See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328390149

History and Development of Criminal Profiling

Preprint · October 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11308.31360

CITATIONS READS
0 369

2 authors, including:

Teo Sulwen

3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a 40-item Questionnaire based on the BFI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Teo Sulwen on 19 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINAL PROFILING 1

Issue investigated

Informal criminal profiling has had a long history dating back to the 1880s when crime

scene clues were used to make predictions about British serial killer, Jack the Ripper’s personality

(Canter, 2004; Turvey, 2011, Winerman, 2004). Despite advancements over time (Turvey, 2011),

previous work in profiling was still heavily based on experience and informal studies until

recently, which led to the debate in the credibility of criminal profiling (Muller, 2000; Snook,

Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 2007; Winerman, 2004). Modern criminal profiling is the science of

gathering information such as personality traits, behavioral tendencies, geographic locations and

demographic or biological descriptors of an offender in the context of the crime, in attempts to

identify the type of perpetrator who might have committed the crime, and to fill in information

gaps (Davis, 1999; Kocsis, 2006). It is rooted in psychology, criminology, and forensic science

(Turvey, 2011).

Influence behind this idea and what the study was on

In the 1960s, Howard Teten, an American policeman studying under Dr. Paul Kirk, Dr.

Breyfocal, and Dr. Douglas Kelly -internationally renowned criminalist, medical examiner and

psychiatrist - was inspired, and developed a multidisciplinary understanding of these areas in his

approach to criminal profiling (CP). As a special agent for the Federal Bureau Investigation

(FBI), he then taught a CP program in 1970 as part of a supplementary tool to other investigative

methods, as well as abnormal psychology with Pat Mullany in future. The rise of CP began in

1974 and 1975, when the successful negotiation of major hostage situations by Mullany led to

techniques being taught to all FBI negotiators. After helping solve some cases, its reputation

spread and daily requests for profiles were requested by the police department. In 1972, the FBI’s

Behavioural Science Unit (BSU) was formed. Eventually, Special Agent John Douglas took over
CRIMINAL PROFILING 2

the BSU. (Turvey, 2011). Also corroborating this story is another article that details FBI special

agents John Douglas, and Robert Ressler, who after their visitations, and interviews of serial

killers and mass murderers in 1956, resulted in a systematic approach to CP called the criminal

profile generating process (White, Lester, Gentile, & Rosenbleeth, 2011). Since then, these

profiles have been used as tools in cases such as the hunt for special homicides in the United

States until a certain period of time.

Arguments

Despite several successes in past cases (Chifflet, 2015; Davis, 1999; Svensson &

Khoshnood, 2018; White et al., 2011), the most recurring debate is whether CP is scientific and

reliable. Applied psychologist, David Canter contended that inferences should stem from

empirical, peer-reviewed research and not merely from experience (Winerman, 2004). In studies

comparing the ability of profilers and other groups to predict traits of an unknown criminal,

mixed results were obtained. Some studies showed slight differences between groups, while some

did not (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990; Snook, Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 2007). Currently,

support for the effectiveness of techniques within CP are not corroborated, as there were no

recurring and reliable literature on the success of investigative approaches (Muller, 2000).

Therefore, it has become a cycle, because despite doubts on reliability, insufficient empirical

evidence is able to substantiate the scientific reliability of CP regardless of the increase in

published literature.

On the effectiveness of profiling, 17% were beneficial in actual identification of the

perpetrator, compared to the 46% that was perceived as helpful to the case. However, in 77% of

the cases, use of profiles did provide a better directive focus in the process of investigation (Cook

and Hinman, 1999). Moreover, there has also been continued use by law enforcement agencies
CRIMINAL PROFILING 3

worldwide and empirical evidence did show there was a 75% accuracy of CP results with actual

events (Lee, 2015). Thus, evaluating these arguments suggests that it depends the original intent

of using CP as an investigative tool; whether it is meant to play the role of identification, or as a

supplement to other investigative techniques. While it may not directly help in making arrests, it

did play a part in narrowing the scope, which leads to higher chances of arresting the criminals

(Lee, 2015). Moreover, while science and its application has some overlap, it was also contended

that scientific evaluation of practical police work involving application of case-analytical methods

remain a challenging feat (Dern, H., Dern, C., Horn, A., & Horn, U, 2009).

