Offender Profiling

ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION DIPLOMA CRIMINOLOGY LEVEL 3

ASSIGNMENT ONE: OFFENDER PROFILING

‘Offender profiling is a set of techniques used by law enforcement agencies to try to identify perpetrators of serious crime. Profiling involves analysing the type of offence and how the offence was carried out in order to identify the offender.’ (Class notes)

‘The personality of an offender can then is found by looking at their behaviour before, during and after the offence.’ (Class notes) ‘These factors will then be added to the other information and physical evidence and compared with characteristics of different personality types so that a profile can be found.’ (Class notes) The primary goals of criminal profiling include the reduction of the viable suspect pool in a criminal investigation, assistance in the linkage of potentially related crimes, assessment of the potential for escalation of criminal behaviour, provision of relevant leads and strategies, and keeping the investigation on track. The criminal profiler is not preoccupied with specifically naming the offender. Criminal profilers are advisors; detectives and investigators solve cases.

There are two main systems of looking at offender profiling: The American Approach and The British Approach which is also known as Investigative Psychology, there is also the Geographical approach to offender profiling which looks at thing such as there area the crime is committed and the area the possible offender my be located but the ones used most often are the American and the British approaches as they are more reliable and more in-depth

These approaches allow the police and FBI to: ‘Analyse the probability of this kind of crime occurring again. Try to prevent it happening. To gain an insight into crime and how it was committed so that the authorities know what to expect if a similar offence happens again.’ (Class notes)

The American Method of profiling is a system created by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1970’s. It is used to detect and classify the major personality and behavioural characteristics of an individual based upon analysis of the crime or crimes the person committed also by placing strong emphasis on information present at the scene of a crime by looking at evidence taken from a crime scene or how a crime scene is arranged.

This is known as Crime Scene Analysis (or Crime Scene Investigation). This allows offenders or offences to be categorised into particular types of crime such as criminal damage, fraud, murder, rape, serial offences, etc. (Class notes) The FBI’s early approach was based on in-depth interviews with some 36 sexually orientated serial murderers. The technique tried to identify the major personality and behavioural characteristics of serious offenders. This was based on a very detailed analysis of the crimes they had committed.

There are several different ways the American Approach to offender profiling can be described below are a few of the different descriptions and the definition of how they are used:

There are several Profiling phases used to find the nature of the offender:

The process this approach uses to determine offender characteristics involves, first, an Assimilation phase: where all information available in regard to the crime scene, victim, and witnesses is examined. This may include photographs of the crime scene, autopsy reports, victim profiles, police reports, and witness statements.

The next phase, the Classification stage: this involves integrating the information collected into a framework which essentially classifies the murderer as "organised" or "disorganised". Organised murderers are thought to have advanced social skills, plan their crimes, display control over the victim using social skills, leave little forensic evidence or clues, and often engage in sexual acts with the victim before the murder. The organised offender also tends to commit crimes which have clearly been planned, where there is an attempt to control, where few clues are left and where the victim is a targeted stranger. The FBI’s research led them to believe that an organised criminal would typically be of above average intelligence, be sexually and socially competent and to be living with a partner. He would also be likely to be suffering from depression or experiencing a great deal of anger around the time of the attack. Following the crime, he would tend to follow the media coverage of the attack closely and may even leave the area shortly afterwards. In contrast, the disorganised offender is described as impulsive, with few social skills, such that his/her murders are opportunistic and crime scenes suggest frenzied, chaotic behaviour and a lack of planning or attempts to avoid detection. The disorganised offender would also be more likely to use a sudden, unrehearsed style with a minimum use of restraint and little attempt to hide evidence. They might also engage in sexual acts after the murder, because they lack knowledge of normal sexual behaviour. This lead the FBI to conclude that a disorganised attacker was believed to be someone who lived alone (probably close to the scene), was sexually or socially inadequate, had been mistreated as a child and was frightened and confused at the time of the attack. Following the classification stage profilers attempt to recreate the Behavioural sequence of the crime, in particular, attempting to reconstruct the offender's modus operandi (M.O.) or method of committing the crime. Profilers also examine closely the offender's “signature” which is identifiable from the crime scene and is more distinguishing than the M.O.—the signature is what the offender does to satisfy his psychological needs in committing the crime. From further consideration of the M.O. the offender's signature at the crime scene, and also an inspection for the presence of any staging of the crime, the profiler moves on to generate a profile. This profile may contain detailed information regarding the offender's demographic characteristics, family characteristics, military background, education, personality characteristics, and it may also suggest appropriate interview techniques.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Profiling Strategy:
The best weapon the police have against an elusive serial murderers spree is their behaviour profile. Douglas, Ressler, Burgess and Hartman divide the FBI's profiling strategy into five stages, with a final sixth stage being the arrest of the correct suspect:

1. Profiling inputs
The first stage involves collecting all information available about the crime, including physical evidence, photographs of the crime scene, autopsy reports and pictures, witness testimony, extensive background information on the victim and police reports. The profiler does not want to be told about possible suspects at this stage because such data might prejudice or prematurely direct the profile given.

2. Decision process models:
this is the stage; the profiler will organise the input into meaningful questions and patterns along several dimensions of criminal activity. What type of homicide has been committed (classifications, in short: mass murderers, spree killers and serial murderers)? What is the primary motive for the crime: sexual, financial, personal or emotional disturbance? What level of risk did the victim experience, and what level of risk did the murderer take in killing the victim? What was the sequence of acts before and after the killing, and how long did these acts take to commit? Where was the crime committed? Was the body moved, or was it found where the murder had taken place?

3. Crime assessment:
Based on the findings during the previous stages, the profiler will now attempt to reconstruct the behaviour of the offender and his victim. Was the murder organized (suggesting a killer who carefully selects victims against whom he usually acts out a given fantasy) or disorganized (indicating an impulsive, possible psychotic killer)? Was the crime staged to mislead the police? What motivations were revealed by such details as cause of death, location of wounds, and position of the body? For example, as general profiling rules: (1) brutal facial injuries point to killers who know their victims, (2) murders committed with whatever weapon happens to be available reflect greater impulsivity than murders committed with a gun and may reveal a killer who lives fairly near the victim and (3) murders committed early in the morning seldom involve alcohol or drugs.

4. Criminal profile:
in this stage the profilers formulate an initial description of the most likely suspects. The typical profile includes the perpetrator's race, sex, age (which is one of the toughest points to nail down in a profile because emotional or experiential age does not always match chronological years), marital status, living arrangements and employment history; psychological characteristics, beliefs and values; probable reactions to the police and past criminal record, including the possibility of similar offenses in the past. This stage also contains a feedback loop whereby profilers check their predictions against stage two-information to make sure that the profile fits the original data.

5. Investigation:
A written report is given to the investigators, who concentrate on suspects matching the profile - often, the police have already talked to a likely suspect but did not have reason enough to seriously doubt the suspect's testimony. If new evidence is discovered at this stage, a second feedback process is initiated and the profile will be revised.

6. Apprehension:
The arrest of the right suspect is the intended result of the above procedures. The key element then is interview technique - ideally, the subject confesses or at least is willing to talk about his crimes to some extent. A thorough interview of the suspect could furthermore help to assess the influences of background and psychological variables. (www.criminalprofiling.ch)

Another useful approach relies on the principle that behaviour reflects personality. In his book Journey into Darkness, former FBI Agent J. Douglas (1997, 13) divides the profiling process into seven steps:

Evaluation of the criminal act itself (i.e. modus operandi: what the offender does to affect the crime; signature: why he does it, the thing that "fulfils" him emotionally).

