Evaluate the claim "we can predict who will become a criminal"

Sharonhy

Profiling.pptx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Evaluate the claim "we can predict who will become a criminal"

Criminal Behaviour CRM203

Workshop 3: Profiling

Lecture Overview

The Art of profiling

FBI

Blunders

The science of profiling

Geographic

Statistical / ‘Investigative’

Science vs Art

Art

Science

In the beginning…

James A. Brussel (1956)

Psychoanalysis profile of New York Bomber

“heavy” “middle-aged” “male” “single” “living with a sibling”

Convincingly accurate picture of:

Suspect: George Metesky

Modus Operandi

The particular way in which a person performs a particular task

“the offender’s actions during the commission of a crime that are necessary to complete the crime (Keppel et al., 2005).

THESE ARE NOT FIXED

(some criminals change, some adapt…)

Examples

Type of restraint used, wound patterns, fibre of restraint

Type of weapon used (knife, blunt object, gun)

Tape/binding (hands, mouth, eyes)

Tools to gain entry to home

Time of day (practical considerations)

Lack of fingerprints: gloves used (forensic knowledge?)

Signature

‘a distinctive action or characteristic’

Actions or behaviours at a crime that are idiosyncratic or characteristic of the killer ~ feeds emotional or psychological needs of criminal

FIXED AND UNCHANGING (but may evolve)

Signature linked to criminal (see patterns, connect crimes)

Examples

Level of injury (minimal or excessive)

Specific location or sequence of criminal act

Ejaculation, urination, and/or defecation at crime scene

Specific type of weapon used

Personal items taken from victim

Specific victim targeted (race, age, profession, physical characteristics)

Anything specifically left at crime scene (note, mark, object)

Profiling

‘Behaviour is exhibited at a crime, or a series of similar crimes, and studying this behaviour allows inferences to be made about the likely offender’ (Jackson & Bekerian, 1997)

Homant & Kennedy (1998) - 3 main types:

Crime Scene Profiling – info at crime scene

Offender Profiling – collection of data, aggregate of those involved in particular crimes

Psychological Profiling – personality tests, interviewing etc. to assess which individual fits known personality template

Davies (1997)

‘constructing a hypothetical picture of a perpetrator of a crime on the basis of data from the scene of the crime, witness statements, and other valuable information’

Case Study: Jack the Ripper

‘How many victims? (11, 6, 5)

Keppel et al. “6 based on signature of crime”

Case Study: Jack the Ripper

Look away….

Martha Tabram?

Face up

Clothing disarranged

Exposed lower part of body and genitals (legs wide open)

Killed on the spot (no dragging)

Body found 4.45am, 3 hours after killing

Known prostitute, heavy drinker

36 years of age

39 stab wounds (left side, and genitals; 17 to breast, 13 in lower body)

Wounds to: neck, liver, spleen, stomach

All wounds inflicted before death

Case Study: Jack the Ripper

Look away….

Mary Jane Kelly

Face down, indoors

Mutilation (nose, ears removed); flesh removed

Heart missing

Organs placed around room

Uterus and one breast placed under bed

Vulva and right buttock removed

Some mutilation occurred after death

Case Study: Jack the Ripper

Similarities

Prostitutes 24-45

Once they lifted clothing, strangled and lowered to ground

Usually heads facing to left

Attacks at night (midnight-6am)

All took place within 2.6km

Sequentially 1.6km

Found where killed

Sharp, long bladed knife

Differences

Martha stabbed from front, others behind (less blood/detection?)

Outside to inside (detection? Interruption? – increase mutilation)

Case Study: Jack the Ripper

Signatures

Picquerism – sexual pleasure obtained from cutting or stabbing

Submission of victim – Multiple wounds to incapacitate not immediately kill

Overkill/domination – excessive attacks

Degradation – leaving bodies in public places (Invincible? Authority? Ego?)

Posing of body – sexually revealing

Escalation of violence – more extreme over time

Planning - no evidence left “organised serial killer”

Signature only useful if it reveals very idiosyncratic behaviours; Keppel et al. compared these to database – how many matched?

