Study using a closed case method (known offender) compared profiles, detectives and college students on the quality of profiles found that although profiles differed little from detectives in processing the evidence, they were more accurate in answering specific questions about sex related offences.
Several researchers have also provided preliminary support for the central premises of ‘signature’ and ‘organised/disorganised’ typology that profiling relies on (Ressler et al, 1988; Canter & Heritage, 1990; Gratzer & Bradford, 1995; Dietz, Hazelwood & Warren, 1990).
Using the statistical technique of ‘Smallest Space Analysis’, strong support was obtained for the use of ‘signature’ in profiling (Canter & Heritage, 1990).
Crime Scene Analysis (FBI) is a well known and widely accepted method that has resulted in a number of profiles with some research support of its tenets (see above).
Investigative Psychology with its geospatial principles has been extremely useful too in profiling homicide and sexual assaults.
Behaviour Evidence Analysis has been acclaimed for its good cross-cultural applicability and robust foundation based on forensic evidence.
The pitfalls of profiling
The ability of profiles to retrospectively produce psychosocial details seems ridiculous to many psychologists who find crime scene ‘reconstruction’ beyond the capacity of behaviour science research and theory alone.
Godwin (1978) stated: ‘Playing a blind man’s bluff, groping in all directions in the hope of touching a sleeve’.He felt that the generalities did not help the police who required hard data like names, dates, times, etc. which profiles cannot offer.
Levin & Fox (1985) in their book ‘Mass Murder: America’s growing menace’ state that psychological profiles are essentially vague and general and thus virtually useless in identifying a killer.
Campbell (1976) believed that profiling will cause investigators to focus all of their attention on searching for a suspect and corroborating evidence to match the profile. Therefore, if the profile is wrong, the investigation can easily be led astray, e.g. Wimbledon Common case (Colin Stagg).
Liebert (1995) labels the profiling process as “superficial, phenomenological and, perhaps, even worse, distracting”. He believed each case should be distinguished by its uniqueness rather than reducing it to a few observable parameters.
These and several others have been highly critical of this technique or the methods used as they argue that federal agencies have little experience in actually investigating murder cases. They feel it would be better for local agencies to train their own officers in the intricacies of such investigations.
Among the methods outlined earlier, the FBI method and Investigative psychology rely heavily on statistics which makes their application (in settings other than those in which these statistics were developed) severely limited. A number of conditions can result in an organised offender leaving behind a disorganised crime scene and would lead to incorrect assignment of the offender to the wrong group.
Besides the ‘circle hypothesis’ of Canter has little to say in terms of applicability to an actual investigation as the original study was retrospective. Behaviour Evidence Analysis requires a great deal of time as well as training on the part of the Profiler and the quality of the final product is directly influenced by the amount of information available to the analyst.
Research and empirical evidence for its usefulness has been limited. Cross-checking a profile once the offender is apprehended can occasionally be extremely difficult as the offender may never be apprehended, may be apprehended elsewhere and not be available for cross-checking or may have simply ceased criminal activity. The rate of solved cases represents less than 50% of cases profiled and so this stage may never be tested.
Conclusion
It seems to be generally accepted that psychological profile can be an invaluable tool that aids criminal investigations tremendously. This is particularly so in unusual cases or serial offences by a single offender.
However, it must be remembered that it is only a tool, it cannot take the place of rigorous investigative work and cases are not solved by profiling or profiles but co-ordinated effects of profilers and the investigators. Also, not all cases are eligible for profiling as it is more suited for serial or extremely violent crimes that are different in nature such as motiveless homicide, multiple rape and child molesting (Porter, 1983).
Arguments have been put forth that before profiling is discarded due to the paucity of empirical evidence, researchers need to methodologically study its principles and either refute or build on them. Just because a field is in its infancy does not mean it is not useful.
The field is attempting to become more science than art by:
Development of a Crime Classification manual (Douglas et al, 1992) to operationalise the underlying concepts in a comprehensive and practical format.
Encouraging research in the area to try and address ‘what determines if profiling is beneficial to crime investigations or not’ as different agencies involved having differing perspectives leading to confusion.
