The Extent to Which Offender Profiling Informs Policing and Investigations - Essay Example

Psychology and Crime Number: Word count: 4000 Assignment question: Critically assess the extent to which offender profiling informs policing and investigations. Introduction Criminal profiling refers to the process of forecasting the behaviour, personality, and the demographic characteristics of unknown criminals, from the investigation of the evidence available at the scene of crime (Hicks and Sales, 2006). The process relies on the use of investigative and behavioural tools aimed at helping criminal investigators to foretell, in an accurate manner, the nature of the criminal that committed the crime. The process enables criminal investigators, the opportunity to profile criminals according to various classifications under different areas, including criminal inclination and behavioural outlook. Criminal profiling is used by law enforcement officials like the police among other investigative agencies around the globe, to predict the nature of the criminals that they are encountering. This process has continued to be used, irrespective of the fact that there is a lack of solid empirical/ scientific evidence which is valid, reliable and useful to show that the method really works and provides factual information (Snook et al., 2007). The information gap between the usage of the process and the lack of supportive evidence leads any sensible person to one main question. This question is: “why do many people, among them specialists in criminology and law enforcement believes that criminal profiling works, irrespective of the fact that there is a lack of solid evidence to show that the process is productive. Towards addressing this information gap, this report will assess the extent, to which offender profiling informs policing and investigations, through examining the illusion of offender profiling. The criminal profiling illusion will be explored from the point of view of the nature of the criminal profiling information delivered to people, and the varied ways in which they process the information supplied. The environment surrounding the process of criminal profiling The assembly of the profile of an unknown criminal ordinarily, takes place in three phases (Hicks and Sales, 2006). The first phase in the process is the collection of crime scene evidence (data) by police or other law enforcement officials; the information collected can be in different forms, including detective accounts, photographs and autopsy reports. The data collected is then sent to a criminal profiler, who uses it to make predictions about the behavioural, personality and the demographic characteristics of the criminal involved in the given crime. The predictions about the nature of the criminal are then sent back to the officers investigating the crime. Despite the fact that there is not specified process used when making the predictions, the different CP (criminal profiling) approaches used by criminal profilers are classified under statistically or clinically-oriented models. When using statistically oriented criminal profiling, the predictions are developed through the analysis of offenders, who have in the past committed criminal activities that have points of similarity with those under investigation. On the other hand, clinically oriented profiling draws on the training, experience, knowledge and the intuition of the profilers to predict the characteristics of the offenders (West, 2000). Published reports attest to the fact that criminal profiling has received more and more usage over the years. For example, during the 1990s, a study done by Witkin (1996) showed that criminal profiling (CP) was used by the top criminal profilers employed by the FBI, on 1000 cases annually. In a similar manner, the law enforcement officers of the UK have increasingly incorporated CP into the administration of criminal investigations in the recent past (Bartol, 1996). Bartol (1996) reported that more and more policing professionals, including police psychologists are using CP during the investigation of crime scenes. Despite the fact that there are no explicit statistics about the usage of criminal profiling in other countries, other than those reported, criminal profiling gas been incorporation into the work of law enforcement personnel in many other countries, including Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands (Clark, 2002). Following the increased uptake of criminal profiling, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of the published articles covering the field, from 9 during the years between 1996 and 2000 and 27 during the duration between 2001 and 2005 (Dowden, Bennell and Bloomfield, 2007). The most important similarity to note is that, many of the authors that have written about CP in the past are in support of using CP as an important investigative tool. Computer profiling according to scientific studies and evidence Drawing from the knowledge that criminal profiling is a widely used investigative model; many people also believe that it works and that it informs investigations and legal policing. However, it is important to note that from a critical point of view, there is little or no scientific data or information to support the fact that it can offer answers to policing and investigation problems (Dowden, Bennell and Bloomfield, 2007). Firstly, it is important to take into account that many scholars have taken the position that criminal profilers are not able to develop accurate predictive accounts about criminals. One of the scholars who have explored this issue is Douglas et al. (1986), who maintained that the approach used by criminal profilers when developing criminal profiles is similar to that employed by clinical personnel when drawing diagnosis and treatment plans. Criminal profilers, mainly learn the practice of profiling through educated guesswork, intuitive