Behaviour is exhibited at a crime/series of similar crimes and studying this behaviour allows inferences to be made about the likely offender.
Douglas et al., 1986
Identification of major personality and behavioural characteristics of an individual based upon analysis of a crime s/he has committed.
Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990
Not an individual exercise, meant to look at the type of person to commit a crime.
Douglas & Burgess, 1986
FBI organised/disorganised typology. From interviews and case info on 36 murders.
Canter et al., 2004
Analysed 39 crime scenes, found they did not support O/DO typology. Important weaknesses: lack of structure and poor sample selection.
Turco, 1990 Rossmo, 1997 Canter, 2001
Atheoretical fashion in which offender interviews were collated. Lack of sci method in the study design. Concept of O/DO is not a genuine psychological distinction, more a commonsensical day-to-day speculation about the differences between people.
Holmes & Holmes, 1998
Reader encouraged to accept the O/DO distinction without question.
Keppel & Walter, 1999
Serial sexual homicide classification based on H&B's 4 categories of rapists
Attempt to validate K&W's categories using crimes and backgrounds of 53 serial sexual murderers. No evidence of highly co-occurring behaviours. Indicated potential invalidity.
Holmes & Holmes, 2002
Motivation-based typology for serial sexual murderers: Visionary, missionary, hedonistic and power-control
Canter & Wentick, 2004
Based on analysis of 100 homicides by 100 US serial sexual killers, looked at the behaviours in the murder categories. Evidence did not support H&H's model.
Snook et al., 2008
Refute validity of criminal profiling. 3 steps to creation of a profile. Clinical/statistical orientations Growth of technique - 192 cases by 1981, but 1000 today
Kocsis & Palermo, 2015
Offender Homology - assumption that there is inherent uniformity among offenders which underpins PP. Argue OH not unreasonable. Suggest failure to find evidence from OH may be indication that concept of OH may not be distinctly manifest in the diverse spectrum of crimes commonly perpetrated.
Mokros & Alison, 2002
100 British, stranger rapists. No patterns in the characteristics of rapists who offended in a similar way.
Evidence-based approach. Focus on satisfaction of agencies and continuing demand for profiling cannot be used as an adequate substitute for the actual validation of the practice. Need to be cautious with its use.
Fujita et al., 2013
Behavioural profiling of Japanese homicides. 839 cases, used multivariate logistic regression models to infer characteristics of age, sex etc. Results suggested sufficient and moderate accuracy.
Investigative experience = formative of an effective profiler.
Kocsis et al., 2002
Psych profiles produced by police professionals vs chem students. Chem students were more accurate each time.
Torres et al., 2006
Difference between perceptions of profiling/criminal investigative analysis. Fewer than 25% of respondents said that profiling was reliable. Approx 40% thought that CIA was reliable.
US v Meeks, 1992 Cooley & Turvey, 2002
PP used, but called 'motivational analysis' as this is a recognised technique based on specialist knowledge.
Snook et al., 2007
Use of anecdotal evidence. 60% of 130 articles had at least one anecdote.
Media's veneration of PP = confirmation bias.
Officers/investigators have escaped the normal sci rigour which expects them to substantiate their methods.
'Systematic, rigorous, solution-focused case studies'
'A profile must remain part of an overall investigation without consuming the whole, where its merits are objectively evaluated on a case-by-case basis'
PP in arson - little empirical evidence. Professionals make most accurate profiles, followed by a group of uni students. Police professionals don't even do better than the control group with no info.
3 major shortfalls of PP. But ViCAP and ViCLAS violent crime databases may be the answer to circumvent these problems in the future.
Heuristics and biases in profiling decision-making: 1) Confirmation bias 2) Selective thinking 3) Post Hoc Fallacy (after this, therefore because of this)