Profiling

Psychological profiling or criminal profiling involves analyzing the crime scene and all evidence in order to predict characteristics about the criminal so that there's a better chance of finding or identifying him/her. Investigators use all sorts of evidence like the location of the crime, time it occurred, type of victim, what was done to the victim, and any signature aspects. The obvious problem is that this process may rely completely on assumptions, and assumptions are not solid pieces of evidence to convict anyone. This could and does lead to a lot of wrongful convictions. It's easy for investigators to fall into the trap of stereotypes or being biased just because of the nature of making predictions without definite evidence to prove the relationship between the two, not to mention the cognitive processes or frameworks could be entirely different from investigator to investigator.

The biggest myth is that criminal profiling is dependable. It's success usually is overestimated or is actually very ambiguous. When movies or TV shows use it, the investigators are portrayed as geniuses who magically guess aspects about the perpetrator that end up being a perfect match but in reality, this intuition is not always present or reliable. Another misunderstanding is that the crime scene cannot always be linked to a particular person or personality trait because there is scientific proof that behavior changes with environment, so the context of the situation must be taken into consideration. There's a myth that similar crimes are committed by similar people; however, this was debunked during a study in 2002 that concluded that "trying to deduce the attributes of a rapist based on his crime scene may be worse than worthless- it may cause investigators to look for the wrong type of person" (106). This is a problem called tunnel vision and it also applies to analyzing case linkage. Lastly, there is the myth that ties into the stereotypes about the actual criminals. Many people believe that criminals are always strangers who are psycho, uncontrollable, viscous, heartless, evil people who cannot be helped and who should be sentenced to death or life in prison. In actuality, the majority of criminals are not any or all of those things, and the chances of a person you know harming you is a lot greater than a stranger harming you. If victims or investigators keep this narrow frame of mind when looking for suspects, they are making the process that much more difficult and decreasing its chance of success.

The first source from thinkquest.org is pretty consistent with the information in our textbook, just not quite as detailed. The second source from trutv.com says that criminal profiling usually results in success contrary to our textbook that says there is no way to know or estimate how often profiles are useful or useless. Similar to the chapter reading, the third source from apa.org explains that profilers rely heavily on intuition and informal studies, but there are more structured ways of classifying crimes like organized or disorganized. Even though this distinction is more objective, there is still a lot of inferring involved in the process. The last source discusses how psychologists find a lot of methodological flaws in profiling while the FBI agents argue that they are "more right than wrong" and their methods are improving. Just like we talked about in class, as the psychologists and law enforcement work together, it's important to keep in mind that they both have the same goal: to catch the bad guys. Psychologists are simply trying to eliminate as many procedural errors as possible so that it's not such an iffy process governed by myths. They want to "bring more science into the art" of profiling.

terms: cogitative psychology, tunnel vision, objectivity, intuition, inferencing/cognition, personality trait, case linkage, bias, stereotypes

Profiling is the act in which characteristics of a criminal can be assumed based on their crimes. Overtime the idea of profiling has grown and proven itself to be on a fine line of useful and not useful. I do, however, believe that profiling has leaded us to the use of categorizing crimes. The categorizing of crimes has helped develop a sense of direction without tunnel vision. The categories break down into organized and unorganized crimes, then further into the motive behind the crime. The four motives include; visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic, and power oriented. The use of placing a crime or criminal in a category helps the investigator understand an idea of the person that committed the crime. In each aspect of investigation we have learned about they all involve the investigator thinking as the perpetrator. Although, profiling is slow to develop in many crimes it has helped conclude the crime. Profiling also lead the crime investigation to several myths.

The myths have lead for untrue characteristics of serial killers and psychopaths. First is that all psychopaths are violent. Second is all psychopaths are psychotic, and last is that psychopath is untreatable. Another myth that I sought out on my own from reading the articles and text, is that all serial killers belong in a category. The issue stated about profiling is mostly that they want to categorize the criminal to help make the arrest. Understanding that all crimes have the want to be solved, it seems some get jumped into a category and then time is wasted trying to find a particular suspect. When visiting the links in the blog, further knowledge based on individual crimes helped me to understand profiling. The first article helps understand the overall definition of profiling and how it is used. The second article gives an actual example of crimes that were linked to profiling. Jack Unterweger is a serial killer that was convicted based on his signature. The basis of the article broke down the investigation of his crimes. Unterweger could somewhat be categorized, yet not enough to be found immediately. His crimes were organized yet repetitive. This crime gave me a sense of time when investigating, if that previous investigator would not have contacted them, would there have been how many more murders? This case was very interesting. Unterwerger’s past played a large role in his motives for the crimes that he committed.

