.
Articles  »  The Psychological Profiles of Killers

Psychology and Criminal Profiling

     Dr. Thomas Bond, a police surgeon who performed an autopsy on the last victim of Jack the Ripper, makes the first example of profiling. He connected the murder of four of Jack the Ripper's victims, stating that all the victims died in a similar manner. This similarity is known as a "signature" or a behavior that fulfills a physical or psychological need in the perpetrator. A profiler would also make inferences about a suspect's possible employment. If a person had cut up a victim it would tell about the perpetrators skills in scientific or anatomical knowledge. The origins of the FBI's profiling unit can be traced back to Howard Teten and Pat Mullany, who taught this method known as Applied Criminology.

     David Canter discussed Investigative Psychology in 1985 in Scotland Yard. The method began integrating investigation techniques with psychological concepts. It is based on five aspects of the interaction between the criminal and the victim. The first one is interpersonal coherence, which means that the criminal will often deal with their victims the same way they would deal with people in the every day life. The victim could for example represent a certain person in the offender's life. One such case is of Ted Bundy. He killed women who looked similar to his ex-girlfriend. Second, is the significance of time and place. It could possibly provide information about the criminal's residence and his/her mobility. It could represent the way the criminal sees his/her surroundings and how they see their schedule. It could give insight on the criminal's personal life and schedule. Next is the criminal characteristics, which is a way of sub-grouping the offenders traits. This could be used to provide information on the characteristics possessed by the perpetrator. One such method is the FBI's "organized" and "disorganized" classification. Fourth is the criminal career. Analyzing the criminal career will determine if the criminal has committed a crime before, and it will also indicate what it was. Last is forensic awareness. This is in the case of a criminal having knowledge of police evidence collecting techniques and procedures. It includes the wearing of gloves or using a condom. David Canter also divided models of offender behavior into "marauder" and "commuter". The marauder model is in the case of an offender that would strike from their home base. The commuter model subject would travel a distance from their home and commit a crime.

     Brent Turvey, a forensic scientist and criminal profiler developed Behavioral Evidence Analysis. It is broken down in four steps. The first step is Equivocal Forensic Analysis. This entails finding the meaning of the evidence. This is important because a thorough criminal profile cannot be made without analyzing and interpreting the physical evidence. This includes such things as crime scene photos, autopsy reports, interviews of witnesses and neighbors and the background of the victim. The second step is Victimology or an assessment of the victim. The victim should also be profiled the same way as the offender. It would provide insight on how, where, when and why a particular victim was chosen. This will in turn provide information to the investigator about the offender. The third step is the crime scene characteristics. These are the distinguishing features of a crime scene and their behavior and the meaning to the offender. The primary crime scene, which has the most criminal interaction, might have a special significance for the offender and would thus provide information on who the criminal is. The fourth step includes analyzing the offender's characteristics. These steps help determine the offender's personality and behavior.
Physical build
Offender sex
Work status and habits
Remorse or guilt
Offender vehicle type
Criminal history
Skill level
Aggressiveness
Offender residence in relation to the crime
Medical history
Marital Status
Race
This determines a "picture" of the offender with which investigators could check off against known suspects.

     How does forensic psychology and profiling help solve crimes?
I think that for most criminals there is some aspect of their history and background that affects their behavior. Whether it is robbery or murder, something in the past or current state could have triggered their criminal behavior. What kinds of crimes they commit is based on what they are capable of mentally and sometimes physically.

     Mary Ellen O'Toole perceives different behavioral characteristics identified at the crime scene as being indicative of: the amount of planning that went into the crime, the degree of control used by the offender, the escalation of emotion at the scene, the risk level of both the offender and the victim, and the appearance of the crime scene meaning whether it was a disorganized or organized crime scene. Jack S. Annon, looks at a crime scene a bit differently. He looks at pre-offense behaviors: whether there is evidence of drugs or alcohol, why a particular victim was picked, if a fantasy has been used, or if the crime was planned or unplanned. He then looks to the offense itself and why a certain weapon was used, what method the perpetrator used, if there were any items stolen and why the offender killed. Lastly he analyzes post-offense behaviors like how the body was disposed, if the offender left or stayed in the area, if the criminal attended to the crime scene and whether or not he involves himself in the investigation of the crime. Interpreting crime scene behavior is extremely difficult and is based on research and years of experience reviewing similar cases. A successful profiler must be able to see all the behavior present at the crime scene in order to understand what took place there.

