youssra
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 3 BEHAVIOURAL PROFILING
It is generally believed that “profiling” originated in the 1970’s with the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In reality, profiling has been used for much longer. Profiling occurs in all human interactions, individuals tend to assess the behaviour of others automatically during their daily encounters. It is a natural social process to wonder about the personality, character, and even intensions of another (Palermo & Kocsis, 2005:10). Turvey (2003:2), indicates that one of the first published criminal profiling texts appeared in 1486, The Malleus Maleficarum (The Witches’ Hammer), a professional manual for witch hunters. It served as a guide for those engaged in the Spanish inquisition to assist in the identification, prosecution, and punishment of witches.
The attempt to derive a hypothesis about the personality characteristics of individuals committing criminal acts, based on the analysis of a crime scene, victim information, and other relevant sources of information has commonly been referred to as criminal profiling (Bartol, 2002:237; Turvey, 2003:1). Professionals engaged in the investigation of criminal behaviour include behavioural scientists, social scientists, and forensic scientists. However, there is still some confusion as to the use of the term “profile.” Various agencies use the term to describe different activities, and to compound the problem, an image of the “profiler” has been created by popular media that has influenced even academic ideas as to what profiling consists of (Labuschagne, 2003:67). Criminal profiling has been referred to, among other less common terms, as behavioural profiling, crime scene profiling, criminal personality profiling, offender profiling, psychological profiling, and most recently criminal investigative analysis (Palermo & Kocsis, 2005:viii; Turvey, 2003:1). Due to the lack of uniformity in the use of the terms, as well as the interchangeable and inconsistent application, for the purpose of the chapter, and the research, the term behavioural profiling will be used, as defined in Chapter 1.In the following sections, a more in-depth description and explanation will be given of behavioural profiling, as well as the relevant concepts and aspects associated with the process. Various strategies of investigation will also be explored along with the application of these strategies to crime investigation, specifically serial rape investigation.
OVERVIEW OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PROFILING
According to Douglas et al., (1992:21-22), profiling can be viewed as a form of retro- classification, or reverse engineering, a process of classification, which works backwards. It can be seen as an informed attempt at providing detailed information regarding a certain type of criminal, as well as a sketch of behavioural patterns and tendencies exhibited by the offender. According to Kocsis, Cooksey, and Irwin (2002:144), criminal psychological profiling can be described as a technique used during an investigation whereby crime behaviours are analysed for identifying possible distinct offender characteristics.Holmes and Holmes (1998:179-182), indicate that there are certain assumptions present in the profiling process:1 Crime scene reflects personality: A basic assumption of psychological profiling is that the crime scene reflects the personality of the offender. Therefore, through an assessment of the scene, the type of personality of the offender can be predicted, hence narrowing the scope of investigation to certain types of2 The offender’s personality will not change: many personality experts are in agreement that the core of the individual’s personality is “fixed” by the time he reaches his teenage years, and fundamentally it remains the same over time. The “criminal” personality will also not change radically, but there might be alterations due to time, circumstances, and other activities.3 Signature will remain the same: the signature of a perpetrator is the unique manner in which the offender commits the crime. For example, certain phrases a rapist uses with the victims or a specific manner in which the offender leaves something or takes something from the scene. There is some confusion as to the difference, if any, between the signature and the method of operation. The signature is the unique mannerisms present during the crime, while the method of operation refers to the manner in which the offender commits the 1Holmes and Holmes (2002b:7-9), state that the aim of any behavioural profile is threefold:1 To provide law enforcement agencies with a psychological and social assessment of the offender. This would include basic information, such as the core variables of the offender’s personality structure, population group, age range, employment,2 To provide the criminal justice system with a psychological evaluation of the possessions found on the offender. This aspect is of great importance, because in most cases, the profile will point to a specific offender, and it will also refer to objects in his possession, such a photographs, souvenirs, and 3 To provide interviewing suggestions and strategies once an offender has been apprehended who “fits” the profile
General terms and definitions of profiling
According to Egger (1999:243-244), the general premise of profiling, is that an accurate analysis, as well as an interpretation of the crime scene and other locations related to the crime, could indicate the type of individual who committed the crime. Due to the fact that certain personality types display similar behavioural patterns, the development of knowledge and understanding of the behaviour patterns can lead investigators to potential suspects.