The final article is one of the famous examples of successful profiling. The “Mad Bomber” was psychologically analyzed to create a detailed profile that leads the investigation to a proper conclusion. This case seems to be rare based on the accuracy. This case also provided large amounts of evidence and background motivation to the crimes, therefore, there is conclusions that were drawn based on the plethora of information. In this case profiling was very true to its accuracy; however, I would not base every crime on this particular case. I enjoyed learning about profiling and it opened my ideas of characteristics of the general serial killer and rapist. I also was surprised of how much evidence can be analyzed to find prior information.

Key Terms: Profiling, crime, tunnel vision, organized crime, unorganized crime, visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic, power oriented, psychopaths, serial killer, signature,

Reading chapter 5 and the additional sources I have concluded what social profiling is. Social profiling as described in the book is the process of drawing inferences about a criminal’s personality, behavior, motivation, and demographic characteristics bases on crime scenes and other evidence. In my own words, social profiling is a process in which investigators attempt to form a basis of what the perpetrator may look like, habits he or she may have, personality traits, ect. The purpose of this social profile is to give police and citizens an idea of what the perpetrator may be/look like. Once the profile is set, police and citizens are expected to be on a “lookout” for suspects that fit that type of profile. After further reading, I have learned the different aspects of social profiling and a little about the process. In addition, I have also learned the complications, biases, and problems that are associated with social profiling.

As social profiling became more popular, different classification schemes, techniques, and processes were developed. Ronald Holmes developed a classification scheme that groups killers into four different categories: visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic, and power-oriented. Learning about these different categories provided a perspective of how social profilers may form a profile based on the killer’s motives. I also learned a technique that social profilers use called geographic profiling. This is the process of estimating the general vicinity of the criminal’s home, place of work, or the potential location of the next crime. By using this technique, investigators may save victims if they can pin point a general area of where the crimes are likely to take place. Although social profiling can be helpful, there are problems and myths associated with it as well.

Myths involving social profiling include that it is reliable, similar crimes are committed by similar people, all psycho paths are violent, all psycho paths are psychotic, and psychopathy is untreatable. Social profiling is not necessarily reliable and may cause problems in investigations. One example as mentioned in our book was the Olympic bomber. A profile was created in hopes of capturing the bomber that resulted in attention to a man named Richard Jewell. His face was all over the news as if the government had caught the bomber although they had no evidence that linked Jewell to the bombing; except for his description fitting the profile. The FBI finally caught the perpetrator 3 months later however the damage had been done. A bad stigma had formulated around the innocent Richard Jewell. Another problem that social profiling causes is a tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is a biased tendency to seek out evidence that fits a profile or stereotype while ignoring contrary evidence. With this bias, police maybe focused too much on what the social profile portrays the perpetrator to be. They are therefore less focused on people who could have committed the crime but do not fit the profile.

Similar crimes are not committed by similar people. Researchers have discovered that there is no correlation between the two. This myth may cause many problems. For example, trying to deduce the attributes of a rapist based on his crime scene behavior may cause investigators to look for the wrong type of person. All psycho paths are not necessarily violent or psychotic. Psychopathy may be a risk factor for physical and sexual violence, but that does not mean every psychopath acts on violent behavior. Psychopaths are almost always rational, they are aware that their actions are seen as wrong to society but they just shrug off these concerns. Psychopathy can be treatable with time and effort however, many psycho paths are reluctant to seek treatment.

Another myth about social profiling is that crime scene characteristics fit into categories such as organized or disorganized. In reality however, most crime scene characteristics fall along a continuum with few extreme exceptions. Along with that myth, people may also believe that particular crime scene characteristics are reliably associated with particular criminal personality types. We cannot conclude from the data of a particular characteristic within a crime scene, that the perpetrator is a specific type of person. When people do conclude that the perpetrator is a specific type of person based on crime scene characteristics, a tunnel vision bias may occur.

Reading the information in the articles regarding social profiling appeared fairly accurate when compared to the book. They discuss what social profiling is, how it works, and provides examples in which social profiling was used and was successful. Although the articles’ information seems evident and accurate, they only briefly describe the negatives associated with social profiling. This can be problematic in which it may increase tunnel vision if people are not educated on the biases and inaccuracies involved with social profiles.