0.03%

Find the offender

Offenders home

Crime location/scene

Rape in park

7am, 21yr old jogger, attacked from behind; gagged, blindfolded, forced to wear tights, Description: 20-25 hooded, sweatshirt, sandy blonde hair, *04/03/02

Rape / Murder

Battered in home

Foreign object inserted

Description: EWT: red delivery van - fridges *28/03/02

Burglary

Estate/halls of residence

Computer/mobile/ CDs taken *28/01/02

Robbery

Post office; handgun; threatening lang.

Single offender

Computer/mobile/ CDs taken *10/10/99

Robbery

Post office; 10am; lone offender; handgun; threaten to shoot customers

EWT: young, muscular

*10/10/01

Scale: 1 in. = 1mile

Norman

16, single, lives alone, psychiatric history: indecent exposure x1; thin, blonde hair

Dave

35, married w .kids, juvenile record of theft, adult burglary x10; bald

Mike

46, single, rape (child 12), indecent assault (child), indecent exposure, schizophrenic, balding dark hair

Jake

Married w. kids, robbery, Dom. Violence, knows Michelle

Jerry

57, married w. kids, Dom. Violence, no preconvs, dark hair, blue eyes

Damen

28, w. partner, drink driving, Dom Violence, balding

Quentin

42, unmarried, drugs, drunk & disorderly, depression

Mark

50, w. partner, chronic sex offender (children), unemployed

Nils

25, single, rape, blonde, construction worker, frequents bondage clubs

Alan

21, single, indecent exposure x 12, blond, slim, blue eyes

Source: Alison & Eyre (2009)

The key here is to find out who the suspect is – students are to work their way through each suspect debating which they think is the most likely.

“Time to profile”

Artistic impressions

Blunders

Rachel Nickell

15th July 1992

Walking with her son on Wimbledon Common

Brutally stabbed and sexually assaulted

Killer profiled

No evidence at time

“Operation Ezdell” –

Undercover policewoman

Series of letters and meetings

Psychological ladders to climb

Blunders

Paul Britton:

Potential for investigations to be misled by profilers: “if this had happened in a murder or rape investigation, then someone else could have died or been attacked”

In relation to Rachel’s murderer: “It is almost inevitable that this person will kill another young woman at some point in the future…”

Blunders

C.S.

“Rachel’s killer could have been sitting opposite, borrowing my salt and pepper, and I wouldn’t know him or recognise him….

…if he came into my consulting room and I learned all of the details of his sexuality, I would know immediately that he was likely to have killed Rachel Nickell, without him mentioning it”

“the sexual fantasies in the killer are so rare, that the chances of two such rare individuals being on Wimbledon Common at the same time are ‘vanishingly small’…”

Blunders

Robert Napper

The murderer of Rachel Nickell, July 15th 1992…

And Samantha Bisset…

in November, 1993.

and her four year old daughter

Classic Classification of Behaviours

ORGANISED

DISORGANISED

Personal Characteristics

Sexually

competent

Lives with partner

Has charm

Low intelligence

Unskilled

Lives alone

Poor personal hygiene

Post offense behaviour

May move body

Police ‘groupie’ /follower

May turn religious

May change job

Recommended

Interview

technique

Direct strategy

Accurate

details

Show empathy

Interview at night

Classic Classification of Behaviours

Organised

Disorganised

Average

above IQ

Socially Competent

Skilled work preferred

High birth

order

status

Father’s work stable

Sexually competent

Inconsistent childhood discipline

Controlled mood during crime

Use of alcohol with crime

Precipitating situational stress

Living with partner

Mobility (car in good condition)

