Offender Profiling
Reading
Ainsworth Peter B., 2000, Psychology and Crime,
Longman, ch 6
Brewer Kevin, 2000, Psychology and Crime, Heinemann,
pp 37-42
Dwyer Diana, 2001, Angles on Criminal Psychology, Nelson
Thornes, pp 47-52
Harrower Julie, 1998, Applying Psychology to Crime,
Hodder & Stoughton, pp56-62.
Harrower Julie, 2001, Psychology in Practice, Crime, Hodder
& Stoughton, pp 51-64
Dennis Howitt (2006) Forensic and Criminal Psychology, Pearson
Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-129758-9
Films
such as The Silence of the Lambs, and,
in the UK, the television series Cracker have
done much to (mis)inform the public about offender profiling. In the film The Silence of the Lambs Anthony Hopkins
plays the fictional character Hannibal Lecter, a psychiatrist and mass
murderer. As the film develops, Lecter helps the FBI to identify’ a serial
killer through his insight and knowledge. In the British television series Cracker, Robbie Coltrane plays a
maverick psychologist ‘Fitz’ who solves a number of serious crimes through a
combination of psychological insight, deductive reasoning and flashes of
inspiration. The solving of crimes such as serial rapes and murders arouses a
great deal of public interest despite the fact that such offences are extremely
rare. Despite its popularity in fictional programmes, the reader may be
surprised to learn that profiling was used in only 75 cases in the UK in 1994
(Copson, 1995). Having said that, each year appears to witness an increase in
profiling usage over the previous twelve months.
There is some debate in psychological circles as to
whether psychological profiling should be seen as a scientific endeavour or
merely as subjective deduction. As we will see later, the English psychologist
David Canter has been particularly critical of the FBI’s approach to profiling,
as he believes it to be unscientific. Garberth (1983) sees offender profiling
as a combination of brainstorming, intuition and educated guesswork. Reisser
(1982) suggests that, despite hopes that profiling should be considered to be
a scientific endeavour, it is in fact largely an inferential process similar to
any other psychological evaluation with a client. One of the foremost attacks
on profiling has come from Campbell (1976). He believes that profiles are often
too vague to be of value, or rely on little more than common sense. He also
suggests rather cynically that police officers might be more seduced by the
academic standing and status of the profiler than by the actual usefulness of
their material.
Gudjonsson and Copson (1997) suggest that it is easy
to understand why there is confusion about what profiling involves as it is
‘neither a readily identifiable nor a homogeneous entity’ (1997: 76). Indeed
these same authors note that surprisingly little has been published in the academic
literature on what profilers actually do and how they do it.
Psychology is seen by its practitioners as a science.
For this reason, psychologists adopt a scientific methodology in their
attempts to understand and explain human behaviour. A great deal of
psychological research is carried out in the laboratory where hypotheses can be
tested and conditions can be controlled. While the laboratory is an ideal place
for exerting control over extraneous variables, some experiments conducted
therein have been criticised for lacking what is called external validity
(Ainsworth, 1998: 166). The concern is whether the results obtained inside the
laboratory also apply outside. When one considers an area such as profiling, it
is very difficult to conduct a laboratory experiment in order to test a
hypothesis. Even if such experiments could be conducted it would be difficult
to generalise the findings. Rather, in the area of profiling, theories have
tended to be developed as a result of visits to crime scenes, analysis of
evidence and, as in the case of The
Silence of the Lambs, interviews with serial offenders.
While
this latter form of data collection may provide interesting and possibly
valuable insights, such a method of gathering information could hardly be said
to be scientific. The views of one person may well be unrepresentative and for
this reason, psychological research usually tries to use a large number of
subjects, ideally selected randomly. Despite the difficulties, systematic
controlled research will be seen as preferable to individual, anecdotal
stories. In any case, information from known offenders relies on the offenders’
accurate and ideally unbiased recall of information. Social psychological
research suggests that this ideal is unlikely to be met (see for example Kerby
and Rae, 1998).
