SCR 215 – OFFENDERS PROFILING

CATEGORIES OF PROFILING
In order to present the material in this book in a meaningful and manageable way, we use profiling as a
general term, and then divide it into five somewhat overlapping categories:
(1) Crime scene profiling
(2) Geographic profiling
(3) Psychological profiling
(4) Suspect-based profiling
(5) Equivocal death analysis (psychological autopsy)
Because each of the above focuses on individual behavior, we have included the phrase “behavioral
profiling” in the title of our book. We devote one or two chapters to each of these categories, which are
introduced very briefly below.
CRIME SCENE PROFILING
Crime scene profiling is the process of identifying cognitive tendencies, behavioral patterns, motivation,
emotional dispositions, and demographic variables of an unknown offender, based on characteristics and
evidence gathered at the scene of the crime. Some researchers (e.g., Knight, Warren, Reboussin, & Soley,
1998) have introduced the term “crime scene analysis,” or the more technical term “criminal investigative
analysis,” to describe the practice of developing offender descriptions based on the analysis of the crime
scene. Others use the term “offender profiling.” This latter term can also apply to suspect-based profiling,
however. To avoid confusion, we use the phrase “crime scene profiling.” Crime scene profiling—even in
its most sophisticated form—rarely can point directly to the person who committed the crime. Instead, the
process helps develop a reasonable set of hypotheses for determining who may have been responsible for
the crime.
A crime scene profiler may employ research-based typologies, such as rapist or batterer typologies, to
offer investigative leads. If done correctly, a profile will provide some subjective descriptions of the
demographic, motivational, behavioral patterns, and psychological features of the offender and the
probabilities that the offender or offenders will commit the crime again. If done incorrectly (consider the
D.C.-area sniper case), it can lead investigators far astray.
In recent years, much attention has been paid to common elements observed across different crime
scenes, suggesting that the crimes may have been committed by the same person. Known as “linkage
analysis,” this procedure has both supporters and critics but is often used in crime scene profiling,
especially in the investigation of violent crimes. Crime scene profiling is currently regarded as art by
some, and science by others. One mission of this book is to examine its scientific aspects and accuracy.
GEOGRAPHIC PROFILING
Geographic profiling is a method of identifying the area of probable residence or the probable area of the
next crime of an unknown offender, based on the location of and the spatial relationships among various
crime sites (Guerette, 2002). Geographic profiling, therefore, can help in any criminal investigation by
locating the approximate area in which an offender lives, or by narrowing the surveillance and stakeouts
to places where the next crime is most likely to occur.
This type of profiling basically tries to identify the geographic territory the offender knows well, feels
most comfortable in, and prefers to find or take victims in (Rossmo, 1997). Whereas a crime scene
profiler hypothesizes about the demographic, motivational, and psychological features of the crime and
offender, a geo-profiler focuses on the location of the crime and how it relates to the residence or base of
operations of the offender. Nevertheless, behavioral aspects are important. For example, geoprofilers will
pay attention to perpetrators’ selection of body disposal sites or the zones in which they are comfortable
in carrying out their crimes.
Geographic profiling is useful not only in the search for serial violent offenders, but also in the search for
property offenders, such as serial burglars. Investigators have long used maps to help them identify “hot
spots” of criminal activity or to follow the trail of crimes presumably committed by the same offender.
Even agencies with few officers and resources may display a wall map with pushpins inserted in problem
locations. Today, though, geographic profiling, particularly in urban areas, is sophisticated and
computerized, as we will see in Chapter 4.

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILING
Psychological profiling is most often used to identify and predict dangerous individuals in society—
though it may also be used to identify positive traits. In most cases, the identity of the person being
assessed and predicted is already known. There are two highly similar procedures for accomplishing the
former task: threat assessment and risk assessment. Threat assessment is a process to determine the
credibility and seriousness of a threat being carried out. In some cases, the identity of the person or
persons making the threat may not be known. Risk assessment comes in many forms and is often used to
evaluate “individuals who have violated social norms or displayed bizarre behavior, particularly when
they appear menacing or unpredictable” (Hanson, 2009, p. 172). The goal is to assess the probability that
someone will harm himself or herself or others. Both of these assessments are accomplished through
various kinds of psychological measures, observations, and interviews. In most instances, the agency or
parties requesting the threat or risk assessment report want more than a statistical statement about the
chances of a damaging or violent act occurring. They usually desire an estimate of the potential
consequences, and what can be done to reduce or mitigate those consequences (Hanson, 2009). David
Canter, the British psychologist who is credited with developing the field of investigative psychology,
and his colleague Laurence Alison (2000) point out that psychological profiling is basically an offshoot of
psychological testing and assessment procedures.
SUSPECT-BASED PROFILING
Suspect-based profiling—some researchers prefer the term “prospective profiling”—refers to identifying
the psychological or behavioral features of persons who may commit a particular crime, such as drug
trafficking, school shooting, stalking, shoplifting, bombing, skyjacking, or terrorist activities. Whereas
crime scene profiling examines features of the crime scene and tries to link a potential offender to that
crime, suspect-based profiling is derived from the systematic collection of behavioral, personality,
cognitive, and demographic data on previous offenders. Its basic principle “is to develop correlations
between specific criminal activity and certain group-based traits in order to help the police identify
potential suspects for investigation” (Harcourt, 2003, p. 109).