Hickey (2002:311-312) offers several types of profiling, and definitions for each, with a distinct use and method of profiling. Offender profiling is the process of collecting data from case studies and anecdotal information, and then transforming the data into descriptions of types of individuals who are most commonly associated with a certain type of criminal activity. He also argues that, due to the multiple problems posed by the tracking of serial offenders, psychological profiling is used in order to prioritize a variety of homicides and other serious crimes. According to Labuschagne (2003:67), offender profiling can be defined as the process by which the investigator is assisted in determining the most probable type of individual to have committed a specific crime. This would involve assessing the crime scene, attending the post- mortem examination, and analysing all available material, such as police dockets, photographs, and forensic reports. All the information gathered is then compared against available research and experience. A hypothesis is then formulated as to the “type” of suspect. The aim of the verbal or written report is to aid the investigation in focussing on the most likely suspect.Psychological profiling, or criminal personality assessment, consists of a psychological assessment of the crime scene, in order to produce a profile. The investigators in this way, pieces together the behavioural and physical characteristics of the crime scene (Hickey, 2006:95). The aim is to identify and interpret certain items of evidence found at the crime scene that are indicative of the personality type of the individual or individuals committing the crime (Hickey, 2002:314). According to Kocsis (2003:126), criminal psychological profiling can be viewed as the technique of analysing behaviour patterns in crimes, or series of crimes, in order to construct a descriptive template of the probable offender. According to Egger (1999:243), psychological profiling is an attempt at providing investigators with more information on an offender who is yet to be identified. The purpose of profiling is to develop a behavioural composite, combining social and psychological assessments of the offender.The two types of profiling presented by Hickey (2002; 2006), employ different types of assessment techniques (behavioural assessment and psychological assessment), in order to construct a profile of the unknown offender. The goals of both processes are ultimately similar, in that it attempts to provide direction to the investigation in terms of the unknown offender.Davis (1999:292) argues that criminal personality profiling is the science of reconstructing a picture or “portrait” of the type of crime, as well as of the individual involved, through the examination of the evidence and information acquired during the examination of the crime scene. According to Cook and Hinman (1999:231) criminal personality profiling is a technique used in identifying the personality, as well as the behavioural and demographical characteristics of offenders, based on an analysis of the crimes they have committed. The focus of the analysis is the behaviour of the individual or individuals on the crime scene.Despite the various definitions and opinions about profiling,criminal personality profiling, psychological profiling, offender profiling, or criminal personality assessment, there are several basic underlying principles evident in all the definitions. The basic foundation of all the definitions is inferring behavioural patterns and personality characteristics from an analysis of the crime scene. The psychological and behavioural assessment is derived from analysing all the available data, including the crime scene, post-mortem report, relevant case dockets, and victim information. A behavioural composite is constructed and a picture of the crime, as well as the offender characteristics is given in order to supply more information about the unidentified offender.In terms of the basic underlying principles, the behavioural profiling process shares several of the tenets. Behavioural profiling is a process by which the behavioural evidence, (observable behaviour, crime scene characteristics, verbal, sexual and physical behaviour, physical evidence, and victimology), is analysed and utilised to construct a behavioural profile of the offender. The aim of the behavioural profile is to construct a behavioural composite or template, and to identify the behavioural salience of the unidentified offender. Establishing the modus operandi, motivation, and signature of the offender can only be successfully determined after the behavioural patterns and offender characteristics have been established.Behavioural profiling can therefore be defined as the process through which the observable evidence exhibited by the offender in preparing and committing the offence is analysed. The objective of the analysis is to construct a behavioural composite and descriptive template in order to identify the behavioural salience of the unidentified offender. Through the process of moving from general to unique patterns of behaviour, the process of analysing the behavioural evidence facilitates a differentiation of behaviour oriented towards fulfilling a fantasy, behaviour indicating motivation, behaviour indicative of the modus operandi, behaviour signifying signature and general behaviour orientated towards the completion of the crime. A general psychological evaluation of the behavioural evidence, and the inference which can be made in terms of the characteristics and general personality construction, can only be effectively carried out after the significant and unique behaviour patterns have been identified.