There were some isolated attempts at psychological
profiling throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (see Brussel,
1968) and at least one writer (Tetem, 1989) has suggested that profiling has
its roots in the writings of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his fictional character
Sherlock Holmes. Certainly Doyle’s creation paid great attention to the actions
of criminals in an attempt to identify who they might be. More systematic and
modern offender profiling has its origins in the USA where the FBI’s
Behavioural Science Unit (now called the Investigative Support Unit) built up
considerable expertise in the 1970s and 1980s (Hazelwood, 1983; Reisser, 1982;
Horn, 1988). While there is still some debate about what exactly offender
profiling is, underlying most definitions is a belief that offender characteristics can be deduced from a detailed knowledge of offence characteristics. A profile can
often generate hypotheses about an offender’s most likely demographic and
physical characteristics and about his or her behavioural habits and
personality. As such it can be a valuable aid to crime detection especially if
the crime is part of a series (Adhami and Brown, 1996). Blau (1994) provides a
good summary of what is involved:
The process is basically a method of helping to identify
the perpetrator of a crime based on an analysis of the nature of the offence
and the manner in which it was committed. The process attempts to determine
aspects of a criminal’s personality makeup from the criminal’s choice of
action before, during, and after the criminal act. The personality information
is combined with other pertinent details and physical evidence and then
compared with characteristics of known personality types and mental
abnormalities. From this, a working description of the offender is developed.
(1994: 261)
In
Europe, the police define offender profiling as:
Attempting to produce a description of the
perpetrator(s) of a criminal offence on the basis of analysis of
characteristics of the incident and other background information.
(Stevens, 1995: 10)
This
definition was the one adopted in the UK by the Association of Chief Police
Officers’ Behavioural Science Investigative Support Subcommittee.
A
detailed examination of the crime scene might thus be seen as an essential
first step in the gathering of relevant information. While a physical
examination is already carried out by forensic scientists searching for
fingerprints, clothing fibres, semen samples etc., the scene can also reveal
other clues to the profiler. As Blau’s description suggests, a detailed
examination of the crime scene may well provide clues as to the underlying
personality of the offender. For example, the FBI’s early work led them to
believe that an important distinction could be made between organised’ and
‘disorganised’ offences and offenders. It appeared that some offences were
carried out with a great deal of forward planning, while others were committed
with little planning or preparation. In the latter case, a victim may have been
selected at random, whereas in the former, a victim may have been targeted and
observed for some time in advance of the offence. While a detailed examination
of the crime scene will be helpful to a profiler, such an examination is not
always possible. For example, some recent research in the UK (Smith, 1998) has
suggested that profilers tend not to be brought in at the earliest
opportunity, but rather are contacted when other more traditional forms of
police enquiry have failed. By this stage the crime scene will probably have
been disturbed and vital clues possibly lost.
If the police are investigating a number of rapes in
the same area, they will be keen to establish whether the same person has
committed them. The police obviously need to know whether they should be looking
for one offender or several. In addition, if they can establish that the same
offender committed a number of crimes, this will allow them to put together
evidence from more than one crime scene in order to build up a better picture
of the perpetrator. An initial investigation may lead the police to believe
that the same person committed the crimes, especially if the victim
characteristics and the timing and location of the offences are similar.
However, a careful examination of the offences may lead a profiler to believe
that two completely different ‘types’ of offender may actually have committed
them. For example, one crime scene may show clear evidence of a planned and
rehearsed attack, while another may suggest that it was an unplanned and impulsive
act. Thus, the psychologist may well draw up two very different profiles of the
likely perpetrators and advise the police that they should be looking for more
than one suspect. In some cases, DNA analysis may also be able to confirm the
profiler’s hypothesis.
Profiling would appear to be more appropriate for
certain types of offence than others (Stevens, 1995). Currently the most common
crimes for which it is used are murder and the more serious sexual offences,
especially where it appears that there is a series of connected crimes. The FBI
believe that property crimes and robberies are not particularly suitable for
profiling, as such offences are unlikely to reveal many clues about an
offender’s underlying personality.
It is important to dispel one myth in relation to
offender profiling. Profiling cannot in most cases tell the police who actually
committed an offence. What it can do is to suggest to investigators some
personality and demographic characteristics which the offender is likely to
possess. The emphasis on ‘likely’ is important. Profilers tend to talk in terms
of probabilities rather than absolutes. A profiler may suggest that an offender
probably lives quite close to the scene of the crime and is unemployed.