2. Comprehensive evaluation of the specifics of the crime scene or scenes.

3. Comprehensive analysis of the victim or victims (victimology).

4. Evaluation of preliminary police reports.

5. Evaluation of the medical examiner's autopsy protocol.

6. Development of a profile with critical offender characteristics.

7. Investigative suggestions predicated on construction of the profile.

Gregg O. McCrary (FBI Retired) states in his book ‘The Unknown Darkness: Profiling the Predators among Us’, the basic premise is that behaviour reflects personality. In a homicide case, for example, FBI profilers try to collect the personality of the offender through questions about his or her behaviour at four phases:

Antecedent: What fantasy or plan, or both, did the murderer have in place before the act? What triggered the murderer to act some days and not others?
Method and manner: What type of victim or victims did the murderer select? What was the method and manner of murder: shooting, stabbing, strangulation or something else?
Body disposal: Did the murder and body disposal take place all at one scene, or multiple scenes?
Post-offence behaviour: Is the murderer trying to inject himself into the investigation by reacting to media reports or contacting investigators?

The next level is to consult with local investigators and suggest proactive strategies to get the unidentified subject (UNSUB) to "make a move". This may involve meeting with the family of a murder victim, coaching family members how to handle taunting phone calls from the killer, working together with the media and so on.

There are different theories to the detecting the offender in the American approach to offender profiling but as stated earlier the basic principle is to look at the crime scene and really work top down to look in to the mind of the criminal.

However there are some criticisms to this approach:

It is a fact that much of the FBI’s approach stemmed from interviews with such a small sample of ‘specialist’ offenders some experts in criminal psychology has questioned its scientific validity. Many profilers and FBI agents are not psychologists, and some researchers who looked at their work found methodological flaws. However, these criticisms are seen as heuristic, rather than destructive has also been a cause for concern.

Although this approach appears to be objective, there is inevitably some degree of subjective interpretation by the individual profiler.

For example to profile , it is first necessary to link crimes to a type of common offender. To achieve this, the offender is based on classes of action committed at the crime scene. This classification should be reliable and empirically tested in order to assign cases to one group. The classification system should also meet the assumptions of a typology. This is to specifically determine the characteristics that define a typology which must occur together frequently, and the characteristics specific to one type must not occur frequently with the characteristics specific to another type. Meaning that the characteristics that are found in one type of crime must not be found in any another type of crime.

There is much criticism surrounding the FBI process of profiling focuses on the validity of the classification stage. In particular, the criticism targets the organised vs. disorganised dichotomy and its theoretical and empirical foundations and assumptions. This dichotomy has become a commonly cited and used classification of violent, serial offenders. The only available study that examines the reliability of the classification system involved the reading of a sexual-homicide case summary. In this study, interrater reliability was found to be between 51.7% and 92.6% this study, although dated, does provide limited support for the reliability of the FBI sexual-homicide classification system. However, this form of reliability contributes little to the usefulness of the offender profiling system if the classification is not effective. The FBI classification system is derived from a single interview-based research study with a small sample of apprehended serial killers who operated in North America.

Another approach to profiling an offender is the British Approach which is also known as Investigative Psychology. This was pioneered by a British environmental psychologist called Dr. David Canter at the University of Liverpool. The process of investigative psychology attempts to introduce a scientific basis to previously subjective aspects of criminal detection, crime scene analysis, investigation, apprehension and prosecution of the offender. Rather than offering a comprehensive methodology, investigative psychology represents a collection of theories, hypotheses and results of studies of the history and patterns of behaviour as they relate to certain individual characteristics. Canter (1989) argues that crime is an interpersonal transaction, usually between the criminal and the victim, within a social context. To this extent, criminals are performing actions that are direct reflections of the sorts of transactions they have with other people in more normal circumstances. He believed that how a person commits as criminal act “will often reflect the everyday behaviour of the perpetrator and that from studying the evidence available at the crime scene for instance together with any other discernable patterns in the crime(s) it is possible to make certain assumptions about the person who committed the crime”. (Class notes)

The role of investigative psychology is to determine which aspects of those criminal transactions can be linked to other aspects of the offender’s past and present life. More importantly, which of them can be determined to be clearly unique to the individual offender as opposed to the social groups that he or she is a member? Canter proposes five approaches based on psychology, which can be used to profile offenders and hopefully lead to their successful apprehension. This approach is known as the Bottom up approach. These include:

Interpersonal coherence
Significance of time and place
Criminal characteristics
Criminal career
Forensic awareness.