Terms: social profiling, perpetrator, victim, tunnel vision, psychopaths, visionary types, mission-oriented types, hedonistic types, power-oriented types, correlation, geographic profiling, stereotypes, and biases

Until reading Chapter five, Criminal Profiling and Psychological autopsies, I didn't know what profiling was. According to the textbook profiling is a process of drawing inferences about a criminal personality, behavior, motivation, demographic characteristics, based on crime scenes and other evidence. This definition was engineered by the FBI in the Behavioral Science Unit. The cases that most commonly involve profiling are cases applied to serial killers. Serial Killers are murderers who kill three or more people in separate events with a cooling-off period between murders. According to Agent John Douglas, a key attribute to a good profiler is judgment, a judgment not based on facts of figures, but based on instinct. It is very important to get into the mindset of the killer and also the victim, from the time the crime occurred. Three famous profiles have been famously named, they have been named, Jack the Ripper, The Olympic Bomber, The Mad Bomber. All three of them have been very influential in the profiling world.
There have been common characteristics that describe a broad range of serial killers; however, it doesn't describe every serial killer. A pattern of characteristics among serial killers include; many suffer from some form of brain injury that impairs rational thinking, most experience a combination of physical sexual and/or psychological abuse during childhood, nearly all are white males and like to dominate their victim before killing them. Most tend not to use guns and prefer strangulating stabbing or torturing their victim. Often times, they drink alcohol before killing their victim. Finally, most serial killers chose victims within their own ethnic group. Furthermore, profilers distinguish between two groups of murderers. Organized killers are described as carefully selecting and stalking their victim and planning out what they will do to their victims. They show patience by waiting for the right opportunity and cleaning up after the murder. Disorganized killers are impulsive and pick their victims are random, the act out of sudden rage and follow commands to kill from voice inside their head.
A myth that pertains to profiling happens to be assumptions. You need to go with your instinct but making assumptions are not validated or fully tested. There have been many examples where characteristics fall into both categories organized and disorganized killers. Also, sometimes there are crime scene characteristics that do not associate with certain criminal personality types. Another myth includes how consistent the behavior of an individual criminal is across crimes. People stay somewhat stable over time, but our personality can be determined by the situation. The process that determines whether two or more crimes were committed by the same person is called case linkage. Sometimes two crime scenes are very similar so officers assume they were committed by the same person. However, there is a chance they were not.
After reviewing the three above websites, I came to the conclusion that the three websites were very accurate. I thought the information that was stated on the websites went along great with our textbook. I noticed that the three famous profilers were included on the websites, as well. I thought the first website was easiest to navigate around because it different tabs for every aspect of profiling. I think if I didn't have the psych and law book I would be able to go to one of those websites and get a reliable definition of what profiling was.
Terms: Profiling, serial killers, organized killers, disorganized killers, victim, case linkage,

Based on chapter 5, profiling is accumulation of a list of behaviors, quirks, demographics, and a criminal's personality to name a few. Profiling is heavily used when there is evidence of a serial killing. For example, if the profiler notices in each scenario that the murderer has a "signature", using a certain method of killing with the same actions carried out among all of the crimes, this can reveal the personality of the killer and this is part of profiling. The profiles will take into account the crime scene, information about the victims, the behaviors of the crime, etc. and will infer on what the criminal is like and what to look for in a suspect.

Profilers have also developed an accumulation of scenarios which might describe the characteristics of a suspect. Organized crime scenes have hypothesized characteristics of organized criminals which are completely opposite to an disorganized crime scene and the hypothesized disorganized criminals that correspond with the scene. This can make part of profiling quicker or begin, just by examining the scene of the crime.

There are many myths of profiling. TV shows and movies make profiling seem a lot easier than it actually is. There isn't a perfect formula to solve the crime and always accurately profile the criminal. Profiling is quite complicated in most cases. Not all criminals leave signatures and not all characteristics can lead to a specific suspect. Many inferences can be too vague to take into a account or describe too many people, or on the other hand, many inferences can cause tunnel vision, while the real criminal is free and getting away with his or her crime. Not all criminals are the same with the crimes they commit and they cannot always be placed into a certain type. Profiling is a helpful method, but is not always accurate and not always appropriate, especially if it merges with stereotypes.

After looking at the three websites, I noticed that they all share similar basic information about profiling, but our textbook goes much more in depth on technical terms, issues with profiling, research, and a data collection. I liked the first website over the other two because of it's brief and to the point descriptions of profiling and different types of profiling. All of the websites referred to the Jack the Ripper case, and supported it as one of the first cases of profiling. Overall, I think the websites are great resources, but our textbook goes into greater depth on the topic of profiling, its history, research, and methods.