Suspect-based profiling is generally developed from statistical links between group membership defined
by certain traits and the prevalence of criminal activities (Bourque et al., 2009; Harcourt, 2007). In other
words, it assumes that the rate of criminality of the members of certain groups is proportionately higher
than that found in the general population.
Suspect-based profiling is largely actuarial in that it uses statistical rather than clinical methods to
determine different levels of criminal offending associated with one or more groups. The end product of
suspect-based profiling should describe people from various offending groups. “For example, someone
driving at a certain speed, at a certain time of day, in a certain type of car, and of a certain general
appearance may fit the profile of a drug courier and be stopped for a search” (Homant & Kennedy, 1998,
p. 325). “General appearance,” as used in the above quote, may refer to suspicious behavior, age, gender,
or manner of dress, but it also has referred to race, religion, or ethnicity. Racial profiling, sometimes
called race-based profiling and encompassing ethnicity as well as race, continues to be a major problem in
modern society.
In late 2011, the FBI arrested officers of the East Haven (Connecticut) Police Department for terrorizing
residents of Hispanic neighborhoods, and the Justice Department announced its investigation of the
department for wide-ranging illegal activities, including violations of constitutional rights, use of
excessive force, and racial profiling. The recent move by the Transportation Safety Administration to
train behavioral detection officers (BDOs) is another example of using suspect-based profiling. Although
the use of BDOs has not been determined to be illegal, their training and the methods they employ merit
continuing oversight.
EQUIVOCAL DEATH ANALYSIS
Equivocal death analysis, also called reconstructive psychological evaluation, is the reconstruction of the
emotional life, behavioral patterns, and cognitive features of a deceased person. In this sense, it is a
postmortem psychological analysis, and therefore is frequently referred to simply as a psychological
autopsy (Brent, 1989; Ebert, 1987; Selkin, 1987). Most often, equivocal death analysis or the
psychological autopsy is done to determine whether the death was a suicide, and if it was a suicide, the
reasons why the person did it.
Psychological autopsies may be performed in insurance claims cases. At times, however, they are used to
determine if the death was the result of homicide or foul play rather than suicide. Interestingly, many
psychological autopsies today are conducted by military psychologists; this is because suicide rates
among military personnel have been rising in recent years. The U.S. Army, for example, recently reported
a record 32 suicides for July of 2011 (Jaffe, 2011). Although the military suicide rates are not
disproportionate to those for the general population when controlling for age, race, and sex, they are cause
for concern in the context of military life. In many if not all of these cases, psychological autopsies are
conducted to assure that self-inflicted harm—and not homicide—was the cause of the death. To some
extent, the above five categories are overlapping, and one case can involve more than one form.
Nevertheless, it is helpful to keep the categories conceptually distinct as we discuss them throughout the
book, because they involve different techniques and research strategies. As you will learn in the book,
effective profiling requires an integration of experience and judgment with theory, research, and
professional consensus (including ethical standards). Ultimately, progress in the field demands well-
executed empirical research.
Summary and Conclusions
Profiling—which is essentially looking for characteristics that “fit” a particular individual—is not a new
enterprise. Scientifically based profiling, however, is of recent origin. Some scholars have traced profiling
back at least 500 years, to an era when religious officials were given guidelines for hunting and
eradicating witches. Examples of more modern profiling are found in literary works, particularly detective
novels, as well as in accounts of actual law enforcement investigations.
We covered in some detail the profiling efforts of James Brussel, a psychiatrist who is sometimes
considered the father of profiling. Brussel’s work on the Mad Bomber case is the first documented
illustration of someone called in to assist law enforcement officers in their search for a serial offender.
Brussel is often credited with helping investigators uncover the identity of the bomber, but evidence
suggests he may not have been as influential as first believed. Police were already aware of many of the
characteristics displayed by George Metesky, the bomber, and many of Brussel’s assertions either applied
to many individuals or were so psychoanalytically oriented that they could not be proven. Furthermore, in
recounting his own successes in his memoirs, Brussel likely experienced some hindsight bias. Brussel
consulted with police on a number of other cases, including the Boston Strangler case, with less
impressive results. However, it is clear that Brussel deserves some credit for raising awareness that
psychological characteristics of offenders were relevant to criminal investigations. Furthermore, he was
called as a consultant when the FBI established its Behavioral Science Unit in the early 1970s.
In addition to providing a brief early history of profiling, we delineated five categories of criminal and
behavioral profiling that will be covered in the book: crime scene profiling, geographic profiling,
psychological profiling, suspect-based profiling, and equivocal death analysis. It is important to stress that
these are not the only terms that are encountered in the literature, and that “profilers” may be proficient in
more than one of these categories. In addition, some profilers prefer to call themselves by other titles,
such as behavioral analysts. As will become clear in the following two chapters, though, there is no
universally accepted method of profiling, despite the fact that various programs are now available for the
training of profilers or behavioral analysts. In addition, although certification is now available to those
who complete these programs, they are not equivalent in their approach or in the extent to which they are
based on research findings.