Interpersonal coherence

This is based on the hypothesis that potential offenders will select their victims with key characteristics similar to people who are significant in their lives outside of crime.

Significance of time and place

This suggests that the time and place for a violent crime has special meaning for the perpetrator. Offenders who have a job for example a person may carry out a crime during the night as they work shifts during the day or only carry out a criminal act on a certain day of the week due to work and other commitments the rest of the week occupation that allows them to observe potential victims over time in their own settings becomes a prime hunting ground for the potential targets (Class notes). Additionally, offender’s knowledge of the geography or spatial patterns of an area has a particular bearing on their perception of where it is possible to commit certain types of crimes and even dispose of victim’s bodies. Canter believes that individuals make such decisions based on “mental maps” or internal representations of the terrains that they operate in.

Criminal characteristics

This involves empirically examining the categories, the crimes and offenders to develop typologies or classification schemes based on psychological, behavioural, modus operandi, and other types of variables. Many current classifications of offenders such as serial murderers (Holmes and DeBurger, 1988), paedophiles (Knight, 1988) and rapists (Groth and Birnbaum, 1979) rely heavily on psychological clinical-categorical underpinnings.

Criminal career

This step looks at the to long term sequence of offenses committed by an offender over time in an effort to see various aspects of the crime, e.g., target selection, method of committing the crime, and location, change over time or consistency over time. Canter notes that a later crime may differ based on what happened to the offender in the commission of earlier crimes. The progression and/or escalation of the criminal careers would make it possible to extrapolate back to earlier crimes carried out by certain offenders and to examine evidence which can be of use in solving more current crimes.

Forensic awareness

This step points to the fact that offenders who have committed prior crimes and have direct contact with the investigative techniques of the police may be very shrewd in leaving no forensic evidence at a crime scene. Canter reports on cases where rapists force their victims to take baths after the crime, or who comb their victim’s pubic hair, as is done in a forensic investigation, so that no incriminating evidence will be left. The significance of these practices tells the profiler that this particular offender has had past contact with the police and may be found in official records.

Both of the approaches to offender profiling as set out above are aimed at gathering all the necessary information to give to the law enforcement agencies to be able to apprehend the correct person and to be able to secure a solid conviction. However there are still some flaws with this procedure and sometimes mistakes can be made and the wrong person arrested but with the technology with certain aspects of offender profiling such as DNA profiling and certain areas of collecting forensic evidence the chances of apprehending the wrong person is decreasing.

Using a Personal Theory and the American and British Approach to Profiling a Serial Satanic Mass Murderer

The likely offender of this type of crime of crime would be:

Male.
Aged between 25 and 35.
Unemployed.
Come from a lower social background.
Come from a broken home.
Only child or youngest in the family.
Have an abusive/ authoritarian parent.
Be disorganised.
Previous criminal record for petty crimes.
Have a strict religious background.
Previous mental instability.
Have an addictive personality either to drugs or alcohol.

One of the most famous American Satanic serial killers in recent history is Richard Ramirez. He was given the nickname The Night Stalker by the press because he would stalk people’s houses at night, break in, murder, rape, sodomize, and burglarize the people that lived there. In some of the crime scenes he would leave a pentagram drawn on the wall.