The Process of Criminal Profiling

The evolution of CP has been standardized to a basic 6 steps called the Criminal-Profile-

Generating Process (Douglas, Ressler, Burgess, & Hartman, 1986). The steps are broken down as

followed:

Phase 1 Profiling Input Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).

The first step of creating a criminal profile is to gather data on everything about the crime,

including the victim (personal information, personality, interpersonal relationships etc), the

perpetrator, the crime scene (weather, political and social environment etc) and the crime itself

(autopsy report, toxicology results etc) to provide a comprehensive and well-rounded analysis.

Phase 2 Decision Process Models Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).

This is proceeded through organizing collected input into meaningful patterns by looking

into:

Homicide type and style. Homicide cases can be differentiated depending on number of

victims, number of events, and number of locations.

CRIMINAL PROFILING 4

Initial intention. The primary intent of the murderer can be differentiated to criminal

enterprise; emotional, selfish or cause specific; or sexual intent.

Victim and offender risk. Through this factor profilers are able to grasp on the type of

perpetrator that did the crime, based on the risk level carried by the victim and the offender.

Escalation. Depending on how the crime happened, profilers are able to identify the type

of criminals they are looking for.

Time and location factor. This focuses on the duration of the killing; committing other

acts on the body; and body disposal. Also, there is also the factor or where the crime happened

and where the body was found.

Phase 3 Crime Assessment Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).

Profilers begin to generate a criminal profile which includes reconstructing the crime and

the offender’s and victim’s behaviour. This is where the crime is being classified into

organised/disorganised (Young, 2006); victim selection and how they are controlled; crime

sequence; presence of staging; offender’s motivation (depending on whether it is premeditated)

and its dynamics.

Phase 4 Criminal Profile Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).

Once a criminal profile is established, thus begins the process of capturing suspects based

on the given information, and to compare for validity of criminal profile.

Phase 5 Investigation Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).

Profilers write a report for the respective agency as supporting evidence to improve

likelihood of capturing suspects.

Phase 6 Apprehension Stage (Douglas et al., 1986).

CRIMINAL PROFILING 5

The report and criminal will be cross-examined, and a detailed interview will be given to

the criminal to complete and validate the profiling process.

Results of Criminal Profiling

Criminal profilers have displayed higher accuracy in picking out the offenders in a pool of

potential suspects than people untrained as criminal profilers when given a line-up exercises

(Kocsis & Palermo, 2015; Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990). This displays that the skill of CP has been

useful in increasing the probability of identifying criminals when it comes to using surrounding

information and personal information of both parties to look for meaningful patterns that exists

within the criminal.

Evolution of Criminal Profiling

Throughout the eras of CP, it has evolved into a more systematic approach whereby it

consists of more comprehensive information comprising of internal and external factors, whereas

in the past, experts of different fields had a more differentiated approach of identifying patterns

among criminals, to currently where there is a more integrated approach of experts coming

together to create a systematic profile of a particular criminal that has higher reliability (Alison,

Goodwill, Almond, & Winter, 2010; Nykodym, Taylor, & Vilela, 2005). CP has also evolved

whereby CP is done for modern crimes such as cybercrime, to potentially identify the people

more likely of committing cybercrime (Nykodym et al., 2005).

However, there has not been much changes in the overall process of CP. Despite the inter-

changes in terminology depending on the researchers, the skeleton of the CP process has

remained similar, and still going by the premise that one’s personality and signature is generally

consistent in most situations, which will then reflect in the crime scene (De Wet, 2013; Sethi &

Barney, 2017). It was found that despite the difference in crimes, the basic motivation of crime
CRIMINAL PROFILING 6

has been similar (Rogers, 2003). This potentially shows that there has not been much changes in

criminals, whereby the general patterns cultivated has remained consistent throughout the years.

Implications and importance

CP has been useful to law enforcements through narrowing the scope of investigation,

suggesting proactive strategies during investigation and trial, linking crimes and crime scenes,

aiding geographical profiling and the interviewing process (Alison et al., 2010; Cook & Hinman,

1999). Criminal profiles have also been used over the years in criminal investigations and has

been presented in court as expert evidence and has shown success rates when identifying suspects

and bringing them to justice (Chifflet, 2014; Meyer, 2008;).