Follows crime in news media

May change job or leave town

Below

average IQ

Socially

inadequate

Unskilled work

Low birth

order

statis

Father’s work unstable

Sexually incompetent

Harsh discipline as a child

Anxious mood during crime

Minimal use of alcohol

Minimal situational stress

Living alone

Lives/works near crime scene

Minimal interest in news media

Significant behaviour change

Profile Characteristics

Classic Classification of Behaviours

Organised

Disorganised

Planned offense

Victim a targeted stranger

Personalises victim

Controlled conversation

Crime scene reflects control

Demands submissive victim

Restraints used

Aggressive acts prior to death

Body hidden

Weapon/evidence absent

Transports victim or body

Spontaneous offense

Victim/location known

Depersonalises

victim

Minimal conversation

Crime scene random and sloppy

Sudden violence to victim

Minimal use of restraints

Sexual acts after death

Body left in view

Weapon/evidence often present

Body left at death scene

Crime Scene Characteristics

Homology Hypothesis

Underlying basis of FBI profiling

Crime scene characteristics

Offender characteristics

Crime scene characteristics

Convergence – support for homology hypothesis

Divergence– no support for homology hypothesis

Characteristics of offender reflected in characteristics of crime scene

Crime scene can be effectively categorised

Offender’s crimes tend to show characteristic patterns

Crime linkage approaches

Linkage

Matching

Consistency between crime scenes and characteristics

Characteristics of 1 offender’s crime scene

Characteristics of same offender’s other crime scenes

Characteristics of crime scene

Characteristics of particular offender

Groups of crime scene characteristics

Characteristic traits of the offender

Homology

Crime linkage approaches

Part of the “Timeline Toolkit”

YOUR TURN: Profile this case

Victim: Nude female

Found 3pm, left for work at 6.30am

Location: Roof of apartment block she lived in

26 yr old, 90 pounds weight, spinal deformation

Not dating anyone

Both nipples removed and placed on body

Face severely beaten

Throttled with strap of her bag

Blunt instrument caused many face fractures

All items used came from her bag

Phrase “you can’t stop me” written in ink on inner thigh; “fuck you” on torso

Pendant she usually wears was missing

Victims underwear taken down and pulled over face

Stockings tied around hands and ankles

Pen and umbrella inserted into vagina

Comb stuck in pubic hair

No semen in victim’s vagina (ejaculation on body from standing position)

Bite marks on thighs; various bruises and lacerations over body

Faeces from murdered found close by (covered by victim’s clothes)

No evidence of similar crimes being carried out in local area

White man

Aged 25-35

Alcohol/drugs not material factors

Any dates would be younger (controlled and dominated more easily)

Average intelligence (dropped out of education)

Difficulties in personal relationships

Disorganised – confused, perhaps mental difficulties

Fit into context well – might reside there, or employed there

Never married

No military background

Possibly unemployed

Sexual fantasies – possibly has/uses sadistic pornography

Sexually inexperienced/inadequate

Unskilled or skilled occupation

Actual Profile

The links…

Killers similar age and race to victims

Fantasy embedded at core of extreme cases

Fantasy as blueprint

‘trophy’ taking (pendant) indicates future fantasies

Little evidence crime prepared for (disorganised, using victims belongings)

Clearly sexual crime, but used substitutes, suggesting inadequacies (so likely never married)

Elements of control and domination (bound/blindfolded)

Lived near/knew the area: took time, knew no risk of being caught

OUTCOME

Father lived in apartment

Released from mental hospital (light security)

Bite marks linked him

Is profiling common sense?

Snook et al. (2007)

Systematic review

130 articles

‘sources of knowledge’ – common sense rather than science

Hindsight bias, illusory correlates, availability heuristic, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, because of that)

US more common sense than UK…

FBI lacks scientific approach and rigour

FBI = “smoke and mirrors”

Does profiling work?

Does it work?

Would you recommend it?

Is common sense enough? What are the risks?

Police still use inaccurate profiles (and ‘like’ them). WHY?

What behaviours do we look for?

Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?

PROFILE HADDEN CLARK

WAIT!!! You have an activity

Think about where you live

Imagine the surrounding area (plot some main features – roads, shops, village greens etc.)

Science vs Art

Art

Science

Now plot a murder… and a 2nd… and a 3rd… and a 4th

STOP!

Investigative psychology

Activity

Put a dot in the middle of the page – that represents your home

Imagine the surrounding area (plot some main features)

Investigative psychology

Activity

Put a dot in the middle of the page – that represents your home

Imagine the surrounding area (plot some main features)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10

Where does the killer live?

Investigative Psychology

David Canter

First crimes tell us most about criminal

Location – closer to home to begin

Routine Activity Theory

Geographical Profiling

Statistical Profiling

Investigative Psychology

First Crimes (Routine Activity Theory)

Relationship between criminals daily activities and the crimes committed

Habits

Crimes from everyday opportunities combined with 1) suitable target 2) minimal risk of being detected 3) potential offender available

Investigative Psychology

Geographical Profiling

Offender is likely to live in central area

The further from the centre, the less likely to offend

Relatively few offences in outer rings

Find the offender

Offenders home

Crime location/scene

Rape in park

7am, 21yr old jogger, attacked from behind; gagged, blindfolded, forced to wear tights, Description: 20-25 hooded, sweatshirt, sandy blonde hair, *04/03/02

Rape / Murder

Battered in home

Foreign object inserted

Description: EWT: red delivery van - fridges *28/03/02

Burglary

Estate/halls of residence

Computer/mobile/ CDs taken *28/01/02

Robbery

Post office; handgun; threatening lang.

