Forensic Psychology
Page 48
As explained by Jackson and Bekerian (1997), the steps followed in constructing an offender profile according to the FBI approach are as shown in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2 The FBI approach to profiling
Data assimilation At this stage the profiler must collate all available information about the crime. This can include written materials (e.g. victim or witness statements, autopsy reports) or visual materials (e.g. CCTV or photographs).
Crime classification The crime is classified into a type using the collated information.
Crime reconstruction Hypotheses about how the crime unfolded are developed in terms of the sequence of events and the behaviours of the different parties (e.g. victim, offender/s).
Profile generation The profile is generated including hypotheses about the offender’s socio-demographic characteristics, his/her habits and personality. According to Jackson and Bekerian (1997) the profiles produced tend to be written in a standardised manner.
10.3.1.2 The clinical approach
Several authors have noted that there is no one approach to “clinical profiling” (Mullen, 2000; Wilson et al., 1997). Some clinical profilers (Copson, Badcock, Boon, & Britton, 1997) have likened their approach to that of the original FBI profilers, interpreting the offender’s motive and drawing on psychological literature (e.g. personality theory, Boon, 1997) to make predictions about the offender’s characteristics. Boon (1997) has stressed that the aim of clinical profiling is not to solve a case, but to provide “insight into the nature of both the case and the offender(s)” (p. 46). Like the criminal investigative approach, as well as using psychological theory, clinical profilers draw on their accrued experience. Rather than this being experience of criminal investigations, clinical profilers draw on their experience of working with clients in a forensic mental health setting that can be applied to the case under investigation (Alison, West, & Goodwill, 2004).
According to Boon (1997) and Copson et al. (1997), the clinical profiler begins by collating all information available about the crime including details of the victim, the crime scene and the circumstances of the offence. This might include visiting the crime scene itself. From this the profiler must identify the “crime type at a fundamental level (e.g. murder) and then move on to be more specific about its character”, in terms of the weapons used, the nature and extent of the victim’s injuries and so on. The profiler must attempt to understand what happened, how and to whom, and thereby reconstruct the criminal event (Copson et al., 1997). Copson et al. (1997) explain that the clinical profiler will be looking for evidence of emotion, desires, moods and psychopathology in the case material. Having identified the salient elements of the offence, the profiler selects a personality theory or theories that will help explain the offence in question as well as being appropriate to the operational needs of the police investigation (Boon, 1997). The psychological literature is drawn upon to understand the offender’s motive and suggest offender characteristics (Copson et al., 1997).
10.3.1.3 The statistical approach
The statistical approach to profiling is attributed to David Canter and his colleagues, which “is primarily based on the multivariate analysis of behavioural and other information found at the crime scene to infer an offender’s characteristics and psychological processes” (Alison et al., 2010, p. 118). Canter (2000) sees offender profiling as being firmly rooted in the discipline of psychology and argues that offender profiling is similar to other areas of psychology. In occupational psychology, for example, psychologists try to predict someone’s future behaviour in the workplace based on what we know about their characteristics (as ascertained from psychometric tests). Canter (2000) argues that this is not dissimilar to what the offender profiler is trying to achieve whereby they are attempting the reverse; to predict someone’s likely characteristics based on what we know of their behaviour.
In constructing his/her profile, the statistical profiler will use statistically derived relationships between crime scene behaviour and offender characteristics that have been generated from databases of similar solved crimes and apprehended criminals to make predictions about the characteristics of the suspect in question (Snook et al., 2007). The statistical approach to profiling is therefore a research-oriented approach to profiling and many studies exist which have tried to identify bivariate relationships between single crime scene behaviours and single offender characteristics (e.g. Davies, Wittebrood, & Jackson, 1998; House, 1997) or which have clustered together crime scene behaviours to identify styles of offending with the aim of investigating whether particular offender characteristics are more often associated with a particular style of offending (e.g. Canter & Fritzon, 1998; Canter & Heritage, 1990).
Several studies of different crime types, including rape, paedophilic sex offences, and homicides, have reported similar “modes of interpersonal transaction” (Canter, 2000, p. 37) between the offender and the victim. These modes are the offender treating the victim as a person (where there are attempts at building rapport or a relationship), as an object (where the victim is used and controlled for the offender’s gain) and as a vehicle for the offender’s emotional state. The statistical profiler can therefore make predictions about an offender’s characteristics based on the observation of him/her displaying one or more single crime scene behaviours (e.g. the use of bindings or the use of gloves) or they could determine the offender’s dominant style of offending, or mode of interaction, and refer to the research literature regarding the common characteristics found to be associated with this style or mode.