thinking and brainstorming: these different sources of information are not supported by any scientific evidence to work in all cases (Douglas et al., 1986, pp. 405). The clinically founded process of criminal profiling is meaningful when used in psychoanalytic cases of therapy, where the health professionals concerned with the treatment of mental cases diagnose the problems of the patient being served subjectively. In these cases, they work through the formulation of the subjective interpretations made using methods that are less supported by evidence-based practice models (Dawes, 1997). Empirical studies have given the indications that the clinical research model of exploration has little influence on the accuracy of the conclusions made by psychiatrist and psychologists, throughout different areas of study (Garb and Boyle, 2003, pp. 18). Additionally, Faust and Ziskin (1988) established that there is a low inter- and intra-clinical consistency in the subjective judgements made about the mental health of patients. In a study case where the predictions of clinicians are compared to one another in an objective style, the error rate of the different studies exceeds their accuracy rates, according to the hard data collected. In a similar manner, the field of criminal profiling which is comparable to clinical profiling in many ways, there has been little or no quantitative evidence to show that the performance of professional profilers is much better than that of non-profilers. The accuracy of the predictions made by profilers has been evaluated and compared to that of professional; there was little or no evidence that those of profilers were more accurate than those of non-profilers. In doing these studies, the profiler and non-profiler groups were required to review the data collected from a crime series (Snook, Eastwood, et al., 2007). After reviewing the data, the two groups were requested to develop their predictions about the person that is likely to have committed the crime, through filling a questionnaire form with a list of multiple choice questions. The predictions made were split into four categories: offense behaviours, physical attributes; cognitive processes and social history. The results collected from the various categories are integrated to give the general profile measure. After the integration of the information related to the different areas, the accuracy of the criminal profiles developed is contrasted to the characteristics of the real criminal. From the comparison of the different sets of criminal profiles (predictive and the real profile), it becomes clear that there is a lack of clear argument about, whether any of the groups warrants being called a profiler group (Snook, Eastwood, et al., 2007). The conclusion was made that none of the two groups qualified as better profilers than the other, because the conclusions were typically not factual and true representations about the characteristics of the real criminal. During the analysis of the comparative performance of the profiler and the non-profiler groups, the study incorporated the predictive outlook of a self-acclaimed profiler group and a non-profiler group, against a group of investigators. The two groups compromised of a group of psychologist and college students. The profilers group was more accurate than the non-police group in profiling the criminal engaged in the criminal activity and in identifying the physical categories that were associated with the criminal. However, there was a sharp contrast in their performance in predicting the offenses behaviors and the cognitive processes of the real crime, when compared to the non-police group. In general, the comparison of the two groups in predicting the nature of the criminal, the estimates made by the different groups were imprecise, therefore not able to reflect one of the groups as better than the other. One of the conclusions made from the review of the two groups was that police professionals are more likely to perform better in criminal profiling, in the case that they posses more knowledge about the base-rate information related to criminals. This simply means that the success of a police officer in criminal profiling is dependent on possessing specialized knowledge about the idiosyncrasies and the peculiarities that are likely to be gathered from a certain crime scene. In general, the study did not yield any compelling empirical evidence to show that criminal profiling can provide factual information, which can inform investigations and policing. Different from the fields that are based on factual science, criminal profiling approaches are founded on prototypical models that are not supported by research-based evidence. Further, criminal profiling is founded on the old-fashioned conception of human behavior, where the underlying principle is that criminals have a common nature, which is distinctively identifiable from that of other groups. Taking into account that the profilers group, often, produces predictive data which is similar to that of the non-predictive group can be used as evidence to show that many profilers’ groups are not better than ordinary people in profiling. For example, during the many cases when the police call for the services of criminal profilers, it is as much likely for them to develop the same conclusions made by the specialized profilers. Taking the misconception that criminal profiling is a reserve for the specialists into account, it becomes apparent that many of the police officers that incorporate CP into their policing and investigative work, do not do it because they believe in it (Copson, 1995). For example, in the case of a police officer who receives criminal profiling reports but finds that the information does not match the profile of the real criminal is able to lose their faith in the use of CP. In such a case, it is imperative that many of the police officers and other aw enforcement