Abstract
Criminal profiling provides means by which the field of investigation can be narrowed. By analyzing and focusing on a particular behavior and personal characteristics, it is possible to identify the most likely individual who committed the crime. Criminal profiling is a combination of both arts and science that forms a unique investigative technique. Crimes that mostly require criminal profiling include rape, murder, and pedophilia. Assessments from crime scenes can shed light to help identify the perpetrator. The main objective is to ensure that the perpetrator is apprehended and convicted for the crime committed. Many criminals have been arrested by applying this technique. This paper gives an overview of criminal profiling that includes types of profiling done in the United States of America (U.S.A) and United Kingdom (UK), their similarities and differences, and the profiling process.
There is a long history of criminal profiling. In the 1880s, crime scene clues were used to make predictions about the personality of Jack the Ripper, a British serial murderer. In today’s world, profiling has taken root in both the U.S.A and the U.K where more complicated and forensic analysis is been done. The effectiveness of the techniques seems to have improved over time. The paper discusses the various methods used in profiling by authorities of both countries that help them in making inquiries. The descriptions of these techniques have been discussed briefly. There are basically two forms of criminal profiling, namely the ‘Top- down’, which is applied by Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I) in the U.S.A, and the ‘Bottom-up’ which is applied by U.K profilers. The American approach analyses the evidence together with the data from the previous crimes. Through analysis, the psychological theories of criminals and the approach in which previous crimes were solved; profiler derives the offender’s personality that provides a link with the evidence. The U.K approach referred to as Bottom-up builds the profile from the evidence and data of the current crime until they obtain actionable pieces of work without applying previous knowledge or experience.
Major goals of Profiling
According to Holmes & Holmes (2008), there are three basic goals of profiling:
- To provide the authorities with Psychological assessment: Basic information about the offender is included: sex, age, race, religion, marital status, residence and occupation. The information is critical to the authorities who use it to predict future attacks.
- To provide the authorities with Psychological evaluation of belongings: This includes items that offenders may have in their possession. Items like photos and souvenirs. This is very critical for the authorities when they have arrested a prime suspect.
- To provide the authorities with interviewing suggestions and strategies: When the offender has been apprehended proper interrogation should be done in order to solicit information that will help solve future crimes. Good profilers should provide the authorities with suggestions and strategies to use to solicit such critical information from the group of offenders. People will react differently to the same interview strategy.
Criminal Profiling: The American and U.K Model
The increase of serial murders and rapes in the early 1970s triggered the F.B.I to come up with a systematic method of criminal profiling. The F.B.I formed a special Unit, (Behavioral Sciences Unit) BSU to deal with these kinds of crimes. In 1979, FBI investigators interviewed 36 convicted sexual murderers who were then categorized by either organized or disorganized typologies. The offenders who were termed as organized had average intelligence and planned before committing the assault on the targeted victim. Organized offenders are social and sexually active and most of them are in an intimate relationship, on the other hand, disorganized offenders are not socially competent and show no evidence of planning. Disorganized offenders often leave the body left at the crime scene. The typologies were incorporated into the Crone classification manual to be used by the F.B.I as a guide when creating criminal profiles (Holmes & Holmes 2008).
In contrast to the U.S. model, there is no one distinct definition or rule for criminal profiling in the U.K. What exist are different profilers who use varied concepts. There is no recommended manual or guide to help in profiling. At a particular point in the U.K, the Metropolitan Police approached David Canter, a University Psychology professor to assist in apprehending John Duffy, the “Railway Killer”. Canter created a profile that enabled the police to locate and arrest John Duffy in 1988. Canter et al (2004) argued that a certain pattern of consistency in behavior will always be followed by the criminal at the crime scene and when living the normal (non-offending) life. This makes it reasonable and critical to interview the victims of what was said to them by the criminal at the time of the crime. This way, the social behavior of the criminal can be captured and form a profile of how the criminal would interact in the non-offending world. For example, a rapist who offered an apology to his victim may have committed the crime due to his incompetence to have a normal and intimate relationship in a normal social setting.
Another contrast of the U.K model work to the F.B.I research is the fact that academicians can analyze and reproduce the same statistical analysis. Numerous offenders’ interviews were conducted between 1980 and 1983 by BSU within U.S. correctional facilities. The interviews were intended to gather information relating to offenders’ previous criminal history capturing the nature of the crime, crime scenes and victims. The data collected from these interviews were systematically analyzed and then formed the basis for the profiling method developed by the F.B.I which is still in use today.
Eventually, Crime Scene Analysis (CSA) was created by the F.B.I and outlines the step-by-step approach of the profiling process. The first step involves gathering and analyzing all the materials relevant to a given case. A careful analysis is done on what happened before, during and after the crime so as to form a clear picture of the crime. No relevant information is left out as every detail is very critical to avoid creating an inaccurate profile. Douglas et al (1993) argue that it is important to have accurate information so that an educated guess about the offender can be generated.
