Psychological Profiling Analysis

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), lay claim to creating offender profiling and although there is no universally agreed definition (Snook et al., 2007:439), the fundamental idea is the same throughout. Profiling aims to offer the probable description of a likely offender, after an analysis of a crime scene, the victims and the evidence available. Dwyer describes it as "one of the most controversial and misunderstood areas of criminal detection" (2001:47), and it is agreed that profiling does not solve crimes, but narrows down the range of potential suspects (Dwyer, 2001:49; Ainsworth, 2013:8). Due to the definition being so broad, it is also relevant to note that "not all claims are equal" and there are factors within profiling
that are "unverifiable" and "open to misinterpretation" (Alison et al., 2007:503).
Broadly speaking there are two types of offender profiling; the geographical profiling and psychological profiling (Muller, 2000:235).
This paper will be split into four parts and focus on psychological profiling throughout in order to give a more in depth analysis. The first part of this paper will give a brief analysis of psychological profiling and review the concerned literature, whilst explaining the effects that profiling has on miscarriages of justice. The second part will look at the ways the psychological profiling helps to avoid miscarriages of justice. However, due to the shortage of literature, the paper will evaluate a number of relevant cases. The third part of this paper proposes suggestions for future research; it will then summarise and
conclude.
Psychological profiling is one of the key aspects within criminal investigation and its prevalence has increased over the last 30 years (Snook et al., 2007:437). Controversy about the different types of psychological profiling has remained unabated for years (Ainsworth, 2002:143) and it is only over the past decade that research has developed more reliable profiling methods that justifies the recent increased frequency in profiling use (Alison et al., 2007:497).
Although offender profiling has its advantages such as predicting the vulnerability or risk of an offender, thus saving the criminal justice time and money, the disadvantages are two-fold (see: Meehl, 1954).
The criminal justice system is naive in when it comes to profiling (Alison et al., 2002:115, Alison et al., 2007:497), not taking into account the variations of individuals which seemingly do not correlate with socio demographic features (Alison et al., 2007:499). Alison and Ogan (2006, cited in Alison et al., 2007:498) argue this and suggest that human behaviour should not be categorised and go on to propose a more dimensional outlook, describing a range of levels. Their research takes into account maturity levels of the individual by discussing ages, intelligence levels, and socio economic groups. Canter et al. (2004:312) research further supplements this, in their study concerning the typology of serial murderers, and they conclude that the majority of examples contained both elements of 'disorganised ' and 'organised '. However, any profiling of this type still needs consistency for it to work and this is assumed, throughout all types of profiling. Although contentious, (Alison et al., 2007:499) 'homology ' delves further into the personality characteristics of an offender, and explains that two similar crime scenes that would be linked with other types of profiling could in fact be two different offenders with similar personalities. This however, also has
downfalls, in its assumption that a particular personality will behave in a particular way. There are a number of studies that have consistently failed to find a relationship in any of the traditional methods that have been described above, for example Beauregard 's sexual polymorphism study (2010:2). It is also valuable to note the frequency of the word ‘assume’ or ‘assumption’ in the concerned literature, since as it has already been mentioned that investigators are naive, and it could be concluded that offender profiling is taken for granted as being accurate. This in itself could lead to miscarriages of justice.

Alison et al. (2002:122) state two key assumptions made by profilers; consistency and homology of offense behaviours, both which could achieve a miscarriage of justice. Studies show (Alison et al., 2002:124), that contextual features must be taken into account when profiling due to individuals behaviours varying in different environments, or having had a change in circumstances. Ainsworth states a similar notion, explaining that genetic factors and environmental influences affect behaviour (2002:135). All of these different factors need to be taken into account in order for profiling to become reliable. However, science has improved reliability, compared to the early research concerning profiling, when academics tended to focus on one particular element to explain criminal behaviour (for example Eysenck, 1964).

Profiling has been known to impede cases (R v. Stagg) and although investigators argue that profiling helps to 'narrow the suspect search ' (Alison et al., 2002:127), the over reliance of profiling could lead to miscarriages of justice because it relies on a generalisation of behaviour, too precise statements on likely characteristics and the motivational reasons of the offender. This could in turn lead to a concentration on a possible group of ‘innocent’ suspects and therefore hinder investigations.

Recent scientific research into offender profiling is being used more frequently, as it develops more reliable profiling methods. These methods contribute more to the ways in which evidence is collected, or decisions are made and commits to the national policing initiatives rather than being broad and open to interpretation and thus leading to a 'Barnum Effect ' (see: Dickson and Kelly, 1985). This gives the greater need for an approved process, which could be used in order to assess the soundness of a profiler report and educate investigators and reduce their naivety, which could lead to less 'tunnel vision ' and decrease the probability of a miscarriage of justice occurring.

