Through their contacts throughout the crime, profilers hope to determine the main traits of an offender's personality and behavior. Since the psychological and psychiatric community first used the field in the contemporary era, it has seen several advancements and modifications. This paper examines the many methods of criminal profiling and examines the logic and rationale applied to various profiling techniques. Criminal investigators are intended to benefit from profiling; yet, because different profiling techniques have led to variations in the field, the usefulness of profiling has been called into question. A framework is put out to encourage integrated practice to solve the present gaps in criminal profiling practice.
Criminal profiling, also known as offender profiling or criminal investigative analysis, is a technique used in forensic psychology to help law enforcement agencies identify and apprehend suspects. Profilers analyze evidence from crime scenes, victimology, and behavioral patterns to create a psychological and behavioral profile of the perpetrator. The goal is to provide law enforcement with insights into the likely characteristics, motivations, and background of the offender.
Critics argue that it lacks empirical validation and may be influenced by subjective judgments. Nevertheless, when used cautiously and in conjunction with other investigative techniques, criminal profiling can be a valuable tool for law enforcement in narrowing down suspects and developing leads.
Key Findings
To promote structure and uniformity in profile development and aid in the reliability of the practice, the CRIME approach offers an integrative framework for profile development that includes evaluations of crime scenes, the applicability of research, opinions from investigators or clinicians, methods of investigation, and evaluation. There are differences among profiling techniques, which has led to disparities in the conclusions drawn, the evidence used, and the investigative value of profiles (Almond et al., 2011; Fox et al., 2020). Profiles that provide statements without explanation or potential for falsification, are primarily based on research conclusions, ignore case inconsistencies, prioritize typology features, leave out victimology evidence, report only confirmatory evidence selectively, are provided verbally without documentation, and neglect to review all case materials are examples of this.
Scientific efficacy is provided by the BEA technique's ability to link crime scene data with reliable conclusions. On the other hand, this method can also be restrictive, providing a limited scope and little support for investigations. The paper provided relevant flaws in the existing diversified system of criminal profiling up until now and quotes the downsides of some methods to come up with a system to overcome the differences. “The future of profiling is dependent on the discipline progressing towards science, and integrated practice is the first fundamental step.” (Fox & Farrington, 2018).
Theoretical profiling approaches mentioned
Criminal analysis analysis- The inductive and abductive methods of criminal investigative analysis, or CIA, have their origins in early law enforcement efforts to identify patterns of criminal behavior. Offenders were classified as either organized asocial or disorganized nonsocial in the early thinking of the CIA. To formalize this taxonomy and ascertain whether there were common characteristics among offenses that would be helpful in categorizing potential future offenders, FBI agents interviewed criminals in federal custody between 1979 and 1983 (Petherick, 2014a).
Diagnostic evaluations- According to Bradley (2003), diagnostic evaluations are a general description of the services provided by mental health experts rather than a specific profile approach. They heavily rely on clinical judgment. When different police agencies inquired about whether clinical interpretations of unknown offenders may aid in identification and apprehension, the involvement of mental health specialists in investigations began to take shape (Canter, 1989).
Investigative psychology- Scientific research is used in investigative psychology (IP), which mostly relies on empirical examination of different sorts of crimes. IP has clear advantages over other inductive approaches to practice since it depends more on empirical study. The potential variation that may occur amongst profilers in determining the specifics of the crime and the relevance of pertinent or appropriate research is a significant problem when using this technique to construct a criminal profile.
Behavioral evidence analysis- According to the BEA hypothesis, judgments regarding the perpetrator shouldn't be made until precise physical evidence—based on a thorough crime reconstruction—is present. The profiler in BEA invests a lot of effort in determining the authenticity and reliability of the tangible evidence and how it relates to the criminal incident.
Behavioral investigative advice- According to Davis et al. (2018), BIAs are responsible for providing supplementary support to senior investigative officers and improving their decision-making abilities during major criminal investigations by utilizing behavioral science theory, research, and expertise. The application of BIAs to support investigations is regarded as beneficial and a necessary step towards integrating specialized knowledge into law enforcement.
Evolution in the theme
There are primarily three types of logic used in developing profiles: induction, abduction, and deduction. Now here we can see that over the years, the trends have changed regarding which type of logic is mostly used for criminal profiling, giving lesser importance to the other two. To begin with, we start with induction.
A working assumption is a premise, which is reached through induction from a particular collection of facts to a generalization known a premise (Thornton, 1997). Comparisons are performed based on each case's observations to ascertain how similar it is to previous examples with comparable features. These parallels offer generalizations from which a conclusion in the present instance may be drawn. For instance, based on the generalization that male criminals commit 85–90% of homicides, if a woman is found slain, the suspect is probably male (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2002; Mouzos, 2005). The fundamental idea of induction is similarity, which holds that examining illegal conduct indicates that these activities frequently share characteristics (Navarro & Schafer, 2003).
As the years go on, research papers reflect more of a deductive approach to criminal profiling. Deduction involves formulating hypotheses based on case similarities and verifying them with the available data in the particular instance. The physical and behavioral data are systematically examined to identify patterns and themes that lead to the development of offender traits. The theory behind this approach is that if the premise is true, then the conclusion must also be true (Bevel & Gardner, 2008).
