13.4: Types of Profiling

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 81995

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

Criminal profiling according to Muller (2000) “is the process of using available information about a crime and crime scene to compose a psychological portrait of the unknown perpetrator of the crime (as cited in Bartol & Bartol, p.56). Criminal profiling in this fashion is instrumental providing investigators with a psychological evaluation of relevant information of offender and his/her possessions and the technique for interviews (Bartol & Bartol, 2008). Additionally, the information from a crime scene of an unsolved homicide may offer legitimate information for the investigator; however not all offenses are appropriate for criminal profiling. Crime Scene Analysis (CSA) probably the most romanticized by the media is the most popular (Bartol & Bartol, 2008).

As asserted by Ressler, Burgess & Douglas (1988) CSA “Criminal profiling is a six-stage process” (p.58). The stages: Profiling Inputs and concerns, collection of all information; Decision Process Model in which the information is analyzed; Crime Assessment or in this stage is the term, getting into the mind of the criminal; Constructing the Profile is performed in this stage consisting of age, characteristics of the offender, race general appearance of offender, relationship to victim and any other notable features; Investigation whereby the profiler submits a report to the agency; and finally Apprehension assuming the correct offender is caught (Ressler et al., as cited in Bartol & Bartol, p.58-59).

Is criminal profiling of use to the police profession or perhaps in diagnosis of perpetrators for rehabilitation purpose, the evidence provided is scant however it does indicate promise (Bartol & Bartol, 2008). CSA is more reliant upon experience and intuition. Criminal profiling will be tested longitudinally as evaluation of offenders prove positive and providing testing is best available with the IP as more empirical studies can make its claim (Bartol & Bartol, 2008). Criminal profiling as described thus far has been primarily reserved for serial killers.

Maillette et al. (2001) insist that “one instrument developed to measure specific aspects of criminal thinking regardless of offender type, is the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS)”(p.105). The PICTS assesses eight thinking styles including: Mollification-rationalization; Cutoff-rapid elimination of deterrents to crime; Entitlement-ownership or misidentification of wants and needs; Power Orientation-aggressive behavior; Sentimentality-compensating for previous conduct; Super optimism-ego to maintain criminal life style; Cognitive Indolence-lazy thinking; and Discontinuity-little premeditation (Maillette et al., 2001).

The PICTS instrument is a better fit than is the CSA as the former removes more of the assumptions and speculation from offender behaviors. Again as previously stated CSA is made for television and big screen as compared to the latter that is descriptive and is more open to other criminal conducts unlike CSA which is restrictive to serial killers (Bartol & Bartol, 2008). Thus is descriptive of other types of profiling and providing a segway to the next portion of this discussion.

The longevity of CSA or IP is essential in long term investigations; however currently are without empirical studies of any magnitude; yet PICTS provides evidence that certain characteristics may be tested. It is incumbent upon police leadership to provide training and education and ethics guiding the conduct of officers so that profiling is of the legitimate form (White, 2007).

Getting into the minds of the criminal has its place, especially in treatment of offenders but not in the fast pace of policing from the street level. Again, it has come a long way; demonstrating merit nonetheless has not passed the empirical research test to date (Bartol & Bartol, 2008). On the other hand Terry type profiling has been in place for over forty years and remains solidly situated based on court fashioned reasoning.

There are two other forms of profiling offered which will receive no other attention than honorable mention in this discussion. These are Investigative Psychology (IP) and Diagnostic Evaluation (DE) and as pointed out by Bartol & Bartol (2008) “CSA does have the potential to be scientific with some work, but the main problem seems to be that it does not want to be scientific. Unlike, CSA, IP was designed from the beginning with science in mind…IP has a great deal of potential to become a science, but it still has a long way to go before it will be recognized as a discipline in itself” (p.62).