offender profiling and the evolution of investigation david canter, centre for investigative...

OFFENDER PROFILING AND THE EVOLUTION OF

INVESTIGATION

David Canter, Centre for Investigative Psychology, The University of Liverpool, UK

Kristen Welch, Sam Houston State University, USA

Robert Keppel, Criminal Justice Program, Seattle University, USA

Phases in the Developmental History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support

Phases in the Developmental History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support

Profile of a Witch

Used to identify witches in Europe from 1400’s to 1700’s:

Elderly female beyond child bearing range Poor

Lives on edge of town

Displays knowledge of herbal medicines

Mark of the Devil (insensitive spot)

Steals men’s potency, causing impotence in the surrounding areas

Collects a great number of male membersand keeps them in a birds nest or box

(Cyriax, 1993; Kramer & Sprenger, 1971; Ruiz, 2004).

The Munsell Colour Circle

An analogy that shows how ‘themes’ (hues) can be distinguished without the need for pure types.

Base rates:

i.e. what is typical of the entities being studied.

Distinct ‘themes’

Phases in the Developmental History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support

Lombroso’s (1876) Profile of Murderers

An aquiline beak of a noseFleshy swollen, and protruding lipsSmall receding chinDark hair and bushy eyebrows that meet across the noseLittle or no beardDisplays an abundance of wrinkles, even in those younger than thirty4 to 5 times greater taste sensibility than the average personA cynical attitude, completely lacking remorseMore likely to bear a tattooAttaches no importance to dress and are frequently dirty and shabby

1888 - 1964

Kretschmer’s Somatotypology (1925)

Cycloid Personalityheavyset, soft body type

vacillate between normality and abnormalitylack spontaneity & sophistication

most likely to commit nonviolent property crimes

Schizoid Personalitymost likely have athletic, muscular bodies

some can be thin and leanschizophrenic

commit violent type of offenses

Displastic Personalitymixed group

highly emotionaloften unable to control themselves

mostly commit sexual offenses or crimes of passion

Phases in the Developmental History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support

Hans Gross 1847 -1915

In Criminal Psychology (1934), Gross illustrated the importance of determining the offender’s character, his wishes and beliefs. He contended:Is it not known that every deed is an outcome of the total character of the doer? Is it not considered that the deed and the character are correlative concepts, and that the character by means of which the deed is to be established cannot be inferred from the deed alone?... Each particular deed is thinkable only when a determinate character of the doer is brought in relation with it – a certain character predisposes to determinate deeds, another character makes them unthinkable and unrelatable with this or that person (1934: 55-56)

In the case of a pickpocket or theft at a ball, rout, or gathering in a home, Gross advised detectives to search for an innocent looking woman because females were often used as an accomplice to hide stolen items (Adam, 1934). Or if a burglary took place and the watchdog was unaccounted for, Gross advised investigators “to take stock of wandering people who are in the possession of a bitch and have been seen in the vicinity of the place of the crime” (1934: 455), arguing that vagabonds and wandering tribes kept female dogs to lure away watchdogs.

Phases in the Developmental History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support

??

APPROACHES TO INFERENCE

Reveal the complexity of the concept of ‘motive’

APPROACHES TO INFERENCE

Actions are the Characteristics

Actions are the Characteristics

e.g. controls victim without force

Essentially Instrumental

Approaches to Inference 2:

Characteristics Cause the Actions

Approaches to Inference 2:

Characteristics Cause the Actionse.g. nasty people commit nasty crimes

Essentially emotional

Approaches to Inference 3:

Actions and Characteristics share a process

Often Intellectual

Approaches to Inference 4:

Actions lead indirectly to Characteristics

Often Experiential

??

Approaches to Inference 5:

Actions and Characteristics part of same unfolding process

The development of interpersonal transactions

Phases in the Developmental History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support

MODUS OPERANDI – PRO FORMAPlease tick all boxes that apply and add comments where applicable.How did the offender gain access to the property?Forced entry Entry via front of houseEntry via rear of houseWhich room in house did offender gain entry via? ______________________________Insecure premises. Details: ____________________________________________(via open window/door)Secondary insecurity. Details: ___________________________________________(Doors closed but not locked, concealing key in garden)Window. Details: ______________________________________________________(force or insecurity)Climbed to entry point. Details: ___________________________________________Conned access. Details: _________________________________________________Were any implements used to facilitate access?Tool carried. Details: ___________________________________________________(Brought to scene by offender)Tool scene. Details: ____________________________________________________(Tool improvised at scene)Was the house occupied at time of burglary? _________________________________If not, how long was the property vacant for? ________________________________When did offence take place, (approx)? _____________________________________If house was occupied at time of burglary, did tenants see/hear anything? _________If so, what and state any outcomes. ________________________________________________________________________Who are the tenants?Male (lone)Female (lone)CoupleFamilyElderly person(s)

Expert Investigation

The Traditionial ‘detective fiction’ idea of Psychological contributions to Investigations

Scientist Investigation

Scientific KnowledgeIdentification of

Options

Investigative Process

Problem

Formulation

Elicitation of

Information

A more appropriate model for Investigative Psychology

Offender ID Address ProbabilityMO Match

124 Location A 0.28574311864 0

427 Location B 0.27038233898 0

427 Location C 0.26035169492 0

226 Location D 0.25577861017 0

48 Location E 0.23282991525 0

124 Location F 0.22445984746 0.3

124 Location G 0.21932662712 0