Ofender profiling Flashcards
Intro
A primary goal of policing is ensuring public safety and thus, law enforcement use a variety of tools to apprehend offenders, including criminal profiling. Typically applied to homicides, investigators seek the aid of a profiler who creates a profile that isolates offender characteristics.
When there is not enough physical evidence to identify the offender, the behavioural method left behind at the crime scene can narrow down the search for the unknown offender by predicting their personality traits. In addition, this can work hand in hand with case linkage, profilers can compare the behaviour patterns of one or more cases. In R v Straffen (1952) an offender was linked to a third sexual assault after being charged with two others of a similar nature.
Interpretation of crime scene evidence can indicate the personality type of the individual who committed the offence (Rossmo, 2000)
FBI approach
The phrase top-down refers to an approach, which starts with the big picture and then fills in the details. The Top Down of FBI approach relies on previous experiences of crimes.
In the 1970’s the FBIs behavioral Science Unit gathered data from 36 sexually motivated serial killers to develop this approach to Offender Profiling.
In 1980 Hazelwood and Douglas published their account of the ‘lust murderer’, they advanced a theory that lust murderers are mainly catergorised by two types: - Organised and disorganised.
An organised offender leads an ordered life and kills after some sort of critical life event. Their actions are premeditated and planned, they are likely to bring weapons and restraints to the scene. They are likely to be of average to high intelligence and employed.
A disorganised offender is more likely to have committed the crime in a moment of passion. There will be no evidence of premeditation and they are more likely to leave evidence such as blood, semen, murder weapon etc. behind. This type of offender is thought to be less socially competent and more likely to be unemployed.
Problems
Top down profiling is reductionist as the classification system (organised/disorganised) is too simple. Offenders are not simply either disorganised or organised. It may be that there are both organised and disorganised features to all their crimes. An offender may start off being disorganised and become more organised as they develop their modus operandi.
In the Crime Classification Manual, Douglas et al. (1992) introduced a third category to the taxonomy, the “mixed” offender. The proposal of a mixed category does, of course, raise fundamental questions
about the possibility of finding empirical support for the basic dichotomy. If a large proportion of actual cases are mixed, then the basic dichotomy is unlikely to survive systematic scrutiny
The study fails to consider the offender’s motivation for volunteering. Volunteers tend to represent the
extremes and, as such, the distribution may not be representative of the broader population.
Further, it does not consider the existence of minority and female offenders
Top Down typology can only be applied to sexually motivated serial killers; because of the limitations of the originally sample that they interviewed: - sexually motivated serial killers!).
Alison et al (2002) argues that this approach is based on out-dated theories of personality being stable. External, situational factors can be a major influence on offending and they are constantly changing.
Prentky and Burgess (2000)
Correctly classifying offenders based on limited and sometimes unreliable information.
When it goes wrong
FBI PROFILE
• Single
• Around 40
• NOT in armed services
Actually – Bundy • Married (2 Children) • 34 years old • Airforce instructor The profiles slowed down the investigation because Bundy was excluded from computer searches due to the ‘profile’. Two psychics were of no use either.
Legal issues
In R. v. Stagg, (1994), the prosecutor wanted to introduce in an offender profiling expert to prove the correspondence between the criminal profiling of the killer and the psychological profile of the suspect charged for that murder. The Court refused to admit the evidence with this opinion: The notion that a psychological profile is proof of identity is redolent. No judge has ever treated the criminal profile as admissible in proof of identity.
Profiles are about generalisations, trends and prioritisation, they are not proof of an individuals gulit.
Statistical approach/ Investigative psychology
Investigative psychology is the scientific discipline concerned with the psychological principles, theories and empirical findings that may be applied to investigations and the legal process
A bottom-up approach which starts with small details and creates the big picture. No initial assumptions are made about the offender and the approach relies heavily on computer databases.
Canter (1990) is the UK’s foremost profiling expert; his bottom-up approach looks for consistencies in offenders’ behavior during the crime. Canter’s most famous case is that of the ‘Railway Rapist’ John Duffy.
John Duffy carried out 24 sexual attacks and 3 murders of women near railway stations in North London in the 1980’s. David Canter analysed the geographical details and the evidence and drew up a surprisingly accurate profile. However, it should be noted that the profile didn’t directly lead to John Duffy’s arrest.
Evaluation
Bottom-up has wider applications; it can be applied to other crimes, not just sexually motivated serial killers like top-down.
Profiles can be useful, but police must be careful not to be blinded to other possibilities by them. Occasionally criminals do not fit the profile. Overuse could lead to miscarriages of justice. E.g. Paul Britton’s misleading profile in the hunt for the killer of Rachel Nickell.
Investigative psychology compares the current case to previous cases and their information.
This tactic is inductive, assuming that similar offenders yield similar crime scenes (Holmes and Holmes, 2002). When a rare crime is involved, the data availability is limited.
Case availability for comparison will affect the
ultimate product and therefore, the profile is only as good as the data that precedes it.
Evidence based models
INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGISTS
Conduct research which can be used by profilers
Conduct research into how profiles are received and interpreted (Social processes)
Evaluate profiles and help develop best practice for writing such reports (decision making processes).
Examine how profiles are interpreted
Barnum Effect
The Barnum effect is a common psychological phenomenon whereby individuals give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically to them but that are, in fact, vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people.
Attend to things match, disregard items that do not 8
Profliers were using very vage statements, these are seen as relevant.