A List of the Victims of Richard Ramirez:

A list of Richard Ramirez’s victims taken ‘Night Stalker’ by Clifforord L. Linedecker (1991):

June 28, 1984---Jennie Vincow, 79, Glassell Park. Her throat was slashed. Murder, Burglary.
March 17, 1985--Dayle Okazaki, 34, and Maria Hernandez, 20, Rosemead. Dayle was shot to death. Murder, attempted murder, robbery.
March 17, 1985--Veronica Yu, 30, Monterey Park. Drug from her car and shot. Murder.
March 27, 1985--Vincent Zazzara, 64 and his wife Macine, 44, Whittier. Stabbed and mutilated. Two counts of murder, sexual charges.
May 14, 1985----Bill Doi, 66, Monterey Park. Shot to death. Murder, robbery, sexual charges.
May 30, 1985----Carol Kyle, 41, Burbank. Rape, Sodomy, oral copulation, burglary. Burglary, sex charges, robbery.
June 1, 1985----Mable "Ma Bell" Bell, 83, and sister, Florence "Nettie" Lang, 80, Monrovia. Keller was bludgeoned to death, and satanic symbol were scrawed in various placces. Murder, attempted murder, robbery.
July 2, 1985----Mary Louise Cannon, 75, Arcadia. Beaten and throat slashed. Murder, burglary.
July 5, 1985----Whitney Bennett, 16, Sierra Madre. Attempted murder, burglary.
July 7, 1985----Joyce Lucille Nelson, 61, Monterey Park. Beaten to death. Murder, burglary.
July 7, 1985----Sophie Dickman, 63, Monterey Park. Raped and sodomized. Burglary, robbery, sex charges.
July 20, 1985---Max, 68, and Lela Kneiding, 66, Glendale. Both shot to death. Two counts of murder, robbery.
July 20, 1985---Chainarong Khovananth, 32, Sun Valley. Shot to death...his son and wife were both sodomized. Murder, robbery, burglary, sex offenses.
August 8, 1985--Elyas Abowath, 35, Diamond Bar. Shot while sleeping. Murder, robbery, burglary, rape.

Using the American method offender profiling the profilers were able to pursue the offender, they could deduce by looking at information that was taken from the scenes of the crimes such as DNA evidence, finger prints, crime scene photographs showing the way the rooms were left, the positions and conditions of the bodies and the pictures of the pentagrams drawn on the walls of some of the murder scenes. There were testimonies taken from witnesses and some from the victims which survived the attacks and information taken from the police reports from all of the crimes, this was hard to do as the area of the scenes were spread out over a wide area, although hard to pull together this gave the profilers extra evidence to enable them to be able to produce a comprehensive and wide ranging profile. They used the information gathered at the scene of the crime to conclude that the murderer was disorganised and has made no attempt to clean up after the crime. The way the bodies were left with no attempt to hide them or dispose of them in way they would no be found. The way the murder was committed whether it was just basic ‘murder by killing someone’ or whether other things were done to the people before and after they were killed, in many of his cases there was some sort of sexual activity connected with the death as well as him taking things from the scene and if the murder was committed during attempt of committing burglary. They also looked at the type of victims noting that may of them were elderly with a couple of them being of a comparable age or younger than to UNSUB leading to theory that the perpetrator could be choosing his victims to correspond with the age of parents or that of older siblings. Leading the profiler to the idea that the suspect would be from a large family with domineering parents or parent and being the youngest of a large family, he would also have an addictive personality and have been in trouble the law on previous occasions. He would also be very unkempt as a result of previous incarcerations and habitual drug use.

Using the profile provided an appeal for information was issued to the public via newspapers and television. Although the relentless media and police pressure, aided with photo-fit descriptions from his surviving victims, forced Ramirez to leave the Los Angeles area in August, and he moved to San Francisco, where he further murdered two other victims. The unmistakable MO, complete with Satanic symbolism, meant that these subsequent attacks could all be linked to the same person and with each new attack they received exhaustive press coverage which conclusively led to the identification of his stolen car by a surviving four days later. After a televised appeal, the car was found, complete with his fingerprints inside, and his criminal record enabled the police to finally put a name to "The Night Stalker."