However, it would be a brave and perhaps unwise profiler who went so far as to
suggest that anyone who did not meet these criteria should be completely
eliminated from the investigation. While there have been a number of famous
cases where psychologists have been able to offer very detailed and accurate
profiles (Canter, 1994) there are many less publicised cases where they have
been less helpful (Copson, 1995). Because profiling has attracted such
widespread public interest, the layperson may have an over-optimistic vision of
what can be achieved. A note of caution is sounded by Jackson and Bekerian
(1997) in their book on offender profiling. They note that:
the answers that are offered are not solutions. Offender profiles do not solve crimes. Instead ...
profiles should be viewed as simply one more tool that can be extremely useful
in guiding strategy development, supporting information management, and
improving case understanding.
(1997: 3)
In
many cases, the drawing up of a profile can help investigators to narrow down
their pool of suspects and to avoid wasting time on lines of enquiry which are
likely to be fruitless. If one of the police’s suspects does not match any of
the profiler’s predictions, then the police might justifiably spend less time
pursuing this person. In some cases the profile may well fit someone whom the
police already suspect and will thus allow detectives to concentrate their
investigations on the most likely suspect. In such cases, a profiler might also
offer advice on the way in which an interview with the suspect might best be
conducted. In other cases, the profile may help the police at least to know
where to start looking for an offender, in terms of their most likely area of
residence, previous convictions, etc.
An interesting example of how a profile can be
helpful is provided by Ault and Reese (1980). This case involved a woman living
in the northeastern United States who was raped and subsequently reported the
offence to the local police department. The investigating officer realised that
the circumstances of the offence were similar to six previous rapes in the area
and that they may well have all been carried out by the same person.
Unfortunately the six previous rapes had yielded few
good clues and the police had been unable to identify a suspect. The case files
were then sent to the FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit and a psychological
profile constructed. This investigation concluded that the same person had
indeed committed all seven crimes. The suspect was predicted to be a white
male, probably in his late twenties or early thirties. He was most likely to be
divorced or separated and to have a job as a casual labourer or similar. It was
also hypothesised that he would have had a high school education and to live in
the immediate area of the offences. It was also thought that he would be likely
to have a poor self-image, and to have previous convictions for minor sexual
offences. The FBI Unit also predicted that the police in the area might have
stopped the person previously, as he would probably have been out on the
streets in the early hours of the morning.
Upon receiving this profile, the police narrowed down
their list of suspects to some 40 local males who met the age profile. Using
other information provided by the profiler, they then focused their investigation
on one particular individual. This person was soon arrested and was
subsequently convicted of all the offences.
While this is an interesting illustration of what can
be achieved, profiling does not always have such dramatic and successful
results. When a profile proves to be accurate and leads to the conviction of a
perpetrator, the media may well take an interest; but such successes will
perhaps be rare. Because psychological profiling is still in its infancy, there
have been few scientific and systematic studies to test exactly how useful it
is. The fact that profiling can take different forms also serves to make evaluation
difficult. It has proved difficult to establish the number of cases in which
the information is ‘better’ than that which detectives working on the case
could have deduced for themselves. If only half of the information that a
profiler provides turns out to be accurate should we count this as helpful? If
profilers tend only to be brought in on those cases in which the police are
already experiencing difficulty, is it reasonable to expect that a profiler
will have a high success rate? A further problem with regard to evaluation
concerns the likely accuracy of information about whether or not a profiler’s
input really was helpful. It is just possible that a senior detective with a
reputation to uphold will seek to play down the usefulness of an input from an
‘outsider’ such as a profiler (Ainsworth, 2000; Smith, 1998).
The American Approach
The FBI’s
approach
The
FBI’s early approach was based on in-depth interviews with some 36 sexually
orientated serial murderers. The technique tried to identify the major
personality and behavioural characteristics of serious offenders. This was
based on a very detailed analysis of the crimes they had committed. Thus the
FBI would consider evidence derived from the crime scene, the nature of the
attacks, any forensic evidence, medical examiners reports and the
characteristics of the victim. Such information would then help investigators
to classify the offender and to make predictions as to their likely
characteristics. Hazelwood and Douglas (1980) define the FBI’s approach to
profiling as:
An educated attempt to provide investigative agencies
with specific information as to the type of individual who committed a certain
crime .. a profile is based on the characteristic patterns or factors of
uniqueness that distinguish certain individuals from the general population.