     The most important area for examination is victimology. This includes psychical traits, education, occupation, medial history, marital aspects, psychosexual history, personal residence, court history, personal lifestyle, and the last activities engaged in by the victim. The next important area is the crime scene itself, with information pertaining to elements such as the location and the time. This involves the appearance of the crime scene, whether it was planned and how the victim was approached. Different approaches give clues on the ability of the criminal to interact with others.
In the study between a common female offender and a common male offender the social status between the female and the male is compared. The male profile status is that they are usually under twenty-five, have a low socioeconomic status, are unmarried, show evidence of substance abuse, or a loss of an important love relationship. A female criminal usually has a history of a dysfunctional or broken home such as an absent or dead parent, suffered abuse, and has a family history of crime. Male criminals generally have family members who are criminals such as parents or siblings, prior convictions before the current conviction, and sometimes demonstrate depression, paranoia, or schizophrenia. They also generally have an earlier history of delinquency such as problems at school, fighting, and fire setting.

     De Souza and Doyal found that male offenders "model" their criminal behavior after their parents or siblings. Paranoia is also a factor of the male offender. Female criminals were found to be unlikely to have an extensive criminal background. On the other hand female criminals have suffered more physical and sexual abuse than male offenders, which would portray them as victims of stressful circumstances.

     A study conducted on the difference between intimate and stranger violence does not have a pattern of results consistent with Marc Nesca conclusions. This study did not prove any differences in gender personality. The classifications of intimate and stranger violence probably exist just because some people kill people they know, and others kill people they don't know. There could be a simple explanation. It may be that criminals who care for people they know would kill total strangers, while other criminals tend to befriend the people they target.

     The limit upon determining what makes a person a criminal is that people have so many different reasons for becoming what they are. Classification of a certain type of people to become criminals cannot be easily done because a lot of the potential criminals, don't become them.

     Scientists seem to spend a great deal of time on an individual's surroundings and parental influence. I think they lack in their consideration of the actual person themselves. Why they committed the crime? I think that each individual has an idea why they did something to a certain degree unless they claim that they don't remember doing it. People spend so much time observing their moves but don't spend enough time analyzing what they say. In these journal studies they monitor the individuals with machines when they should be connecting with their feelings personally. Many people become criminals mainly because they feel cast out from society but by treating them like animals and not talking to them like actual people they are infact probably getting worse than they were.

     I agree that criminal women would be more physically and sexually abused than men. Generally it is like that in society whether the women become criminals or not. Some who cannot handle the stress turn to doing bad things to others I think to make up for the injustice done to them. I think that women commit less murder than men because they are first not physically capable in a scuffle as much as men are. Second they are more emotional than men regarding the human race for they are the ones who give life.

     Basically it's entirely up to an individual whether they commit a crime or not. Some people do and some people don't no matter what situation they are in. Someone from a perfectly normal, ideal background could end up becoming a murderer. So it's pretty hard to determine a exact setting for the creation of a criminal. Even if we could find a basis, what can we do to prevent it. Today there are so many methods to prevent crime but someone always finds a way around it no matter what. I think the only thing society can do is it raise children in a loving, nurturing, environment. 

     In the future someone will be able to find more specific reasons for people who commit crime instead of broad assumptions. And the reasons will apply to most of the criminals, other than some. And it might be possible to prevent crime by finding a solution for the problems because it will be more coherent.  

Annon, Jack S. , 1995, Investigative Profiling: A Behavioral Analysis of the Crime Scene," American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13(4): 67-75.

deSouza, J. M., Doyal, G.T., 1998, "Differences Between Violent Female and Male Offenders: An Explanatory Study," American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(3): 67-86.

Nesca, M., 1998, "A Personality Profile Comparison of Intimate - And Stranger - Violent Convicts," American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(1): 59-82

O'Toole, M. E., 1999, "Criminal Profiling: The FBI Uses Criminal Investigative Analysis to Solve Crimes," Corrections Today, 61(1): 44-46.

http://crimelibrary.com
/criminology
/criminalprofiling2

http://www.geocities.com
/CapitolHill/Lobby/6027
/hq.htm

http://neptune.spaceports
.com/~tmitm

http://www.tncrimlaw.com
/forensic