Literature Review

Topic: Criminal Profiling

INTRODUCTION

Unfortunately, the term "criminal profiling" has occasionally come to mean different things. Part
of the misunderstanding stems from the various terms that are frequently used interchangeably,
such as "offender profiling," "criminal personality profiling," "investigative profiling," and
"psychological profiling." A "collection of leads" and a "biological sketch of behavioural
patterns, trends, and tendencies" are two ways that criminal profiling has been described.
However, more thorough explanations of criminal profiling include the following: A forensic
approach that aims to give investigating authorities precise information that will aid in focusing
their attention on people who have personality features that are comparable to those of other
offenders who have committed crimes similar to their own. Criminal profiling is the practise of
drawing conclusions about the personality and other traits of the likely criminal based on the
type of a crime.

The exciting and dramatic aspects of profiling that are depicted in numerous popular films,
television shows, and books (often those that feature a serial murderer) appear to be in stark
contrast with reality. In the psychiatric and legal communities, profiling is not universally
accepted, and some courts have even decided that testimony based on profiling is inadmissible.
This is due to two key factors. A criminal profile, in the first place, merely provides a general
idea of the kind of person who might have committed the crime. It does not name a particular
person who just so happens to fulfil the description. As a result, the profiler is unable to state
whether it is more likely than not that a certain offender actually committed the crime.
As a result, the profiler is unable to state whether it is more likely than not that a certain offender
actually committed the crime. Second, there is no scientific proof that criminal profiling is
reliable or effective in preventing crimes. In fact, it appears that profiling is more often the
exception than the rule when it comes to helping the police crack a case or find fresh leads for
investigation. On the other hand, it is undeniable that, albeit in few instances, criminal profiling
has been beneficial. However, a lot more study is necessary before criminal profiling may
become a useful forensic tool..(Gudjonsson and Haward 1998).
A variation of profiling that has evoked some interest in the news media is psychological
autopsy, which comprises the compilation of a psychological profile of especially well-known
deceased individuals. It is also used in suicide cases, for example, to determine whether the
deceased could indeed have committed suicide. However, as in the case of criminal profiling, its
reliability and validity are also questioned.

The concept of criminal profiling is defined and described as a technique whereby the probable
characteristics of a criminal offender or offenders are predicted based on the behaviors exhibited
in the commission of a crime. A brief overview of the historical antecedents and development of
criminal profiling is also presented and illustrates that criminal profiling is conceptually old and
indicative of the human race’s long-held fascination with the assessment and prediction of
criminality. This chapter concludes by outlining some of the common applications and objectives
of criminal profiles.( Criminal Profiling: Principles and Practice By: R. N. Kocsis © Humana
Press Inc., Totowa, NJ)
Since the 1970s, investigative profilers at the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit (now part of the
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime) have been assisting local, state, and federal
agencies in narrowing investigations by providing criminal personality profiles. An attempt is
now being made to describe this criminal-profile-generating process. A series of five overlapping
stages lead to the sixth stage, or the goal of apprehension of the offender: (1) profiling inputs, (2)
decision-process models, (3) crime assessment, (4) the criminal profile, (5) investigation, and (6)
apprehension. Two key feedback filters in the process are: (a) achieving congruence with the
evidence, with decision models, and with investigation recommendations, and (b) the addition of
new evidence (Autumn (Fall) 1986)

Historical background

The Search for Origins: Criminologists

Integral to criminal profiling has been both understanding origins of crime and classifying
criminal behavior. This pursuit falls under the banner of criminology, which is the study of
crime, criminals, and criminal behavior. Criminology involves the documentation of factual
information about criminality and the development of theories to help explain those facts. A
review of the literature suggests that two types of criminologists have intersected criminal
profiling theory more than the rest: those who study the physical characteristics of criminals in
order to make inferences about criminal character, and those who are concerned with applied
criminal investigation. (Brent E. Turvey, 2012)
For well over a century USA and British police have used offender profiling. However, it was the
‘Mad Bomber of New York’ profile in1956 by James Brussel that first captured the public’s
imagination. Asthe investigative potential of profiling became recognized, the FBI developed a
Behavioral Science Unit to counteract the rising number of serial murders. Incarcerated sexual
murderers were interviewed and classified into organized/disorganized typologies, depending on
personality, demographic and crime scene characteristics (Burgessetal , 1986). The typologies
were incorporated into the Crime Classification Manual , a guide for FBI investigators producing
offender profiles (Ressler, 1992). Although the FBI claims an empirical foundation for its work,
results are criticized for methodological weaknesses inherent in the research. (Canter and Alison
2000) consider FBI profiling to be subjective and intuitive, while Ainsworth 2001) suggests that
studies relying on retrospective offender self-reporting require caution because of recall bias.
Similarly, Coleman and Norris (2000) raise concerns about generalizing results from research
that lacks controls and uses small, statistically rare sample groups. Critics also argue that the
organized /disorganized typology relies on offenders’ having consistent patterns of motivation,
which is not always the case (Wilson, 1997). The validity and reliability of the Crime
Classification Manual have also been questioned, because of the absence of an underlying
psychological theoretical framework (Muller, 2000).Nevertheless, the Netherlands has developed
an Offender Profiling Unit that has adopted the FBI approach, despite suggestions that cross-
cultural differences in crime, offender behavior and profiling principles indicate the need for
further research (House, 1997). However, in contrast to the American model, the Dutch combine
forensic psychologists and police officers as an investigation team, using profiling to steer an
inquiry in a particular direction (Jackson , 1997)
 THE PROFILING PROCESS
The profiling process is defined by the FBI as an investigative techniqueby which to identify the
major, personality and behavioral characteristics of the offender based upon an analysis of the
crime(s) he or she has committed. The process generally' involves seven steps. Criminal.
Profiling A Viable Investigative Tool Against Violent Crime
1) Evaluation of the criminal act itself,
2) Comprehensive evaluation of the specifics of the crime scene(s)
3) Comprehensive analysis of the victim,
4) Evaluation of preliminary police reports,
5) Evaluation of the medical examiner's autopsy protocol,
6) Development of profile with critical offender characteristics, and
7) Investigative suggestions predicated on construction of the profile.
The process used by the person preparing a criminal personality profile is quite similar !o that
used by clinicians to make a diagnosi s and treatment plan: Data is collected and assessed, the
situation reconstructed, hypotheses are formulated, a profile developed and tested, and the results
reported back. Criminal personality profiling has been used by.law enforcement with success in
many areas and is viewed as a ~vay in which the investigating officer can narrow the scope of an
investigation. Profiling unfortunately does not provide the identity of the offender, but it does
indicate the type of person most likely to have committed a crime having certain unique
characteristics. [ Willmer, Crime and Information Theory (Edinburgh, England: The University of
Edinburgh, 1970)].

Criminal Profiling In Digital Behavior

Criminal profiling can be most useful when little is known about the offender(s), which is
particularly important when offenders use the Internet to conceal their identities and activities.
Criminal profiling assists investigators by:
1. Distinguishing whether a single offender committed multiple crimes or multiple
offenders are involved
2. Providing likely offender characteristics to aid the technical investigation
3. Identifying likely suspects from a given pool based on offender skill level, access to
victim/target, and other technical characteristics
4. Revealing modus operandi and signatures to help investigators search for related
behaviors and to assess offender motivations
5. Giving insight into offender motivations and general psychological state
6. Assessing the dangerousness of offenders
7. Revealing additional sources of evidence
In one case, a company and its customers were harassed by embarrassing e-mails containing
derogatory information about the company and disturbing sexually explicit attachments that were
spoofed to appear that company executives were the senders. After two years of repeated
spoofed e-mail attacks, it remained unclear whether the perpetrator was an individual or a group,
an insider or outsider, or even what the offender(s) wanted in order to stop their harassment.
Behavioral analysis of the harassing communications showed that one individual with a high
technical skill level was responsible for all of the activities, and it indicated that the subject was a
highly intelligent male over 30 who was extremely angry with the target company. This
information led to further investigation of other anonymous contacts that had not previously been
associated with the perpetrator of the harassing e-mail attacks. E-mail communications were
established with the perpetrator and, with the assistance of a behavioral psychologist, additional
information about the perpetrator was elicited from him about his motivation, culminating in a
cyber-extortion demand. In the negotiations over the extortion demand, the perpetrator's state of
mind was regularly assessed to evaluate the level of danger he posed to others.3
In this investigation, digital forensic analysis of the company's computer systems uncovered no
evidence that the perpetrator was a malicious insider, but it did identify suspicious connections
from computers at a nearby university, providing investigators with a solid lead and confirmation
of an outside hacker. As suggested by the profile, the offender was technically skilled enough to
conceal his identity by using publicly accessible computers at university computer laboratories
and wireless access points. Subsequent surveillance of the locations used by the offender to send
spoofed e-mails led investigators to a prime suspect who matched many of the characteristics
detailed in the profile. Because the profile indicated that the offender might be dangerous and
mentally unstable, investigators were cautious when they ultimately apprehended him. This case
demonstrates how behavioral analysis of the digital evidence can provide investigators with
information about the numbers of individuals involved in the criminal activity, the skill level of
the individuals involved, other evidence that is actually related though may not superficially
appear to be, and the physical security risk that the perpetrator poses.
An offender's online activities may also indicate that the offender is taking precautionary
measures to avoid identification and apprehension. For instance, some offenders protect
themselves by using computer-smart nicknames, such as “En0ch|an” instead of “Enochian.”
Because a search engine does not realize that the zero represents an “o” and the pipe (|)
represents an “i,” a search for “En0ch|an” will not find information labeled with
“Enochian.”4 Additionally, offenders may use anonymous or forged e-mail messages to conceal
their identities. Investigators should determine how much technical knowledge was required to
perform such a task and whether every modification was necessary to conceal the person's
identity or whether the modifications were instead created to fulfill a psychological need of the
offender. Explaining how and why the offender conceals his or her identity may lead
investigators to identifying information that the offender failed to hide or may help investigators
narrow the suspect pool (e.g., to people who were intimately familiar with the victim and
concealed their identify to avoid recognition by the victim).
Case Example: Internal Offense
A large company received an anonymous letter containing documents from an executive's
computer. In addition to the concerns raised by the documents, the fact that someone was able to
obtain access to these sensitive materials without the executive's knowledge raised security
concerns. If the anonymous whistle-blower had gained unauthorized access to the executive's
computer system or e-mail, this would have to be considered. A behavioral assessment helped
focus the investigation on a person morally offended by the executive's activity, which was the
subject of the documents and was a violation of corporate policy. The behavioral analysis of the
anonymous whistle-blower's activities on the company's computer systems also supported the
assessment that the security breach was specifically targeted at the executive and his activities
and was not more far-reaching.
Feeling protected by some level of anonymity, individuals often do things on the Internet that
they would only imagine doing in the physical world and express thoughts that they would
otherwise keep to themselves. Digital evidence may also contain information that can be used to
determine the offender's sex, age, occupation, interests, relationship status, and other potentially
useful information. An offender's Web site and online presence can give the viewer an
impression of the offender's self-image, state of mind, interests, and more. The choice of online
nicknames can be revealing (e.g., Slavemaster, Zest, Dr. Evil), and an offender's Web pages may
contain stories that give insight into his or her motives and fantasies and may have links to
favorite areas online that can lead to other victims and additional evidence. This last point also
applies to the physical world—an offender's Web page may contain references to, or photographs
of, favorite locations that can be useful when looking for other potential victims or sources of
physical evidence.
Case Example: Child Exploitation
An offender's admissions about state of mind, sexual fantasy, or personal/sexual conflict can
provide insight into his or her behavior and motivations. For instance, in one traveler5 case, a
profiler examined the offender's online activities and concluded that the offender believed he was
genuinely in consensual relationships with his young victims. “He sees nothing about his
behavior as criminal or exploitative. He believes that he is merely seizing the day, and that what
he is doing benefits the children he exploits. His motive is not to physically harm his victims but
to be loved and admired by them. He confuses his own identity with theirs, to an extent,
projecting a child-like affect to them. An interview strategy that exploits these factors by being
sympathetic to them will be successful in getting the most information from this suspect.”

CRIMINAL PROFILING: AN EVALUATION

Criminal Profiling has come in for a lot of criticism in recent times. It has been suggested that its
greatest failing is the lack of professionalism and unscientific approach. But this approach is
demanded by the nature of the work done by profilers. Every profiler has his own unique style
and any attempt to create and follow a prescribed procedure on the basis of scientific fact will
merely hinder rather than help the creative process that is called for in this line of work.

Still others point to the meager success rate profilers have. Studies on the effectiveness of
criminal profiling as an investigative tool have been few and far between and even these have
failed to yield concrete results. While the media lauds profilers who appear to have miraculously
drawn up a profile that led to the perpetrator's eventual arrest the fact remains that there are many
more cases were profiles have proven to be woefully inaccurate or misleading. And these
spectacular failures usually go unmentioned. According to Campbell, "... profiles offer no more
information than could be obtained from the local bartender; that they are so vague and
ambiguous as to be no more than common sense and the only reason the police take any notice of
them is that they are impressed by the qualifications of academia" (qtd. in Dwyer 58).

Despite these facts, it would be wrong to dismiss the use of criminal profiling as it has plenty of
potential that needs to be tapped and harnessed in order to fight crime. Profiles drawn up by the
FBI they claim helped win a conviction against Wayne Williams in the 'Atlanta Child - Killings
Case" (Holmes & Holmes 45). Another example of successful profiling was seen in the 'Railway
Rapist' case where John Duffy was arrested for a series of rapes and murders thanks to the profile
drawn up by Professor David Canter. This profile was drawn up by the careful integration of
behavioral theories and forensic data and it helped narrow down the field of suspects leading to
the capture of Duffy. Results such as these are encouraging for the future of criminal profiling.
Besides it would be unwise to ignore the genuinely talented profilers who have the special knack
of striking a balance between scientific rationale and intuition in order to draw up useful profiles.
Provided one is aware of the limitations of profilers, there is no reason to prevent the
development of criminal profiling.

Another serious charge leveled against profilers is that sometimes profiles are manipulated to fit
the attributes of the most likely suspect and merely serve to strengthen the case of the
prosecution. This leads to bias against the suspects and it is a pitfall that needs to be avoided in
order to avoid prosecution of the innocent. In this regards it must be mentioned that forensic
technology is also not exempt from errors arising from bias. In the words of Field and Thomas,
in police investigations once a suspect has been identified, "... the objective of the inquiry
becomes the one -sided collection [and sometimes 'manufacture'] of evidence to support the
police version of what happened" (qtd. in McCartney 31). If profilers and investigators are made
aware of this pitfall there is no reason they won't employ caution to keep their minds free from
bias.

The limitations of criminal profiling were also apparent in the 2002 'Beltway serial sniper'
shootings. Here the tendency of profilers to over - generalize the usability of existing research is
evident and consequently, "Many profiles were generated following this series of random
shootings. When the individuals accused of these crimes were later apprehended, little
congruence emerged between the profiles and the accused persons" (Kocsis & Palermo 333).
This complaint is common as misleading or inaccurate profiles can derail the police investigation
allowing the criminal to make a clean escape.

Taking these factors into consideration, it must be said that neither forensic technology used in
crime scene analysis not criminal profiling taken alone are infallible when it comes to crime
detection. Therefore, the best points in both methods must be incorporated into the process of
criminal investigation in order for it to be effective.

Conclusion

In light of the facts outlined above it may be concluded that criminal profiling has the potential
to serve as a useful tool in the arsenal of law enforcement. It may be used to identify suspects,
link them to a crime scene, and secure a conviction. It also helps to supplement the information
gathered during the crime scene analysis. When taken together with forensic technology the two
make for a formidable combination and make the investigative process easier. However, one
must remember the shortcomings of this approach and proceed with caution.