Throughout the history of mankind, manifestations of crime and its perpetrators have been objects of intrigue, condemnation and admiration. From the sensational folks of the medieval times such as Robin Hood, to the now familiar motion pictures like the Godfather trilogy, Bonnie and Clyde and the Silence of the Lamb, to the popular television shows such as CSI, Cold Case; there is an amazing fascination with criminal conduct and the war against it. So crucial is this war against crime that governments spend resources through various law enforcement agencies. But before the law enforcement agencies decide to call someone a suspect, they have to conduct investigations whose aim is to not only put the suspect at the scene of crime, but to also draw a nexus between the suspect and crime.
Investigators sometimes do their work under a shroud of uncertainty, more often the suspect will not be somewhere in the periphery waiting to be caught. Investigators therefore have to scrutinize the scene of the crime and all related angles in order to map out the motive and the possible suspect. Seasoned investigators will be quick to connect the dots and deduce the motive or the manner in which a crime was perpetrated. It is from this concept that the nascent steps were taken by the FBI in 1970 to gather intelligible hints that can be relied on to shed some light on investigations, particularly on crimes that are emotionally motivated or premeditated. The decades before this bold step had seen the police turn to psychologist to assist in the study and analysis of evidence. The impetus must have been borne out of the successful profiling of George Metesky (the mad bomber) in 1957 by psychiatrist James Brussel, leading to the former’s arrest for the first time in 16 years.
Profiling as a means of advancing investigations is still cast in uncertainty that one would not convincingly argue that it is either a science or an art that calls for the relative acuteness, talent and experience of the expert. However, the argument that behavior is a reflection of one’s personality has remained a strong motivation in this pursuit for a workable model. It is probable to deduce one’s personality from gleaning over their behavior; the probable motive for the crime, the method or manner or commission, the disposal of any links, and the general post-offence behavior. An in-depth study of these cues may lead to a profile or a connection which can ultimately provide a shot in the arm to the investigation.
Arguably the first of his kind, Philadelphia agent Walter McLaughlin developed the first curriculum of this nature, relying largely on his experience and a little help from the relevant academic discourse at the time. The FBI picking the cue initiated their own research project where they sought to gather information about some 40 serial killers. This initiative led to the creation of the Behavioral Science Unit at Quantico, Virginia. Despite attempts to come up with a credible formulae for profiling, much of it tenets remains relatively irrelevant. The 20th century saw an uptake of the practice with the DEA and the FBI developing profiles for criminals like sadistic murderers, drug traffickers, sex offenders, serial killers amongst other. However, the essence of this process has dissipated as it is often argued that looking too much into profiles may lead to a narrow construction of investigation, and that every soul in the street is basically able to commit a crime. This argument does not nullify the incredible results that have been achieved; it only seeks to exacerbate the fear amongst many that reading too much into it may prove counter-productive and with unreliable efficacy. This leaves us with a scenario that is unremarkable; profiling is neither a science nor purely an art. It lies somewhere in between. Forensic psychologist Richard Kocsis argues a proper approach to profiling needs to be rooted in knowledge emanating from diverse but related areas such as forensic psychology, criminology, and psychiatry. However, good practice will not be realized without a mastery of the art of investigation from training and experience. To the law enforcement authorities, profiling has three goals: the social and psychological assessment of the offender, hinting at the possible questions and strategies, and to provide the investigators with the means of psychologically evaluating material or immaterial objects found at the scene of the crime or in possession of the suspect. In this pursuit authorities have developed some approaches such as offender profiling and crime action profiling. The distinction between the inductive and deductive investigative assessments has also brought clarity because preliminary findings can be made without extensive expertise. The inductive assessment largely relies on information from past crimes, and past offenders, and any other information that might prove relevant to the case. The deductive approach is more intense, and involves a thorough analysis of all possible evidence from the crime scene, and the victim in a bid to draft a mental picture of the offender.
I contend that in as much as profiling may be suitable for some specific crimes such as rape, ritualistic crimes, serial murders, and serial arson; it cannot be used for all criminal acts such as fraud, or terrorism. Moreover, profiling in itself may not lead to arrests that can stand the rigorous test of the trial process. The profiler in this case will therefore endeavor to furnish the investigation with information that will aid in the apprehension of the right suspect. In this pursuit there is still a lot that needs to be done in terms of research in order to come up with theoretical frameworks that can be tested with empirical data.
References
Pollard, D. (2007). Constitutional and Administrative Law: Text with Materials. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Pollock, J. (2012). Criminal Law. New York: Newnes.
Scheb, J. (2010). Criminal Law and Procedure. New York: Cengage Learning.