Moreover, CP can also be expanded to other fields of research such as occupational

analysis. In a discussion conducted by Sethi and Barney (2017), they mentioned the potential of

combining CP into understanding an occupation fully. The act of backtracking one’s actions to

infer one’s personality can be applied in creating an occupational profile for corporate settings.

This shows that CP has other possibilities in utilizing the same skill into other fields in

psychology whereby it involves a multidisciplinary approach for an accurate representation of a

person or situation.

Furthermore, it brings more insight into forensic psychology and contribute to arresting

criminals more effectively. The research possibilities also bring more job opportunities to

researchers, which in return, bring more supporting evidence to law enforcement for crime

prevention, showing a mutually beneficial cycle. However, the future of CP remains ambiguous

from the FBI perspective (Turvey, 2011), therefore there is still plenty of room for improvement

in the field of CP.

CRIMINAL PROFILING 7

References

Alison, L., Goodwill, A., Almond, L., Van Den Heuvel, C., & Winter, J. (2010). Pragmatic

solutions to offender profiling and behavioural investigative advice. Legal and

Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 115-132.

Canter, D. (2004). Offender profiling and investigative psychology. Journal of Investigative

Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1(1), 1-15.

Chifflet, P. (2014). Questioning the validity of criminal profiling: An evidence-based

approach. Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 238-255.

Chifflet, P. (2015). Questioning the validity of criminal profiling: An evidence-based approach.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 238-255.

Cook, P. E., & Hinman, D. L. (1999). Criminal profiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal

Justice, 15(3), 230-241.

Davis, J.A. (1999). Criminal personality profiling and crime scene assessment. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(3), 291-301.

Dern, H., Dern, C., Horn, A., & Horn, U. (2009). The fire behind the smoke: A reply to Snook

and colleagues. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(10), 1085-1090.

De Wet, J. A. (2013). An exploratory analysis of serial rape in South Africa. Retrieved from

UP Space Institutional Repository.

Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. S., Burgess, A.W., & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling from

crime scene analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 4(4), 401-421.

Kocsis, R. N. (2006). What Is Criminal Profiling? (pp. 1-11). New Jersey, NJ: Humana Press
CRIMINAL PROFILING 8

Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2015). Disentangling criminal profiling: Accuracy,

homology, and the myth of trait-based profiling. International Journal of Offender

Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(3), 313-332.

Lee, C. M. (2015). Criminal profiling and industrial security. Multimedia Tools and Applications,

74(5), 1689-1696.

Meyer, C. B. (2008). Criminal Profiling as Expert Evidence? In R. N., Kocsis. (Eds.), Criminal

Profiling (pp. 207-247). New Jersey, NJ: Humana Press.

Muller, D. A. (2000). Criminal profiling: Real science or just wishful thinking? Homicide

Studies, 4(3), 234-264.

Nykodym, N., Taylor, R., & Vilela, J. (2005). Criminal profiling and insider cyber crime.

Computer Law & Security Review, 21(5), 408–414. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2005.07.001

Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: An outcome and process

study. Law and Human Behavior, 14(3), 215-233.

Rogers, M. (2003). The role of criminal profiling in the computer forensics process. Computers

& Security, 22(4), 292–298. doi:10.1016/s0167-4048(03)00405-x

Sethi, C., & Barney, K. F. (2017). Serial crime as occupation: Parallels between occupational

analysis and psychological profiling. Journal of Occupational Science, 25(2), 283-

289. doi: 10.1080/14427591.2017.1366930

Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, R. M. (2007). Taking stock of

criminal profiling: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior,

34(4), 437-453.

Svensson, R., & Khoshnood, A. (2018). Validity of Criminal Profiling: A Systematic Literature

Review. Retrieved from Malmo University Electronic Publishing.

 CRIMINAL PROFILING 9

Turvey, B. E. (Ed.). (2011). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis.

Alaska, AK: Elsevier.

White, J. H., Lester, D., Gentile, M., & Rosenbleeth, J. (2011). The utilization of forensic science

and criminal profiling for capturing serial killers. Forensic Science International, 209(1-

3), 160-165.

Winerman, L. (2004). Criminal profiling: The reality behind the myth. Monitor on Psychology,

35(7), 66-69.

Young, T. M. (2006). Profiling pros and cons: An evaluation of contemporary criminal profiling

methodologies. Retrieved from Northeastern University College of

Criminal Justice.

View publication stats