Terms: Profiling, profilers, serial killers, signature, suspect, organized killers, disorganized killers

According to chapter 5, profiling is the process of drawing inferences about a criminal's personality, behavior, motivation, and demographic characteristics based on crime scenes and other evidence. The way to create a good "profile", the profilers have to analyze the scene of the act, collect information about the victim, and look at the police and autopsy reports.Although creating a profile can be very helpful, it has some defaults as well. One of the most important things they look at is the signature. A signature is the distinctive, personal aspect of the crime that reveals the personality of the perpetrator, basically looking at why they did what they do.

Profiling is mostly applied to serial killing, which are murders who kill three or more people with a cooling of period in between. There is no list of characteristics that fit all serial killers, but there are plenty of patterns that repeat themselves. For one most serial killers have had some kind of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse during childhood. Profilers differentiate between organized and disorganized killers.

Organized killers are killers who carefully select and stalk their victim and plan out what they would do to them. They practically are patient and will clean up evidence after the murder. They have some very intricate rituals that incorporate torture and mutilation. On the other hand, disorganized killers are more impulsive, have a random selection of victims, they are more willing to use a weapon, and have sex with the victim after death. Breaking these categories further there is visionary types, which are usually psychotic, mission-oriented types that are motivated by desire, hedonistic types that kill for the trills, and last but not least power-oriented types that get off form the the pleasure of controlling their victim.

The problems that come with profiling are assumptions. Not everything in a crime scene is going to fall into organized and disorganized. Also you cannot rely to base a person's personality on the crime scene. Another problem would be the cross-situational consistency. Context does matter, the setting, the victim, and the emotions can change all the time, which would lead to a different profile. One other problems is the myths.

There are three myths when it comes to what a "psychopath" means. A psychopath pretty much seems like a normal person who lacks guilt or empathy. This leads to myth 1: all psychopaths are violent. This is not necessarily true in the cases of Bundy, Gacy, Rader. Most psychopaths are not violent, and most violent people are not psychopaths. Next myth would be that all psychopath are psychotic. False, psychopaths are almost always very rational. The third myth is that psychopathy is untreatable. Psychopaths might be less likely to want any psychological help, but if they do seek it, it would be beneficial to them.

Reading the information in the three articles appeared pretty precie to the book. They discuss what profiling is. I thought the information that was stated on the websites went along great with our textbook. The three famous serial killers were mention on the websites, as well. It gave more detail about the mad bomber, but overall I loved the websites and it relates a lot to the book.

Terms: profiling, serial killers, disorganized, organized, victim, signature, visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic, power-oriented

Profiling has become a job in the criminal justice system that the media has chosen over the years to sensationalize. In shows like Criminal Minds, profilers are portrayed as the heroes of extreme crimes. The profilers are depicted as those who possess the abilities to make inferences about the perpetrator without much evidence and still be spot on. However, this is not the case in real life profiling, which is actually a scrutinized practice by many.

Profiling is the process of coming to a conclusion about a criminal’s behaviors, motivation and personality based on crime scenes and evidence. Profiling, also known as, retroclassification or criminal investigative analysis, is mainly focused around serial killers and trying to get inside their minds to help prevent them from killing again. Profilers create a profile by analyzing a crime scene, talk with witnesses, examine evidence and evaluate police and autopsy reports. Profiles are created to help lead police and help narrow their searches during an investigation. A profile can direct police to a particular type of person and can help suggest questions that need to be asked or topics that need to be discussed during interrogation. Profilers also emphasize the importance of determining what the signature of aspect of the crime was. The signature of a killer is something that usually does not change and is something that they can create the profile around. Profilers take tangible evidence and create a profile based on characteristics they believe the killer should have to commit the crime in question.