Single offender

Computer/mobile/ CDs taken *10/10/99

Robbery

Post office; 10am; lone offender; handgun; threaten to shoot customers

EWT: young, muscular

*10/10/01

Scale: 1 in. = 1mile

Norman

16, single, lives alone, psychiatric history: indecent exposure x1; thin, blonde hair

Dave

35, married w .kids, juvenile record of theft, adult burglary x10; bald

Mike

46, single, rape (child 12), indecent assault (child), indecent exposure, schizophrenic, balding dark hair

Jake

Married w. kids, robbery, Dom. Violence, knows Michelle

Jerry

57, married w. kids, Dom. Violence, no preconvs, dark hair, blue eyes

Damen

28, w. partner, drink driving, Dom Violence, balding

Quentin

42, unmarried, drugs, drunk & disorderly, depression

Mark

50, w. partner, chronic sex offender (children), unemployed

Nils

25, single, rape, blonde, construction worker, frequents bondage clubs

Alan

21, single, indecent exposure x 12, blond, slim, blue eyes

Source: Alison & Eyre (2009)

This is the reveal – might be worth deleting this if you hand out slides to the students before the session, as otherwise they can look ahead.

Investigative Psychology

Snook et al. (2005)

German serial killers

Killed average 4.6 times

63% murders – killer lived within 10km of where body found

Younger killers travelled less far

Killers with higher IQ travelled further (avoid detection? Bigger mental maps? Better travelled?)

Investigative Psychology

Snook et al. (2005)

BUT

Questionable whether initial killing is best indicator of where killer lives

Averages (means) can be misleading…

Mean distance between killer’s home and body site = 19miles

Median distance = 5miles

Some killers travelled a very long way (though very few in excess of 62 miles).

Investigative Psychology

Bennell & Canter (2002)

Stability in offenders choice of crime site locations – useful for identifying linkages

Linked burglaries tend to occur close together

0.7km cut-off = 52% linked, 93% unlinked correctly identified

2.5km cut-off = 62% linked, 68% unlinked correctly identified

Great care needed when setting cut-off/boundary points

Bennell & Jones (2005)

Commercial and residential crimes better linked by this method

Investigative Psychology

Smallest space analysis

A form of complex statistics analysis used to identify underlying patterns of characteristics of a crime scene

How likely are features of a crime to exist and coexist with other features (if I see ‘x’ will I see ‘y’?)

Group behaviours

‘Clusters’ of crime types/MO etc.

Can analyse patterns

over time

Investigative Psychology

Crime Scene Characteristics

Investigative Psychology

Quick guide…

	Murder A	Murder B	Murder C
Multiple Weapons	1	1	2
Sexual humiliation	1	1	2
Night-time	2	1	2
Left naked	1	1	2

Note: 1 = yes; 2 = no

Murders A and B = similar

3 out of 4 characteristics found

Investigative Psychology

	Multiple weapons	Sexual Humiliation	Night-time	Victim left naked
Multiple Weapons
Sexual humiliation	3
Night-time	2	2
Left naked	3	3	2

Matrix of correspondence to see which of the four facts co-occur

Complete agreement on ‘multiple weapons’ and ‘sexual humiliation’ across 3 murders

Scores can be represented in ‘state space’

This takes some time to get your head around, and I usually have to go forwards and backwards a few times to show where these numbers come from 

Investigative Psychology

Smallest Space Analysis

3 (multiple weapons; sexual humiliation; victim left naked) are in the same space as they all co-occur the most

The remaining facet (night time) is 1 away

Occurs in multidimensional space (villages equally close, one 1km from all etc.)

Multiple weapons

Sexual humiliation

Victim left naked

Night-time

Distance = 1

Investigative Psychology

Smallest Space Analysis

In sum

Is profiling an art?

Is profiling a science?

Can it be both?

WHY.

What are some of the limitations of each?

PROFILE YOUR OTHER SERIAL KILLER – discuss in groups, feed back

How useful is profiling?