One
illustration of the FBI’s work is provided by the distinction made between
‘organised’ and ‘disorganised’ murderers. Organised offenders tend to commit
crimes which have clearly been planned, where there is an attempt to control,
where few clues are left and where the victim is a targeted stranger. By
contrast, the disorganised offender would be more likely to use a sudden,
unrehearsed style with a minimum use of restraint and little attempt to hide
evidence. Knowledge is built up by studying the crime scene and the exact
nature of the attack. As a result of this, the likely offender would then be
classified and reference made to the characteristics that the offender was presumed
to possess. For example, the FBI’s research led them to believe that an
organised criminal would typically be of above average intelligence, be
sexually and socially competent and to be living with a partner. He would also
be likely to be suffering from depression or experiencing a great deal of anger
around the time of the attack. Following the crime, he would tend to follow the
media coverage of the attack closely and may even leave the area shortly
afterwards. By contrast, a disorganised attacker was believed to be someone who
lived alone (probably close to the scene), was sexually or socially inadequate,
had been mistreated as a child and was frightened and confused at the time of
the attack.
Although this approach appears to be objective, there
is inevitably some degree of subjective interpretation by the individual
profiler. While relying on the same information, each profiler decides what
emphasis should be placed on the various characteristics and thus what type of
person the suspect is likely to be. It is this fact that has led some
academics to question whether the approach is scientific or merely personal
intuition (for example Rossmo, 1996). The fact that much of the FBI’s approach
stemmed from interviews with such a small sample of ‘specialist’ offenders has
also been a cause for concern.
Hazelwood and Burgess (1987) argue that a very
careful study of the exact behaviour of an offender can lead to a better
understanding of the underlying motive for an attack. This in turn provides
insight into the type of person the offender is likely to be. Although this may
not be possible in exact terms, Hazelwood believes that descriptions of an
offender can be built up to a point where they will be recognisable to his
friends and family. The profiler would look for a systematic behaviour pattern
that would then allow the use of a typology. One example of this is whether a
sexual assault or rape can be categorised as predominantly selfish or unselfish. Although it might reasonably be argued that all rapes are selfish
in that the victim’s rights are totally ignored, some rapists exhibit behaviour
that Hazelwood has labelled pseudo-unselfish. In this case the offender’s
verbal utterances will tend to be reassuring, complimentary, self-demeaning,
ego building, concerned, personal, non-profane, inquisitive and apologetic.
This type of rapist will often try to involve the
victim in the act. He appears to be seeking intimacy with the victim by, for
example, asking her to kiss or fondle him and he will fondle parts of the
victim’s body before intercourse. Such an attacker would appear not to wish to
harm the person physically (other than the rape itself) or to force her into
acts when she resists. When force is used it will tend to be in order to intimidate
rather than to harm. This offender’s style of behaviour is thought to stem from
a lack of confidence on his part. If the victim does resist physically the
assailant may end the attack or may even attempt some kind of compromise with
the victim. The victim’s resistance may serve to destroy the rapist’s fantasy
that she is a willing participant in the act.
By contrast, the so-called selfish rapist appears to
be solely interested in self-gratification and shows absolutely no regard for
his victim’s welfare, wishes or feelings. His verbal behaviour will be
characterised as offensive, threatening, profane, abusive, demeaning,
humiliating, demanding, impersonal and sexually orientated. Unlike the
so-called unselfish rapist, this type of assailant will do whatever he wants,
irrespective of the victim’s suffering or feelings. Resistance on the part of
the victim will tend to have little deterrent effect, as sexual domination
would appear to be the primary motivation.
