See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328390149
History and Development of Criminal Profiling
Preprint · October 2018
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11308.31360
CITATIONS
READS
0
19,944
2 authors, including:
Teo Sulwen
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Development of a 40-item Questionnaire based on the BFI View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Teo Sulwen on 19 October 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Running head: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINAL PROFILING
1
Issue investigated
Informal criminal profiling has had a long history dating back to the 1880s when crime
scene clues were used to make predictions about British serial killer, Jack the Ripper’s personality
(Canter, 2004; Turvey, 2011, Winerman, 2004). Despite advancements over time (Turvey, 2011),
previous work in profiling was still heavily based on experience and informal studies until
recently, which led to the debate in the credibility of criminal profiling (Muller, 2000; Snook,
Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 2007; Winerman, 2004). Modern criminal profiling is the science of
gathering information such as personality traits, behavioral tendencies, geographic locations and
demographic or biological descriptors of an offender in the context of the crime, in attempts to
identify the type of perpetrator who might have committed the crime, and to fill in information
gaps (Davis, 1999; Kocsis, 2006). It is rooted in psychology, criminology, and forensic science
(Turvey, 2011).
Influence behind this idea and what the study was on
In the 1960s, Howard Teten, an American policeman studying under Dr. Paul Kirk, Dr.
Breyfocal, and Dr. Douglas Kelly -internationally renowned criminalist, medical examiner and
psychiatrist - was inspired, and developed a multidisciplinary understanding of these areas in his
approach to criminal profiling (CP). As a special agent for the Federal Bureau Investigation
(FBI), he then taught a CP program in 1970 as part of a supplementary tool to other investigative
methods, as well as abnormal psychology with Pat Mullany in future. The rise of CP began in
1974 and 1975, when the successful negotiation of major hostage situations by Mullany led to
techniques being taught to all FBI negotiators. After helping solve some cases, its reputation
spread and daily requests for profiles were requested by the police department. In 1972, the FBI’s
Behavioural Science Unit (BSU) was formed. Eventually, Special Agent John Douglas took over
CRIMINAL PROFILING
2
the BSU. (Turvey, 2011). Also corroborating this story is another article that details FBI special
agents John Douglas, and Robert Ressler, who after their visitations, and interviews of serial
killers and mass murderers in 1956, resulted in a systematic approach to CP called the criminal
profile generating process (White, Lester, Gentile, & Rosenbleeth, 2011). Since then, these
profiles have been used as tools in cases such as the hunt for special homicides in the United
States until a certain period of time.
Arguments
Despite several successes in past cases (Chifflet, 2015; Davis, 1999; Svensson &
Khoshnood, 2018; White et al., 2011), the most recurring debate is whether CP is scientific and
reliable. Applied psychologist, David Canter contended that inferences should stem from
empirical, peer-reviewed research and not merely from experience (Winerman, 2004). In studies
comparing the ability of profilers and other groups to predict traits of an unknown criminal,
mixed results were obtained. Some studies showed slight differences between groups, while some
did not (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990; Snook, Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 2007). Currently,
support for the effectiveness of techniques within CP are not corroborated, as there were no
recurring and reliable literature on the success of investigative approaches (Muller, 2000).
Therefore, it has become a cycle, because despite doubts on reliability, insufficient empirical
evidence is able to substantiate the scientific reliability of CP regardless of the increase in
published literature.
On the effectiveness of profiling, 17% were beneficial in actual identification of the
perpetrator, compared to the 46% that was perceived as helpful to the case. However, in 77% of
the cases, use of profiles did provide a better directive focus in the process of investigation (Cook
and Hinman, 1999). Moreover, there has also been continued use by law enforcement agencies
CRIMINAL PROFILING
3
worldwide and empirical evidence did show there was a 75% accuracy of CP results with actual
events (Lee, 2015). Thus, evaluating these arguments suggests that it depends the original intent
of using CP as an investigative tool; whether it is meant to play the role of identification, or as a
supplement to other investigative techniques. While it may not directly help in making arrests, it
did play a part in narrowing the scope, which leads to higher chances of arresting the criminals
(Lee, 2015). Moreover, while science and its application has some overlap, it was also contended
that scientific evaluation of practical police work involving application of case-analytical methods
remain a challenging feat (Dern, H., Dern, C., Horn, A., & Horn, U, 2009).
The Process of Criminal Profiling
The evolution of CP has been standardized to a basic 6 steps called the Criminal-ProfileGenerating Process (Douglas, Ressler, Burgess, & Hartman, 1986). The steps are broken down as
followed:
Phase 1 Profiling Input Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).
The first step of creating a criminal profile is to gather data on everything about the crime,
including the victim (personal information, personality, interpersonal relationships etc), the
perpetrator, the crime scene (weather, political and social environment etc) and the crime itself
(autopsy report, toxicology results etc) to provide a comprehensive and well-rounded analysis.
Phase 2 Decision Process Models Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).
This is proceeded through organizing collected input into meaningful patterns by looking
into:
Homicide type and style. Homicide cases can be differentiated depending on number of
victims, number of events, and number of locations.
CRIMINAL PROFILING
4
Initial intention. The primary intent of the murderer can be differentiated to criminal
enterprise; emotional, selfish or cause specific; or sexual intent.
Victim and offender risk. Through this factor profilers are able to grasp on the type of
perpetrator that did the crime, based on the risk level carried by the victim and the offender.
Escalation. Depending on how the crime happened, profilers are able to identify the type
of criminals they are looking for.
Time and location factor. This focuses on the duration of the killing; committing other
acts on the body; and body disposal. Also, there is also the factor or where the crime happened
and where the body was found.
Phase 3 Crime Assessment Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).
Profilers begin to generate a criminal profile which includes reconstructing the crime and
the offender’s and victim’s behaviour. This is where the crime is being classified into
organised/disorganised (Young, 2006); victim selection and how they are controlled; crime
sequence; presence of staging; offender’s motivation (depending on whether it is premeditated)
and its dynamics.
Phase 4 Criminal Profile Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).
Once a criminal profile is established, thus begins the process of capturing suspects based
on the given information, and to compare for validity of criminal profile.
Phase 5 Investigation Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).
Profilers write a report for the respective agency as supporting evidence to improve
likelihood of capturing suspects.
Phase 6 Apprehension Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).
CRIMINAL PROFILING
5
The report and criminal will be cross-examined, and a detailed interview will be given to
the criminal to complete and validate the profiling process.
Results of Criminal Profiling
Criminal profilers have displayed higher accuracy in picking out the offenders in a pool of
potential suspects than people untrained as criminal profilers when given a line-up exercises
(Kocsis & Palermo, 2015; Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990). This displays that the skill of CP has been
useful in increasing the probability of identifying criminals when it comes to using surrounding
information and personal information of both parties to look for meaningful patterns that exists
within the criminal.
Evolution of Criminal Profiling
Throughout the eras of CP, it has evolved into a more systematic approach whereby it
consists of more comprehensive information comprising of internal and external factors, whereas
in the past, experts of different fields had a more differentiated approach of identifying patterns
among criminals, to currently where there is a more integrated approach of experts coming
together to create a systematic profile of a particular criminal that has higher reliability (Alison,
Goodwill, Almond, & Winter, 2010; Nykodym, Taylor, & Vilela, 2005). CP has also evolved
whereby CP is done for modern crimes such as cybercrime, to potentially identify the people
more likely of committing cybercrime (Nykodym et al., 2005).
However, there has not been much changes in the overall process of CP. Despite the interchanges in terminology depending on the researchers, the skeleton of the CP process has
remained similar, and still going by the premise that one’s personality and signature is generally
consistent in most situations, which will then reflect in the crime scene (De Wet, 2013; Sethi &
Barney, 2017). It was found that despite the difference in crimes, the basic motivation of crime
CRIMINAL PROFILING
6
has been similar (Rogers, 2003). This potentially shows that there has not been much changes in
criminals, whereby the general patterns cultivated has remained consistent throughout the years.
Implications and importance
CP has been useful to law enforcements through narrowing the scope of investigation,
suggesting proactive strategies during investigation and trial, linking crimes and crime scenes,
aiding geographical profiling and the interviewing process (Alison et al., 2010; Cook & Hinman,
1999). Criminal profiles have also been used over the years in criminal investigations and has
been presented in court as expert evidence and has shown success rates when identifying suspects
and bringing them to justice (Chifflet, 2014; Meyer, 2008;).
Moreover, CP can also be expanded to other fields of research such as occupational
analysis. In a discussion conducted by Sethi and Barney (2017), they mentioned the potential of
combining CP into understanding an occupation fully. The act of backtracking one’s actions to
infer one’s personality can be applied in creating an occupational profile for corporate settings.
This shows that CP has other possibilities in utilizing the same skill into other fields in
psychology whereby it involves a multidisciplinary approach for an accurate representation of a
person or situation.
Furthermore, it brings more insight into forensic psychology and contribute to arresting
criminals more effectively. The research possibilities also bring more job opportunities to
researchers, which in return, bring more supporting evidence to law enforcement for crime
prevention, showing a mutually beneficial cycle. However, the future of CP remains ambiguous
from the FBI perspective (Turvey, 2011), therefore there is still plenty of room for improvement
in the field of CP.
CRIMINAL PROFILING
7
References
Alison, L., Goodwill, A., Almond, L., Van Den Heuvel, C., & Winter, J. (2010). Pragmatic
solutions to offender profiling and behavioural investigative advice. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 115-132.
Canter, D. (2004). Offender profiling and investigative psychology. Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1(1), 1-15.
Chifflet, P. (2014). Questioning the validity of criminal profiling: An evidence-based
approach. Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 238-255.
Chifflet, P. (2015). Questioning the validity of criminal profiling: An evidence-based approach.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 238-255.
Cook, P. E., & Hinman, D. L. (1999). Criminal profiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 15(3), 230-241.
Davis, J.A. (1999). Criminal personality profiling and crime scene assessment. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(3), 291-301.
Dern, H., Dern, C., Horn, A., & Horn, U. (2009). The fire behind the smoke: A reply to Snook
and colleagues. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(10), 1085-1090.
De Wet, J. A. (2013). An exploratory analysis of serial rape in South Africa. Retrieved from
UP Space Institutional Repository.
Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. S., Burgess, A.W., & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling from
crime scene analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 4(4), 401-421.
Kocsis, R. N. (2006). What Is Criminal Profiling? (pp. 1-11). New Jersey, NJ: Humana Press
CRIMINAL PROFILING
8
Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2015). Disentangling criminal profiling: Accuracy,
homology, and the myth of trait-based profiling. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(3), 313-332.
Lee, C. M. (2015). Criminal profiling and industrial security. Multimedia Tools and Applications,
74(5), 1689-1696.
Meyer, C. B. (2008). Criminal Profiling as Expert Evidence? In R. N., Kocsis. (Eds.), Criminal
Profiling (pp. 207-247). New Jersey, NJ: Humana Press.
Muller, D. A. (2000). Criminal profiling: Real science or just wishful thinking? Homicide
Studies, 4(3), 234-264.
Nykodym, N., Taylor, R., & Vilela, J. (2005). Criminal profiling and insider cyber crime.
Computer Law & Security Review, 21(5), 408–414. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2005.07.001
Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process
study. Law and Human Behavior, 14(3), 215-233.
Rogers, M. (2003). The role of criminal profiling in the computer forensics process. Computers
& Security, 22(4), 292–298. doi:10.1016/s0167-4048(03)00405-x
Sethi, C., & Barney, K. F. (2017). Serial crime as occupation: Parallels between occupational
analysis and psychological profiling. Journal of Occupational Science, 25(2), 283289. doi: 10.1080/14427591.2017.1366930
Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, R. M. (2007). Taking stock of
criminal profiling: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
34(4), 437-453.
Svensson, R., & Khoshnood, A. (2018). Validity of Criminal Profiling: A Systematic Literature
Review. Retrieved from Malmo University Electronic Publishing.
CRIMINAL PROFILING
9
Turvey, B. E. (Ed.). (2011). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis.
Alaska, AK: Elsevier.
White, J. H., Lester, D., Gentile, M., & Rosenbleeth, J. (2011). The utilization of forensic science
and criminal profiling for capturing serial killers. Forensic Science International, 209(13), 160-165.
Winerman, L. (2004). Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth. Monitor on Psychology,
35(7), 66-69.
Young, T. M. (2006). Profiling pros and cons: An evaluation of contemporary criminal profiling
methodologies. Retrieved from Northeastern University College of
Criminal Justice.
View publication stats