Criminal profiling represents a technique wherein the behavioral features apparent in a crime or series of crimes are assessed for the purpose of formulating a template of descriptive features concerning the likely perpetrator of the crime or crimes. The technique is typically used to assist police personnel who are investigating crimes, often of an aberrant violent nature, which are not readily solved via standard investigative procedures. The information contained in a criminal profile typically includes demographic features such as the offender’s age, gender, level of education, marital status, vocation, and personal interest but can also extend to highly specialized forms of information such as the area wherein the offender may reside or analysis as to whether multiple crimes were perpetrated by the same offender. Equipped with the information contained in a criminal profile, police investigators can better coordinate their investigations concerning existing suspects and use the information to develop further lines of inquiry that may potentially lead to the identification of new suspects. Importantly, criminal profiles are not a panacea for solving an intractable crime but merely represent another form of investigative tool, akin to fingerprints, for police agencies to use.
This article begins by reviewing the history and theories of criminal profiling. Next, the entry addresses the issues of validity and utility of such profiling. Last, the entry discusses controversies and concern regarding criminal profiling as evidence in judicial proceedings.
The History and Theories of Criminal Profiling
Contrary to popular culture depictions, the concept of criminal profiling is, in fact, very old and reflects a long-standing fascination that human societies have held in attempting to understand the reasons individuals perpetrate crimes. Early fictional conceptions of criminal profiling appear in the novels of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his consummate detective, Sherlock Holmes, in 1886. However, real-world manifestations of criminal profiling date back to 1878 and the seminal works of Cesare Lombroso, the founding figure of modern criminology. Early examples of the use of criminal profiles in police investigations can also be traced to historically infamous cases such as the 1888 Whitechapel (Jack the Ripper) murders or the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh’s 20-month-old son, Charles Lindbergh Jr., in 1932.
Field and contemporary approaches to criminal profiling are analogous to the topic of personality theory and the construct referred to as the mind. However, precisely how the human mind functions is the source of considerable scholarly discourse and debate with the formulation of numerous differing theoretical paradigms such as psychodynamic, behavioral, and cognitive schools of thought. The field of criminal profiling is similar in its analysis of behaviors exhibited in crimes for the purpose of deriving an impression of the likely perpetrators. However, akin to the field of personality theory, the methodological basis as to how this analysis is optimally achieved is the source of discourse with a variety of differing theoretical approaches. Also akin to the field of personality theory, each of these rivaling approaches to criminal profiling features their own inherent merits and limitations, and there is no definitive approach that can claim to be the optimal method of profiling crimes.
Some of the conceptual features to these differing approaches relate to their disciplinary origins and vocational focus. Criminal profiling by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, is a heavily pragmatic orientation in its endeavor to develop accessible methods and information that can be readily accessed and utilized by law enforcement agencies. In contrast, academic researchers endeavor to develop replicable theorems more aligned with the traditional conventions of the scientific method. Further differences in the field also relate to specialized modes of analysis encompassed under the broader rubric of criminal profiling. One such example is the mapping and analysis of crime locations, which are used as the basis for gauging the likely area where an offender may reside. Unlike the broader range of research in the field that largely stems from mainstream criminology and clinical forensic psychology, these analyses derive from the disciplinary fields of geography and environmental psychology.
Differences in theoretical perspective, however, relate to the degree of commonality (in terms of characteristics) that offenders who commit similar forms of crime may share. In this context, the theoretical differences in opinion are largely split into two perspectives. One view is that there are few or no robust commonalities to be found among offenders. The alternative is that some commonalities exist, but they are largely sourced in psychopathological factors that certain offenders commonly share. Accordingly, it is these psychopathologies that play a role in particular forms of crime that certain offenders typically perpetrate as well as the characteristics they commonly share.
The Validity and Utility of Criminal Profiling
Despite the wide renown which surrounds the topic of criminal profiling, there is a shortage of scientifically grounded research that attests to its validity. This deficit is largely attributable to a variety of methodological difficulties in objectively measuring the accuracy (ergo, the validity) of criminal profiling. For example, the largest source of readily available material that attempts to demonstrate the validity of criminal profiling comes from a variety of anecdotal accounts, such as case examples, concerning the use of the technique. While this type of material provides qualitatively rich demonstrations of the investigative applications of criminal profiling, these do not represent impartial empirical measurements and therefore cannot be warranted.
