Profiles of Individuals

I.Profiles of Suspects

A.Serial murder, sexual homicide, arson

II.Profiles of victims

A.Rape Trauma Syndrome, Battered Woman Syndrome

III.History

A.1880’s Thomas Bond, M.D. & “Jack the Ripper”

1.Determined that the mutilations were “all of the same character.”

2.The offender to be a man of “great coolness and daring...a quiet inoffensive looking man, probably middle aged and neatly dressed.”

3.1940’s Walter Langer, M.D. & Adolph Hitler

a)Predicted death by suicide rather than flight or capture

4.1950’s James Brussels, M.D. & The Mad Bomber of New York

(a)Bomber had left some 32 explosive packages across the city over approximately 8 years. Brussels suggested the offender was “…a heavy man. Middle aged. Foreign Born. Roman Catholic. Single. Lives with a brother or sister”. He also added “…when you find him, chances are he will be wearing a double breasted suit. Buttoned”

(b)He also determined that the man was paranoid, hated his father, was obsessively loved by his mother and lived in the state of Connecticut.

b)1960’s James Brussels, M.D. & “The Boston Strangler”

(1)11 sex-related murders; profile fits Albert DeSalvo convicted of other similar crimes; confessed to psychiatrist that he was the strangler but never tried.

(2)Predecessors of Behavioral Sciences Unit

(a)Howard Teten & Pat Mullany

(b)San Leandro, CA PD – UC Berkeley

(c)FBI Academy

c)1970’s FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit

(1)John Douglas, Robert Ressler, Roy Hazelwood

(2)Studies of incarcerated offenders

d)Present

(1)BSU generates approximately 1200 profiles/year

IV.Stages in building a profile – Criminal Investigative Analysis

A.What – Why - Who

1.Profiling Inputs

2.Decision Process Models

3.Crime Assessment

4.Criminal Profile

5.Investigation

6.Apprehension

B.Typology of Serial Murder example (Holmes & DeBurger, 1988)

1.Behavioral Background

a)Basic Sources

(1)Psychogenic

(2)Sociogenic

(3)Biogenic

b)Motives

(1)Intrinsic Locus

(2)Extrinsic Locus

c)Behavior Orientation

(1)Psychological Gain

(2)Material Gain

2.Victims

a)Traits

(1)Specific vs. Nonspecific

b)Selection

(1)Random vs. Nonrandom

c)Relationship

(1)Affiliative vs. Strangers

3.Methods

a)Process-focused vs. Act-focused

b)Planned vs. Spontaneous

c)Organized vs. Disorganized

4.Geography

a)Stable vs. Dispersed

5.General Types

a)Visionary

b)Mission-oriented

c)Hedonistic

d)Power/Control

V.Evaluating individual profiles

A.Anecdotal evidence

1.Some great successes (e.g., Richard Trenton Chase)

2.Some great failures (e.g., Derrick Todd Lee)

B.Theoretical background

1.Basic idea that traits predict behavior

a)However there is considerable scientific evidence of inconsistency

b)Considerable evidence of low correlations between traits and behaviors

2.In reality, traits interact with perceptions of situations

a)People differ in consistency and on what dimensions they are consistent

b)Behavior= f(Person, Situation, PXS)

C.Research evidence

1.Pinizzotto (1984)

a)In only 46% of cases a suspect was identified

(a)In these cases, according to the police investigators, the profile helped:

(i)Focus Investigation77.2%

(ii)Locate Possible Suspects20.4%

(iii)Identify Suspect17.0%

(iv)Prosecution 5.6%

(v)No Assistance17.0%

2.Pinizzotto & Finkel (1990)

a)Comparison of profilers to detectives, psychologists, college students

b)Subjects given case files, asked to develop profile

c)Profilers wrote longer profiles, took longer to write them, included more predictions (general and specific), and more confirmable predictions

d)However profilers were more accurate on one case (sex offense) but not another (homicide)

3.No comprehensive study of profiling has been conducted

a)Need information for 2 X 2 Table:

Profile
Reality / Offender / Not Offender
Offender
Not Offender

Note: need all four cells; two not enough. The table below is not sufficient evidence for validity of profile:

Profile
Reality / Offender / Not Offender
Offender / 85% / 15%
Not Offender

It could be that innocent people fit the profile just as well:

Profile
Reality / Offender / Not Offender
Offender / 85% / 15%
Not Offender / 85% / 15%

VI.General Legal Issues

A.4th Amendment

B.Police stop on “reasonable suspicion”, arrest on “probable cause”

C.Terry v Ohio (1968) 392 US 21

1."...in justifying the particular intrusion, the police officers must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion."

D.Williams & Bazille et al v Alioto et al (1977) 549 F.2d 136- use of Zebra profile violates 4th & 14th amendments; profile too broad.

VII.Use of Profiles in Court

A.Possible Uses

1.By Prosecution

(1)Profile of defendant

(a)To demonstrate that defendant's characteristics match those of offenders

(2)Profile of victim

(a)To demonstrate that victim's characteristics match those of other victims

2.By Defense

(1)Profile of defendant

(a)To demonstrate that defendant's characteristics do not match those of offenders

(2)Profile of victim

(a)To demonstrate that victim's characteristics do not match those of other victims

General rules of evidence
Federal Rule of Evidence 402: Relevant evidence is generally admissible; irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
Federal Rule of Evidence 403: Exclusion of evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
Federal Rule of Evidence 404. Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes.

a)FRE 404 and state equivalents generally interpreted as prohibiting use by prosecution of evidence of defendant’s fit to profile unless issue raised first by defense.

C.Scientific Evidence

a)Although use of profile may not run afoul of FRE 404, it still may be inadmissible on reliability grounds.

b)Frye v U.S. (1923) 293 Fed 1013

(1)"the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs"

c)Expert Testimony - Dyas v U.S. (1977) DC App 376 A.2d 827

(a)the subject matter "must be so distinctly related to some science, profession, business or occupation as to be beyond the ken of the average layman"

(b)"the witness must have sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in that field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth"

(c)expert testimony is inadmissible if "the state of the pertinent art or scientific knowledge does not permit a reasonable opinion to asserted even by an expert"

d)Daubert v Merrell Dow (1993)