pyschological profiling and techniques
Pass: Produce an outline criminal profile using psychological profiling theory and techniques.
Offender profiling is grounded in the belief that it is possible to work out the characteristics of an offender by examining the characteristics of their offences. As Ainsworth (2001; p.7) puts it, “profiling generally refers to the process of using all the available information about a crime, a crime scene, and a victim in order to compose a profile of the (as yet) unknown perpetrator.” Clearly, then, there is a close relationship between profiling and ‘conventional’ detective work. However, profiling differs from conventional detection in its attempt to use information about how an offence was committed to make suggestions about the psychological characteristics of the offender. Profiling cannot tell police exactly who committed an offence, but it potentially can make predictions about the characteristics an offender is likely to possess. This can help police target their investigation more effectively and prioritise suspects once they have been identified.
David Canter, a leading investigative psychologist was approached by the police to help in an investigation into a series of rapes and murders in London in the mid-1980s. Using the information on the crimes supplied by the police, Canter applied psychological principles to suggest where the offender was living (in the area of the first three attacks), the type of job he did (semi-skilled labour, possibly connected to the railways), the sort of social life he had (a loner with only one or two close male friends) and his history of offending. Canter’s profile allowed the police to review their list of suspects and prioritise John Duffy for further investigation. He was placed under observation and subsequently arrested, charged, tried and convicted. Canter’s profile proved to be remarkably accurate. It is important to note, however, that the profile was not used to prove that Duffy was the attacker; its
Offender profiling is grounded in the belief that it is possible to work out the characteristics of an offender by examining the characteristics of their offences. As Ainsworth (2001; p.7) puts it, “profiling generally refers to the process of using all the available information about a crime, a crime scene, and a victim in order to compose a profile of the (as yet) unknown perpetrator.” Clearly, then, there is a close relationship between profiling and ‘conventional’ detective work. However, profiling differs from conventional detection in its attempt to use information about how an offence was committed to make suggestions about the psychological characteristics of the offender. Profiling cannot tell police exactly who committed an offence, but it potentially can make predictions about the characteristics an offender is likely to possess. This can help police target their investigation more effectively and prioritise suspects once they have been identified.
David Canter, a leading investigative psychologist was approached by the police to help in an investigation into a series of rapes and murders in London in the mid-1980s. Using the information on the crimes supplied by the police, Canter applied psychological principles to suggest where the offender was living (in the area of the first three attacks), the type of job he did (semi-skilled labour, possibly connected to the railways), the sort of social life he had (a loner with only one or two close male friends) and his history of offending. Canter’s profile allowed the police to review their list of suspects and prioritise John Duffy for further investigation. He was placed under observation and subsequently arrested, charged, tried and convicted. Canter’s profile proved to be remarkably accurate. It is important to note, however, that the profile was not used to prove that Duffy was the attacker; its