personnel that are aware of this fact choose to use criminal profiling because it is their duty to consult alternative avenues during investigations. Still, other law enforcement officers may use CP because they believe that they will lose nothing by offering a criminal profiler, the opportunity to offer whatever they can, to an investigation. However, it is important to take into account that it has not been proven, whether CP is harmful or helpful to the investigations done by police, and that calls for more study about the issue. Review of the theoretical models that support Criminal Profiling In a similar manner to that of the classic trait theory used for personality psychology until the 1960s, many criminal profiling models, including the organized-disorganized dichotomy is based on the assumption that criminal behavior is triggered by underlying dispositions. The position maintained is that the intrinsic dispositions of criminals are what compel them to behave like criminals and act as such (Boon, 1997, pp. 43). The assumptions, whose roots can be traced to this theory, are central in the working of criminal profiling models (Woodhams and Toye, 2007). For example, based on the theory, the underlying assumptions include that different criminals exhibit behaviors that are similar across the wide array of their offenses. It is also important to note that the outlook of criminal profiling, it is assumed that different criminals will adopt behaviors that are similar in the different aspects of their life, including the criminal behaviors they adopt. For example, according to the theory, it is assumed that the criminals that engage in similar crimes will also lead similar lives, in different areas, including their interpersonal relationships. In real-world practice, these assumptions are manifest and they affect the validity of the criminal profiling reports developed. For example, in the case of the organized-disorganized dichotomy model – which is commonly used by the FBI – there is an underlying assumption that offenders are compelled to behave in either an organized or a disorganized manner, throughout the different aspects of their lives. This characteristic of either being organized or disorganized enables law enforcement officials to link criminal incidences to one another, due to the common characteristics between the different instances of crimes. In the world of practice, this assumption indicates that a person who engages in organized criminal activities will continue to commit such organized crimes. The assumption leads the supporters to believe that the background characteristics of different offenders will enable law enforcement personnel to profile the criminals suspected to have committed a given crime. Through profiling the different offenders, it becomes possible for them to use the organized or the disorganized nature of the criminal activities committed, when selecting the offenders to be eliminated from the suspects list and those to be added. It is important to question the validity of the assumptions used and incorporated into the different theories, because the validity of the assumption affects the validity of the data generated; the vice versa is also true. In the case of the current discussion, the trait-based model of criminal profiling will be considered fundamentally flawed and erratic (Woodhams and Toye, 2007). To start with, many agents involved in law enforcement are not aware that the universally accepted profiling of behavior started spreading through psychological books and articles about 40 years ago. The universal acceptance of personality dispositions and traits, which is used as the primary influencer of behavior and engaging in crimes was entirely a mistake made in the past, but criminal profilers have continued to use the same mistaken position. It is possible to maintain that situational factors in the adoption of different behavioral patterns, as personality dispositions do; in some cases, the situational factors influence behavior to a larger extent (Andrews and Bonta, 2006). This position is also applicable to the prediction of criminal behavior, mainly because some of the situational factors that drive some people into crime are not the same ones that drive others into the adoption of criminal behavior (Woodhams and Toye, 2007). Situational factors become more and more important when the empirical studies related to criminal profiling is taken into account. For example, some studies like Bennell and Canter (2002) reported that criminals show a considerable level of consistency in the ways they engage in criminal behavior. However, it is necessary to take into account that this position was held true for a specific division of behavior. According to the study done by Bennel and Canter (2002) among serial burglary at commercial premises, it was apparent that a very low level of consistency was maintained in the behaviors of offenders. Some of the behaviors that did not show any forms of consistency include those related to the methods used to gain entry into the premises and also the items stolen. The important thing to note about these two areas that did not show similarities is that, the two domains are mainly dependent on the situational differences of the commercial premises under attack, and also the surrounding environment (Bennel and Canter, 2002). However, from the study, it was found that there were considerable levels of consistency in the behaviors related to the selection of the crime sites to be stolen from. The study highlighted that low levels of consistency can be evident from a given crime, but also that the same crime can show high levels of consistency characteristics (Bennel and Canter, 2002). The fact that a single crime scene can show both sides of characteristics, further, disapproves the use of criminal profiling to determine the offenders that committed a given criminal activity. In