How does the British Criminal System use Offender Profiling?
And
How does the American Media convey Offender Profiling?
This report will be considering Offender Profiling in the British criminal system and how they go about using this type of investigation to catch and arrest criminal who engage in illegal activities. Also I will discuss how the American media convey criminal profiling, adding a Hollywood spin to try and entice audiences to watch there programmes. Firstly I will start off with giving an introduction into Offender Profiling and the origins. During the 1880’s there was a string of serial killings in Whitechapel in West London, famous known as the Jack The Ripper case and even though the murderer was never found Dr. Thomas Bond who is considered to be the first person reported to have profiled a criminal and with his description and profile of the killer the policing authorities were able to link together the murders and see that the pattern of the crime was fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle. This was the first attempt at profiling a criminal and it wasn’t until the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigations) was set up in 1908 along with the BAU (Behavioural Analysis Unit) in the same year that Offender Profiling was seen as viable option of capturing a criminal even though it is considered to be the “third wave” of investigatory science.
When trying to find an offender the standard term of calling the offender during the case in an Unsub which stands for unknown subject of an investigation. This is used so that if questioned by media outlets until a press conference has taken place where the profilers think they have enough to create a visual image, the use of the word Unsub is then used as a means to keep the people of the area calm whilst the officers are trying to work through the case.
When looking at Offender Profiling, people would look at the FBI because they have a whole unit based on dealing with profiling, also I wanted to look at the use of Offender Profiling in Britain since I live here and it will be more beneficial to my studies. The reason I am looking at British approaches to Offender Profiling is for the fact that it is normally trounced by the Americans approach to it, however while the American approach focuses on the psychological aspect and the methodological side of how a criminal acts the British view of Offender Profiling looks at the science behind why the criminal committed the offence. A quote from Psychology Today that best describes Offender Profiling says
“Identify the major personality and behavioural characteristics of the offender based upon an analysis of the crime/s he or she has committed” (Douglas and Burgass (1986)
This is saying that by looking at how the criminal has acted throughout the entire ordeal which includes before the actual murder, looking at any plans in which the criminal may have stalked or watched the victim followed by carrying out the offence. The use of profiling can help in giving a clear description of the person involved and how they may act now in the case being worked on. The British view of Offender Profiling also looks at three major areas instead of the four in America. With Britain they look at Interpersonal coherence, significance of time and place and forensic awareness. By using these three factors it can help influence the decisions of a detective in catching a criminal. Even though America and Britain use different techniques when coming to catch the criminals they both still use similar theories, looking at certain bits of detail like the significance of the time and place shows how the criminal can act at certain times causing them to potentially lash out.
looking at research it was found out that Offender Profiling is not as simple as it sets out to be, with media influences including programmes like Criminal Minds and the 1991 movie Silence Of The Lambs showing a Hollywood production aspect of Offender Profiling but ultimately showing the realistic side of profiling. Research I have looked at mainly stems at serial killings and mentally motivated criminal activities but a surprising part of research I came across was from watching a programme called “Aryan Brotherhood”. This programme shows the life of prison inmates in super max based prisons in America and how racially motivated attacks in prison can also lead to attacks outside of prison as well. What was very interesting was the emblem in which the Aryan Brotherhood place on themselves, this is the Irish shamrock and by having it tattooed it would mean you have been accepted into there gang and the only way to walk away from the gang is normally to be killed. This shows clearly how the mind of an offender inside a prison style institute can cause the prisoner to become very complacent but at the same time become a different person entirely.
Looking at other research as well including the “Railway Rapist” Case in which the use of David Canter’s idea of offender profiling was able to catch John Duffy and be arrested in November 1986. What David Canter done was to look at each crime scene in a different light to how standard police forces would look at a crime scene. The base of Offender Profiling is looking at something with greater detail trying to bring together a clearer picture of the offender and how they go about their daily life after the murder, in the case of John Duffy, David Canter used five questions at each rape scene to gain a greater detail in the offender’s behaviour.
What exactly was said to the victim before the assault?
Were the victims’ clothes pulled off, torn off or cut off?
What sort of threats were made?
What sort of sexual activity took place?
How did the assailant deal with the victim after the assault?
With these five questions answered at each scene of the crime David Canter could piece together a description of the Unsub. With this knowledge now in hand Canter would then split that information into two more sectors based on two principles of social psychology. The first principle was to conceive the idea that the Unsub had some kind of relationship with the victims and how he acted around his victims could be an indication of how his relationships in real life would have been. This was used as Duffy when caught explained how he used to talk to the victims and even be considerate to them even though he did rape them as well. The second principle used in this case was how much domination did he have over the individuals that he raped, this is a two way system as if the Unsub had a lot of strength and was very dominant then it would be perceived that he was potentially unsecure and could pose a serious threat and the other argument being that is he was not very dominant or only used enough force to control the actual rape it may be considered that the Unsub was not a secure individual and was lashing out trying to ask for help.
With all this evidence now in the hands of David Canter, on the 28th July 1986 Canter produced a preliminary profile of the Unsub they were looking for such details in this profile included residence, marital status, age, occupation, character, sexual activity, criminal record. These sections of the profile fit like a puzzle as by taking one piece from each area and connecting it too the others you can crate a realistic and accurate profile of the Unsub you are looking for. The fact that this was a rape case there was much more interest and research into the sexual activity of the Unsub. With all this profile and all of these ideas that can link to catching the Unsub it finally paid off when in November 1986 John Duffy was arrested and later convicted of the serial rapist crime, he is currently serving life imprisonment.
However reports after the conviction of Duffy began to surface and started to say that John Duffy was actually on a list of 2,000 suspects but because he was not a prominent suspect on that list placing 1,505. This does bring forward the question as to how did John Duffy get caught when he was placed so low on the suspect list. The reason is because of the profile that David Canter made earlier in the year the police started tracking and mounted large-scale surveillance operations in which to try and find the Unsub, they because John Duffy fitted the profile so well and the way he was acting in his daily life whilst being under surveillance it wad clear to the police that Duffy was indeed the rapist and murderer responsible for the crimes committed.
In evaluating the preliminary profile that David Canter produced in July 1986 it is clearly shown that the profile Canter put forward to the capture and conviction of John Duffy was extraordinarily accurate. From this profile and this case study it brings forward two points based on Offender Profiling, the first is that the eyewitness testimony used in this case and used in rape cases, is not always perfect as the victims could still be in a state of shock so the evidence they may give could either be misleading or just not very accurate to the Unsub they are looking for. The second point is that even though there were flaws in the preliminary profile of the “Railway Rapist” those flaws themselves added and helped in the conviction of John Duffy proving that no matter how trivial the evidence can be it can be sufficient enough to create a detailed profile of the Unsub.
Whilst the “Railway Rapist” case study is very important in Britain as it showcased the use of Offender Profiling and how it can be used to catch a criminal there have been many other criminal reports and studies from around the world as well. Even though Offender Profiling is normally used to create a profile of an Unsub that the authorities are looking for, they sometimes can also be created for criminals/Unsubs that may commit suicide in order to not be caught, by creating a profile on the Unsub itself they can still get an understanding of why and how the Unsub committed these offences.
A study conducted by Pinizzotto and Finkel, 1990 provides effective data on the usefulness/effectiveness on Offender Profiling; they concluded that profilers can produce more useful and valid criminal profiles than clinical psychologists or even experienced crime investigators. However Profiling cannot help in all cases, such the case of the Austrian Bomber Arthur Shawcross and Frank Fuchs when profiling was used for those gentlemen it proved to be the least effective method of investigative psychology.
When Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990) attempted to discover whether professional profilers would be more accurate than informed lay-persons, they asked groups of profilers, detectives, clinical psychologists and students to examine two closed police cases (a sex offence and a homicide) and to draw up profiles. What they found was that the profilers did indeed produce richer and more detailed profiles and in relation to the sex offence, they were more accurate than non-profilers, but the detectives were more accurate on the homicide case. Pinizzotto and Finkel concluded that the success of the profilers was the result of both confidence and experience rather than the use of an exclusive technique. The implications would therefore be that both training and practical experience are vital in developing profiling expertise and that productive liaison between the police and psychologists is the way forward in order to achieve both investigative and clinical objectives.
Whilst Profiling is generally considered to be a new field in investigative psychology, it does has some flaws and limitations that can cause problems when put into practice, the idea that Profiling is generally used for many psychopathology based crimes like rape, sadistic torture, satanic and ritualistic crimes etc. Such crimes demand a profile as these crimes are considered to be out of normal context so by creating a profile we can see what the problems created were. This was a study conducted by Holmes and Holmes in 1996 in which they stated that because profiling can only be used in certain and specific types of crime like examples mentioned above, profiling can be considered unnecessary in cases.
Canter in 1989 gave insight into the profiling should be structured and to be conducted in his vision and what Canter said was:
“It is…essential that psychologists involved in this work seize the initiative by developing and testing explanatory frameworks for the advice they give. If they do not they will soon rejoin the rank of the astrologers and numerologists, whose contributions are found to be of value on some occasions, but whose lack the scientific discipline precludes the evolution of the cumulative principles that will improve the effectiveness of their contribution”
What Canter is explaining in that quote is that the influence in media in programmes such as Criminal Minds, Millennium in America and also programmes like Cracker in the UK, the profilers/psychologists will work out on a hunch of something being true or going to happen. From that they work around the hunch and piece together clues to formulate a profile, where as in the real world that is not the actual case. What would be considered useful when discussing profiling and how it can be used to help in investigations is to weigh up what is useful and not useful in creating the uniform of what is to be profiling.
In contrast to real cases like the “Railway Rapist”, Jack The Ripper amongst other criminal cases, because of the popularity of criminal dramas and effectively the idea of leaving the audience with them guessing “Who Done It?” Offender Profiling was also to be brought into the media, not only in the issuing of details to help the police in catching the Unsub but also used in crime dramas, such programmes such as Criminal Minds and Millennium and more recently Season 2 of Dexter amongst other programmes. But particularly these three programmes which are filmed and edited in the United States, these programmes almost glamorise the use of Offender Profiling in the way they move through a programme but they still use many ideals of Offender Profiling and use them to catch the Unsub they are looking for.
Criminal Minds which was first shown on American TV in 2005 is the closest in coming to the realistic idea of Offender Profiling and how it used in catching criminals. In this programme the normal consensus is that a serious criminal act is committed or potentially will be committed within a fixed number of hours and it is up to the profilers to create a detailed description of the offender and by going through clues and interviews they are able to catch the criminal and stop what they had planned or what they were going to do. Criminal Minds utilises the idea of American Offender Profiling which is based of four ideas that by fathering all possible data they can receive which can include anything from photos to an autopsy report, based on this they can they classify the criminal activity and reconstruct the crime so that there is a clear understanding in how the Unsub conducted himself and from all of these factors then a profile is generated followed by a media appeal to catch the criminal and the episode will normally end with the criminal being caught showing the success of the American method of Offender Profiling.
What Criminal Minds cannot do is give a fully realistic approach to Offender Profiling, for such reasons which mainly stem from the fact that the show has only a one hour timeslot to show the criminal activity, the profilers approach to catching the Unsub and the aftermath of catching the Unsub and what effect it may have played on the profilers, so potentially certain aspects of American Offender Profiling have to be left out and only the most visual effects may be used to push forward the story to its conclusion by the end of the hour, However not only that but by pushing side stories into the main story of each programme, creating the drama so that people will watch the following episode to see what happens next. American Media have turned Offender Profiling into something that could be considered glamorous and exciting when in reality as mentioned with the Railway Rapist case it can be very demanding and something that is longitudinal.
While such programmes like Criminal Minds portray the 21st century ideals of Offender Profiling. Such programmes like Millennium which was broadcasted between 1996 and 1999 deals with the main antagonist Frank Black who is able to see the world through the eyes of Serial Killers and Murderers. Because he was part of this secret society known as the Millennium group and after the death of his wife by the group Frank Black joins back up with the FBI. This show follows on from other shows like the X-Files but the reason this is considered an Offender Profiling style drama is Frank Black being able to see into the eyes of Serial Killer. He can almost create a profile of an criminal on the spot but this has flaws as well, even though it was a very interesting way of trying to create profiles of criminals, again the Hollywood spin leaves a hole to suggest that profilers could potentially have such traits as this. Although in Criminal Minds one character Dr Spencer Reid does have a Eidetic memory which means that he can recall words and scenes/images accurately enough that is can have an effect in creating a profile.
Millennium also tries to be realistic in its storyline, with shows like Criminal Minds doing the same ideals as well. Most crime dramas will try and either create a realistic story or reconstruct a story but by tweaking it, it then can be broadcast on national TV. These episodes can range from induced drug terrorism, to serial killers and schizophrenics on the verge of suicide. However Criminal Minds mainly focuses on how the profilers came up with the profile and that of the actual criminal, what he does, how he does it. Where as Millennium focuses more so on the character of Frank Black and how the Millennium Group and the FBI has nearly taken him over the edge, whilst the actual Offender Profiling is not as heavily focused.