There are many myths that surround the profiling profession. Due to media and literary portrayals of profiling, many people believe that profiling is used on a daily basis in solving crime and is extremely accurate. Profiling, in reality, is an unreliable way of finding a perpetrator. In most profiles that are made, there are several inconsistencies and irregularities and other times the profile is very generic and is not useful at all. For example, in the Jack the Ripper profile, the man described sounds like most professional men with a few minor exceptions. In this profile there was no real extreme that the police could latch onto to help find the killer. Profiles are depicted as being extremely accurate and that they help narrow down the suspect pool that the police have to deal with. However, if the profile is wrong or is too generic then the police can be too narrow minded and focus on only one suspect who may or may not be the perpetrator rather than looking at all their options. An example of this is the Olympic Bomber, where police were focused on Richard Jewell as the suspect for many years which ended up ruining his reputation and his life. In the end he was not arrested and was deemed innocent. However, the damage had been done all because a profile had pointed to Jewell as the suspect. Profiling can be unreliable at times and can have inconsistencies that can point police in the wrong direction, or profiles can be too generic and not point police in any direction. Profiling, as it is portrayed in the media, is a key component in the criminal justice system and has a large impact on solving crimes when, in actuality, profiling is a highly debatable topic that has yet to emerge as an essential part of crime solving.

The other three sites, as compared to Chapter 5, seem relatively accurate in their descriptions of profiling. The first website has a good brief overview of what profiling is. The site explains the myths and the cons of using profiling and how the media has skewed the public’s view of profiling. The second website, I believe, is the most deceptive website of the three. The second site focuses on the profiles on high profile cases that seem to have been accurate. The second website is doing almost the same thing that television shows and books do in terms of portraying profiling as a glamour job. The third site, in my opinion, was the best of the three websites. The website’s facts and information correlate well with what is said in our book. The third website depicts profiling for what it really is and discusses the myths and the debates that occur surrounding profiling.

Terms: profiling, criminal justice system, perpetrator, retroclassification, criminal investigative analysis, serial killers, witness, evidence, autopsy report, interrogation, signature

Due to the fact that profiling has become such a televised profession, I was curious to find out more about it and see what the realistic profession is and does. Chapter 5 defines it as drawing conclusions about a perpetrator’s personality, the area they target, or other personal characteristics based on the crime scene they leave behind. It seems that profiling is specialized in by a very select group and is usually applied to serial killers. They tend to look for a ‘signature’, a specific personal aspect of the crime that is individual to the killer. The police can rely on profiling techniques like geoprofiling, or psychological autopsies to help discover clues, however the amount of help this would be truly depends on the amount of information left at the crime scene. However, it was interesting that the book stated that there is no way to know how often profiles are useful or how often they are not. The media tends to make it look like they are always used, and play a large role in catching a criminal, however I now know that it may not always be true.
There are multiple myths when it comes to profiling that may confuse the public to think that profiling may be profoundly more useful than it truly is. First, it seems that not all crime scene characteristics may be attributed to a criminal personality, making it difficult to profile that offender. Another myth is that profiles fit into a certain category such as organized and disorganized, but in actuality it falls on a continuum, meaning it is not specifically one or the other. Also, it seems that before reading this chapter I was naïve to think that a criminal’s behavior is always consistent, considering that our behaviors can be heavily influenced by the situation. Lastly, the myth that chapter 5 disproved was that the profile will fit the criminal. I learned that ‘tunnel vision’ could be a problem when it comes to profiling. By focusing on only specific details, it can lead police to miss certain suspects that do not necessarily fit their profile.
In regards to the websites given, it seems that for the most part they were an accurate description of profiling, however all three did not give the details that we learned in the book or took a look at the negative side to profiling. It seemed that the websites did not give an in depth description about how often profiling is useful, considering chapter 5 explains that there is not sure way to know.
Terms: profiling, perpetrator, crime scene, serial killers, geoprofiling, psychological autopsies, tunnel vision, profile

Criminal profiling is a process that investigators use to come up with a description that could help detectives find a serial killer, for example. They use just about everything from the crime scene to help them come up with this profile. They could use how the body was found, where it was found, and also in what condition it was found. They use these things to infer the behavior of the criminal and what motivates them to commit crimes. Once they gather all the information, they come up with a criminal profile that is provided as a guide to detectives as to what kind of person they are looking for in that particular case. One thing that was stated in the book about these profiles is that they are largely based on one's instinct or intuition.

With that being said, some of the problems with criminal profiling includes the previous statement. One of the main myths about criminal profiling is that it is extremely accurate. In reality we have no way of knowing whether or not this method is actually even reliable at all.
Even though they are professionals, they could sometimes be wrong which could lead to a wrongful conviction or even allow the murderer to get away or kill again. They might produce a profile of this particular killer that could be skewed just a little bit but that produces what the book describes as tunnel vision. It provides a description of the type of person they are looking for, but that description could be wrong, leading the detectives to look for the description and maybe toss to the side other possible suspects in the case.
Another issue stated in the book is about these inferences that criminal profiler's make. They can sometimes be too vague to even use to their advantage. An example used in the book is "has problems with women", while this could be a determining factor in the case, almost every man "has problems with women" at some point in their life.

The websites given appeared to be just about the same information, just not as detailed as the book was. The websites also did not go into the negatives of criminal profiling. They inferred that they were very reliable, which is something the book states that they can't be 100%.

Terms: profiling, serial killer, tunnel vision, inferences, behavior, motivation

I had always been interested in Criminal Profiling. I found it fascinating what profilers and psychologists could glean from crime scenes and communications from the killer. My fascination it seems however, had more to do with how the "art" of profiling was portrayed in movies and tv shows. I should have know that it wasn't nearly as effective in real life.

According to the book profiling is the process of drawing inferences about a criminal's personality, behavior, motivation, and demographic characteristics based on crime scenes and other evidence. Basically what this means is investigators look at the evidence of a crime and attempt to extrapolate characteristics of the perpetrator. This seems like it would be very helpful information. In reality, it is a mixed-bag of leaps and assumptions, with some information being accurate and some not even close.

Profiling is most famously used in cases involving serial killers. The book gave us examples of profiles of famous serial killers by the investigators at the time, and most of the information in the profile was useless to the man hunt. The information was very general and contradictory and hardly narrowed down the suspect pool. Only portions of the profiles were accurate with most of it incorrect or unverifiable. This flies right in the face of all the people who watch tv shows and see how the profilers give extremely accurate and helpful information that always leads to the capture of the killer. In reality, sometimes the profile given can have serious negative effects on the investigation. It can give the investigator tunnel vision if they rely to heavily on the profile and exclude viable suspects.

Another type of profiling is geographic profiling. This is more of a collection of statistics and facts mapped out. It shows where the crimes are taking place and investigators can see high crime risk areas and possible find the general location of the criminal. Geographic profiling is not based on intuition like Criminal profiling is, but that doesn't mean it is always helpful either.

In the end after reading more about profiling I have come to understand more about it's true effectiveness. Profiling can sometimes help an investigation, but should never be the primary driving factor when investigating crimes. Nothing beats good old fashioned police grunt work.

Terms: Criminal Profiling, serial killer, tunnel vision, Geographic Profiling

Based on the chapter five reading, profiling is a method of examining a crime in order to induce or deduce characteristics of the perpetrator. These characteristics include their physical attributes, MOs, personalities, and demographics. This process is primarily used for identifying serial killers. Though profiling has been around for fifty years, it has not been standardized nor has its usefulness been proven. In fact, as in the BTK case, profilers often offer conflicting profiles that do not fit the characteristics of the perpetrators.
Profilers typically classify serial killers into two primary categories: organized and disorganized. Organized serial killers are much more methodical; the killer pre-picks his victim, stalks the victim, carefully cleans up evidence and hides the body. Disorganized serial killers are much more impulsive. This second type does not pre-pick his victim, performs multiple perverse acts upon the victim’s body, and does not dispose of the body.
Additionally, profilers have constructed four main motives for serial killers. These motives have been classified has visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic, and power-oriented. Visionaries hear voices telling them to kill. Mission-oriented killers try to eliminate a certain type of person, such as prostitutes, because they think these killings serve a higher purpose. Hedonistic killers murder for some type of twisted pleasure. Power motivated killers, as the name implies, murder in order to exert power over their victims. These killers find their acts emotionally fulfilling for a short period of time.
Many myths surround profiling. The first myth, and probably the most important, is that profiling is accurate. Little evidence has been found that supports this claim. Rather, profiling may unnecessarily cause investigators to eliminate the wrong suspects and include the wrong individuals in their searches. In essence, profiling may create tunnel vision which can harm rather than aid an investigation. The book specifically defines three pervasive myths of profiling: all psychopaths are violent, psychopaths are psychotic, and psychopaths are untreatable. In reality, the characteristics of psychopaths do not necessarily lead to criminal activity. Psychopaths have an abundance of confidence, lack remorse or guilt, and can be very manipulative. Not all psychopaths are violent, lose touch with reality, or are untreatable.
Another logical fallacy of profiling is that all serial killers use the same method of operation each time they kill. This error is due to a lack of cross-situational consistency. In reality, killers may alter their MOs because their emotional states or other variables have altered.
Another type of profiling is geographic. Geographic profiling uses mapping and math to determine where the killer is likely to live. This may be more reliable than social profiling, but still has shortfalls. One of the main shortcomings of geographic profiling is that it assumes the killer operates out of a home base. An example provided in the book describes a situation where a 41 year old and a 17 year old, both without a permanent residence, paired up to kill persons from overpasses. Therefore, geographic profiling was inapplicable. However, this field is promising.
The additional articles varied in their reliability. The first article, from thinkquest, seemed to focus on hedonistic and power-oriented killers. This article was not inaccurate, but was missing a lot of important information such as other types of serial killers and the potential inaccuracy of profiling. The second article, from trutv, provided a lot of specific cases about serial killers as well as information about how profiling worked. However, this article also did not note that profiling can be unreliable. The final article, from APA, is definitely the most useful. This article links directly to another article entitled “Does Profiling Really Work?”. The APA article describes the methods behind profiling and also describes the influences of psychological research on profiling. Overall, the APA article offers the most objective view of profiling.
Terms: profiling, serial killers, organized and disorganized, visionary, hedonistic, mission-oriented, power-oriented, accuracy, objective, psychopath, cross-situational consistency, geographic profiling, tunnel vision, home base, reliability, untreatable

The chapter on profiling was especially interesting to me because I enjoy reading investigative fiction that contains a great amount of profiling by law enforcement agencies. I wasn’t aware of how unsound, from a research viewpoint, profiling seemed to be. I always thought of it as something that professionals really could do, but didn’t really ever consider the fact that it was entirely subjective.

Based on the chapter, profiling seems to be the process of building an alleged identity of the perpetrator. That identity could include personality characteristics, physical characteristics, socioeconomic status, living arrangements, sexual impulses and much more. Usually, the profiler builds the profile using evidence from the crime scenes. The textbook definition of profiling is the “process of drawing inferences about a criminal’s personality, behavior, motivation, and demographic characteristics based on crime scenes and other evidence.” However, when put like that the idea of profiling seems rather systematic and empirical, when in fact, it is the contrary; profiling is generally an instinctual practice that is hard to actually put into play. For example, the entire process is completely subjective. The profiler has not method of actually building the profile beyond using his or her instincts and thought process. If the victim was strangled or physically harmed rather considerably, the profiler would probably conclude the perpetrator is of great physical strength. That is highly likely, but the perpetrator could also be trained in martial arts or have an accomplice or just have taken the victim entirely by surprise. Everything the profiler says is a “probably” or a “could be.” And while this is rather interesting, the textbook implies, and I would concur, that using profiling is a rather dangerous, and at times futile, practice. It is exceptionally difficult to search for a perpetrator based on descriptions such as “great physical strength” or “socially maladapted.” There is NO way to search for people based on that characteristic. To add to the dilemma, those descriptors may not even be accurate. Additionally, it may give investigators “tunnel vision” and cause them to ignore other possible leads.
The same can be said of psychological autopsies, which is an “effort to dissect and examine the psychological state of a person prior to his or her death.” A psychologist may be able to determine if someone maybe was depressed or even contemplating death. They may even be able to go so far as to say the person WANTED to commit suicide. However, using that to classify an accident, or something similar, seems much unfounded. Though I’m aware the idea of “reasonable doubt” would not necessarily be applicable in these circumstances, there really is a reasonable doubt that the accident may have been a suicide. The victim could have wanted to die another way, or another day, and had an accident, or the victim may have had some recent revelation that changed their mind about suicide. I think all a psychological autopsy can do is tell us whether someone was, at one point in time, contemplating death or suicide. There is no way to tell what someone was thinking directly prior to death.

There are several myths about profiling revealed in the chapter. The first, as I said earlier, is that profiling is not really an especially useful practice in investigations. An additional myth is that profiling is always admissible in court; oftentimes it is not. However, the myth that was MOST shocking to me is the idea that similar crimes are committed by similar criminals. Commonsensically, this appears to be a legitimate statement. However, the textbook reveals that this is a resoundingly false statement.

Most of the above sources are fairly accurate. One major inconsistency I noticed was the idea of “inductive profiling” which I talked about in the above paragraph. The source did say that there were questions about inductive profiling, which is the similarity of criminals for similar crimes, but did not mention the complete lack of statistical support for the theory.