Enhancing the use of rigorous statistical tools and analysis such as Chi Squared Automated Interaction Design (CHAID) to analyse data and display links graphically (Magidson, 1993) and computerised programs.
Proposing to introduce standardisations, regulations and strict guidelines for those professionals intending to train and practice in this field.
In conclusion, profiling appears to have merits in certain cases but much more research and standardisation is needed to substantiate its continued use and its future appears unclear until this happens.
It is said that victims of crime have had, at best, a marginal influence on Criminal Justice. Do you agree?
Introduction
In the nineteenth century, prior to the establishment of a national police force and a formal Criminal Justice system, the victim had a crucial role in initiating criminal prosecution when a crime was committed. In more recent times, the victim still has the legal right to bring a prosecution but the system on the whole is more geared towards the official agencies dealing with crime.
As a result of this, it has often been stated, in the last fifty years that victims were the forgotten element in the Criminal Justice process.Why?
Throughout the 1960s and much of the 1970s, the majority of criminological research restricted their focus to offenders and largely ignored the plight of victims. Subsequently, a number of studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s (including the British Crime Survey) revealed that victims were significantly affected by their experiences and often dissatisfied with many aspects of their encounters with Criminal Justice Agencies (Maguire & Pointing, 1988).
The police play an important role as they are the first point of contact for victims. However, they have been criticised on the grounds of failure to provide information on crime prevention, insurance, compensation, progress of the investigation, prosecution and trial decisions.
Victims found that once they had reported their case to the police, little else seemed to happen despite their need for practical (e.g. repairing damage, reinstalling locks) as well as emotional support following the trauma they had endured.
They also found the police to be insensitive in their questionings or dealings with the victim and perceived their attitudes to be unhelpful. As a result, there were numerous complaints about the lack of information in terms of progress in their case and these other aspects.
Unless summoned as witnesses to court, victims often remained unaware of when the case was due for trial and even as witnesses, they were ill-informed by the police about their role or what was expected of them.
The police were also seen as inefficient as a number of crimes went unsolved and at times, despite conviction about the offender’s guilt, nothing could be done due to lack of admissible evidence.
Although initially the victims were reasonably satisfied with the police, their dissatisfaction increased as the case progressed (Shapland et al, 1985; Newburn & Merry, 1990). The Crown Prosecution Service has also played a role by the delays and unexplained decisions in pursuing a case or dropping it due to lack of admissible evidence, despite victims’ beliefs about the guilt of the accused.
When summoned to court, victims often had to share waiting rooms with offenders’ friends and relatives in addition to waiting for interminable periods of time without adequate explanations. Also, their role seems to have been little more than as a source of evidence.
Besides, the adversarial system of justice (practised in England and Wales) has seemed by some to favour offenders and disempower victims as it places victims in a vulnerable position at the mercy of rigorous questioning by both prosecution and defence counsel.
This is especially evident in the plight of rape victims (as well as children and those with learning difficulties (Temkin, 1987; Soothill & Soothill, 1993)) who had to relive their trauma in addition to having their own background and character open to scrutiny in the defence lawyer’s attempt to discredit their story.
British witnesses also do not enjoy the privileges of legal representation or protection by statutes which further disadvantages them in court.
Despite the setting up of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) in 1964, claims for compensation were evaluated under certain strict criteria. This process seemed to embody the notion of a ‘discerning victim’ which was far from helpful (Walklate, 1989) and definitely needed altering to benefit victims more.
Recent Developments
In the last two decades, considerably more attention has been directed towards the role of the victim amongst criminologists and policy makers.
What came to be called the Victim Movement drew attention to the problems faced by victims at all stages of the Criminal Justice process.
Victims’ needs began to get support from the growth of Victim Support Schemes (first set up in Bristol, 1974) which is nationally regulated by the National Association of Victim Support Schemes (NAVSS) and receives financial support from the Government.
Helen Reeves (Director of Victim Support) wrote in a letter to The Times (1995):
‘Offenders have clear rights in our system of justice but victims have no enforceable rights under the law. Victims should have the right to be protected and respected and know what is happening in their case and why.’
