1. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Criminal Profiling LECTURE/DISCUSSION #2-3 Profiling Approaches and the Profiling Process

2. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University More on the Definition of Criminal Profiling…  CRIMINAL PROFILING: Is “the process of inferring distinctive personality characteristics of individuals responsible for committing criminal acts” (Turvey, p. 1). Is based on the notion that the crime scene reflects the “psychopathology of the offender” (Holmes & Holmes, 1996). Involves presenting a “logical argument regarding the characteristics of an offender responsible for a particular crime or series of crimes” (Turvey, p. 121). Is an educated attempt to provide specific information about a suspect and biographical sketch of trends, tendencies, and behavioral patterns (Wrightsman, 2001, p. 78 in Forensic Psychology).

3. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Controversy over Criminal Profiling as Forensic Psychology or Forensic Science  Criminal profiling is not generally viewed as science because: Training has been controlled by the FBI. The number of profiling jobs is miniscule compared to the intense level of interest. The majority of people who do profiling did not do graduate work in psychology. Even experienced profilers acknowledge that profiling is more art than science. Expert testimony on profiling may not meet standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence

4. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University  Profiling has not yet achieved the status of a profession.  FACTORS HINDERING PROFESSIONALIZATION: Lack of consensus (on terms, approaches, training, appropriate experience/educational background, etc.). Practical issues (sensitivity and confidentiality of cases. Ego/territorial issues. Absence of uniform standards, practices, peer review, and ethics. Small number (if any) of profiling positions where profiling is the primary job description. The notion (and acknowledgement among many profilers) that profiling is more art than science. Is Profiling a Profession or Science?

5. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Approaches to Criminal Profiling  TERMS: Psychological profiling, sociopsychological profiling, offender profiling, behavioral evidence analysis, investigative process management, crime scene analysis, criminal investigative analysis...  GENERAL APPROACHES: Profiling historic figures. Profiling offender characteristics. Profiling crime scene characteristics. Profiling psychological characteristics. Profiling geographical location/ spatial mapping.

6. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Why Use Criminal Profiles in Law Enforcement Investigations?  SERIAL MURDERERS, SERIAL RAPISTS, SPREE KILLERS, MASS MURDERERS, SERIAL BOMBERS, TERRORISTS, STALKERS, ARSONISTS represent a small group of offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime and harm to society.  Often traditional investigative techniques fall short in such extreme (and often highly publicized) cases.  Certain types of offenses/offenders are most suitable for profiling because the crime scene is said to reflect the offender’s psychopathology.

7. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Profiling Process  The primary goal of profiling is to determine the what, why, who from crime scene information.

8. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Utility of Criminal Profiling?  There is little evidence to suggest that criminal profiling leads to the identification of an offender in more than a small percentage of cases. However, benefits may include: Further understanding of the case or the offender. Reassurance of officers’ conclusions. Information for interrogation and interviewing. Information to defense or prosecution in adjudication process. psychological autopsies in equivocal death investigations to determine if death is natural, accidental, suicidal, homicidal (NASH classification).

9. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Inductive v. Deductive Profiling  Turvey refers to the FBI method as “inductive” and his method as “deductive.” INDUCTIVE profiles: Based on types developed based on generalizations from data collected from known offenders – information found at the crime scene is assessed/compared to datasets including public data sources, practical experience, formal and informal studies of known offenders. DEDUCTIVE profiles: Based on the unique aspects of the individual crime scene and use hypothesis formation and testing in the development of a profile based on the premise that “no two criminals, or people, are exactly alike” (p. 30).  BEWARE – There are problems with this way of categorizing profiling… we will discuss in class!

10. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Categorizing Profiling Models (From: Wilson, Lincoln, & Kocsis (1997))  DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATIONS  CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS  INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY

11. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Diagnostic Evaluations  Personality theory and clinical diagnostic categories used to construct a “personality profile” representing the type of offender most likely to have committed the crime.  Generally conducted by psychiatrists, psychologists, academic criminologists

12. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Crime Scene Analysis  Crime scene patterns, crime scene indicators, and data collected from interviews with offenders used to determine type (organized/disorganized) of offender who committed the crime.  Generally thought of as the method developed by the FBI. However, others offer competing approaches (e.g., behavioral evidence analysis) also focus on analysis of crime scene.  Done by law enforcement officers trained in profiling and forensic scientists who specialize in profiling.

13. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Investigative Psychology  Techniques and theories from social psychology, criminology, and forensic psychiatry used to develop a profile based on statistical probability.  Done primarily by psychologists, academics without investigative training who use of typologies and empirical studies to construct profiles.  Term used primarily in reference to the work of David Canter and the Investigative Psychology program at the University of Liverpool. Involves (in part) interpreting through signals/offender actions such as: The personal world the offender inhabits The care taken by the offender to avoid capture Degree of criminal expertise Unusual aspects of the criminal act Habits of the offender that may carry over into everyday life.

14. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University The Profiling Process  The process used depends to some extent on the approach/framework from which the person engaging in profiling draws from.  However, the underlying process and concepts used is essentially the same (on a continuum of sophistication) regardless of the approach.

15. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Assumptions made in the Profiling Process (from Holmes & Holmes (2001). Profiling Violent Crimes)  Crime scene reflects the personality of the offender.  The method of operation (M.O.) remains similar.  The signature will remain the same.  The offender’s personality will not change.

16. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Key Concepts  ORGANIZED-DISORGANIZED TYPOLOGY  PSYCHOPATHY/PSYCHOSIS  PREDATORY/AFFECTIVE AGGRESSION  MO AND SIGNATURE  SEXUAL HOMICIDE TYPOLOGIES

17. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University The Organized-Disorganized Typology  Developed by FBI Profilers.  Whether or not the crime scene is left ORGANIZED or DISORGANIZED is said to provide information about the offender’s criminal sophistication and personality.  Organized crime scene reflects offender who commits crime out of a need for power. Motivation associated with PSYCHOPATHY.  Disorganized crime scene reflects offender who commits crime out of passion, compulsion, frustration, or anxiety. Motivation associated with PSYCHOSIS.

18. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Brief Note on the Distinction Between Psychopathy and Psychosis  PSYCHOPATHY Personality disorder made up of a particular constellation of characteristics Lack of attachment, defect in affect, absence of anxiety In touch with reality  PSYCHOSIS Clinical mental illness – Schizophrenia May meet legal definition of insanity Out of touch with reality  However... both conditions are more complicated than this and it’s important to remember that there a range of mental conditions (an internal condition) that can produce crime (a behavior).

19. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Theories of Aggression  Aggression is shaped by emotional states.  Aggression can be motivationally categorized into two broad categories: AFFECTIVE (also: expressive, defensive, reactive) PREDATORY (also: instrumental, appetitive)

20. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Features of Aggressive Types See Meloy (1988). The Psychopathic Mind. Jason Aronson.  PREDATORY No perceived threat Goal oriented No conscious experience of emotion Planned, purposeful violence Increased self-esteem Unimpaired reality testing Generally associated with males and masculinity  AFFECTIVE Perceived threat Goal threat reduction Conscious experience of emotion Reactive, unplanned violence Decreased self-esteem Possible loss of reality testing Generally associated with females and femininity

21. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University M.O. and Signature  M.O. Latin term meaning METHOD OF OPERATION. Reflects how the offender committed the crime and what he/she had to do to successfully complete it. Tells about the experience/state of the offender and situational/contextual factors involved in the crime.  Signature The PSYCHOLOGICAL CALLING CARD (Keppel & Birnes, 1997) consisting of behavior/expression of violent fantasy the killer must leave at the scene to satisfy emotional/psychological needs. Goes beyond what’s necessary to commit the crime and tells about the offender’s emotional/psychological needs and motivation for committing the crime.

22. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Applying the Concepts  M.O., signature, theories, typologies offer a LANGUAGE with which to discuss, explain, and classify.  This language provides a foundation upon which INFERENCES can be made.  A PROFILE is constructed based on inferences as an aid in investigation, interrogation, risk assessment, and case linkage.

23. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Constructing a Profile M.O.? Signature? Type? Instrumental/ expressive aggression? Organized/ Disorganized? Mental condition? Offender background? Offender characteristics? Situational Factors? General profile of the offender? Investigation/ interrogation strategies? Risk prediction, case linkage?

24. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Terms to Know…  National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC)  Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP).  Organized/disorganized  Modus Operandi (M.O.)  Signature  Locard’s Exchange Principle  Serial Murderer/Serial Rapist  Spree Killer/ Mass Murderer  “Linkage Blindness”  “Less-Dead”  Inductive/ deductive profiling  Threshold Assessment  Case Assessment  Inputs  Crime Reconstruction  Wound Pattern Analysis  Victim Profiles  Risk Assessment  Precautionary Acts  Scripting  Crime Scene Staging  Trophy/Souvenir  Psychological autopsy

25. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Question…  What can you tell me about this case? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/14/ea rlyshow/main943428.shtml. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/14/ea rlyshow/main943428.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/14/ea rlyshow/main943428.shtml  Construct a “profile” of this offender for use at the adjudication stage of the CJ process.

26. J.B. Helfgott Department of Criminal Justice Seattle University Suggested Readings  Egger, S. (2003). The killers among us: An examination of serial murder and its investigation. Prentice-Hall.  Pinizzotto AJ (1984). Forensic Psychology: Criminal Personality Profiling. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 32-40.  Pinzotto AJ & Finkel NJ (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process study. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 215-233.  Ressler, Burgess, Douglas, & Heafner (1995). Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. Simon & Schuster.  Fox JA & Levin J (1996). Overkill: Mass Murder & Serial Killing Exposed. Dell Publishing.  Wrightsman, LS (2001). Forensic Psychology. Wadsworth.