Criminal profiling is a mixture of psychology and law enforcement. It is the investigative technique of analysing crime behaviours in order to identify offender characteristics (Kocsis, Cooksey, & Irwin, 2002). Despite the lack of empirical research to support its validity it is still a widely used technique by law enforcement officers to apprehend criminals. Across the world police are often assisted by psychologists in order to prevent, manage and investigate crime (Alison, Goodwill, Almond, Heuvel, & Winter, 2010). The aim of offender profiling is to develop inferences of characteristics of an offender based on details form both the victim and crime scene (Minero, Dickson, Barker, Flynn, Ibrahim, & Shaw, 2018; Canter D. , 2004). The Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement describes offender profiling as a form of investigative psychology, whereby the practitioner describes the characteristics of an offender by analysing crimes scenes and other known behaviours of the offender (Gooch & Williams, 2015).
It Is based on the theory that there is an underlying psychology to behaviour at a crime scene of an offender and their own personal characteristics (Trojan & Salfati, 2011). Offender profiling is used in order to connect known patterns between offenders, by analysing the different styles and traits of those who commit crimes. The goal of offender profiling is to work to establish the links between an offender’s behaviour at the crime scene and the background characteristics, demonstrating that offenders who share similar crime styles are likely to share similar background traits or behaviours (Fox & Farrington , 2012). These profilers may also advice officers in the best ways to interview suspects, however the findings of offender profilers are not admissible as evidence in English courts. Offender profiling is still a relatively new field with few set boundaries or definitions.
It is suspected that the roots of offender profiling date back to the 1880s in London. At a time when the police were trying to solve the series of murders in the Whitechapel area. In 1888 Dr. Thomas Bond advised the police regarding the suspected profile of the murderer. The man became known as Jack the Ripper due to the violent nature of his crimes (Canter D. , 2004). Although the profile written by Dr. Bond was penned over a centaury ago it still contains all of the aspects which might be seen in a offender profile which would be used in present day, and has been found to be very similar to profiles of sexual murderers in the last few years (Ressler, Burgess, & Douglas, 1988). However, this practice did not become commonly used until agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started to publish reports detailing the procedures they were using (Canter D. , 2004).
The first stage, profiling input, involves collecting all information and evidence from the crime scene, examination of crime scene photographs and reviewing of the initial police reports. Following this, the decision process stage, where the profiler will attempt to group the information collected into significant patterns, including; determining the nature of the crime, understanding their motivation and the intention of the criminal. The third stage, crime assessment, the motivation and the intention of the offender is examined in more detail and the crime can be reconstructed. Next, criminal profiling stage, the profiler will describe the most likely characteristics of the perpetrator. In the final stage the law enforcement officers can use this profile in their investigation (Sethi & Barney, 2017). Although offender profiling does not identify the offender is does work to narrow the search of the unknown criminal, by predicting the characteristics they are expected to possess, in order to aid the police (Woodhams & Toye, 2007; Wilson & Soothill, 1996).
Offender profiling has a long and broad history; this would lead one to expect that there would be a great deal of research regarding its scientific merit. However, most of the published articles are ‘discussion points’ with little to no statistical analysis (Woodhams & Tonkin, 2018). Dowden et al. (2007) argued that more empirical research is needed in order for offender profiling to be understood as a “legitimate field of study within the behavioural sciences” (p.52). Although no single definitions of OP have been established, the current different definitions all agree that the goal of profiling is to create the links between types of crimes committed and the characteristics of offenders who commit those types of crimes (Fox & Farrington , 2012).
Broadly, there are three approaches to offender profiling; the criminal investigative approach, the clinical-practitioner approach and the statistical approach (Alison, Goodwill, Almond, Heuvel, & Winter, 2010). Within the first two, the clinical investigative approach and the clinical-practitioner approach’s conclusions which are drawn are attributed to the specific skills and the expertise of the practitioner, rather than scientific research or understanding (Minero et al, 2018). Meaning that the studies in this area lack empirical evidence and have weaknesses throughout, a high number of offender profiles have been proven to be unsubstantial (Canter, Alison, Alison, & Wentink, 2004) The clinical investigative approach was developed by the FBI in the 1970s and is informed by the police investigators vast knowledge and experience of criminal investigations. Due to high exposure to a large amount of cases they are able to draw upon there knowledge to profile suspects (Woodhams & Tonkin, 2018). However, there is a lack of scientific evidence used in this method, it has been said that this method involves over simplification of complex situational behaviours. The clinical-practitioner approach is another method which relies on the practitioner using their practical experience, their knowledge and their intuition to draw information from a crime scene (Alison et al, 2010).
Finally, the statistical approach to profiling is credited to the work of David Canter, this is also known as investigative psychology. The approach is primarily based on the analysis of behaviours and the “other information found at the crime scene to infer an offender’s characteristics and psychological processes” (Alison, Goodwill, Almond, Heuvel, & Winter, 2010, p. 118). IT has been stated that offender profiling is rooted within psychology, and that there are many similarities between psychology and offender profiling (Woodhams & Tonkin, 2018). The statistical approach is research orientated, many studies have worked to find empirical evidence to find relationships between crime scene behaviours and the offenders characteristics. Davies, Wittebrood and Jackson (1998) found that offenders who showed some form of awareness of forensic investigation, such as destroying evidence or removing semen, were four times more likely to have had a previous conviction of a sexual offence.
The clinical investigative approach and the clinical-practitioner approach have been highly criticised by Canter and others due to their lack of scientific evidence. There is limited psychological theory in offender profiling of the FBI. These approaches to offender profiling have been attacked by researchers such as Muller (2000, p. 234) who stated:
There is very little authoritative material on it, and almost nothing in the way of scientific studies to support the claims of the profilers.
However, Canter’s approach of investigative psychology is based on psychological understanding, as Canter is foremost a psychologist, meaning that his work is based on scientific merit. Canter uses the term ‘Investigative Psychology’ for his branch of profiling, and has aimed to validate the effectiveness of psychology in understanding criminals actions and interactions with their victims (Ainsworth, 2001). Canters early work worked to understand why a particular person may become involved in a particular crime