The ‘Victims Charter’ (Home Office, 1990) laid down provisions about the rights of victims, how they were to be treated and what standards they could expect. It stressed the importance of passing information to victims about details of police investigations, court decisions, compensation and civil court options. Also, it made a commitment to improve facilities for victims/witnesses in court to reduce waiting times, provide separate waiting rooms, etc.
Its message was reinforced by other publications, e.g. Crown Prosecution Service ‘Statement on the Treatment of Victims and Witnesses’ (1993) and ‘Court Users Charter’ (1994). Following these, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (1993) made certain recommendations which have subsequently been accepted by the government and implemented in practice.
Additionally, there has also been pressure from international organisations with the adoption of a ‘Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power’ by the United Nations in 1985.
Women’s groups have put forth their concerns about the plight of women victims’ which was followed by the establishment of the first refuge for victims of domestic violence in Chiswick (Erin Pizzey, 1972) & Rape Crisis Centres from the 1970s (Zedner, 1997).
A recent array of new lobby groups have been seeking to promote victims’ interests, e.g. Justice for Victims (for families of homicide victims), Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Zito Trust (victims of Mentally Disordered Offenders) and SAMM (Support after Murder and Manslaughter) focusing on particular types of victims.
The combined impact of all these endeavours has been enormous although their ideologies are quite heterogeneous.
Particular efforts have been made to improve the police response to victims (especially of sexual assault). In response to the criticisms levelled against the police, the Home Office carries out regular surveys now of public satisfaction with the police force in addition to the requirement of each police force to adhere to the ‘Statement of Policing standards’ and the Victims’ Charter standards for police response to crime reports (Home Office, 1996). The Home Office circular (69/1986) also requires police officers to offer advice and better treatment for victims of rape and domestic violence. This includes setting up of specialist units to provide a better service for women and child victims, special interview suites in police stations staffed by trained female officers, suitable private facilities for examination and access to advice and counselling services.
The Criminal Justice Act, 1988 has also implemented the provision to ensure the anonymity of rape victims from the moment of allegation for the rest of her life.
The ‘One Stop Shop’ (OSS) initiative introduced by the Home Office is an attempt to ensure that victims are kept better informed with the responsibility resting on the police.
Recognition of the plight of victims (as witnesses in court) especially with regards to certain ‘vulnerable’ groups has led to certain changes in court procedure and rules of evidence. Rape victims can no longer be questioned about sexual experiences with people other than the defendant and since 1998, the defendant can no longer personally cross-examine the victim when they conduct their own defence. Child witnesses can have their evidence pre-recorded on videotape, cross-examination can be by television link from outside the court and they cannot be cross-examined by the accused.
‘The Witness Service’ run by Victim Support (1990) not only provides advice, information and support, it also campaigns for better facilities and special provisions for vulnerable groups.
One radical response to help victims was the proposal that a fundamental review of the adversarial process should be undertaken to make it easier to prosecute victims. However in the meantime views have been put forth for victims to have a greater involvement in the sentencing process. In 1995, victim statements were introduced on a pilot basis to facilitate more informed decision-making by professionals by taking into account victims’ interests and views.
The introduction of mediation schemes (1970s) and reparative justice attempts to redress the balance and strengthen the right of the victim to ‘seek recompense for harms suffered’ (Christie, 1977; Ashworth, 1986; Wright, 1991).
Following the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, a new system of financial compensation came into force and dealt with fines according to the nature of injury.
Conclusion
Overall, although it is evident that without the co-operation of the victim in reporting crime, furnishing evidence, identifying the offender and acting as a witness in court, most crime would remain unknown and unpunished, victims had received very little recognition or attention until the last two decades.
The last 2-3 decades have seen monumental measures to rectify this.
However, it must be borne in mind that measures like the Victims Charter and other charters have no legal status and their role is ‘perhaps best seen as a statement of interest rather than providing justifiable rights’ (Fenwick, 1995).
Also, the response in the UK to meeting the needs of victims has focused rather narrowly on providing support and services for the victim along with some financial compensation without endeavouring major changes in the judicial system.
Thus, it is obvious that despite all the measures outlined, a lot more needs to be accomplished to strengthen the position of the victim in the Criminal Justice system in the UK.
REFERENCES