Criticism
Numerous points of criticism have been raised with regards to profiling, the most notable criticism is the lack of empirically based research on the validity and reliability of profiling and the techniques, of the typologies, classification systems, models and exploratory frameworks utilised throughout the process. (Canter, 2000; Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998:174-175).
One of the criticisms against the various processes of profiling is the apparent lack of research and studies establishing the reliability and validity of the techniques (Cook & Hinman, 1999:236; Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998:174). Homant and Kennedy (1998:323), Kocsis, Heller and Try (2003:664), and Kocsis (2003:127), indicate that the correspondence between the profile and actual perpetrator has received little scrutiny. The bulk of the information and material cited supporting the accuracy and validity of profiling consists of anecdotal accounts. No one has attempted to gauge the validity of profiling within a real-life situation or within an academic context.Possibly the most cited research about psychological profiling is the research conducted on the subject by the FBI (Canter, 2000:26; Davis, 1999:291-295). The research was conducted on 36 incarcerated sexual murderers, and resulted in the development of the organised-disorganised dichotomy (Kocsis et al., 2002:145). Although many investigative successes have been accredited to the efforts of FBI profilers, there are also several other examples where the profiles have proven to be ineffectual in terms of assisting the investigation. Due to these circumstances, the validity and subsequent effectiveness of the profiling process has attracted considerable criticism, the bulk of which focused on the organised-disorganised dichotomy. Although this research has attracted much interest and attention, simple empirical replications of the findings have been lacking. Despite the obvious value of interpreting crimes by their behavioural sophistication, a more realistic and practical interpretation of the behaviours would require far more sophisticated research beyond a simple dichotomy (Kocsis et al., 2002:145- 146). Kocsis et al. (2002:146), also point out that a weak point of the research, conducted by the FBI, is the failure of the material to describe how the findings were integrated.Although not the aim of this chapter, it is pertinent to take note of the criticism aimed against the various processes of profiling. This criticism is of importance as it can also be directed towards behavioural profiling. In terms of the reliability and validity of profiling, the most notable research conducted on the efficacy of profiling was conducted by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990:215-233), who conducted a “horse race” outcome study. This involved evaluating a small group of trained profilers, detectives with no official training, psychologists, and undergraduate students. The aim of the study was to compare their ability to correctly profile a homicide and sexual offence case where the offenders were already known. The profilers did outperform the other groups but the results were mixed. According the Cook and Hinman (1999) although far from being unequivocal, their findings did illustrate that in 46% of the requests for assistance, the investigators deemed the profile beneficial to the investigation, while only 17% were of assistance in the actual identification of the offender. However, in 77% of the cases the profiles did give a clearer focus for the investigation process. Their findings also highlighted the fact that some form of relationship exists between case information and profiling proficiency.The issue of validity and reliability of profiling, and the empirical replication of the processes involved during the profiling process are inescapably connected. The interconnectivity of the two points of criticism is clearly illustrated when the general process of profiling is reviewed.The skills and the abilities of the profiler have a significant bearing on the reliability and validity of the profile, and also have a direct link with the application of the frameworks and methods involved during the profiling process. Certain attributes are essential to effective profiling, for example the profiler must have an appreciation of the criminal mind, and must be able to understand what type of individual could have committed any given crime. A certain amount of investigative experience in terms of having investigated certain types of crimes is also essential, along with the ability to logically approach a crime without being diverted by personal feelings (Kocsis, 2003:130-131). The skills and the abilities of the profiler have a specific implication on the application of the explanatory frameworks, for