The dominant schools of thought in offender profiling that have evolved differ from one another in terms of their incorporation of research findings to justify the predictions being made in the offender profile, and the emphasis they place on psychological theory and/or practitioner experience. In 1997, Bekerian and Jackson expressed concern that the offender profiling field might become fractured and argued that offender profiling would better develop as a field if consideration were given to “hybrid profiling techniques” incorporating the statistical analysis of large databases as well as experience of salient case studies. To an extent, this is being realised; according to Alison et al. (2010), such divisions are less relevant nowadays due to the emergence of “a more pragmatic, interdisciplinary practitioner-academic model” (p. 115).
10.3.2 The Assumptions of Offender Profiling
As was mentioned above, literature reviews have highlighted the dearth of empirical research on offender profiling. One area where some empirical research has been conducted is the investigation of the assumptions of offender profiling. Offender profiling shares two assumptions with crime linkage – those of offender behavioural consistency and distinctiveness – and thus the empirical research on these assumptions has already been described above. In addition, offender profiling assumes a relationship between the way someone behaves at a crime scene and their characteristics. This has been called the A(ctions) → C(haracteristics) relationship (Canter, 1995) or alternatively the homology assumption (Mokros & Alison, 2002). If such relationships exist, it follows that offenders who behave in a similar way when committing their offences should be similar in terms of their characteristics, and conversely, that offenders with differing offending styles should differ in their characteristics. A review by Doan and Snook (2008) outlined six studies of the homology assumption, which had sampled arsons, rapes and robberies. Little supporting evidence for the homology assumption was found.
As explained by Goodwill and Alison (2007), one reason for the failure of studies to find support for the homology assumption might be because some studies have lacked an underpinning theoretical framework that can explain why certain socio-demographic variables would be associated with certain crime scene behaviours (Mokros & Alison, 2002). The offender characteristics tested in studies of the homology assumption (e.g., age, ethnicity, employment, education) were selected because they are commonly predicted in offender profiles (Mokros & Alison, 2002). However, i
t is questionable whether, based on models of personality, we should expect relationships between crime scene behaviour and demographic characteristics. Instead, relationships between crime scene behaviour and someone’s developmental history (e.g., past learning experiences) or how they act in non-criminal situations are more likely (Woodhams & Toye, 2007).
One attempt in this regard utilised theories from evolutionary psychology, consumer psychology, social psychology and criminology to explain why we might expect to find relationships between the cost of footwear worn to the crime scene by burglars (as ascertained from shoemark evidence left at the scene) and their characteristics (age and gender, employment status, relative deprivation of his/her residence) (Tonkin, Bond, & Woodhams, 2009). The homology assumption was tested in terms of assessing (1) whether offenders who wore footwear of a similar cost were of a similar age and lived in a residence of similar deprivation, and (2) whether offenders of different genders and different employment status wore footwear of a significantly different cost. Support for the homology assumption was found for the offenders’ employment status and the deprivation of their residences. Other such theoretically-informed investigations of the homology assumption might be fruitful in the future.
In addition, it has been argued that it’s naïve to expect crime scene actions to map onto offender characteristics in a simple manner and instead we should develop our understanding of the processes (e.g., personality) that underlie the relationship between criminal actions and characteristics (Youngs, 2004). Similarly, Goodwill and colleagues (Goodwill & Alison, 2007; Goodwill, Alison, & Beech, 2009) have called for studies that investigate variables that moderate our ability to predict characteristics from crime scene behaviour. For example, in their study, Goodwill and Alison (2007) demonstrated that it was possible to predict offender age from victim age, but only where the offender had engaged in planning and where excessive violence was used.
It might therefore be possible to predict some offender characteristics from some crime scene behaviours, where we have a theoretical framework which accounts for such a relationship, and perhaps only in certain circumstances. This shifts the focus onto individual crime scene behaviours, which also better reflects how some practitioners conduct profiling (e.g., see Ter Beek, van den Eshof, & Mali’s (2010) account of offender profiling in the Netherlands).
10.3.3 Evaluations of Offender Profiles
The content of offender profiles is another area that has been the recipient of scrutiny and subsequent criticism. In 2003, Alison, Smith, and Morgan analysed 21 offender profiles written from 1992 to 2001 by profilers from the United States, the UK and other European countries where the offender had subsequently been convicted. The three main schools of thought (i.e. statistical, criminal investigative and clinical) were all represented in the sample. The profiles contained nearly 880 claims about offenders’ characteristics. These reports came under criticism because Alison et al. found that over half of the claims made could not be verified post-conviction because, for example, they pertained to how the offender was feeling at the time of the offence. More than 20% of claims were vague or open to interpretation, and for more than 80% of the claims the profiler failed to provide any justification for the advice offered.