Once the rapist’s behaviour is classified as broadly
selfish or unselfish, further categorisation may be attempted. This is done on the
basis of the apparent motivation for the attack. Hazelwood draws on the
classification system first used by Groth et
al. (1977). This typology is based on the assumption that power, anger and
sexuality are fundamental components of all rapes. The most common type of
behaviour is classified as power-reassurance. For such offenders, the primary
motivation is an attempt to remove doubts or fears about their own sexual
inadequacy and masculinity. Such rapists tend to exhibit pseudo-unselfish
behaviour and not to use large amounts of force. Their attacks are usually
carefully planned and the victims are often within the same age range as the
offender. Following the attack, the rapist may apologise to the victim or ask
to be forgiven and he may contact the victim again later on. The behaviour of
such offenders is thought to go some way towards reassuring them about their
sexual insecurity. However, this effect tends to be short-lived and the
offender may strike again in the near future, probably in the same area. Such
attackers often take an item of clothing from their victims as a souvenir and
they may even keep records of their crimes. It is believed that such attackers
are unlikely to grow out of their offending and will continue until caught.
By contrast the power-assertive rapist
harbours no doubts about his sexuality. Such a person will tend to be very
confident of his masculinity and may see his own acts of rape as merely
expressions of his masculinity, virility and dominance. Such an attacker will
often use a high degree of force, though not necessarily in the early stage of
the interaction. He may initially appear friendly and non-threatening, and put
his intended victim at her ease. However, his demeanour will then change, and
his true intentions become clear. Such a pattern may be typical of assaults now
labelled as ‘date-rapes’. These are the types of offences which juries often
have difficulty accepting, believing that to some extent the victim contributed
to her own victimisation by agreeing to accompany an assailant. What jurors may
well not realise is that this type of offender may well appear completely
innocent and harmless on first meeting an intended victim. Following the rape
this person may revert to his former image and appear affable and innocent’
when in the dock. Because this type of person probably does not fit society’s
stereotype of a ‘typical’ rapist, he may well be acquitted. This type of rapist
is less common than the power reassurance offender and his crimes will tend to
be less frequent or regular.
A third type of rapist identified by the FBI is
labelled anger-retaliatory. As the
name implies, this type of offender commits rape as a way of expressing his own
rage and hostility. He will typically have a great deal of anger and animosity
towards women and uses rape as a way of expressing this anger and as a way of
degrading his victims. His typical pattern will be one of selfishness and he
will tend to show very high levels of violence. Because the attack is usually
an emotional and impulsive outburst it will tend to be unplanned. This form of
attack has been labelled a ‘blitz’ approach, with an immediate use of direct
and heavy violence. The assault itself tends to be over fairly quickly; once
the assailant feels he has released his pent-up anger both physically and
sexually. Victims will tend to be in the same age range as the rapist and may
be selected because they symbolise another person against whom the person has a
grudge. For example, if a lower class young woman has rejected the man, he may
choose a victim who appears to have similar characteristics. This type of
rapist will tend to attack again when the anger and resentment build up to
levels that he is unprepared to tolerate.
The final type of rapist has been labelled as anger-excitement. In
this case pleasure and sexual excitement are produced for the assailant by
the almost sadistic pleasure of seeing his victim’s suffering and fear. Such an
attacker might thus inflict pain in order to achieve fear and, subsequently,
submission. Contrary to media images, these forms of attack are actually the
least common type. Rapists falling into this category will usually plan their
attacks in a very clear and methodical way. They may even rehearse the assault
and make sure that they have covered all eventualities. They will decide in
advance what weapons to use, what mode of transport to employ and they will
already have items such as gags or ropes to hand. However, the actual victim
may well not have been chosen in advance. She will typically be a stranger who
meets the criteria for an attacker’s sexual fantasies and desires, but with
whom he has not previously come into contact. His sexual and verbal behaviour
will be almost entirely selfish and he will tend to use an extreme amount of
force, often resulting in the victim’s death. This type of attacker tends to
restrain his victim physically and this is followed by long periods of control
and sexual assault. Torture is not uncommon and the helplessness, degradation
and humiliation of his victim appear to be stimulating to this type of
offender. He may keep records of his conquests and in some cases may take
photographs or make video recordings. The anger-excitement rapist is the least
likely to attack at regular intervals, preferring to initiate an assault only
when his planning is complete. For this reason it is often difficult to predict
when this type of offender will strike again.