other cases, the assumption that there will be consistency in the patterns of crime and the behaviors adopted by criminals. For example, Bateman and Salfati (2007) emphasized that, the criminal activities of serial killers are likely not to show any signs of consistency among the different crimes. This position about the lack of consistence remains true, even during the cases where the definitions of consistency are liberal and the behaviors in question are analyzed and classified in different ways. The discovery that criminal profiling may not help the cases involving major crimes like murder is highly intriguing, noting that it is commonly used for those kinds of cases (Snook, Haines, Taylor and Bennel, 2007). The lack of consistency has also been evidenced by the studies that have explored the consistency maintained between the behavioral patterns of committing criminal behavior and the ways in which they lead their other areas of life (Davies et al., 1997). In some cases, there has been the evidence of the psychological consistency between the commission of certain types of crimes and some underlying background characteristics. One study by Davies et al. (1997) found a common thread among the people that raped their victims, with respect to the mode of entry into the victim’s premises. The study showed that the rapists that gained entry to the homes of their victims through forceful means were four times likely to have been convicted for property offenses in the past – more than those who did not. In a similar manner, hitting the rape victims two or more times during the time of rape was associated with the offenders that had been convicted for crimes of a violent nature in the past, unlike their counterparts. The rapist group that had not been convicted for violent crimes was less likely to show a high degree of aggression towards their victims (Davies et al., 1997). However, it is important to note that the studies done in the area after that done by Davies et al. (1997) did not verify the conclusions of the earlier study – for example that the more violent behaviors of repeat offenders were intended to conceal their identity. One of these studies is that done by Mokros and Alison (2007), which did not find considerable levels of consistency. In general, criminal profilers appear to be unaware of the empirical studies proving that the possibility of consistency in the commission of crime is almost zero. For example, despite the efforts to point out the forecasts of consistency in the offending patterns of criminals, both within prison and community settings has failed to give evidence that profiling can be used usefully. Through the review of theories and different studies carried out to investigate the potential of criminal profiling, in giving information about criminals, it became evident that it provides little or no information of use. For that reason, the review of literature and the consultation of theories can be used as evidence to prove the fact that criminal profiling is less or not useful to policing and investigations. Explanation for the deep seated conviction that offender profiling works Research shows that second-hand information, for example that which is presented by the media, is often not a reflection of the reality of the issues being reported, as they are (Sprott, 1996). This fact leads to the conclusion that it is important for the members of community to remain critical and careful about the information they take in and accept as the truth. For example, it is a universally accepted truth that offender profiling informs policing and criminal investigations, irrespective of the fact that the available evidence is showing the opposite. The information communicated to the society about the validity of processes like criminal profiling is often polluted by the biased and inaccurate information communicated by the agencies delivering services in the fields of criminal profiling. For example, through the self-proclaimed stories of the agencies that offer services in the area of offender profiling, the members of public are likely to be deceived that the process works in all cases, and that the information gathered is free of errors (Carrol, 2003). In order to understand the universal acceptance of offender profiling in society, it is important to explore the various factors underlying the universal acceptance about offender profiling. First, there is the repetition of the message that the process of criminal profiling works, irrespective of whether it works or that it does not. Empirical studies exploring the learning patterns of human beings shows that individuals become more receptive to a message which is repeated over and over again (Davis, 1999). In the current society, criminal activities have become a part of the social phenomena of society. Along with the constant increase in the rates of crime taking place, talks related to offender profiling and the ways it has enabled law enforcement officers to arrest criminals has also become a common phenomenon. The outcomes of the repetition of the message include that, the illusion of offender profiling is further and deeper ingrained into the fabric of society, as a policing and investigative tool. For example, one supporter of criminal profiling mentioned that the training of more personnel, more organizations and agencies will be swayed to embrace it (Davis, 1999, pp. 23). The over-emphasis of the factual predictions has helped offender profilers in communicating the message that the process of profiling is correct and evidence-based (McCarry and Ramsland, 2003). Profilers have successfully communicated the lie that the field is free from errors, by emphasizing the accuracy of the field from the cases where it offers factual information. Evaluating the success of the field in this manner is faulty, as the real figure could only come out in the case that they presented the correct predictions as a proportion of the total predictions made (Kocsis, Hayes and Irwin, 2002). The social status accorded to offender profiling as an investigative tool is the fact that, profilers have successfully sold the myth of expertise in the area to the general public. This is evident from the case of the police, who are known to incorporate criminal profilers in their investigations, when in the real sense they can do the profiling in a successful manner. The explanation of the factors underlying the success of the field shows that, irrespective of the fact that the field is based on erratic assumptions, it has been familiarised to the point of being accepted blindly. Conclusion Criminal profiling is the process of foretelling the behaviour and other characteristics about a crime, from the review of the data and the evidence collected from a criminal site. The process has been used by police officers among other law enforcement and also trained profilers, with the aim of structuring the profiles of offenders from the sites of crime. The environment surrounding the process of criminal profiling include that the field is surrounded by unfounded assumptions and outdated theories, and that makes it relatively assumption-based. From a scientific and evidence-based point of view, computer profiling is not supported as a factual source of information about offenders. For example, offender profiling models are based on the underlying principle that all individuals are the same, which is not the case. Through a variety of evidence-based studies, different scholars have showed that offender profiling does not offer credible information about criminals and their behaviour. This is the case, because it is founded on the premises of outdated and unrealistic theories. The common acceptance of criminal profiling in society can be explained on the basis of the repetition of the message and also the over-emphasis of the factual profiling done in societies. Reference List Andrews, D. A. and Bonta, J., 2006. Psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Bartol, C. R., 1996. Police psychology: Then, now, and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, pp. 70-89. Bartol, C. R., 1996. Police psychology: Then, now, and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, pp. 70-89. Bennell, C. and Canter, D. V., 2002. Linking commercial burglaries by modus operandi: Tests using regression and ROC analysis. Science & Justice, 42, pp. 153-164. Boon, J. C., 1997. The contribution of personality theories to psychological profiling. In J. L. Jackson & D. B. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 43-59). Chichester: Wiley. Carroll, R. T., 2003. The skeptic’s dictionary: A collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. New York: John Wiley. Clark, D., 2002. Dark paths, cold trails: How a Mountie led the quest to link serial killers to their victims. Ontario: HarperCollins. Copson, G., 1995. Coals to Newcastle? Part 1: A study of offender profiling. London: Home Office, Police Research Group. Davies, A., Wittebrood, K. and Jackson, J. L., 1997. Predicting the criminal antecedents of a stranger rapist from his offence behavior. Science & Justice, 37, pp. 161-170. Davis, J. A., 1999. Criminal personality profiling and crime scene assessment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, pp. 291-301. Dawes, R. M., 1997. House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press. Douglas, J. E. and Burgess, A. E., 1986. Criminal profiling: A viable investigative tool against violent crime. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 55(12), pp. 9-13. Dowden, C., Bennell, C. and Bloomfield, S., 2007. Advances in offender profiling: A systematic review of the profiling literatures published over the past 30 years. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 22, pp. 44-56. Faust, D. and Ziskin, J., 1988. The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science, 241, pp. 31-35. Garb, H. N. and Boyle, P. A., 2003. Understanding why some clinicians use pseudoscientific methods: Findings from research on clinical judgment. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp. 17-38). New York: Guilford. Hicks, S. J. and Sales, B. D., 2006. Criminal profiling: Developing an effective science and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kocsis, R. N., Hayes, A. F. and Irwin, H. J., 2002. Investigative experience and accuracy in psychological profiling of a violent crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, pp. 811-823. McCrary, G. O. and Ramsland, K. M., 2003. The unknown darkness: Profiling the predators among us. New York: HarperCollins. Mokros, A. and Alison, L., 2002. Is offender profiling possible? Testing the predicted homology of crime scene actions and background characteristics in a sample of rapists. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, pp. 25-43.. Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. and Cullen, R. M., 2007. Taking stock of criminal profiling: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, pp. 437-453. Snook, B., Haines, A., Taylor, P. J. and Bennell, C., 2007. Criminal profiling belief and use: A survey of Canadian police officer opinion. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 5, pp. 169-179. Sprott, J. B., 1996. Understanding public views of youth crime and the youth justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38, pp. 271-290. West, A. G., 2000. Clinical assessment of homicide offenders: The significance of crime scene in offense and offender analysis. Homicide Studies, 4, pp. 219-233. Witkin, G. (1996). How the FBI paints portraits of the nations most wanted. U.S. News & World Report, 120, pp. 32. Woodhams, J. and Toye, K., 2007. An empirical test of the assumptions of case linkage and offender profiling with serial commercial robberies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, pp. 35-58. Read More