example the organised-disorganised dichotomy, employed during the profiling process. The profiler must interpret both narrative and visual case material compiled of a specific case, and by applying the explanatory frameworks to the case information, compile a profile of the as-yet unknown offender. According to Kocsis et al. (2003:666) case information, or more importantly, the accuracy of the information, is a crucial element of the profiling process. If the information gathered from the scene is lacking or incomplete, the profile will be incomplete, no matter how much investigative experience the profiler possesses. The explanatory frameworks applied during profile construction are also dependent on the accuracy of the case material as well as on the skill and ability of the profiler In evaluating the criticism levelled against profiling,
it is apparent that the criticism is valid in many aspects. It is important that the existing models and frameworks, as well as any new proposed frameworks, are perceived as consistent and reliable. This, in turn, will influence the perception of the validity and reliability of profiling as a viable investigative tool. However, the validity and reliability of profiles are a point of concern, due to the fact that it can never truly be established. The success of the profile is often coupled to the case material presented to the profiler, as well as to the skill set and abilities of the individual profiler. In the same instance, the need for empirical replication of the frameworks, and for the models utilised during the profiling process, is inherently flawed. The models and frameworks were created by individuals who had differing levels of experience and expertise as well as different skill sets. During the construction of four different profiles for four different cases, for example, each individual profiler will interpret the models and frameworks according to his skill levels and experience.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1.1.1 Need for research
1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH
1.3 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
1.3.1 Rape
1.3.2 Serial rape
1.3.3 Behavioural analysis
1.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 RAPE MYTHS
2.1.1 General rape myths
2.1.2 Serial rape myths
2.2 INTERNATIONAL AND LOCAL RAPE STATISTICS
2.3 CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON RAPE
2.3.1 Theories of rape
2.4 SERIAL RAPE
2.4.1 Serial rape research
2.4.1.1 Serial rapist demographics
2.4.1.2 Serial rapist motivations
2.4.1.3 Selection techniques, methods of approaching and controlling the victim
2.4.1.4 Use of force and violence
2.4.1.5 Sexual dynamics of rape
2.4.1.6 Developmental characteristics
2.4.1.6.1 Family structure
2.4.1.6.2 Parental relationships
2.4.1.6.3 Childhood sexual abuse
2.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: BEHAVIOURAL PROFILING
3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PROFILING
3.1.1 General terms and definitions of profiling
3.1.2 Criticism
3.2 BEHAVIOURAL PROFILING
3.2.1 Inductive vs. Deductive analysis
3.2.1.1 Inductive analysis
3.2.1.2 Deductive analysis
3.2.2 Behavioural profile construction process
3.2.2.1 Information sources
3.2.2.1.1 Crime scene
3.2.2.1.2 Victim analysis
3.2.3 General behavioural outline of the serial rapist
3.2.3.1 General demographical information and base behaviours
3.3 BEHAVIOURAL PROFILING FRAMEWORK
3.3.1 Linkage analysis
3.3.2 Modus operandi
3.3.2.1 Methods of approaching the victim
3.3.2.2 Method of controlling the victim
3.3.2.3 Choice of location
3.3.2.4 Criminal sophistication
3.3.2.5 Fantasy and signature behaviour
3.3.3 Components of the sexual act
3.3.3.1 Elements of the sexual behaviour
3.3.3.1.1 Intercourse behaviour pattern
3.3.3.1.2 Personal-attempted intimacy behaviour pattern
3.3.3.1.3 Brutality behaviour pattern
3.3.3.1.4 Selfish behaviour pattern
3.3.3.1.5 Ritual behaviour pattern
3.3.3.1.6 Criminal intent behaviour pattern
3.3.3.2 Rapist categories model
3.3.3.2.1 Instrumental aggression
3.3.3.2.1.1 Opportunistic rapist
3.3.3.2.1.2 Power – reassurance rapist
3.3.3.2.2 Expressive aggression
3.3.3.2.2.1 Power assertive rapist
3.3.3.2.2.2 Anger – retaliatory rapist
3.3.3.2.2.3 Sadistic rapist
3.4 SYNTHESIS
3.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.2 DATA COLLECTION
4.3 DATA ANALYSIS
4.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: EXPLORATION OF INDIVIDUAL SERIES
5.1 OFFENDER A
5.2 OFFENDER B
5.3 OFFENDER C.
5.4 OFFENDER D
5.5 OFFENDER E
5.6 OFFENDER F
5.7 OFFENDER G
5.8 OFFENDER H
5.9 OFFENDER I
5.10 Conclusion
CHAPTER 6: INTEGRATION AND DISCUSSION
6.1 VICTIM PROFILE
6.2 OFFENDER PROFILE
6.3 MODUS OPERANDI
6.4 GENERAL PROFILE CONSTRUTION
6.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
7.2 INVESTIGATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.4 CONCLUSION
