Criminal Profiling

In the debate of what creates a serial killer, Jim Clemente, a retired FBI behavioral analyst, criminal profiler, and Criminal Minds writer states in a WIRED Interview, “I like to say that genetics loads the gun, personality and psychology aim it, and your experiences pull the trigger. Your genetics gives you the potential to be a killer, but your personality and psychology are the filter through which you experience. And they can shape how you come away from any event in your life.”

Understanding the minds behind the crimes is an essential puzzle piece. The inception of criminal profiling, not to be confused with DNA profiling, took root in the profound comprehension of criminal psychology, expertly depicted in the Netflix series Mindhunter. The art of criminal profiling is an investigative strategy that seeks to unearth the identity of a violent offender by deciphering their personality and behaviors. Embedded in the very fabric of crime scenes, victim profiles, and behavioral patterns, criminal psychology delves deep into the psyche, painting a portrait of upbringing, intent, and modus operandi.

You might have heard the term “MO,” shorthand for modus operandi. An MO refers to someone’s habit of working, but to investigators, the MO is the way a criminal commits a crime. Studying the MO of criminals – most commonly, serial killers – is part of a larger process of criminal profiling, wherein investigators analyze a crime and crime scene to understand a killer or rapist’s behavior. This helps them build a “psychological sketch” of the criminal, which can help them produce a list of suspects and later, identify the criminal. This criminal investigative approach was primarily developed and formally used by the Behavioral Analysis Unit (formerly the Behavioral Science Unit) – a department created by the FBI in the 1970s.

So what points them to the type of person to have committed a crime? What data is gathered? When DNA evidence isn’t available to make the direct link between perpetrator and victim, other physical clues can help detectives understand the type of perpetrator at hand. If a victim was shot, pellets are analyzed to determine what kind of gun was used and who might have access to that type of gun. However, this does not provide much to offender descriptions or provide insight into the offender’s psychology. Offender profiles are a mix of psychological and demographic variables, such as behavior patterns, age, and race.

Forensic psychologist Richard Kocsis, Ph.D., says crime action profiling and investigative psychology models are “rooted in knowledge developed by forensic psychologists, psychiatrists, and criminologists” (APA). According to the US Office of Justice, the profiling process first involves:

1) Evaluation of the criminal act itself

2) Comprehensive evaluation of the specifics of the crime scene(s)

3) Comprehensive analysis of the victim

4) Evaluation of preliminary police reports

5) Evaluation of the medical examiner’s autopsy protocol

6) Development of profile with critical offender characteristics

7) Investigative suggestions predicated on the construction of the profile.

During this process, investigators will look especially at how serial murderers or rapists interacted with their victims. They seek to understand first what the motives or fantasies were of the killer, what might have caused them to kill on a specific day or target a specific kind of victim. For instance, they might look to see if the killer was possibly attracted to the victim. Next, psychologists and investigators try to deduce how the killer had access to the victim, and the method of killing they proceeded to use to kill – stabbing, shooting, strangulation, or other kinds of torture. Next, body disposal is analyzed – in several cases, the body is removed from the murder scene by the killer and abandoned elsewhere, or it becomes clear the corpse has been otherwise handled in an indecent way by the killer. In some cases, the killer also takes an item from the corpse or the crime scene as a trophy or souvenir – as the killing is often an “accomplishment” for the killer and a souvenir reminds them of it. The manner of killing and body disposal is key to identifying a serial killer’s “signature,” or MO. Finally, post-offense behavior is observed, to see whether the killer is “trying to inject himself into the investigation by reacting to media reports or contacting investigators,” such as sending death threats or evidence from the crime scene to taunt the police and media (American Psychological Association).

Profiling the victim can also help explain more about the suspect’s motives. Victims are picked randomly or purposefully – some victims are more vulnerable than others, especially if they “meet many strangers, go out at night, and maybe if they make themselves vulnerable through drug or alcohol use or promiscuity” (Encyclopedia). Others are steady and employed and do not venture far from home. Understanding the lifestyle of the victim can help point to what might have made them of interest to the murderer, leading to further information on the killer’s motives, fantasies, and access to the victim.

Before we understand the types of offenders that have been profiled, some basic statistics seem to be common among felon offenders, primarily serial killers. They are usually young males in their 20s and 30s, who generally start killing near their homes and eventually proceed further away. Another key trend: homicide tends to be an intra-racial crime, which means killers usually target people of their own race.

