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 didnt really lead to Meteskys arrest

Definition FBI 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 interpretation 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 of profiling

FBI Profiling Based on the initial interviews, 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 o o o Additional tool, not standalone Successful use of OP Usage beyond murder & rape 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

 Profilers

6 Forensic Psychologists 3 Therapists 4 British Police Officers 1 British Police Scientist 1 British Police Data System 1 American Law Enforcement Agency

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: Assist in solving the case? Open new lines of enquiry? Add anything to information supplied? Prove operationally useful?

YES (%) 14.1 16.3 53.8

NO(%) 78.3 82.1 38.6

82.6

17.4

Operational usefulness of advice

Aspects of usefulness Led to ID of offender? Furthered understanding of case / offender Expert opinion reassured own judgement

(N) 5 112

(%) 2.7 60.9

95

51.6

Offered structure for interviewing Not useful How successful are profilers

10

5.4

32

17.4

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 homicide 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 inferences Peer review Publication in reputable journals 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. 2. 3. Regarding the solving of crimes, how effective is Offender Profiling (profiles and profilers)? How can this area be researched? 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.