One can see from this classification system that it
would be naïve to believe that there is only one type of rapist. The stereotype
of the sexually frustrated male, intent on degrading and harming his
unfortunate victim, may be far too simplistic a view of rape. Clark and Morley
(1988) offer an interesting insight into serial rapists. Their work is based on
interviews with 41 rapists who had in total committed some 837 sexual assaults.
One of the most important points to emerge is that serial rapists do not
necessarily fit the stereotype that people may have of this type of offender.
Perhaps surprisingly, many serial rapists appear perfectly normal to those
around them. Far from being lonely, disadvantaged, socially unskilled
characters, serial rapists typically come from an average or above average home
background and are intelligent, well presented, in regular employment and
living in a family context. Hazelwood and Warren (1989) suggest that serial
rapists are more likely to have previous convictions for theft than for minor
sexual offences.
What we can learn from the research reviewed here is
that a careful examination of the actual circumstances of the offence may well
reveal a great deal about the type of offender who committed a certain crime.
By careful consideration, valuable clues can be gleaned as to the probable
underlying motive for the attack, and, from this, the most likely ‘type’ of
offender. Such consideration and attempts at classification will also help
investigators to determine whether a series of offences appears to have been
carried out by the same offender or by several. Classification may also assist
the police to establish how likely it is that the person will strike again, and
if so, when this is most likely to be. It might also be possible to predict
whether the assailant’s next attack may be more violent and be likely to lead
to the victim being killed.
The FBI’s analysis does provide some interesting
information, and has undoubtedly helped to solve a number of infamous crimes.
However, as was noted earlier, some academics have been critical of the FBI’s
approach (for example Rossmo, 1996; Oleson, 1996; Canter 1994). Much of this
criticism has stemmed from the fact that the FBI’s system is based on the
analysis of a rather small number of cases and on interviews with only a small
number of serial rapists and murderers. In addition, Canter believes that the
FBI’s approach is fundamentally flawed because it lacks scientific rigour and
is more akin to subjective intuition. Despite this, the FBI’s techniques have
been influential and spread to other countries. Indeed, Jackson and Bekerian
note that ‘many, if not all, of the psychological profiling units in other
countries (such as Canada, the UK and the Netherlands) have been modelled to a
large extent on the FBI approach’ (Jackson and Bekerian, 1997: 6).
Despite this influence, a somewhat different approach
to profiling has been suggested by the British psychologist David Canter. Some
of his ideas and theories will now be covered.
The FBI did not take up the
idea until the 1970s, but there is now a Behavioural Science Unit within the
FBI National Centre. The majority of profiles are related to murder, but
profiling can also be used in rape, kidnapping cases, arson, burglary and
obscene telephone calls. The FBI now
uses the term ‘criminal investigative analysis’ (CIA) or ‘crime scene analysis’.
The FBI specifies certain information before a
profile can be made: colour photos of the crime scene, data about the
neighbourhood of the crime (for example, the type of housing and average income
of residents), the medical examiner’s report, a map of the victim’s travels
prior to death, a complete investigative report of the incident, and background
details of the victim. The collection of this information is part of a
systematic process following four stages:
1.
• Data assimilation — collection of all
available information.
2.
• Crime classification — attempts to
classify the crime
3.
• Crime reconstruction — attempts to
reconstruct the crime and generate hypotheses about the behaviours involved.
- • Profile
generation.
The US approach is based on the work of the FBI in
response to serial murderers. The main source of their data is interviews with
offenders in prison. The obvious characteristics of ‘serial killers’ are that
they tended to be white, unmarried, male, in unskilled occupations, have a
history of psychiatric problems and come from dysfunctional family backgrounds.
FBI investigators in 1979
interviewed 36 sexual murderers and were able to categorise them as either
‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’.
- Organised offenders shows evidence of planning, they target the victim and
have tried to control the situation as much as possible. They have at least average
intelligence, social and sexual competence and are already in an intimate
relationship.
- Disorganised offenders tend to be socially inadequate, may know the crime scene
or the victim and lives alone. The
crime scene evidences the impulsive, unplanned nature of the attack that
uses the minimal amount of restraint and no attempt to conceal the body.
