Weakness in Criminal Profiling

[mklhawley]

Greetings all,

I am new and am very impressed with the critical thinking within the casebook forums.

I have noticed some Ripper suspects rely heavily upon the FBI criminal profile. I would like to challenge that practice, especially because I have been guilty of it.

Two peer reviewed articles in Criminal Justice and Behavior demonstrate the limits to criminal profiling. The first one, Taking Stock in Criminal Profiling (Vol. 34, No. 4, 437-453 (2007)) states: The use of criminal profiling (CP) in criminal investigations has continued to increase despite scant empirical evidence that it is effective. Narrative review results suggest that the CP literature rests largely on commonsense justifications. Results from the 1st meta-analysis indicate that self-labeled profiler/experienced-investigator groups did not outperform comparison groups in predicting offenders' cognitive processes, physical attributes, offense behaviors, or social habits and history, although they were marginally better at predicting overall offender characteristics. Results of the 2nd meta-analysis indicate that self-labeled profilers were not significantly better at predicting offense behaviors, but outperformed comparison groups when predicting overall offender characteristics, cognitive processes, physical attributes, and social history and habits. Methodological shortcomings of the data and the implications of these findings for the practical utility of CP are discussed.

The second one, The Criminal Profiling Illusion, What’s Behind the Smoke and Mirrors (Vol. 35, No. 10, 1257-1276 (2008)) states: There is a belief that criminal profilers can predict a criminal's characteristics from crime scene evidence. In this article, the authors argue that this belief may be an illusion and explain how people may have been misled into believing that criminal profiling (CP) works despite no sound theoretical grounding and no strong empirical support for this possibility. Potentially responsible for this illusory belief is the information that people acquire about CP, which is heavily influenced by anecdotes, repetition of the message that profiling works, the expert profiler label, and a disproportionate emphasis on correct predictions. Also potentially responsible are aspects of information processing such as reasoning errors, creating meaning out of ambiguous information, imitating good ideas, and inferring fact from fiction. The authors conclude that CP should not be used as an investigative tool because it lacks scientific support.

My point is that accepting any criminal profile of Jack the Ripper, including the FBI’s should not be taken as gospel. At the very least, the backbone of a belief in a particular Ripper suspect should not be a criminal profile.

What do you think?

Sincerely,

Mike

[perrymason]

Greetings all,

I am new and am very impressed with the critical thinking within the casebook forums.

I have noticed some Ripper suspects rely heavily upon the FBI criminal profile. I would like to challenge that practice, especially because I have been guilty of it.

Two peer reviewed articles in Criminal Justice and Behavior demonstrate the limits to criminal profiling. The first one, Taking Stock in Criminal Profiling (Vol. 34, No. 4, 437-453 (2007)) states: The use of criminal profiling (CP) in criminal investigations has continued to increase despite scant empirical evidence that it is effective. Narrative review results suggest that the CP literature rests largely on commonsense justifications. Results from the 1st meta-analysis indicate that self-labeled profiler/experienced-investigator groups did not outperform comparison groups in predicting offenders' cognitive processes, physical attributes, offense behaviors, or social habits and history, although they were marginally better at predicting overall offender characteristics. Results of the 2nd meta-analysis indicate that self-labeled profilers were not significantly better at predicting offense behaviors, but outperformed comparison groups when predicting overall offender characteristics, cognitive processes, physical attributes, and social history and habits. Methodological shortcomings of the data and the implications of these findings for the practical utility of CP are discussed.

The second one, The Criminal Profiling Illusion, What’s Behind the Smoke and Mirrors (Vol. 35, No. 10, 1257-1276 (2008)) states: There is a belief that criminal profilers can predict a criminal's characteristics from crime scene evidence. In this article, the authors argue that this belief may be an illusion and explain how people may have been misled into believing that criminal profiling (CP) works despite no sound theoretical grounding and no strong empirical support for this possibility. Potentially responsible for this illusory belief is the information that people acquire about CP, which is heavily influenced by anecdotes, repetition of the message that profiling works, the expert profiler label, and a disproportionate emphasis on correct predictions. Also potentially responsible are aspects of information processing such as reasoning errors, creating meaning out of ambiguous information, imitating good ideas, and inferring fact from fiction. The authors conclude that CP should not be used as an investigative tool because it lacks scientific support.

My point is that accepting any criminal profile of Jack the Ripper, including the FBI’s should not be taken as gospel. At the very least, the backbone of a belief in a particular Ripper suspect should not be a criminal profile.

What do you think?

Sincerely,

Mike

Welcome aboard Mike, and I agree with you, profiles of known serial killers and their known crimes have their place within this study, but as guides rather than "markers".