With use of the Media, Offender Profiling is not only used in a variety of criminal dramas but also in reference to real news or federal investigation where getting witnesses can be an integral part in getting a better understanding of the Unsub and his motives. Coming back to television dramas and how the media actually portrays them, Shows like Criminal Minds and Millennium are going to appeal to a certain sector of the audience. By doing this it gives the writers of the programme a little more creative freedom as they don’t necessarily need to produce a show that all people can watch. The use of excessive gore and violence is another factor which both leads to producers having to take a cautious step not to offend everyone but also to make sure that it is as realistic as possible, this leads to the conclusion that the media can change a situation so that it can best suit the ideals of the show where as in real life as shown no expense can be sparred when it comes to serious crimes.
Bringing myself to conclusion on the issue and I have research and raised I have found out that there is vast differences in the use of Offender Profiling from its official birth in 1908 with the formation of the FBI and the growth of profiling in the past one hundred years the use of profiling has been given both positive and negative views in that it does catch criminals but the negatives of it being limited to mainly psychopathological crimes means that only in serious cases would profiling be necessary. But with the help of David Canter in the mid 1980’s using the ideals of profiling to help in the case of the “Railway Rapist” it brought forward the idea that profiling can actually be used to help in catching criminals that otherwise may slip away from being captured because of insufficient evidence. Was it not for such cases like Jack The Ripper in the mid 1880’s in which the initial use of creating a profile for a criminal it may not be used today with such full effect. In real life situations profiling can be used in a variety of different ways all which can be of some use in trying to understand the mind of a criminal. However what goes lost in this area of psychology is that it is still and Investigative Psychology and for this there need to be clues found or ideas brought together to create a profile, in most cases a profile cannot be created unless there is sufficient evidence that can be pieced and linked together.
While in real life Offender Profiling can be very time consuming and the process can involved several different stages the use of the media on offender profiling is quite substantial is showing the lengths that profilers will go to in solving a case. The media plays an effect in the way people view the image of offender profiling as mentioned certain television shows like Criminal Minds places a Hollywood spin on there episodes knowing that by creating a storyline that people can instantly delve into with some notion of immediate drama that will entice the viewer to watch more that is what companies will do. Whilst he television shows tend not to show profiling as a negative light, mainly because that is the key premise of the programme, what the shows tend to fail is to highlight many realistic approaches to profiling but then added with that the idea of American and British offender profiling being very different the use of it in these programmes show the differing variability that is used in keeping in nature with the profile.
Overall in Conclusion I have found out that British offender profiling is a lot different from the American counter part although both do share similar attributes when possible, the issue of using offender profiling is one that will still be argued over for years to come, but the need of it with the rise in areas of crime could be something that proves to be invaluable when trying to work in a case that involves a lot of factors. Contrary the belief that crime programmes are always realistic, programmes I have mentioned in this report are some of the exceptions that prove whilst sticking the a reasonable and realistic idea for a show about offender profiling, the need to actually increase its viewer figures causes many television companies to actually think more so about storytelling rather then legitimacy to the topic/profession in which they are exploring in the television show. Offender Profiling is a worth while tool in investigative psychology and over the years it will be prove itself to be something that in cases of extreme nature will be needed in order to track down and stop criminals from continuing there criminal behaviour.
References
Biases and Pitfalls in Offender Profiling. [Online] Available from:
homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/crime/Biases%20and%20pitfalls%20in%20profiling.htm [Accessed 5th March 2010]
Criminal Profiling. [Online] Available From:
www.criminalprofiling.com/ [Accessed 21st September 2009]
Criminal Minds, 2005 to present
Dwyer, D. (2001) angles on criminal psychology, Great Britain, Nelson Thornes.
Federal Bureau Of Investigations. Investigative Programmes Critical Incident Response Group [Online] Available From:
www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/ncavc.htm [Accessed 5th November 2009]
McLoughlin, J. April 2009, Offender Profiling in: Cardwell, F. & Curtis, A. & Humphreys, P. & Wadeley, A. (eds.) Psychology Review. Oxfordshire, Philip Allen Updates.
Meyer C. B. (January 2000) Introduction to Criminal Profiling. [Online] Available from:
www.criminalprofiling.ch/introduction.html [Accessed 23rd September 2009]
Millennium, 1996 to 1999
Offender Profiling. [Online] Available From:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offender_profiling Petheric, W. (2009) Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues in Behavioral Profiling. London, Elsevier Academic Press.
Turvey, E. B. (2001) Criminal profiling: an introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. Great Britain, Bath Press.