Differences between
organized and disorganized murders
Organized murder
scene
Planned
Victim — targeted stranger
Control including restraints,
Controlled talk
Aggression before death
Body hidden or moved from crime scene
Weapon and evidence absent
|
Disorganized
scene
Spontaneous
Victim — known by offender
Little control
Sexual acts before death
Body not hidden or left at crime scene.
Evidence present
|
|
Organized
murderer
More-than-average lQ
Skilled occupation
Controlled mood
Living with partner
Mobile — for example, car
Socially competent
Sexually competent
High birth order status
Fathers work stable
Inconsistent discipline as child
Use of alcohol during crime
Follows crime on news
Limited change in
behaviour after crime
|
Disorganized
murderer
Less-than-average IQ
Unskilled
Uncontrolled
Living alone
Lives near crime
Socially incompetent
Sexually incompetent
Low birth order status
Unstable
Harsh discipline as child
Alcohol not used during crime
Does not follow crime on news
Major behaviour change after
crime
|
Source:
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 1985.
Ressler (Ressler et al, 1988) concluded that sex killers
were predominantly white, unmarried males, unemployed or in low-skilled
employment. They tended to have alcohol
problems or psychiatric problems, came from a dysfunctional family and were
obsessed with voyeurism, fetishism and pornography.
Serial Killers
Rossmo (1997) has
analysed the process of how serial killers find a victim into two phases:
The
first phase is the ‘victim search method’, of which there are four
possibilities.
1.
• Hunter — offenders who set
out specifically to find a particular type of victim close to their own home.
Canter and Larkin (1993) prefer the term ‘marauders’, and found that 87% of a
group of British serial rapists lived within the ‘offence circle’ (that is,
their home was at the centre of their attacks).
2.
• Poacher (or ‘commuters’) —
offenders who set out specifically to find a particular type of victim but away
from their homes. The FBI noticed that 51% of a group of American serial
rapists lived outside their offence circles’ (Reboussin et al, 1993).
3.
• Troller — this involves an
opportunist encounter with a victim while doing something else.
4.
• Trapper — offenders who work
in a particular job to allow them the opportunity to encounter victims within
their control. For example, Gerald Schaeffer, who may have killed as many as 34
women but was only convicted for two murders, was a police officer.
The second phase is the ‘victim attack method’, which can be
sub-divided into three types:
1.
• Raptor — attacks victim on
meeting.
2.
• Stalker — follows victim,
then attacks him or her.
3.
• Ambusher — attacks only when
victim is in situation controlled by the offender, like the offender’s home.
The goals of profiling
According
to Holmes & Holmes (1996) there are three major goals of profiling:
1. Social and psychological assessments: the
profile should contain basic information about the offender’s personality, age,
race, type of employment (if any), religion, marital status and level of
education. The personality aspects of the profile may help the police to
predict possible future attacks.
2. Psychological evaluation of belongings: once
a main suspect has been identified, the profile should provide suggestions as
to any possessions the offender may have that would associate him with the
crime scene. These may include scene souvenirs, photos or items of pornography.
Such physical evidence could be listed on a search warrant so the police take
particular care to look for them.
3. Interviewing
suggestions and strategies: even when
people have committed similar crimes, they do not respond to questioning in the
same way because their motives are different. A good profile can provide the
police with strategies that may be effective for a particular offender. An
example cited by Holmes & Holmes (1996) was the murder of a young girl and
her boyfriend in which the stepfather was the main suspect but there was no
forensic evidence to tie him to it. When questioned in a conventional way, he
denied any involvement. The profiler suggested that as he was a man who had a
great need for control, it would be good tactics to appear to solicit his help
in solving the crime. Under the guise of doing this, the suspect was surrounded
by photographs of the crime scene and, believing himself in control of the
investigation, became so engrossed in talking about the case that he revealed
more and more his familiarity with the crime until he eventually broke down and
confessed.
