So what does criminal profiling consist of? According to a great deal of professionals, what is seen on TV and read in books can be misleading. Profilers are not born with a gift, but rather have acquired a great skill, according to Brent Turvey, author of Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. Turvey favors the "deductive method" of criminal profiling- possessing an open mind, questioning everything, and emphasizing a profiler's "objectivity, self-knowledge (to overcome transference distortions), and critical thinking skills- plus an ability to try to understand the needs being satisfied by each behavior of the offender as well as the offender's patterns." It's the two latter skills that I find most important. A good profiler must be able to take the information given to them by law enforcement and medical examiners and be able to analyze it critically, while being able to keep an open mind to all possibilities from all sources. In addition, it's the profiler's duty to pay close attention to the behavior and actions of the offender in order to rule out or narrow down suspected parties.
Criminal profiling gained momentum in 1974 with the forming of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit (BSU), now more famous because of shows such as Criminal Minds, although the unit is referred to as the Behavioral Analysis Unit, which also exists. Famous profilers John Douglas and Robert Ressler interviewed 36 serial murderers to develop concrete theories and categories regarding types of offenders. From their research, they were able to develop the organized/disorganized criminal profile. Organized crimes are premeditated and carefully carried out, so there is generally very little evidence to be found. The criminals are usually antisocial, but still know the difference between right and wrong, show no remorse, and are clearly not insane. On the other end of the spectrum, disorganized crimes are rarely planned and are sloppy, with evidence left behind such as blood and fingerprints. These perpetrators tend to be young, inexperienced and may be under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or mental illness.
Over the past 25 years, the BSU has further developed the way profiles are obtained and analyzed, by refining the organized/disorganized theory and developing other classification processes. According to retired FBI agent Gregg McCrary, "The basic premise is that behavior reflects personality." To analyze a suspect's behavior through actions during a crime, profilers are able to combine it with the known facts and evidence of a case to determine a suspect's personality, and, in the best case scenario, be able to provide law enforcement with a successful criminal profile. Although profilers rarely give authorities a specific name, sometimes the profile is all that is needed to narrow down the suspect list to one. A good example of questions the FBI may ask in order to gain insight into a suspect's behavior, in this case a murderer, are:
• Antecedent- What fantasy or plan, or both, did the murderer have in place before the act? What triggered the murderer to act some days and not others?
• Method and manner- What type of victim or victims did the murderer select? What was the method and manner of murder: shooting, stabbing, strangulation or something else?
• Body disposal- Did the murder and body disposal take place all at one scene, or multiple scenes?
• Postoffense behavior- Is the murderer trying to inject himself into the investigation by reacting to media reports or contacting investigators?
It's questions like these that can expose certain attributes of an offender, such as over- or lack of confidence, personal relationships with the victim, organized/disorganized tendencies, and victimology.
So is criminal profiling an art or just science…. or both? Dr. David Canter, founder of the field of investigative psychology, believes that profiling shouldn’t simply be based on investigative experience and theories, but rather should include “empirical, peer-reviewed research.” It's important to take into account ALL evidence- not just the facts or solely profiling experience. Dr. Richard Kocsis, forensic psychologist, agrees with Canter in that research should be a strong part of profiling, but that there is also a “skill element involved.” When asked the same question I posted above, he simply answered, “Realistically, I think it is probably a bit of both.” This is where teamwork between agencies comes into play. In the past, there have been disputes regarding jurisdiction, politics, skill level, etc. It's important that agencies realize that when working a case, there is a shared goal and that differences must be put aside in order to achieve it. There will always be tension, but in recent years, law enforcement and psychologists have found common ground and it has proved successful. With two different points of view and multiple skill levels, cases are observed more closely and members of the case can collaborate to exchange information either side may have missed- whether it be cold hard facts or a distinct profile aspect. I guess you could say that we should have followed Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s lead with the successful collaboration of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John H. Watson long ago.
To quote Brent Turvey, “Many dangerously unqualified, unscrupulous individuals [are in] the practice of creating criminal profiles.” When writing his book mentioned earlier, his goal was to show people the effort it takes to become a successful profiler; to show that it takes logical reasoning, methodology, training, experience, and an open mind to all evidence. His research may provide a solid foundation to aspiring criminal profilers of the future, but it certainly wasn’t something John Douglas ever needed. Douglas has become one of the most successful and notable criminal profilers of our time- dealing with infamous criminals such as David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Charles Manson. From the minute I picked up his book Mindhunter, I became thoroughly intrigued by his stories of cases and life experiences. I wasn’t even surprised when I discovered that the character Jack Crawford in Silence of the Lambs was based directly on Douglas. Even after leaving the psychology career path, I have continued to read his books and study his methods, in hopes they will one day come in handy in the criminal investigations field.
Douglas proves that not only can profiling as an art and skill be perfected, but that teamwork within and among agencies is important. He has become an icon and mentor to many criminal profilers from all levels of the government. After retiring from the FBI in 1995, he has continued as a consultant in many cases, most notably the JonBenet Ramsey case. In my eyes, I believe that he will always be considered a pioneer of criminal profiling and someone who can prove to non-believers that profiling should always be considered an option- it just has to be done by the right person.
So what is profiling? John Douglas states it plainly, “…I'll tell you what it's not. It's not magic or telepathy. I'm not ‘The Profiler’ you see on TV. I don't go into a trance and ‘see’ the crime. I apply behavioral patterns to crimes by looking at the crime scene evidence, police reports, victim statements and autopsy results.” I believe that statement should be the foundation that all profilers of the future build from.
References:
Fintzy, R. T. (2000, September 1). [Review of the book Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis, by B. Turvey]. Am J Psychiatry 2000;157: 1532-1534.
Winerman, L. (2004). Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth. The Monitor, 35(7), 66. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx.
http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com
I think that profiling is an interesting field. I took a class where we got to profile Arthur Shawcross and Andrew Chiktilo. It was very interesting and difficult at times because these criminals are complicated.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that the specialists need to know many different subjects. For example, Arthur Shawcross brought a knife with him to the scene but never used it. Even though he never used it, the knife stood for something that showed investigators that he's a hunter. With this little piece of information, our class was able to put together a better profile.
Also, I liked how you pointed out communication between agencies. The cases we worked on as a group was frustrating because we didn't have all the information. I truly believe that in order to have a complete understanding of the suspect we need all the information because the little things can be clues.