Profiling and the Barnum Effect (Alison, Morgan & Smith, 2003)
Group A received a genuine offender description
Group B received a fabricated offender description. The characteristics of the fabricated offender were devised to stand in contrast to the genuine offender characteristics. Both groups received the same crime details and the same offender profile.
• 50%+ rated the profile as generally or very accurate of suspect A
• 40%+ rated the profile as generally or very accurate of suspect B
• Similar justifications are given for each
Individuals tend to construct meaning around ambiguous statements about a third party within the context of offender profiling. Smith and Alison (2001) suggesting that “accuracy is seen in the eye of the beholder”
Alison, Almond, Christiansen, Waring & Villejoubert (2013)
Examined extent to which typicality and concourance mediate the influence of expert advice.
227 members of the public and 60 police officers
Initial Brief…
Sexual assaults in children.
Participants were asked to first formulate their own “profile” of a likely offender then estimate the guilt of two presented suspect descriptions (orthodox vs. unorthodox), and, following the presentation of an “expert’s” profile that matched either the orthodox or the unorthodox suspect and re-evaluate their guilt judgments of the two suspects based on this new advice.
Expert profiles that matched a suspect’s description elevated perceptions of guilt in that suspect, whilst also, simultaneously, very significantly decreasing the perception of guilt of the alternative suspect - 90% changed opinion which suspects guilty
Implications
• Huge impact profile has on judgements of guilt
• Profile may lead investigation in wrong direction
• Vital profiles empirically sound
• Officers retain healthy scepticism
Unorthodox expert advice may be more influential because it provides expertly sourced, new information which challenges beliefs. To reduce the difference people adjust their own beliefs to increase consensus or dismiss the external source (McKimmie et al., 2003).
Marshall and Alison’s (2007) study illustrates that advice may be reinforcing and promote confirmation bias. The key issue appears to relate to the adviser’s ability to provide evidence for any given claim. So police officers are able to evaluate if they can base their suspect prioritisation on the given profile.
Canter and Alison (1999) noted, ‘one
must check and treat with caution all opinions and not simply assume that because it is
said with great conviction by someone with experience that it must be true’.
Kocsis and Hayes (2003) conducted a study on the perceptions of police officers when presented with an offender profile. Unsurprisingly, police officers placed more value with the alleged profiler as credible and accurate over the actual perpetrator. This presents flaws in offender profiling, suggesting that the reader’s perception is based on the author’s identity.
However a Follow up - Christiansen, Waring, Almond & Lorek (2015)
109 participants
No main effect of the author (Expert/Novice)
Effect of profile found regardless of the author
Evaluation DM and eveloping ‘best practise’
Investigative approach =
Prepare an Investigative Report:
Relevant and Informative to the Investigation;
Able to stand up to legal and peer review based on scientific findings
Of Sufficient clarity as not to confuse or be misleading to the Enquiry Team.
FALSIFIABLE
There must be a basis for testing the accuracy of the findings presented in the report
EVIDENCE
The psychological principles upon which observations or inferences are made must be clearly identified within the report
COMPETENCE
The report must not make assertions about the offender which are outside the scope of knowledge of the author (i.e. clinical diagnoses, sexual fantasies).
SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
The profile must not be intuitive but rather should have a scientific basis or rely on deductive reasoning.
Toulmin’s philosophy of argument
Reasoning methods for profiles
6 interrelated components
Claim
Strength - indicates the extent to which the claim can be true (Profiles should never be 100% certain - Unless there is evidence)
Grounds - The grounds (or data) is the basis of real persuasion and is made up of data and hard facts, plus the reasoning behind the claim
Warrant - Authorises the grounds, A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant.
Backing - The backing (or support) for an argument gives additional support to the warrant. Where you got the information from.
Rebuttal - Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counter-arguments that can be used. Set out the conditions under which the claim isn’t true or needs to be adjusted.
Alison et al (2003)
21 European and American profiles from the 1997-2001:
Half of the opinions contained advice that was unfalsifiable.
One fifth of statements was vague or open to interpretation - Open to Barnum effects
In 80% of cases, the profiler did not give any evidence or justification for their opinion.
Police officers are not given any formal training in how to interpret a profile, which could jeopardise a case if they are not made aware that they need to use the profile as a suggestion rather than a reliance in solving the case.
Almond, Alison & Porter, 2007
Forty-seven reports 2005
contained 805 claims,
96% of the claims contained grounds for their claim,
34% had any formal support or backing.
43% were falsifiable
Comparison of the present study with earlier work show evidence of improvement. Claims include backing, grounds, and warrant. Should a report neglect to provide this information, SIOs will be unable to evaluate if they can base their suspect prioritisation on the given profile. Those using profiling advice may be susceptible to a positive bias due to an increased willingness to accept information from those who are believed to be professionals with specialist knowledge (Kocsis & Hayes, 2004).
Many factors (heuristics, biases, stereotypes, and individual differences) can influence how individuals interpret information (Baron, 1988; Koehler & Harvey, 2004). Knowledge of these issues will assist the BIAs in writing their reports.
Profiling today
Alison et al., 2010
Offender profiling makes up 10% activity, decade ago 60%.
BIAs may contribute to the investigative process by aiding: (1) suspect prioritization, (2) linking crimes and crime scenes, (3) geographical profiling,(4) the interviewing process, and (5) risk assessment of offenders in clinical settings.
The current – still developing field – is based on replicable, transparent, and valid knowledge and research.
The UK now takes a Behavioural Investigative Approach
Assist with day-to-day work of police, not just profiling.
Developing guidelines for ‘best practise’ for profiling activities.
Relationships between police, practitioners and academics improving.
Feeding findings of research back into practice
