Lecture: 3 Offender Profiling

What is offender profiling?

Trick question!, there is no universally accepted definition for criminal profiling - definitions range from being about producing a description of a perpetrator or more general, e.g, any prediction, recommendation and observation based on inferences.

What did Copson (1995) find about what we use profiling for?

1. Description of the characteristics of the unknown offender, 2. Enhanced understanding of offenders behaviour and likely further threat. 3. Guidance on interview strategies, 4. Linking a series of offences based on common behavioural characteristics.

What was the first profile?

The profile of Jack the Ripper by Dr. Thomas Bone in 1888.

Explain what happened in the case of the Mad bomber ?

George Metesky - ‘Mad Bomber’ - 1968 - placed 50 bombs over 17 years - a psychiatrist (Brussels) was enlisted in 1956 for the sake of profiling, Brussels argued that it was his profiling that ultimately led to the criminals arrests

What can we conclude on closer examination of the case of the Mad bomber?

It may not have been the profiling that actually led to his arrest, simple deductions based on where the Bomber’s letters were mailed to and form and well as the language used explained Brussels's profile → the idea that he was slavic, living in Westchester could all be deduced simply from the letters, rather than the crime scene

Who was Alice Kelly?

She could be classified as a real hero behind the arrest of George Mesky → she noted that in the bomber’s letters were a lot of threats to Con Ed (a electrical plant company), and scoured the workers compensation files until she found George Mesky, who had similar hard writing and language to the bomber.

Explain the case of Rachel Nickell and Stagg?

An example of where profiling goes wrong. Richel Nickell was brutally murdered in front of her two year old son. Paul Britton, a profiler was consulted, said that Colin Stagg fit into the profile perfectly. Undercover police investigation was launched, female UC tried to get Stagg to admin over 5 months. Stagg did not admit, case still went to trial, the judge called the entire thing ‘deceptive conduct of the grossest kind’, Stagg was awarded $700,000, and another man was arrested in 2008 for the murder.

What are the different approaches to profiling?

Clinical Approach
FBI Approach
Geographical approach
Statistical approach.

What is the clinical approach?

A general term used to describe the work of profilers who rely on clinical experience rather than statistical analysis or theory.

What is the FBI approach?

First attempt to develop systematic approach by the behavioural science unit, interviewed 36 convicted sexually motivated murderers, lead to the distinction between organised and disorganised murders.

Explain the difference between organised and disorganised profiles?

Organised - crime scene is planned in advance, with restraints used, sexual acts after death, weapons and body moved. Profile - intelligent, socially competent, skilled, lives with partner and followers details of crime in news
Disorganised - crime scene is a spontaneous offence, sudden violence with little restraints, little evidence of movement of body or weapons. Profile - average IQ, immature, poor work history, lives near crime scene with little interest in media.

What is the geographical approach?

Seeks to predict base location from a series of crimes, creates a heat map with ‘killers’ location in the middle, assumes that the killer cares for the location of the crime.

What is the statistical approach?

David Canter’s approach, wherein clusters of behaviour are identified in solved case typologies . This is more scientific than intuition-based profiling but requires a lot of data of ideally 10+ cases in similar locations of where the new crime is being committed.

Explain what happened in Coals to Newcastle?

Was an archival study that conducted surveys amongst police officers and looked at solved cases

For police officers - 54% PC felt like they had received extra info, 14% said that it has assisted in solving. 3% said that it led to the identification of the offenders.
In solved cases - found that profilers got 68% of the profile correct. However, the efficiency can be very difficult to assess.

What did Pinizzotto et al do?

Compared the profiles written by profilers, detectives, psychologist and students using solved cases. Found that
Profilers performed better on the sex offense case, but there were no advantages for profiles on the murder case, and that all the groups used the case information similarly.

What did Kocsis et al do?

Compared profilers, police, psychologist, students and psychics to make a profile, found that
Psychologist outperformed police and psychics
Profiles showed some advantage, but only five participants
Psychics performed poorly, relying on stereotypes.

What do profiles actually say (Alison et al) ?

This research found that most statement repeated facts already known to the police, only 28% described the offender, of those 82% were unsubstantiated, 16% were justified and 1% were illogical.
Concluded that most profiling content may not add real investigative value.

What did Canter et al find about Organised and Disorganised killers?

Found that there was no clear split between the two types and most killers showed organised traits but disorganised traits were rare.

What did Fox and Farrington do?

Meta analysis that looked at how well profiling works → found that it was good at case linkage, but very few studies tested our accurate or useful profiles are.
Despite being used widely, profiling generally lacks strong scientific support.

What did Snook et al, 2008 argue?

1. Common hypotheses are invalid 2. Profiles are based on outdated personality theories, 3. Profiles don’t often outperform non-profilers.

So, according to Snook, why do people believe in profiling?

Anecdotal evidence can be persuasive – but not scientific
Repetition – repeating a message increases belief
Selective reporting – e.g. reporting only hits, ignoring errors
Cognitive biases – such as Confirmation Bias (we look for conformity instances and ignore contrary evidence)
Barnum effect – we have a tendency to interpret vague statements as if were specific (e.g. astrology, palm reading etc.)
Media attention, TV, film etc.

Okay, profiling is bad, what should we do next?

Alison et al argues that we should have a more pragmatic, interdisciplinary approach called Behavioural Investigative Advice. Wherein consultants help with Suspect prioritization, Linking crimes and crime scenes, Geographical profiling , The interviewing process termed, Risk assessment of offenders in clinical setting.