Introduction

Underpinning
& A Brief
s of criminal
History
profiling
Criminal
LCR1001Profiling
- LectureLCR3CPR
2
Dr Meribah Rose
Dr Meribah Rose
This lecture

Part A. Introduction to
reasoning methods
Part B. Profiling
• Inductive methodologies
• Abductive
• Deductive
Part A. Induction,
abduction and deduction
Reasoning methods

Inductive Abductive Deductive

Start with various Drawing on universal
hypotheses about what Test / falsify conclusions to laws / principles, arrive at
may have occurred or arrive at the best possible the only possible
what characteristics fit the explanation (set of conclusion (set of
profile characteristics) characteristics)
Certain conclusions (not
Multiple hypotheses; Fewer hypotheses, more hypotheses), most
matter of probability certainty confidence
Inductive reasoning
• Inductive equation:
Probable generalisation A mostly means B; A, therefore B
(likely) • Inherently probabilistic
• Less reliable where arguments /
inferences constructive on a
chain
Observation Observation Observation
• Concern not to “equate
1 (premise 2 (premise 3 (premise probability with certainty”
1) 2) 3)
Inductive reasoning
• Requisite skills: ability to analyse statistics and prior crimes
information; research
• Issues with data sets – eg only 36 offenders in original FBI study
(Burgess & Ressler)
• Issues with specific scenarios (Turvey 2011)
• Anger retaliatory offenders who do not suffer from any kind of mental illness
• Domestic-violence-related offences
• Staged offences
• Interrupted offences
• Offences involving controlled substances
Inductive reasoning – example (CIA)
The likely characteristics of the • Premise 1: The victim was a white
person responsible are that he European.
would be a male and [he] would
• Premise 2: Generally these crimes are
be of white European racial
extraction. That is based on the committed intraracially.
victim being white European and • Premise 3: The demographics of the
generally these crimes are area are predominately white
committed intraracially and also European.
you have the demographics of • Conclusion: The likely person
the area which was also
predominately white European.
responsible is of white European racial
extraction.
-- police profiler trained under the
International Investigative Analysis
Fellowship
Abductive reasoning
• “reasoning to the best
explanation”
Most likely explanation
• Concerned with inferring an
explanation from the observed
consequences
• Can be useful to provide
guidance / direction, but
Observation Observation Observation important not to over-state its
1 2 3 reliability
Abductive reasoning – example
…You have come in by train this morning, I see.”
“You know me, then?”
“No, but I observe the second half of a return ticket in the palm of your left glove. You must have
started early, and yet you had a good drive in a dog-cart, along heavy roads, before you reached the
station.”
The lady gave a violent start and stared in bewilderment at my companion.
“There is no mystery, my dear madam,” said he, smiling. “The left arm of your jacket is spattered with
mud in no less than seven places. The marks are perfectly fresh. There is no vehicle save a dog-cart
which throws up mud in that way, and then only when you sit on the left-hand side of the driver.”
“Whatever your reasons may be, you are perfectly correct,” said she. “I started from home before six,
reached Leatherhead at twenty past, and came in by the first train to Waterloo…
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of the Speckled Band”
Deductive reasoning
• Generally follows induction in an
Conclusion investigation
(100% certainty) • Draws on the scientific method:
testing of hypotheses through
observation and experimentation
• Then arrive at (deduce) the only
possible conclusion
Observation Observation Observation • Deductive equation:
1 (premise 2 (premise 3 (premise If A, then B; A, therefore B
1) 2) 3)
• (Conversely, if B is false, then A
must be false)
Deductive reasoning
• Limited to inferring (per Turvey):
 Knowledge of the victim
 Knowledge of the crime scene
 Knowledge of methods and materials
 Criminal skill

• More complex than the application of statistical generalisations

• Arrives at conclusions (a profile) with much greater certainty
Deductive reasoning – example
(BEA)
• Premise 1: If an offender carefully disarticulates a victim, then he or she has
demonstrated some degree of medical knowledge.
• Premise 2: The victim was not dismembered with commonly associated chopping
instruments such as a hatchet, cleaver, or machete applied to areas of bone (such as
a butcher might use).
• Premise 3: There is no evidence that a sawing instrument such as a hacksaw, band
saw, skill saw, or radial saw was used.
• Premise 4: There is evidence that the offender(s) separated the victim’s head, arms,
legs, and feet at their respective joints with the utmost deliberation, precision, and
care using a very sharp cutting instrument not unlike a scalpel.
• Conclusion: The crime evidences an offender with medical knowledge.
Turvey (2011)
Part B. Overview of
reasoning methods in
criminal profiling
Comparison of different
methodologies

CIA IP BEA Diagnostic Geographic

evaluations profiling

Inductive Yes

Abductive Yes

Deductive No
Comparison of different
methodologies

CIA IP BEA Diagnostic Geographic

evaluations profiling

Inductive Yes Yes

Abductive Yes Maybe

Deductive No No
Comparison of different
methodologies

CIA IP BEA Diagnostic Geographic

evaluations profiling

Inductive Yes Yes No?

Abductive Yes Maybe No

Deductive No No Yes
Comparison of different
methodologies

CIA IP BEA Diagnostic Geographic

evaluations profiling

Inductive Yes Yes No? Yes

Abductive Yes Maybe No Yes

Deductive No No Yes No
Comparison of different
methodologies

CIA IP BEA Diagnostic Geographic

evaluations profiling

Inductive Yes Yes No? Yes Yes

Abductive Yes Maybe No Yes No

Deductive No No Yes No No
Assessment #1
First (assessed) in-class activity will require you to identify
and critically engage with methods of reasoning in
profiling – make sure you have done the reading