Youngs and Canter (2003) state that “ ‘investigative psychology’ (IP) is the framework for the integration of a diverse range of aspects of psychology into all areas of criminal and civil investigation” concerned with “psychological input to the full range of issues that relate to the management, investigation and prosecution of crime”.

Investigative psychologists are progressively able to update answers to Young and Canter 's (2003) ten "classes of operational questions" that investigators are frequently confronted by; salience, suspect elicitation, suspect prioritisation, offender location, linking crimes, prediction, investigative decision-making, information retrieval, evaluation of information and preparing cases. At the centre of these questions are what known as 'profiling equations ' (see: Canter, 1995). These 'equations ' ensure that the conclusions that detectives make about suspects 'likely ' characteristics will become more justifiable because they are supported by the 'profiling equations '. However, as profiling reports become rationalised the effects of 'romanticism ' could be amplified and an increase in miscarriages of justice could occur.

Although, offender profiling can help in a number of investigative processes, namely; decision making, intelligence led policing, investigative interviewing, informant handling and suspect prioritisation (Alison et al., 2007:501). There are aspects that investigators need to be made aware of, such as 'tunnel vision ' or 'noble cause corruption ' within an investigation process have been described as 'insidious ' and are also noted by Williamson (2006:87) to be a major contributing factor to miscarriages of justice. It could be compared to the pre-PACE times, when there was a heavy reliance on confession and a distinct lack for a 'truth search ', in the view of the fact that early research demonstrated that the questioning of a suspect was only conducted after an assumption of guilt (Williamson, 2006:91). This is further supplemented after his analysis of the Home Office Paper 1992 where the misuse of offender profiling techniques is contributory factor to miscarriages of justice (Williamson, 2006:96).
The research concerning the effects that offender profiling has on miscarriages of justice is sparse. This paper therefore focuses on analysing some of the relevant, previous cases to explain how offender profiling can avoid miscarriages of justice. Firstly, it is pertinent to note the key rule for the admission of expert evidence seen in the cases Folkes v. Chadd, 1782, R v Turner, 1975 and R v. Robb, 1991 (see: Esinike, 2010; Bosco et al. 2010). The first time that a Professor of Psychology used offender profiling within a police investigation in the UK was in 1986, it was used to find the prolific "Railway Rapist", John Duffy. Canters report was extremely useful in this case, Ainsworth (2013:11) noted that this could be due to the investigators involved, using profiling as a tactic rather than using it to prove an assumption that Duffy was the offender.

Whilst offender profiling is viewed as a form of expert evidence, the R v. Stagg case in 1994, demonstrated that psychological profiling was in fact inadmissible and the evidence was thus refused on the grounds that "there were doubts as to whether psychological profile evidence had achieved widespread acceptance or had been adequately established as to be sufficiently reliable like scientific evidence" (Bosco et al., 2010:189). This eventually led to Stagg being acquitted. Following this, he sued for wrongful prosecution and subsequently highlighted the dangers of profiling its effect on miscarriages of justice.

Another, more recent case is that of R v. Gilfoyle (2000), when a man accused of the murder of his pregnant wife, who on the outset was thought to have had committed suicide. During the original case, although his evidence was declined by the court, Professor Canter gave his opinion that Gilfoyle did in fact pressurise his pregnant wife to write a suicide note and then force her to put a rope around her neck, after an analysis of her handwriting in a note found at the scene. He now "rejects this crucial evidence" after being allowed to speak to Gilfoyle in person (Canter, 2008). This highlights the errors that can be made in cases such as this. Gilfoyle spent 18 years in prison because of a number of serious police errors at the scene of the event (The Times, 2012), and the apparent evidence, that had a major influence "behind the scenes" given by Canter (Canter, 2008).

It has been noted that there is a 'lack of detective skills ' (Williamson, 2006:97) when it comes to offender profiling, and this could be due to investigators not having an agreed systematic approach or model to follow (Alison et al., 2007:497). Although the Police Reform Act 2003 helped professionalise the investigative process, there is still a requirement for an established framework for investigators to follow. Some researchers (Alison et al., 2003; Almond et al., 2007) suggested using Toulmin 's philosophy of argument (see: Alison et al., 2007:504) as a possible framework for profiling advice. Snook et al. (2008:1260) name a number of individuals who endeavour to develop profiling 'classification systems ' and aim to validate them, these 'systems ' however, are not encouraged by psychology.