Since we do not even know specifically which victims can be attributed to this unknown killer, any direct comparatives with the data gleaned from modern studies would be premature.

Nice start in , ....all the best.

[Stewart P Evans]

Overrated

Profiling is totally overrated. Too many people making a name for themselves out of it.

[perrymason]

Profiling is totally overrated. Too many people making a name for themselves out of it.

Stewart,

How are we to get a true sense of your feelings when you disguise them so cleverly.

My best regards as always Mr E

[Ally]

I don't think anyone really puts much stock in profiling unless they happen to push a particular suspect that the "profile" matches. Most reasoned people have long since seen the inherent weakness in profiling and dismiss it along with other psychobabble. (or was that cycobabble? Sorry wrong thread...)

[sdreid]

It's OK as a sort of mind game in the Ripper case but in the real world I think it can be quite harmful. The fact that they got Art Shawcross, Derick Todd Lee, The D.C. Snipers and Green River wrong probably resulted in more people actually being killed than would have been had they stayed out of it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Beat About The Bush

Stewart,
How are we to get a true sense of your feelings when you disguise them so cleverly.
My best regards as always Mr E

Yes, I do beat about the bush somewhat, I'm a bit like Ally in that sense.

[Phil Carter]

Welcome Mike,

I agree, profiling is a modern technology that appears to be overated. Not many bushes in Norway though Stewart, therefore nowhere for Fogelma to hide.

best wishes all

Phil

[mklhawley]

So by extention, one should not reject a potential suspect solely because they do not fit the FBI criminal profile, especially when profiling is not entirely supported by empirical evidence. Now, if there is a pattern of contradictory evidence, then that is another issue.

What do you think?

Mike

[jonwilson]

Are you the famous ripper expert? If you are, hello to you. Stewart, do you believe that Jack the ripper was an unknown person that appeared normal instead of a lunatic foaming at the mouth? Jack to me was a normal man (on the outside) who appeared and acted normal and didn't bring any attention or suspicion to himself.

[mklhawley]

If you are honestly asking if I am a ripper expert - far from it. My education, training, and research is in science and the scientific process, specifically, the inherent problem of confirmation bias. Scientists are trained to be objective, yet the human element always rears its ugly head. Briefly, there is a human tendency to emphasize supportive evidence and simultaneously de-emphasize contradictory evidence. It is a type of wishful thinking. I personally favor Francis Tumblety as the Ripper, yet, I may be duped by my own confirmation bias. My solution was to join this group (Ripper experts in my opinion) in order to check my logic. I have not been disappointed, especially in the Tumblety section.

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Mike,

Ripper authors use profiling, or statements of psychiatric professionals, or comparisons to known serial killers in making the case for their suspect. They all do it. And the funny thing is, there seems to be a profile or example to fit each one.

Thanks for going to Rochester for the graveyard video, and again, welcome aboard.

Roy

[robhouse]

"Are you the famous ripper expert?"

Hi John,

No, don't get confused. That guy is not to be confused with the famous Stewart Evans, he is just some bloke who posts here who happens to have the same name. But a lot of newbies make the same mistake so don't sweat it. I am sure the famous writer of the same name has far better things to be doing than posting on a website with a bunch of knuckleheads like us.

Cheers,

Rob House

[jonwilson]

Mike, I was talking to the poster Stewart Evans. The real Stewart Evans is one of the top ripper experts in the world. I was just curious to see if he was the real Stewart Evans or not and Rob House gave me my answer.

[robhouse]

By the way... I always get confused over this topic. Criminal Profiling, as I understand it, is when detectives (and foreensic experts, etc) examine the evidence of crime scenes, then come up with a profile of what the killer is like.

On the other hand, what I have tended to do is compare a suspect to modern statistical data on what I would call a "generic serial killer profile"... in other words, certain theorists have come up with ideas about common traits among serial killers. Not all serial killers of course, but we are talking about statistics here. So I think this is not the same as "criminal profiling" as discussed in the studies mentioned.

It is more a question of "does [suspect A] fit with the general profile of a serial killer?" which I think is valid.

The criticisms of criminal profiling I also think are valid, especially since quite often they eliminate suspects based on statistical data, which is also not right. For example, if the majority of serial killers are white, this does not mean a non-white person should be eliminated as a suspect just based on that.

However, I do believe that there are some characteristics that are very common among serial killers... a large percentage (most?) are psychopaths. A large percentage probably experienced serious trauma in their childhood. etc. etc.

I think if you found a suspect who matched a large amount of these characteristics, you might say, OK, this is a likely candidate.

I am talking about something that, I think, is very different from the criticisms generally argued against "criminal profiling", which is really a tool used in criminal inquiry, that is based largely on conclusions derived from the crime scene evidence, victimology, etc.

Rob H