime scene actions (A) and offender characteristics (C), a necessary supposition of the A to C paradigm proposed by Canter (1995).[25] However, recent research by Goodwill, Lehmann, Beauregard and Andrei (2014) [26] has revealed compelling evidence of links between clusters of crime scene behaviours and offender characteristics. Goodwill et al. suggest that the failure of some previous research to find such links was based on a failure in those studies to examine offender behaviour as part of a dynamic decision-making process, or action phases of the offence. Their study an "Action Phase Approach to Offender Profiling" sought to identify and model the decision-making (action) phases of an offender based on their choice of behaviour and relate these behaviours to known characteristics of the offender.

See also[edit source | edit]

· Behavioral Analysis Unit

· Thomas Bond (British physician)

· FBI method of profiling

· Forensic profiling

· Forensic psychology

· Investigative psychology

References[edit source | edit]

1. Jump up^ Richard N. Kocsis, Applied criminal psychology: a guide to forensic behavioral sciences, Charles C Thomas Publisher, 2009, pp.226

2. Jump up^ Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2008). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool (4 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

3. Jump up^ Sammons, A. In What is Offender Profiling? (chap. Criminal Psychology) Retrieved Apr. 13, 2013, fromhttp://www.psychlotron.org.uk/newResources/criminological/A2_AQB_crim_whatIsProfiling.pdf

4. Jump up^ Fulero, S. M, & L. Wrightsman. (2009). Forensic Psychology. (3rd Edition, Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

5. Jump up^ Criminal profiling helps investigators examine evidence from crime scenes and victim and witness reports to develop an offender description. These descriptions may include the analysis of psychological variables such as personality and behavior patterns, as well as demographic variables such as age, race or geographic location. Investigators should use profiling as a means to narrow down the suspect pool, or in structuring an interrogation of a suspect once apprehended.Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, by Brent Turvey, M.S. San Diego, Academic Press, 1999.

6. Jump up^ Criminal Investigation, by Bruce Berg, 2008, 4th edition.

7. Jump up^ The Stranger Beside Me, by Ann Rule, 1980.

8. Jump up^ Guillen, Tomas. Serial killers issues explored through the Green River murders. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. Print.

9. Jump up^ Levi-Minzi, Micol; Shields, Maria (2007). "Serial sexual murderers and prostitutes as their victims: Difficulty profiling perpetrators and victim vulnerability as illustrated by the Green River case". Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 7: 77–89. doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhl021.

10. ^ Jump up to:a b Labuschagne, G.N. (2006). "The use of linkage analysis as evidence in the conviction of the Newcastle serial murder, South Africa", Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 3(3), 183-191. doi:10:1002/jip.51

11. Jump up^ Evans and Rumbelow, pp. 186–187; Evans and Skinner, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, pp. 359–360

12. Jump up^ Letter from Thomas Bond to Robert Anderson, 10 November 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C, quoted in Evans and Skinner, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, pp. 360–362 and Rumbelow, pp. 145–147

13. ^ Jump up to:a b Canter, D. (2004). Offender Profiling and Investigative Psychology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1 PP 1-15.

14. Jump up^ Vance McLaughlin, (2006) The Postcard Killer: The True Story of J. Frank Hickey, Running Press.

15. Jump up^ Schlesinger, Louis (2009). "Psychological profiling: Investigative implications from crime scene analysis". The Journal of Psychiatry & Law 37 (1): 73–84.

16. Jump up^ Hitler's health problems, including Parkinson's disease, are now well known.

17. Gladwell, Malcolm (2007-11-12). "Dangerous Minds: Criminal profiling made easy.". The New Yorker. Retrieved2008-01-01. James Brussel didn't really see the Mad Bomber in that pile of pictures and photostats, then. That was an illusion. As the literary scholar Donald Foster pointed out in his 2000 book "Author Unknown," Brussel cleaned up his predictions for his memoirs. He actually told the police to look for the bomber in White Plains, sending the N.Y.P.D.’s bomb unit on a wild goose chase in Westchester County, sifting through local records. Brussel also told the police to look for a man with a facial scar, which Metesky didn't have. He told them to look for a man with a night job, and Metesky had been largely unemployed since leaving Con Edison in 1931.

18. Jump up^ Casebook of a Crime Psychiatrist, James A. Brussel, Bernard Geis Associates (1968), Classic,

19. Jump up^ "Organized crimes are premeditated and carefully planned. These characteristics suggest that the perpetrator may display psychopathic tendencies, because this type of person remains in touch with reality, under stress. Little evidence is found at the scenes of this type of offender, they are antisocial but understand right from wrong, but have a shallow affect; thus not showing remorse. Disorganized crimes are unplanned, impulsive acts of violence. This individual uses weapons available at the scene, like blunt force objects for example. They leave many forms of evidence, like fingerprints and blood. Being out of touch with reality and social norms, these offenders are clinically psychotic." Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, Brent Turvey, San Diego: Academic Press (1999).

20. Jump up^ Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, Brent Turvey, San Diego: Academic Press (1999)

21. Jump up^ "The Washington DC-area sniper, who is most likely a white male in his thirties, may have recently been fired from or resigned from his job under contentious circumstances." Immelman, Aubrey (2002) "Provisional Psychological Profile of the October 2002 Washington, D.C.-Area Sniper," URL retrieved 26 April 2011.

22. Jump up^ Perri, Frank S. and Lichtenwald, Terrance G. (2009). "When Worlds Collide: Criminal Investigative Analysis, Forensic Psychology and the Timothy Masters Case",Forensic Examiner, 18:2, NCJ # 226972.

23. Jump up^ Malcolm Gladwell (2007-11-12). "Dept. of Criminology: 'Dangerous Minds: Criminal profiling made easy.'". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-01-04.

Paul.mott (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Final Composite Version

Offender profiling is an investigative tool used by law enforcement agencies to identify likely suspects (descriptive offender profiling) and analyze patterns that may predict future offenses and/or victims (predictive offender profiling)^[7]. Offender profiling dates back to 1888 and the spree of Jack the Ripper, and the profiling theory describes how profiling will ideally work^[8]. Current applications include predictive profiling, sexual assault offender profiling, and case linkage (using profiling to identify common factors in offenses and to help with suspect identification^[8]).

Goals of criminal profiling (Holmes and Holmes (2002) include providing [law enforcement with] a social and psychological assessment of the offender; providing a "psychological evaluation of belongings found in the possession of the offender" (p. 10); and offering suggestions and strategies for the interviewing process^[9]. Ainsworth (2001) identified four main approaches to offender profiling: geographical, investigative psychology, typological, and clinical profiling^[10].

Five steps in profiling include analyzing the criminal act and comparing it to similar crimes in the past, an in-depth analysis of the actual crime scene, considering the victim’s background and activities for possible motives and connections, considering other possible motives, and developing a description of the possible offender that can be compared with previous cases.^[11] Notable profilers in history include Walter C. Langer, James Brussel, Howard Teten, Robert Keppel and Richard Walter, John Douglas and Robert Ressler, and David Canter.

Entertainment media has depicted the practical use of offender profiling through television shows such as Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Profiler, Criminal Minds, Criminal Minds: Suspect Behavior, and the 1991 film The Silence of the Lambs. Unlike these and other popular media portrayals, offender profiling is just one of the tools, investigative methods, and techniques available to law enforcement personnel.^[12] Offender profiling is still controversial and subject to debate and varied opinions about the accuracy of, effectiveness of, evidentiary support for, and scientific validity and reliability of this investigative tool.

Definitions

Offender profiling is a method of identifying the most likely type of person that could have committed a crime based on evidence and information found at the crime scene along with specific characteristics of the crime itself. It is not a method for finding the specific person who committed the crime.^[1] Various aspects of the criminal's personality makeup are determined from his or her choices before, during, and after the crime.^[13] This information is combined with other relevant details and physical evidence, and then compared with the characteristics of known personality types and mental abnormalities to develop a practical working description of the offender.

Psychological profiling may be described as a method of suspect identification which seeks to identify a person's mental, emotional, and personality characteristics (as manifested in things done or left at the crime scene).^[14]There are two major assumptions made when it comes to offender profiling: behavioral consistency and homology. Behavior consistency is the use of linkage analysis in order to find similar cases that have little evidence and link them to one offender because of the similarities that are present. Homology is the idea that similar crimes are committed by similar offenders that posses similar characteristics. ^[2]

One type of criminal profiling is referred to as linkage analysis. Gerard N. Labuschagne defines linkage analysis as "a form of behavioral analysis that is used to determine the possibility of a series of crimes as having been committed by one offender."^[15] Gathering many aspects of the offender’s crime pattern such as modus operandi, ritual or fantasy-based behaviors exhibited, and the signature of the offender help to establish a basis for a linkage analysis. An offender’s modus operandi is his or her habits or tendencies during the killing of the victim. An offender’s signature is the unique similarities in each of his or her kills. Mainly, linkage analysis is used when physical evidence, such as DNA, cannot be collected.

Labuschagne states that in gathering and incorporating these aspects of the offender’s crime pattern, investigators must engage in five assessment procedures: (1) obtaining data from multiple sources; (2) reviewing the data and identifying significant features of each crime across the series; (3) classifying the significant features as either MO and/or ritualistic; (4) comparing the combination of MO and ritual/fantasy-based features across the series to determine if a signature exists; and (5) compiling a written report highlighting the findings.^[15]

There are three leading approaches in the area of offender profiling: the criminal investigative approach, the clinical practitioner approach, and the scientific statistical approach. The criminal investigative approach is what is used law enforcement and more specifically by the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) within the FBI. What the BAU does is defined as "assists law enforcement agencies by their review and assessment of a criminal act, by interpreting the offender's behavior during the crime and the interactions between the offender and the victim during the commission of the crime and as expressed in the crime scene."^[2]The clinical practitioner approach focuses on looking at each case as unique, making the approach very individualistic. One practitioner, Turco, believed that all violent crimes were a result of the mother-child struggle where female victims represent the offender's mother. This is also recognized as the psychodynamic approach. Another practitioner, Copson, outlined some principles for profiling which include being custom made, interactive and reflexive. By following these principles, the profile should include advice that is unique and not from a stereotype, should be easy to understand for all levels of intelligence, and all elements in the profile should influence one another. ^[2] The Scientific approach relies heavily on the multivariate analysis of behaviors and any other information from the crime scene that could lead to the offender's characteristics or psychological processes. According to this approach, elements of the profile are developed by comparing the results of the analysis to those of previously caught offenders. ^[2]

Offender profiling is also known as criminal profiling, criminal personality profiling, criminological profiling, behavioral profiling or criminal investigative analysis.

History

In modern criminology, offender profiling is generally considered the "third wave" of investigative science:

· the first wave was the study of clues, pioneered by Scotland Yard in the 19th century;

· the second wave was the study of crime itself (frequency studies and the like);

· this third wave is the study of the psyche of the criminal.^[16]

Profiling techniques existed as early as the Middle Ages, with the inquisitors trying to "profile" heretics. The first offender profile was assembled by detectives of the Metropolitan Police on the personality of Jack the Ripper, a serial killer who had murdered a series of prostitutes in the 1880s. Police surgeon Thomas Bond was asked to give his opinion on the extent of the murderer's surgical skill and knowledge.^[17] Bond's assessment was based on his own examination of the most extensively mutilated victim and the post mortem notes from the four previous canonical murders.^[18]

In his notes, dated November 10, 1888, Dr. Bond mentioned the sexual nature of the murders coupled with elements of apparent misogyny and rage. Dr. Bond also tried to reconstruct the murder and interpret the behavior pattern of the offender and came up with a “profile” - signature personality traits of the offender - to assist police in their investigation.^[18] Bond's basic profile included that “The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and great coolness and daring... subject to periodic attacks of homicidal and erotic mania. The characters of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called Satyriasis”^[8]

In 1912, a psychologist in Lackawanna, New York delivered a lecture in which he analyzed an unknown criminal who was suspected of having murdered a local boy named Joey Joseph. Based on the postcards which had been used to taunt the Lackawanna Police and the Joseph family, the profile ultimately led to the arrest and conviction of J. Frank Hickey.^[19] In the first half of the 20th century, James Brussel was called upon to analyze the information on the Mad Bomber in New York City, and he created an accurate profile of the offender. The FBI then worked to develop a technique for profiling, based on the process used by Brussel. As time, the nature of crime, and knowledge of human motives and behaviors evolved, and with the growing addition of forensic science, profiling , too, is changing.

Current Practice

Today, offender profiling is one only tool in an investigator’s toolkit. Contrary to media portrayal, other law enforcement skills such as evidence collection, witness statements, and problem-solving remain important in tracking and arresting suspects, or solving crime problems. Premises of profiling include behavior as predictable, and people as creatures of habit.

Steps of Profile Development

The BAU and FBI have six stages to developing a criminal profile:

1. Profiling inputs

This involves studying all the evidence or any information related to the crime itself, but does not include information on the suspect(s) because this could lead to prejudice in the profile. They take analysis of the four different phases of profiling.

According to Gregg O. McCrary, "the basic premise is that behavior reflects personality". In a murder investigation, criminologists are concerned with the four different phases of crime.

1. Antecedent: This phase is concerned with the murderer's premeditation of the act. What plan and motivation did the perpetrator have.
2. Method and manner: This includes the demographics of victims as well as the method of killing them.
3. Body disposal: This phase examines the consistencies and methods of disposal.
4. Post-offense behavior: This is the review of the murderer's response to the investigation and media.

Sexual crime is analyzed in much the same way but is supplemented with the additional information that comes from a living victim.^[20]

An additional proposed phase of criminal profiling is case linkage. Case linkage refers to the process of determining whether or not there are discrete connections between two or more previously unrelated cases through crime scene analysis.^[21] It involves establishing and comparing the physical evidence, victimology, crime scene characteristics, modus operandi (MO), and signature behaviors between each of the cases under review. It has the purpose of helping to direct investigative resources as well as helping to establish legal connection between crimes.

2. Decision process models

This stage takes the profiling inputs from stage 1 and studies them and organizes them into a particular order, in order to find patterns. Details of the crime such as type, the victim, offender's motivation, and risk of offender being caught are also analyzed at this stage.

3. Crime assessment

The crime is recreated so as to determine the sequence of events that took place and the interaction of those involved. Whether the crime was organized or disorganized is also determined.

4. Criminal profile

At this stage, the offender's background, physical characteristics, habits, beliefs, values, and previous behaviors are analyzed based on what was when analyzing the crime scene. Recommendations from the profilers are made as to how to continue investigating the crime in way that will lead to catching the offender. Ainsworth (2001) identified that there are four main approaches to offender profiling. The geographical approach is when the patterns are analyzed in regard to timing and location of the crime scene in order to determine where the offender lives and work. Investigative psychology is the approach that focuses on the use of psychological theories of analysis to determine the characteristics of the offender by looking at the presented offending behavior and style of offense. The typological approach looks at specific characteristics of the crime scene to then categorize the offender according to the various ‘typical’ characteristics. The clinical approach to offender profiling is when the understanding of psychiatry and clinical psychology is used to determine whether the offender is suffering from mental illness of various psychological abnormalities.

5. Investigation

Applying the profile to the investigation. This can include the use of the predictive profiling. Predictive profiling includes predicting when and where a serial offender might commit his/her next crime, or which of a pool of suspects is most likely to commit an additional offense. In sexual assault cases, victim behavior and recollection of the attacker’s words, smell, mannerisms, and other identifiable traits can help police with suspect identification. And case linkage uses profiling techniques to connect seemingly unrelated crimes to a single suspect or group of suspects.

6. Apprehension

This final stage looks at how accurate and successful the profile was in catching the offender^[2]

Notable Profilers

Throughout the 20th century there have been many prominent figures in offender profiling. In 1943 Walter C. Langer developed a profile of Adolf Hitler that hypothesized his response to losing the war. James Brussel was a psychiatrist who rose to fame by creating an accurate profile that led to the capture of New York City's Mad Bomber in 1956. He continued to work with NYPD for 15 years earning him the name "The Sherlock Holmes of the Couch".^[3]