In 2007, Almond, Alison, and Porter conducted a similar analysis of 45 reports written in 2005 by behavioural investigative advisors employed by the then National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). These reports pertained to predictions of offender characteristics, the veracity of victim allegations, crime linkage, and geographical profiling. The reports contained 805 claims, 96% of which were accompanied by some form of justification, but only 34% were formally supported, 70% of which were verifiable, 43% were falsifiable, and only 8% were ambiguous.
In summary, whilst criticisms have been made regarding the contents of offender profiles, steps are being taken to establish professional standards and assessments suggest the quality of some offender profiling reports are improving. For published examples of actual offender profiling reports the interested reader is referred to Alison et al. (2004) and Alison (2005).
10.3.4 Evaluations of the Effectiveness of Offender Profiling
Within the popular literature on offender profiling, one does not have to look far to find reports of the effectiveness of offender profiling. Several authors have highlighted that there is a “plethora” of positive anecdotes about the use of offender profiling but that empirical support for these claims is lacking (Snook et al., 2008; Woskett, Coyle, & Lincoln, 2007). Snook et al. (2008) also caution that these anecdotes can be misleading, for example, where profilers report the number of correct predictions made rather than the proportion (which would take account of incorrect predictions). They illustrate this point with an example of where authors of a profile reported that they made 11 correct predictions; however, Snook et al. (2008) note that the profile was actually only 38% accurate when the 18 incorrect predictions were also taken into account.
Several assessments of offender profiling advice from the perspectives of the users also exist, which have been conducted in different countries including the UK and the Netherlands. In 1995, Copson surveyed 126 detectives in the UK who had received offender profiling advice from 29 different profilers. This advice included predicting the characteristics of unknown offenders, advice regarding interviewing strategy and crime linkage. Over 50% of the detectives felt that the advice had provided them with new information but it was uncommon for the detectives to act on the advice directly or for the advice to assist in solving the case. Despite this, over two-thirds of the detectives said they would seek the advice of a profiler again. Similar findings were reported by Jackson, van Koppen, and Herbrink (1997) following their survey of 20 detective teams in Belgium and the Netherlands who had received offender profiling advice. Of the 42 evaluations made, only two were entirely negative.
As well as seeking the views of users” (Copson, 1995), Gudjonsson and Copson (1997) were able to assess the accuracy of the claims made in 50 offender profiles where the offender had subsequently been apprehended. Of the items of advice that could be assessed for accuracy, 68% offered by “statistical profilers” and 74% by “clinical profilers” were judged to be accurate. Like the more recent studies of the content of profiles (Alison et al., 2003; Almond et al., 2007), Gudjonsson and Copson (1997) criticised the vague nature of some claims that were made. Whilst the users of offender profiling advice seem content with the service received and a number of the claims made have been found to be correct, such evaluations are not without their critics. Canter (2000), for example, has criticised them for being premature, bearing in mind the limited evidence for the underlying assumptions of offender profiling.
10.3.5 Current Provision of Behavioural Investigative Advice (BIA) in the UK
The last decade has seen considerable development in the provision and management of behavioural investigative advice (BIA) in the UK, and it is logical to end this chapter with a brief consideration of these issues.
Within the UK, the provision of BIA is delivered by the National Crime Agency (NCA), with oversight and governance provided by the Behavioural Science Committee of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC). All requests for BIA support during ongoing police investigations must be sent via the Specialist Operations Centre at the NCA, who will provide one of their national cadres of NPCC Approved BIAs as part of a wider operational support team. It is important to note that all BIAs on this list are trained and employed by the NCA, so the historical practice of seeking assistance from academics, psychologists and other potentially qualified persons is no longer used in the UK.
Another important development is that all BIAs adhere to a strict set of working conditions, which includes annual auditing of their reports (see Alison & Rainbow, 2011, for further details). Moreover, training to become an ACPO-approved full-time BIA within the NCA involves a two-year (minimum) mentorship programme consisting of work-shadowing, conference attendance and training courses t
hat seek to develop competency in seven areas: (1) interpersonal and verbal communication skills; (2) personal integrity; (3) writing skills; (4) critical thinking skills; (5) managing the work; (6) familiarity with the techniques of behavioural science as applied to criminal investigations; and (7) knowledge of the investigative and legal process.
Thus, the process of providing investigative support that is informed by the behavioural sciences has come a long way since the relatively unregulated cases that characterised the early history of “offender profiling”. The current state of BIA in the UK is instead characterised by a consistent national process for requesting such support and more robust mechanisms for ensuring the consistency, quality and utility of advice given.