There are two main types of offender profiling approaches. A top-down approach – dubbed the “American” or “FBI” approach, and a bottom-up approach – the “British” way. The top-down approach builds off of information and experiences of previous crimes. This started when members of the Behavioral Science Unit interviewed 36 sexually-motivated serial killers, where “the questions used related to factors such as early warning signs and possible triggers” (Simply Psychology). The interviews focused on collected information about the crime scene, revealing to them a pattern that “crimes were either premeditated and planned or sudden and unrehearsed.” In the top-down approach, information about the crime, the victim, and their families is collected. Coupled with deciding whether the crime was a stand-alone or the work of a serial offender, investigators decide whether the criminal is an organized or disorganized offender, and a general description of the offender is created.

The bottom-up approach is more data-driven and utilizes inductive reasoning. It places more emphasis on studying the specifics and characteristics of a particular offense and then proceeding to group crimes based on similar criminal behavior. As such, information is collected from the beginning and is used to build up a profile, rather than starting from preconceived data and narrowing the features down to match an offender. David Canter, one of the founders of the bottom-up approach, specifically critiqued the idea of profiling being previously based on “intuition” rather than objective data.

There are 2 main types of bottom-up profiling: investigative psychology and geographical profiling. Investigative psychology is a 5-factor model which looks at an offender’s 1) forensic awareness – being subject to police investigations or interrogations before might affect how careful an offender is to cover their tracks, 2) interpersonal coherence – the way an offender interacts with their victims is often a reflection of how they interact with people in their daily lives, 3) Crime characteristics – details of how the crime was committed may provide clues to the offender’s characteristics, 4) Early career – an offender will usually commit their crimes in similar fashions, but studying their earlier crimes may help investigators understand how their criminal activity will change with more experience, and finally, 5) Crime location and time, which may “communicate something about their own place of residence/employment” (Mrs. Harris Psychology).

Location and time analysis is forms the basis of geographical profiling. In this approach, also called “crime mapping,” investigators try to make an inference of where the offender might live. Geographically linked crime scenes may indicate an offender’s operational base. This approach works under the assumption that offenders can be “marauders” or “commuters” – committing crimes close to home where they feel most confident and familiar, or in farther and generally larger areas, respectively. Using geographical profiling, Canter helped put away John Duffy, the “Railway Rapist,” behind bars.

The FBI approach and compiled information from the original offender interviews have led to the mainstream categorization of offenders into 2 categories: organized and disorganized.

Organized crimes are carefully planned and covered – the victim is selected beforehand, and it is difficult to recover evidence from organized crime scenes. They also may purposefully try to interfere with investigations or interact with officers. Organized criminals are generally not mentally unstable, can tell right from wrong, and show no remorse – they may revisit the crime scene several times and maintain self-control while there. They are likely to be intelligent, socially competent, even married sometimes, and have a skilled occupation.

Disorganized criminals may be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, living alone and unemployed, and socially inadequate. The crime is often committed in a “moment of passion,” reflected in the fact that they “use sudden and overwhelming force to assault” their victims (Psychology Today). Disorganized offenders are usually frightened or confused while carrying out the crime and little effort is made to hide evidence.

However, the FBI approach has limited application because it usually applies only to the most violent and severe crimes, such as murder and rape, rather than more common offenses like burglary. Additionally, the technique simplifies criminal behavior into only 2 categories, although many investigators recognize that certain patterns of offenders may be a mix of organized and disorganized. For instance, Ted Bundy, while initially fitting the appearance of an organized offender, did not stay consistent with his initial pattern of killing. After one of his victims escaped, he temporarily went on an unplanned killing spree of college women, as a “retaliation of rage from his unsuccessful attack” (Mrs. Harris Psychology). Finally, the data that founded the FBI approach can not necessarily continue to be extrapolated to today’s world – it accounted for research on 36 US killers from the 1970s, which means that this method may no longer be a “valid predictor” of potential suspects, victims, and manner of offense in modern society. In retrospect, bottom-up profiling tends to be “more grounded in evidence and psychological theory, and less driven by speculation” (Study Mind). Additionally, this approach tends to be more holistic, as it combines investigative psychology and geographic profiling, accounting for several contributing factors.

Unfortunately, for the profiling methods to work, it often requires multiple crimes to have been committed or a crime to have been committed in an especially heinous manner, to reveal to investigators sufficient information about the offender. All throughout, the art of criminal profiling continues to give us a more holistic understanding of the connection between people and crime.

Sources: