Questioning the validity of criminal profiling: an evidence-based approach

Abstract

Criminal profiling is used in complex investigations, and, in a number of jurisdictions, as expert evidence in criminal trials. This article seeks to move beyond the many anecdotal accounts of success by profilers and examine the evidence available as to the discipline's validity. As it stands, profiling is based on theories that are uncertain at best, and little research has been undertaken to assess the actual accuracy of generated profiles. This absence of validation is in part due to genuine difficulties associated with designing appropriate testing models. It is exacerbated by the reluctance of profilers to engage in such a process, relying instead on the well-rehearsed, yet somewhat circular argument that the continuing demand for profiling advice is in itself reassuring evidence of the method's validity. It is the lack of objective evidence of validity in this area that will be critically considered in this article.

The Research of Motivational Factors and the Psycho-Behavioral Footprint of Sexually Motivated Homicide

“…Another recent criticism concerns the lack of a critical analysis of the rate of failure in assessing the psychological profile of sexually motivated criminals, with most of the literature being focused on presenting cases where this technique has been successfully applied (Chifflet 2014;Jackson, Wilson, Rana 2011).…”

Behavioral Indicators of Drug Carrying in Open Spaces

“…Despite these concerns, even critics agree that research and training in identification techniques make an important step toward tackling tough problems such as crime prevention and mitigation (Bennell et al, 2006; Chifflet, 2015; Cook & Hinman, 1999). Recent reviews and meta-analyses have taken a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of the various profiling trainings on record to date, and their conclusions are moderately favorable and supportive of future work in this area (Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, Goggin, & Cullen, 2007; see also Bourque, LeBlanc, Uzschneider, & Wright, 2009).…”

“…To date, the indicators reported in this article have not been subject to a systematic, field-tested assessment of reliability and validity, such as the ones called for by Chifflet (2015) and others. This kind of scientific assessment is necessary to determine the extent that persons carrying drugs in an open space exhibit these kinds of behaviors, as well as the ability of law enforcement personnel to spot them in real-world interactions.…”

“… 2. In academic debates, some scholars have described past work in criminal profiling as resting on an assumption of “homology,” or the idea that individuals who are committing or preparing to commit a certain crime will exhibit some meaningful amount of overlap in their behavioral patterns leading up to/during these acts (Chifflet, 2015; Kocsis & Palermo, 2015). At the theoretical level, this notion has been subject to debate and scrutiny, with evidence supporting multiple perspectives on the usefulness of assuming some degree of homology in crime scene behaviors.…”

“…By identifying cues (i.e., behavioral indicators) and articulating an understanding of how they are used, as well as how they interact with other aspects of crime detection, we hope to move forward this area of work and aid practitioners. For an extended discussion of “the homology assumption,” its theoretical implications, flaws, and merits, please see Chifflet (2015) or Kocsis and Palermo (2015).…”