Why profiling works

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.

To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy. Psychologists cannot, it turns out, catch criminals with the power of their minds. Manhunt: Unabomber focuses on Jim Fitzgerald played by Sam Worthington and based on the profiler of the same real name.

We hardly knew anything about human psychology in ! At all. The research literature is genuinely strange. A meta analysis by criminologists Brent Snook, Joseph Eastwood, Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin, and Richard Cullen compared four studies where self-described criminal profilers were tasked with analyzing crime scene data and coming up with a profile, and compared their predictions to other groups like normal detectives or students.

They find that profilers do only slightly better than random people at predicting traits of offenders. A group of researchers at the University of Liverpool with the psychologist Laurence Alison have taken a different approach by evaluating the central assumption of profiling: that characteristics of a crime and crime scene can predict useful traits about a criminal. They looked at British rapists: all men, all targeting women 16 and older, and all rapists who attacked strangers rather than acquaintances or significant others.

Were people who committed crimes similarly, with similar modi operandi, likely to be similar demographically, too? Nope, not at all. In other words, the central assumption of criminal profiling is nonsense. But criminal profiling also has an opportunity cost: There are a lot of really hard problems in the world that progress in psychology would help address, and from which criminal profiling might be a distraction. Mental health struggles are an obvious example, but there are less obvious ones too, like getting better at predictions.

Philip Tetlock at the University of Pennsylvania has been, for decades, studying how experts and laypeople make predictions about future events, and holding tournaments to isolate the factors that lead to good, accurate forecasts. Further, while some of the fundamental principles of CP that have been proved outdated by other areas of empirical psychology and behavioural science standards still remain within the applied field, the scrutiny and criticism of the whole field will remain.

Other academics in the field also suggest that the public have a role in shaping how such science is shaped, by being more discerning in how they perceive and adopt accepted wisdom. However, some would argue that such public education and discernment is not necessary in order for the discipline to become more refined; after all, how many laypersons understand the intricacies of DNA matching but yet have absolute faith in its probabilistic certainties and correct application?

CP can hopefully prove itself by the virtues of large-scale ideographic research, rather than by the anecdotal nomothetic case studies that linger in the memory. But until then it still promises much more than it currently delivers, and its role as just another tool to be used by senior investigating officers in murder investigations will not develop any further. Canter, D. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, — Douglas , J.

Douglas, J. Behavioral Sciences and the Law , 4: — Keppel, R. Snook, B. Criminal Justice and Behavior , — Trager, J. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology , 20— Wilson, D. Criminal profiling can be used like any other investigative tool to generate leads and help cast a wide but targeted net.

But profilers have to be able to back up their statements with concrete evidence, and profiling should never be used to finger a specific individual, he said. Safarik said good profilers are cautious, try not to overreach, and simply help to narrow down a field of potential suspects.

Asked about successes, Safarik said he helped investigators who were stumped by two double homicides of elderly couples in in Iredell County, North Carolina. He took a look at the evidence and decided they were barking up the wrong tree.

Police ended up charging a year-old woman. But Safarik was also the subject of a recent Los Angeles Times story saying that his murder-trial testimony helped send an innocent man to jail. He also said his role in the prosecution was overblown, and that his testimony was thoroughly vetted and deemed acceptable in three trials. Asked about how the validity of profiling should be measured, Safarik said that it comes down to how law enforcement views it.

Proponents of profiling accurately point out that the technique remains popular among investigators , and its use has steadily increased. But, Kennedy argues, such surveys are likely biased by the fact that detectives have an interest in justifying the time and energy spent on the technique. He also highlights a study that examined 88 solved cases and found that while police reported that profiling was generally helpful 83 percent of the time, they also reported that the technique helped to actually identify the suspect in a far smaller percentage of the cases.

Many studies of criminal profiling end with a seemingly boilerplate conclusion remarking on the lack of empirical evidence that profiling works, followed by a call for more research on the topic. Already a subscriber? Log in or link your magazine subscription.