Likewise, the seemingly straightforward compilation and post hoc assessment of past cases using criminal profiling by police investigators is similarly unreliable. In this circumstance, any measurements concerning the accuracy of criminal profiles are compromised by the inability to reliably discount (and thus control for) any particular attributes inherent to the differing cases, which may account for the outcomes. Consequently, evidence supporting criminal profiles obtained via this methodology fails to demonstrate that any observed proficiency is unique to the circumstances of each case.
While there is a shortage of research attesting to the validity of criminal profiling, emerging data meant to rectify this consist of quasi-experimental designs using various groups of participants undertaking profiling exercises based on previously solved actual cases. The results of these exercises, then, in terms of their accuracy, can be objectively measured. The overall outcome of this research has been scientifically robust evidence demonstrating that suitably qualified individuals (profilers) are capable of proficiently predicting the characteristics of unknown offenders in a host of differing crime modalities. While this research has shown great promise, however, it has thus far only been able to demonstrate validity in a generic capacity.
Akin to the issue of validity, a similar shortage of scientific research evidence also surrounds the utility of criminal profiles. Assuming that the information contained within criminal profiles is accurate (i.e., valid), the next logical issue is to consider to what extent such information contributes, in terms of improved efficacy, toward the resolution of crime and thus utility for police investigators. The available research evidence on this issue has, thus far, largely come from surveys of police personnel. The outcome of these surveys (and thus the generally held view) is that criminal profiles do feature a productive role in assisting police investigations. However, gauging precisely how this is commonly and consistently achieved has proven difficult to clearly ascertain.
Criminal Profiling as Expert Witness Evidence
Although originally intended as a tool to assist with police investigations, the analytical techniques inherent to criminal profiling have made a gradual transition into the domain of expert witness evidence for use during court proceedings. Most Western common law jurisdictions throughout the world share the view that criminal profiling as traditionally performed is inadmissible as a form of expert witness evidence. The basis for this rejection is its probabilistic foundations. A fundamental doctrine to the admission of evidence in legal proceedings is that submitted evidence possesses a probative nexus (i.e., directly related and thus relevant) with the facts being judged before a court. This principle necessitates that the probative value of any evidence submitted before a court must outweigh any prejudicial impact that evidence may also hold. Within this legal paradigm, the correspondence that, for example, an accused person may share with a criminal profile does not possess sufficient probative substance. That is, while this correspondence may exist between the nominated features in a profile and those of the accused, the predictions contained in a profile only pertain to the type of person who may have committed the crime. Thus, the criminal profile is unable to demonstrate that the accused person is the specific individual who committed the offense being tried before the court. For these reasons, criminal profiling has been rejected as evidence by superior courts of law.
In view of these judicial determinations, alternative modes of behavioral analysis that are derivations of criminal profiling have been explored as potentially admissible forms of expert witness evidence. Fact-based analyses of crime scenes, for example, reflect a subcomponent of the overall analytical process typically undertaken in criminal profiling but does not make predictions about the likely offender who perpetrated the crime. Thus, the submitted expert witness evidence only pertains to the interpretation of crime scene features (e.g., interpretation of car accident crash sites, blood spatter patterns, or gunshot wounds) specific to the case before the court.
References:
- Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (2013). Crime classification manual: A standard system for investigating and classifying violent crimes (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
- Kocsis, R. N. (2013). The criminal profiling reality: What is actually behind the smoke and mirrors? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(2), 79–91.
- 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. doi:10.1177/0306624X13513429
- Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2016). New horizons: The obstacles to space exploration and disentangling criminal profiling. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(10), 1226–1232. doi:10.1177/0306624X15615122
- Schlesinger, L. B. (2009). Psychological profiling: Investigative implications from crime scene analysis. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 37, 73–84.
- 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, 15, 209(1–3), 160–166. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.01.022