The second step is referred to as the ‘decision processing stage’. At this stage, all relevant information collected from the previous stage is put together into a logical and coherent pattern that helps in identifying a serial offender. The third stage is referred to as ‘crime assessment’, which puts together the details of the interaction between the victim and the offender. The interaction will assist the profilers to identify the contribution of every party in the crime and subsequently create the most likely criminal profile. At this stage, the investigation is narrowed and the investigators can concentrate on fewer individuals who exhibit similar personality traits to others, who have committed similar forms of crimes (Kocsis et al, 2000). The fourth stage is referred to as the ‘criminal profile’, where both the physical and the behavior attributes of the offender are provided. The information provided gives the physical details of location that assist the security forces to locate, identify and apprehend the perpetrator. At this stage it is possible to deduce whether or not future attacks of similar nature are likely to happen thus lowering the number of possible victims (Canter et al, 2004).
The next stage is referred to as the ‘investigation stage’ where the already created profile is circulated to authorities with further editing whenever new information is availed. The final stage involved confirming the profile with the characteristics of arrested suspect.
The F.B.I approach is principally based on organized and disorganized typologies. The information applied is of statistical nature just like in the U.K model. The difference between the two models is the fact that the offender database used as the basis for the investigation is only continually updated under U.K model and that is not the case with the F.B.I model (Beaver & Holtfreter, 2009).
The interaction between the victim and the offender forms the basis of the U.K model. The model constitutes five aspects. The first aspect of the model is referred to as ‘interpersonal coherence’, where the interaction behavior of the offender in both crime situations and a non-offending situation is analyzed for similarities (Douglas et al, 1993). Canter et al (2004) propose that the offender’s way of interaction with the victim will be similar to interaction with any other individual under normal circumstances. Canter also emphasized that it is possible for the offender to have a close relationship with the victim. The second factor of the U.K model is the element of time and place. It shows information regarding the location of the offender and his geographical mobility. By identifying the place where the crime is committed, as well as, the time of the occurrence, information such as the offender’s lifestyle and personal life can be easily predicted. The third factor is known as ‘Criminal Career’ where the profiler prepares an assessment based on the previous criminal activity the offender may have committed. Past crimes become easy to solve when well-prepared profiles are created.
Douglas et al, (1993) hold the view that the U.K model of profiling should be seen as a bottom-up processing model where existing evidence is examined drawing similarities between the crime and the criminal attributes. In contrast, the American model should be termed as top-down processing as it relies on early investigative experiences of crimes and the type of the offenders.
In the U.K approach, more scientific and statistical methodologies are used while the FBI relies on beliefs and theories created from past experiences without using scientific methods of validating such theories. The sampling of 36 offenders to form a basis for applying the result to a bigger population is a weak analysis. This can lead to manipulation were profiles of suspected are created without the scrutiny of the characteristics (Kocsis et al, 2000).
Critics point out that one of the weaknesses of the F.B.I profiling is the assumption that the offender will exhibit a consistent pattern of behavior which is not always the case. For example, an offender who is depressed can commit a crime. This will lead to profiles analyzing some characteristics and creating a profile of a certain group but this may not be the case. The offender may possess characteristics of another group (Peterson, 1997).
It is important to note that the FBI’s analysis has assisted in solving some infamous crimes. However, critics still argue that the profiling is based on analysis of interviews carried out from a small number of sex offenders.
Similarities of American and the British Model
The major similarity is that both the F.B.I and U.K model uses methods that are statistical to create a profile. The second similarity is that both of them do not use hard evidence to prove a case. The investigation of any crime starts with analyzing hard evidence such as fingerprints and bloodstains to build a case. In both American and British models, only behavioral information is used (Beaver & Holtfreter, 2009).
Both models are not used to solve any crime, but to narrow down the range of suspects so that it becomes easier to identify the potential criminal from the analysis of the given characteristics.
Conclusion
It is so clear that there exist numerous differences in the model developed by the F.B.I and U.K in criminal profiling. Though both the British and the FBI models are widely used, other information should supplement to reduce errors when creating profiles. A lot of debate goes on over which method is the most effective to apply in criminal profiling while others argue that criminal profiling should not be used in any jurisdiction. Criminal profiling is not a science and has no hard evidence to work from.
Reference List
Beaver, K. and Holtfreter, K. (2009). Biosocial Influences on Fraudulent Behaviors. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170:2, p.101-114.
Canter, D., Alison, L. Alison, E. and Wentink, E. (2004). The Organized/Disorganized Typology of Serial Murder: Myth or Model? Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 10:4, p.293-320.
Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G. & Ressler, R. (1993). Crime classification manual. London: Simon & Shuster.
Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2008). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kocsis, R., Orwin, H., & Hayes, A. (2000). Expertise in psychological profiling: A comparative assessment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15 (3), pp. 311–331.
Peterson, M. (1997). Practical analytical techniques: A necessary addition to police education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 8 (1), pp.19–35.