Offender Profiling: Science or Fiction? The Assumptions

Offender profiling is defined as “a process by which offender characteristics can be deduced from a detailed knowledge of offender characteristics” (Ainsworth, 2000). It can be used to deduce characteristics of an unknown offender, understand future levels of threat, give advice on how to interview the offender, and determine if certain offenses are linked. It is usually used on stranger sex offences and murder, but there is debate about whether it could be used for different offences. It is commonly depicted in TV and films (think Criminal Minds), although these depictions are not always accurate.

Generally, there are three different types of offender profilers. Firstly, there are clinical profilers, who use their experience of working with offenders, and their extensive knowledge of personality and disorders to profile. There are also statistical profilers, who use huge databases of solved crimes to establish relationships between offender behaviour and characteristics, and these help inform profiles. Finally, you have FBI profilers, who use their extensive experience with offenders to create “typologies” of certain offenders. These are used to create the profile of the current offender.

Offender profiling is built upon personality psychology, and thus there are some assumptions behind the practise that must be true for offender profiling to work and be useful. This article will explore four of these assumptions, presenting evidence for and against them. You can evaluate how useful offender profiling is in terms of these assumptions. Four of the most important assumptions are: (1) A(ction) -> C(haracteristic) relationship; (2) behavioural consistency; (3) homology assumption; and (4) cross-situational consistency.

A -> C Relationship

This assumption suggests there will be a relationship between someone’s actions (behaviour) and their characteristics. Davis et al (1998) found that they could accurately predict rapists’ likelihood of having a previous conviction for burglary in around 70% of the cases. However, results on this relationship are inconsistent. Goodwill and Alison (2007) suggest certain crime scene behaviours will differ in “profitability”, meaning some will be more useful in determining characteristics about the offenders than others. Therefore, the evidence for this assumption seems mixed, and so it does not help us work out whether offender profiling is useful or not.

Behavioural Consistency

This assumption suggests that offenders will be consistent in their behaviour across different types of crimes. This type of consistency has been seen across a wide variety of crimes, including arson (Ellingwood et al, 2013), autocrime (Davies et al, 2012), commercial robbery (Woodhams & Toye, 2007), stranger sex offences (Bennell et al, 2009) and murder (Bateman & Salfati, 2007). This assumption seems to be well supported, and thus supports the idea that offender profiling is indeed useful.

Homology Assumption

This is the assumption that offenders who commit similar offences will have similar characteristics. Research does not seem to support this assumption particularly. Mokros and Allison (2002) looked at stranger rapists and found that a similarity between offenders crime scene behaviour did not mean a similarity in characteristics of the offender. Woodhams and Toye (2007) also attempted to find homology in a group of 80 serial commercial robbers. The offenders where grouped into three different groups, based on their offence behaviour (similar to how FBI profiling works). These three groups were: (1) violent opportunists; (2) organised risk-takers; and (3) bladed nocturnal planners. There were no significant differences between any of the groups, suggesting the homology assumption is not correct, and sheds doubt on the practise of offender profiling.

Cross-Situational Consistency

This assumption suggests that crime is just an extreme version of every day behaviour. Crime behaviour should therefore reflect more “normal” behaviours. However, in non-forensic settings there is little evidence of cross-situational consistency, apart from between cognitive and intellectual functioning (Mischel, 1968). Walters (2000) did, however, find that the more similar two situations, the more consistent the use of aggression. Also, Daffern et al (2009) looked at aggression used by offenders in their offences, and also in hospital during in-patient treatment. They found for some offenders there was a similarity in aggression used across these situations, but this was not the case for all offenders. It seems then, cross-situational consistency is not a very valid assumption, apart from possibly around aggression. This again casts doubt on the validity of offender profiling.

In conclusion, there is doubt surrounding the assumptions that underlie offender profiling. This throws the whole idea of offender profiling into question. However, this area has not been researched very heavily, and better conducted studies are needed. Until then, profiling should be taken with a pinch of salt, and we must keep in mind it is not as perfect as it is shown to be in the media.

Edited by: Zoe

References

Ainsworth, P. B. (2000). Crime analysis and offender profiling. Psychology and crime: Myths and reality, 102-120.

Bennell C, Jones NJ, Melnyk T (2009) Addressing problems with traditional crime linking methods using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Leg Criminol Psychol 14:293–310. doi:10.1348/135532508X349336

Daffern, M., Howells, K., Mannion, A., & Tonkin, M. (2009). A test of methodology intended to assist detection of aggressive offence paralleling behaviour within secure settings. Legal and criminological psychology, 14(2), 213-226.

Ellingwood, H., Mugford, R., Bennell, C., Melnyk, T., & Fritzon, K. (2013). Examining the role of similarity coefficients and the value of behavioural themes in attempts to link serial arson offences. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(1), 1-27.

Goodwill, A. M., & Alison, L. J. (2007). When is profiling possible? Offense planning and aggression as moderators in predicting offender age from victim age in stranger rape. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(6), 823-840.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessmentWiley. New York.

Mokros, A., & Alison, L. J. (2002). Is offender profiling possible? Testing the predicted homology of crime scene actions and background characteristics in a sample of rapists. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7(1), 25-43.

Woodhams J, Toye K (2007) An empirical test of the assumptions of case linkage and offender profiling with serial commercial robberies. Psychol, Public Policy Law 13:59–85.