The
obvious starting point of any investigation of a crime is the analysis of
‘hard’ evidence such as blood stains and fibre samples but behavioural information from the crime scene may offer additional
information that aids the investigation. Such information may be g1eaned from
various sources: in the case of rape of a woman by a man. For example, it may
include how the perpetrator talked to his victim, how he treated her and
whether or not he showed remorse. This behavioural information then provides
insights into the thinking patterns and personal habits of the offender which
may offer clues as to how they behave in their everyday life: their lifestyle,
motivations, personal needs and past history. Offender profiles do not solve
crimes, they simply provide a way of narrowing down the range of potential
suspects by providing information about the possible personal characteristics
of the perpetrator of the crime.
Canter (1994) criticises the
technique used in the American approach.
He suggests that interviews with criminals are unreliable as the
criminals can be manipulative and they are often disturbed sensation seekers.
Other criticisms of the FBI
approach are:
- The samples of serious offenders interviewed in
order to draw up the classification system were quite small
- The crime classifications for murderers and
rapists were crude and not very helpful in terms of detection
- Details of the development and efficiency of the
methods were not published
Boon and Davies (1992) sees
the American approach as a ‘top down’ approach. The crime under investigation is viewed in the light of the law
enforcers’ previous experience of criminal behaviour. The British approach (described next) is more ‘bottom up’ in its
approach. Seemingly insignificant clues
to behaviour are built up to give a broad description of the main
characteristics of the offender.
Canter’s
profiling techniques
While
Canter’s approach shares some similarities with that of the FBI, he has tried
to place his approach within accepted psychological frameworks. Canter has
labelled his approach Investigative
Psychology and believes that as a branch of applied psychology, it goes beyond
what is traditionally thought of as offender profiling. Canter has tried to
understand firstly the type of crime in which any particular individual will
be likely to become involved and also the way in which the crime will be carried
out. Secondly, Canter has tried to understand the way in which an individual
offender’s behaviour while committing a crime mirrors their behaviour in
everyday life. His research has led him to believe that there are subsets of
interrelated activities that occur when a crime is being committed (see below).
He also believes that a criminal’s actions at the scene of a crime will reveal
something about their background. Thus systematic attempts to destroy evidence
might suggest that the person has previous convictions.
From his research into offending behaviour Canter
(1989, 1994) and his colleagues have identified five important characteristics
that they believe can help in investigations. These are residential location, criminal biography, domestic/social
characteristics, personal characteristics and occupational/educational history. While all of these have been
found to be of some value, residential location and criminal history are
thought to be of most benefit (Boon and Davies, 1993).
Canter and Heritage (1990) analysed details of sexual
assaults in an effort to identify particular styles and patterns within these
offences. They were able to identify’ those characteristics which were very
common in such assaults and those which were much less common and thus more
distinctive. By carrying out such analyses it was hoped that common factors in
similar types of sex crimes could be specified and the more individually
distinctive features identified. Canter’s approach is based on the belief that
although there are similarities in many sexual assault cases, there are also
identifiable differences in the way in which offences are carried out.
Canter believes that during the commission of a
crime, vital clues are left behind and the distinctive personality of the
offender shows through in some way. Thus, it is thought that the way in which
the crime is committed is in part a reflection of the everyday traits and
behaviour of the individual. The interaction between the offender and victim is
thus studied closely and categorised along a number of dimensions, e.g.
sexuality, violence and aggression, impersonal sexual gratification,
interpersonal intimacy and criminality. Canter believes that by this careful
study of offence behaviour, patterns can be established and variations between
offenders identified. However, unlike the FBI’s approach, Canter does not
attempt to place offenders into rigid typologies, but rather suggests that
their behaviour will mirror other aspects of their day-to-day life (Canter,
1995: 354).
In the statistical approach, the classification
of crime scenes is empirically based, using statistical methods such as
smallest space analysis. This is a method of identifying just how likely
features of crime scenes are to exist and coexist with another feature at a
particular crime scene. Take the following features of rapes:
Apologises
Binding limbs
Clothing
removed
Disguise
Element of
surprise Fellatio of the offender Gratuitous violence Humiliation
Inquisitive
Kisses
Multiple
violence
Offender
confident Reassures victim
Sex language - victim Sodomy
Takes time
Theft of money
Theft of
personal belongings Torture
Use of
blindfold
Vaginal
penetration Verbal aggression