Unfortunately, despite its lack of empirical evidence and the fact that there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the profiling predictions are in any way accurate (Snook et al., 2008:1259), it seems that offender profiling has been romanticised with television programmes such as Silence of the Lambs or Cracker and although research states that it is an "extraneous and redundant technique" (Snook et al., 2007:448), researchers will continue to study it and investigators will continue to use it.

Therefore, it is agreed that there is an increasing requirement for investigators to be trained or educated in order for them to become more sophisticated in the understanding of what a final offender profiler report should look like (Alison et al., 2007:506), and therefore gain the ability to validate and identify the reports that will achieve a justifiable outcome. Williamson (2006:87) builds on this when he stresses the need for "scientifically based training programs", as the twenty first century requires "higher professional standards".
To conclude, offender profiling is too heavily reliant on assumption, whether it be assumed that criminals have a high consistency levels in their criminal behaviour or whether a criminals behaviour at a crime scene correlates with particular traits. Although it can aid investigations through the narrowing of possible suspects, thus saving time and money, it has the equal possibility of impeding cases, due to the naivety of investigators and the consequential possibility of 'tunnel vision '. It is equally important to note that the focus on a single suspect and 'case construction ' makes it imperative that offender profiling must be used as an investigative tool alongside an evidence based approach in order for it to be effective.

References.

Ainsworth, P. (2002) Psychology and Policing. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Ainsworth, P. (2013) Offender Profiling Crime Analysis. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Alison, L. Bennell, C. Ormerod, D. Mokros, A. (2002) 'The Personality Paradox in Offender Profiling ', Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 8(1), pp115-135.
Alison, L. Smith, M. Eastman, O. Rainbow, L. (2003) 'Toulmin 's Philosophy of Argument and its Relevance to Offender Profiling ', Psychology, Crime and Law, 9(2), pp 173-183.
Alison, L. Mclean, C. Almond, L. (2007) 'Profiling Suspects ', in Newburn, T. Williamson, T. Wright, A. (ed.) Handbook of Criminal Investigation. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Almond, L. Alison, L. Porter, L. (2007) 'An Evaluation and Comparison of Claims Made in Behavioural Investigative Advice Reports Compiled by the National Policing Improvements Agency in the United Kingdom ', Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4(2), pp 71-83.
Beauregard, E. (2010) 'Rape and Sexual Assualt in Investigative Psychology: The Contribution of Sex Offenders ' Research to Offender Profiling ', Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, pp 1-13.
Bosco, D. Zappala, A. Santtila, P. (2010) ' The Admissibility of Offender Profiling in Courtroom: A review of legal issues and court opinions ', International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(3), pp 184-191.
Canter, D. (1995) Criminal Shadows, London: Harper Collins.
Canter, D. Alison, L. Alsion, E. Wentlink, N. (2004) 'The Organized/Disorganized Typology of Serial Murder: Myth or Model? ', Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10(3), pp 293-320.
Canter, D. (2008) ' Yes, I got it wrong – and then an ‘innocent’ man was jailed for life ', The Times, 25 February, [Online] Available at: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article1873958.ece (Accessed on: 27/10/2013)
Dickson, D. Kelly, I. (1985) 'The 'Barnum Effect in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature. 'Psychological Reports ', 57(2), pp. 367-382.
Dwyer, D. (2001) Angles on Criminal Psychology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Esinike, N. (2008) 'Offender Profiling in Comparative Perspective ', in Offender Profiling in the Courtroom: The Use and Abuse of Expert Witness Testimony, Portsmouth: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Eysenck, H. (1964) Crime and Personality. London: Routledge.
Meehl, P. (1954) Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence.
Muller, D. (2000) 'Criminal Profiling Real Science or Just Wishful Thinking? ', Homicide Studies, 4(3), pp. 234-264.
Snook, B. Eastwood, J. Gendreau, P. Goggin, C. Cullen, R. (2007) 'Taking Stock of Criminal Profiling: A Narrative Review and Meta-Analysis ', Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 34(4), pp 437-453.
Snook, B. Cullen, R. Bennell, C. Taylor, P. Gendreau, P. (2008) 'The Criminal Profiling Illusion: What 's Behind the Smoke and Mirrors? ', Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 35(10), pp 1257-1276.
The Times. (2012) ' Eddie Gilfoyle ', The Times, July 19 [Online] Available at: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3480135.ece (Accessed on: 27/10/2013).
Williamson, T. (2006) Investigative Interviewing, Devon: Willan Publishing.
Youngs, D. Canter, D. (2003) 'Beyond Offender Profiling: The Need for an Investigative Psychology", in Carson, D. And Bull, R. (eds.) Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts, 2nd ed. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.