In 1972, the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI was formed by Patrick Mullany and Howard Teten; they increased the abilities of detectives by examining the evidence for signs of mental disorders and other traits of the perpetrators.^[22] After successes including identification of serial killers by their "souvenirs", this system of techniques grew into the modern Criminal Investigative Analysis Program. Following Teten's departure John Douglas and Robert Ressler created a typology of sex murderers and formed the National Center for Analysis of Violent Crime which further studied behavioral patterns and characteristics that advanced offender profiling as a science.^[23]

Investigations of notorious serial killers Ted Bundy and the Green River Killer were preformed in 1974 by Robert Keppel and psychologist Richard Walter. They went on to develop the four subtypes of violent crime and the Hunter Integrated Telemetry System (HITS) database which compiled characteristics of violent crime for research.^[24]  

Problems

Offender profiling is not without problems or those who say it is invalid. Incorrect information from profiling can lead to false positives or false negatives. Investigators may find a suspect who appears to fit an incorrect profile and ignore or stop investigating other leads. The opposite of the false positive is the false negative: the profile yields incorrect information which would cause investigators to ignore a suspect who is actually guilty.

Some profilers such as Brent Turvey, as quoted by journalist Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker^[25] have questioned its scientific validity. Many profilers and FBI agents, such as Turvey, are not psychologists, and some researchers who looked at their work found methodological flaws.

Although criminal profiling is quite popular and is often used as a tool in criminal investigations, it lacks empirical evidence to support its use. In a review by Eastwood et al. (2006), existing research on the validity of criminal profiling was analyzed, to determine whether this technique can be counted on to aid in criminal investigations. One of the studies that was noted in the review was by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990), and involved asking different groups of people, including actual profilers, university students, police detectives and clinical psychologists, to create a profile based on details about a particular crime. The results showed that the trained criminal profilers did not do any better than the other groups in creating an accurate profile which could predict who the culprit was. Similar results were obtained in another study, which assessed police officers, psychologists, students, psychics and profilers on their ability to create a predictive profile. Again, results showed that profilers were not significantly better at creating a profile than any of the other groups^[26]. From these results, Eastwood et al. concluded that there is no compelling evidence that criminal profilers are more capable of predicting the characteristics and traits of a criminal than those who are not trained in the field. Thus, if criminal profiling cannot be shown to be a valid instrument for narrowing down the suspect pool and potentially targeting a guilty individual, it is questionable whether it should be used in investigations and courtrooms at all.

Besides its validity, other aspects of criminal profiling are problematic as well. Snook et al. (2008) outline several problems with the practice. First, the typologies that are used in criminal profiling have not been empirically shown to be accurate in matching the behavior of criminals. The practice of criminal profiling is based on the psychological theory that underlying dispositions are what make individuals engage in criminal behavior. It is now known that this theory is flawed, but it is still a central component of profiling.

Three psychologists from the Universities of Liverpool and Hull are questioning the basic presumption that you can draw conclusions about a person from a single instance of behaviour under such special circumstances. "The notion that particular configurations of demographic features can be predicted from an assessment of particular configurations of specific behaviors occurring in short-term, highly traumatic situations seems an overly ambitious and unlikely possibility. Thus, until such inferential processes can be reliably verified, such claims should be treated with great caution in investigations and should be entirely excluded from consideration in court."^[27]

Critics of the practice of offender profiling have mainly contended that few studies have produced clear, quantifiable, evidence of a link between crime scene actions (A) and offender characteristics (C), a necessary supposition of the A to C paradigm proposed by Canter (1995).^[28] However, recent research by Goodwill, Lehmann, Beauregard and Andrei (2014) ^[29] has revealed compelling evidence of links between clusters of crime scene behaviours and offender characteristics. Goodwill et al. suggest that the failure of some previous research to find such links was based on a failure in those studies to examine offender behaviour as part of a dynamic decision-making process, or action phases of the offence. Their study an "Action Phase Approach to Offender Profiling" sought to identify and model the decision-making (action) phases of an offender based on their choice of behaviour and relate these behaviours to known characteristics of the offender.

See also

• Behavioral Analysis Unit

−

• Thomas Bond (British physician)

−

• FBI method of profiling

−

• Forensic profiling

−

• Forensic psychology

−

• Investigative psychology

−

References