As with American approach to offender profiling the profiler would depend heavily on the evidence gathered from the crime scene itself, by using the Investigative Psychology approach (British Approach) to profiling the offender of the above satanic serial murders the profiler would work the profile backwards linking to offender to the crime. In the Ramirez case the initial profile would be that all the victims chosen would be on the basis that they would have some sort of resemblance to a person whether family or close friend and have some significance to the as most of the victims were elderly this could mean they were chosen on the fact they would be close in age to the murderers most dominant parent.

The murders were mainly committed in the homes of the person as they were committed during the act of either burglary or robbery meaning that the person committing the crime wanted to take things from the person removing things of significance to them. As the crimes were committed in different areas this means that they had the ability to move around and have no particular ties to one place. As the crimes were both brutal and disorganised this mean that the person committing them would also have some sort of brutality in their life and having to find a way in which they could release it. This could also mean that they were well know to the authorities and have a long criminal career and have had spent some time with in the penal system. The murder had no idea of cleaning the crime scene as finger prints were found in the entire crime scene this shows that he does not have any idea of how to get rid of the forensic evidence.

On apprehension it was found that Richard Ramirez was the youngest of seven siblings with an overbearing domineering father who at a young age had forced him to join the army where he was unhappy and bullied. This was the start of his petty criminal career which leads him in to trouble the authorities on several occasions and spending time in prison. He was also a know drug addict using both marijuana and cocaine. His association with an older relative who had psychopathic tendencies who shared his shared gruesome pictures of rape and human torture with him this along with the drug use fuelled his frenzied anti-social behaviour leading to more horrific of his crimes. By the age of 18, Richard was a habitual drug user and chronic candy eater, resulting in tooth decay and extreme halitosis. He also became involved in Satan worshipping and his general poor appearance enhanced his satanic persona. Although initially confessing to the crimes he later retracted the confession and caused many major delays in his trial leading to last for over four years before being convicted of all his crimes and being sentenced to the death penalty. Up on being lead away from the court to begin his sentence he shouted out at the court:

‘‘You don't understand me. You are not expected to. You are not capable. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil. I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells in all of us...I don't believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society....You maggots make me sick! Hypocrites one and all...I don't need to hear all of society's rationalizations. I've heard them all before...legions of the night, night breed, repeat not the errors of the night prowler and show no mercy."

References:

Musgrave, D. (2009). ‘Offender Profiling.’ Bishop Auckland College 02/03/09
Douglas, J. (1997). ‘Journey into Darkness’ Pocket Books. New York, NY, USA.
McCrary, G. O. (2003). ‘The Unknown Darkness: Profiling the Predators among Us.’ Harpertorch, New York, NY, USA.
Linedecker, C.L. (1991) ‘Night Stalker’ DT Martins Press, New York, NY, USA.
http://judey.dasmirnov.net/richard_ramirez.htm
www.criminalprofiling.ch

Bibliography:

Fintzy, R, T. (2000)‘Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioural Evidence Analysis’ American Journal of Psychiatry 157: 1532-1534
Ainsworth, P. B. (2001) ‘Offender profiling and crime analysis’ Willan Publishing, UK.
Bartol, C.R. & A.M. (2008) ‘Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Behaviour Second Edition)’ Sage Publications, London, UK.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ramirez/pressure_3.html
http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/nightstaker.htm
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/features/richard_ramirez:_the_night_stalker.php#link0
http://www.allserialkillers.com/richard_ramirez.htm
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/seance/500/killers/ramirez.html
http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Offender_profiling
http://www.forenspsych.co.uk/
http://www.i-psy.com/index.php

Offender Profiling

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Commanf an Control

'In relation to current areas of Probation, how is the work with offenders...

crime and its effects on society

Custodial Care