The more recently used logic for criminal profiling comes in the form of abduction. According to Davis et al. (2018), abduction is a type of reasoning that can be summed up as reasoning to the best explanation. In other words, the data in a given example tends to support one particular hypothesis among several that could exist, but it does not necessarily support one theory over another.
There is also a visible difference between awareness of shortcomings in the case of criminal profiling before vs now. There hasn't been much effort made to comprehend the nature of this thinking and how it affects profile content, despite the fact that the degree of scientific reasoning varies significantly throughout the techniques. Nonetheless, studies have been conducted to comprehend more complex aspects of profiling, such as the superiority of one group over another in terms of accuracy (Kocsis et al., 2000; Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990), the support that profilers provide to end users (Cole & Brown, 2011; Copson, 1995), the opinions of mental health professionals regarding profiling (Torres et al., 2006), and the practicality of offender profiling (Gekoski & Grey, 2011).
But now, there is increased awareness which is leading to the development of new profiling procedures to unify the system.
The field has been severely hindered by the stark variations in offender profiling methodologies and the frequent disagreements among practitioners (Fox et al., 2020). These restrictions have led to doubts regarding the investigative value of profiling as well as the practice's scientific viability (Fox et al., 2020). A uniform approach to practice is still necessary for offender profiling to have scientific validity, be more widely recognized in investigations, and be admissible in court (Fox & Farrington, 2018).
Impact on Forensic Psychologists
These changes in profiling trends over the years are bound to have an impact on the workings of forensic psychologists. With the changing current, they will have to reequip themselves with the knowledge of the new and upcoming integrated methods of profiling to keep themselves valid in this field. For this purpose, it is very important to be up to date with the new methods being developed and become well versed with them. In the case of the paper I reviewed, forensic psychologists would have to educate themselves about the CRIME method of profiling which is integrative of five things:-
C – Crime scene evaluations
R – Relevancy of research
I – Investigative or clinical opinion
M – Methods of investigation
E - Evaluation
Collaboration between forensic psychologists, criminal profilers, law enforcement, and other experts is increasingly emphasized as we progress. This interdisciplinary approach helps integrate diverse perspectives and skills in solving complex cases. Profiling techniques and knowledge are shared internationally, leading to a more globalized approach to criminal profiling. Cross-border cooperation and information exchange have to be promoted as essential for addressing transnational crimes.
Ethical considerations in profiling and forensic psychology, such as issues related to privacy, cultural sensitivity, and potential biases, continue to be important. Even the method proposed in the research paper has its downfall which forensic psychologists have to be keenly aware of to avoid misinterpretation. The field emphasizes the ongoing training and education of professionals in criminal profiling and forensic psychology.
Implementation in the Indian context
Profilers in India need to consider the legal and cultural context to ensure that their analyses are valid and reliable since we are a very diverse country. To implement the findings of the research paper in the Indian context, we would first need to cross-examine the components through a lens that fits our environment. For example, most of the research conducted or mentioned in this paper has been done abroad. We cannot generalize that in our context directly and will have to modify some aspects here and there and see what holds for our people. Indian forensic psychologists and criminal profilers face unique challenges and opportunities, given the diverse nature of the country. Challenges may include variations in cultural practices, languages, and legal systems. In turn, opportunities arise from the wealth of diverse cases that can contribute to the understanding of different aspects of criminal behavior.
Consequently, another important point to mention here is that the justice system of India also very obviously differs from that of other countries. Legal and ethical standards guide the practice of forensic psychology and criminal profiling in India. Professionals in these fields adhere to established ethical guidelines and contribute to the justice system within the framework of Indian law. Keeping that in mind, the implementation of the CRIME method of profiling will also have to be shaped accordingly.
++++
References
Almond, L., Alison, L., & Porter, L. (2011). An evaluation and comparison of claims made in behavioural investigative advice reports compiled by the National Policing Improvement Agency in the United Kingdom. In Alison L., Rainbow L., & Knabe S. (Eds.), Professionalising offender profiling: Forensic and investigative psychology in practice. Routledge. https://books.google.co.in/books? hl=en&lr=&id=aI9AF8hwGt0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR2&ots=iTeRGM77YW&sig=F4VsDgZF9IJ- Pyg0pR4zSwaMfGQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Bevel, T., & Gardner, R. M. (2008). Bloodstain pattern analysis with an introduction to crime reconstruction (3rd ed.). CRC Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.1201/9781420041255/bloodstain- pattern-analysis-robert-damelio-ross-gardner
Bradley, P. (2003). Criminal profiling: What’s it all about? Inpsych.
Canter, D. (1989). Offender profiles. The Psychologist, 2(1), 12–16.
Davis, M., Rainbow, L., Fritzon, K., West, A., & Brooks, N. (2018). Behavioural investigative advice: A contemporary commentary on offender profiling activity. In Griffiths A. & Milne R. (Eds.), The psychology of criminal investigation: From theory to practice (pp. 187–206). Routledge. https://books.google.co.in/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=AkZbDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT23&ots=zDKWdHdaeB&sig=NmkOrkvUncTmE_p 2q5JrHN_VXHM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Fox, B., Farrington, D. P., Kapardis, A., & Hambly, O. C. (2020). Evidence-based offender profiling. Routledge.
Comments