At the core of criminal profiling is the belief that you can tell something about the offender,
their characteristics if you like, by a careful and considered examination of the offence.
So after a crime has been committed you use all the information that you can gather about
the crime. For example, details about the crime: what occurred, where it occurred
and information either from or about the victim. And you use this to draw up a profile of the
characteristics of the person who most likely committed the crime.
This may include information on demographic features, so their age, their gender, their ethnicity.
And, depending on your approach, this profile might include information on the perpetrator's
likely motivation. Why are they engaging in this behaviour, and why did the crime take
place when and where it did?
Offender profiling is typically used in serious crimes like murder and in serial crimes, and
also when it is difficult to identify the offender using standard methods.
So when described like this, criminal profiling sounds very straightforward. But, although
pretty much everyone agrees on the basic principle, there is actually a lot of debate about how
to do this in practice, and different approaches have emerged.
So if we think about how a profile of an offender is created we can see there are a few different
approaches. These include the FBI's Criminal Investigative Analysis and the
Investigative Psychology approach, which is most commonly associated with David Canter. There is also
diagnostic evaluation and the recently developed crime action profiling.
And within these approaches you also have specialities if you like, that focus on one
element. So geographical profiling, for example, is often used in an attempt to locate
where the offender is based given his or her offending locations. So what we're going
to do is consider just a few of these. Those where more has been written about the approaches
that they take.
Now probably the most famous approach to criminal profiling is Criminal Investigative Analysis.
This approach was initially developed at the FBI Academy in Virginia and then later in
the Behavioral Science Unit.
It came about through an increasing awareness amongst investigators that apprehended offenders,
who had been identified using traditional investigation techniques, appeared to share
characteristics and exhibit particular patterns of behaviour at their crime scenes.
So that led to the question: is it possible to get clues from the crime scene and the surviving
victims that would give the investigators the most probable personality and demographic
characteristics of the offender?
Now obviously this would be useful, as it would allow the investigators to focus their
attention on the most likely offenders rather than having to investigate a very large pool
of suspects.
So they started by drawing on their own officers experience in the investigation of serious
sexual assault and murder, and they also carried out in-depth interviews with a small number
of convicted sexual murderers who volunteered. But bearing in mind that these murderers
memories for their crimes were unlikely to be perfect, and that convicted volunteers
may not be representative of the broader category of murderers.
However, the aim of these activities was to identify the major personality and behavioural
characteristics that this type of offender had. And, critically, how the personality
seen in this type of offender differed from that typically seen in the general population.
Now this analysis led FBI investigators to propose typologies of offenders, such that,
for example, an offender could be categorised as organised or disorganised, or in some instances
a mixture or combination of both.
So, and if we stick with the crime of murder,
an organised offender would be someone who led an orderly life and this is reflected in the
way that they commit their crime.
The organised offender is claimed to be of average to high intelligence, socially competent,
and more likely than the disorganised offender to have skilled employment.
He typically plans his offences, he uses restraints on his victim, brings a weapon with him to
commit the murder and then takes it away with him from the crime scene.
Now this organised behaviour at the crime scene allows some inference of likely behavioural
and motivational characteristics. So, for example, the likelihood that there was some
situational stress that precipitated the assault.
Now in contrast the disorganised offender commits crimes that appear to have had little
preparation or planning. So, the crime scene might show evidence of almost random, unplanned
or disorganised behaviour. The offender may use whatever is at hand as a weapon,
and that weapon may then be left at the scene. Also there may be little attempt to conceal other
evidence at the crime scene.
Now typically this type of offender was thought to be socially incompetent and to have below
average intelligence, and to be more likely to be living alone and to live and work near
the crime scene.
Now although not a direct product of the original in-depth interviews with offenders,
later, a 'mixed' offender classification was added in. Now this occurs when some elements
of the crime look organised but other bits seem disorganised. This might occur when elements
of the situation when the crime took place took the offender by surprise.
So maybe there was more than one person present at the scene, when the offender thought there
would only be one. Maybe the person was stronger than the offender thought, so when they fought
back it was actually a real fight. Another possibility is that the offender's method of
offending has evolved since the last crime they committed. So, in the case of murder,
because the offender's new method is partially untested it might not go quite to plan.
As Hazelwood and Warren in 2001 noted, 'in fantasy everything works out perfectly'.
However in reality and in acting out this fantasy, this rarely occurs. So maybe the
method of killing wasn't as efficient as the offender thought it would be, and so a
real struggle occurred while the offender was trying to kill.
So these things would be surprising to the offender, who might otherwise be quite organised,
and that would lead to elements of the offence looking quite disorganised.
Now, key in this approach is the classification of the crime by the motive.
That is why the crime was committed. However, of course, at the point where the
crime has just occurred, you don't know this. So you start with what you do know.
That is you look to the behavioural features that are present in the crime.
Using a multi stage process, the investigator needs to consider all the available information
about the victim, the crime scene or crime scenes and the details of the interpersonal
transaction - maybe through using a detailed reconstruction.
The investigator also needs to consider all the available forensic information, and make
some judgements in relation to the crime scene. Does it look organised or disorganised, do
elements of it look inconsistent and therefore possibly staged; that is, deliberately altered
in an attempt to mislead the investigators? They need to determine how the crime committed,
that is - what is the modus operandi?
Also is there a signature present? That is an individualised or specific way in which
the crime has been committed that tells you about the personality of the offender and
may be able to help you link this crime to other crimes.
Now the signature can often be a seemingly unnecessary part of the crime. It serves
no obvious purpose, like helping the offender to escape. Rather it is serving another purpose
for the offender. For example, the offender may take an object from the crime scene,
like the victim's house keys, to fulfil some psychological or emotional desire.
So as an investigator you get the material or details from the crime; the WHAT, then
you try and determine the WHY of the crime, that is the motivation for each crime scene
detail and for the crime, before moving to the WHO of the crime.
Now the resulting profile will contain hypotheses about the likely demographic and physical
characteristics of the offender. So things like their ethnicity, their age, their type
of occupation, some comment on their marital status and on their family characteristics,
and also whether they own or have access to a vehicle and its most likely age and type.
Also typically there will be some hypotheses as to the offenders behavioural habits. So
whether they have any previous convictions and if so, for what type of offence.
Or whether they've ever served in the military.
Comments will also be made as to their likely social interests and personality dynamics.
So their intelligence, their likely educational level, and whether there may be any evidence
of psychopathology. Now that profile might also include information on their pre- offence
behaviour leading to the crime and also what they've done since - their post offence
behaviour. It may also include recommendations for identifying, apprehending and interviewing
the offender.