Profiling, psychological autopsy, inductive profiling, tunnel vision

Chapter 5 gives a good explanation of the basis of profiling and what exactly they look into. the definition of profiling that the book gives is: "Profiling is the process of drawing inferences about a criminal's personality, behavior, motivation, and demographic characteristics based on crime scenes and other evidence." A lot of profiling is done on serial killers because they typically go for more victims. The idea of the profiler is try to get in the mind of the killer and create of profile of exactly who the killer might be. When doing the reading it surprised me when the book said that there are only a dozen FBI agents who specialize in profiling. I guess I could see it both ways because there isn't a whole lot of serial killings, I just think that there would be more than a dozen. It just seems to me that they could be using the profiling technique on other sorts of crime. But, also while reading it said that the profiling technique isn't all that great anyway. The book gave three examples of cases that have used this technique. In Jack the Ripper, they had a profile on him but he was never found. The Olympic Bomber had a profile and they arrested the wrong person before completely destroying his life. Years later in 2005 the right killer was finally captured and convicted. The third case was about the Mad Bomber who practically led police on a wild goose chase. This case actually showed how the profiling worked because the psychiatrist gave them the profile and it was pretty close to being accurate and they caught the bomber this way. Another type of profiling that the book discussed was the geographic profiling, which relies more on maps and mathematics. A lot of times with serial killers, they stay in their geographic zone. When crimes scenes are analyzed and where bodies are found, this type of profiling helps make a map of where the killer has gone and begin to notice some sort of pattern. Geographic profiling is being shown as more accurate than actual personality profiling because it's based more on statistical information. What is becoming more and more new is the idea of the Behavioral Investigative Advice (BIA), which instead of practically guessing on information of a subject, it focuses more on using the media and other outside sources and gaining useful information.

The three myths that are given about profiling are: 1. All psychopaths are violent. Just because there were a few serial killers that displayed the psychopath trait doesn't make all the them psychopaths. Some killers clearly know what they are doing and they kill because it excites them and they get the thrill out of that. Some people may think that makes them a psychopath, but they have to show psychopathy traits, and not all do. The book says that "most psychopaths are not violent and most violent people are not psychopaths," which is a very true statement. People who are involved in violent fist fights doesn't make them psychopaths, there are another alternative explanations such as being drunk or just really ticked off.
2. All psychopaths are psychotic. This is very untrue because most psychopaths are rational. They know that what they are doing is wrong in the eyes of society, but they don't care about the concerns. There will be a serial killer every once in a while who will be psychotic.
3. Psychopathy is untreatable. I think that this is a big myth for a lot of things these days. People can be treated, maybe not 100%, but they can still be treated; they just HAVE to want the help and actually take what they learn to help make them a better person. Even thought psychopaths may be hard to treat, at least it will help in some way. I think a lot of people that want treatment deny it because they don't want to take the time to get help. If they do they want to be fixed right away and not have to go through the months of treatment for the help.

I think a lot of the outside sources and the book hit profiling dead on. I think the basis of profiling is to study a crime scene and the victim in order to find the person responsible. AS the given sources do of giving examples, a lot of the profiling is done on serial killers because they have more than one victim and usually they will not stop until they have been caught, or in some cases they may never be caught. Even though profiling is not all the accurate most of the time, it's still growing. With the millions of people out there, it's hard to find an exact match when people have a lot of the same characteristics and that's why profiling has to be so detailed on precise nowadays. It's happened too many times were law enforcement and chosen the wrong suspect and their life was practically ruined. As i stated before, profiling has a ways to go if it is ever going to be a fully accepted idea (even though television shows that it is a fully accepted idea and works every time, we should no better than this) , but you have to start somewhere with something, exactly with the idea of profiling.

terms used: profiling, law enforcement, serial killer, psychopath, psychopathy, crime scene, psychotic, geographic profiling, BIA

What is Profiling:

Profiling is the process of drawing inferences about a criminal’s personality, behavior, motivation, and demographic characteristics based on crime scenes and other evidence. Profilers have been mostly applied to cases dealing with serial killers. Profilers are used to provide leads for police and to focus the efforts of investigators. Profilers will tell investigators to look for a particular type of person and ignore the other types of people.

What are Myths about profiling:

One myth about profiling is that profilers are always appeared to be right and accurate about everything but as they talked about in the book about the Olympic Bomber the profiler lead the police to a man that fit the profile in every aspect, as the police continued to investigate this man after putting him through hell and posting his name and picture all over the world they came to find out that he didn’t commit the crime. It turned out to be another man and the profiler was wrong.

A lot of myths I think come from TV shows such as Criminal minds. This show is about a group of profilers that help the police find the killers. They always know when the killer is going to attack again like they have some psychic powers and they are always right. In real life profilers do help the police find the killer but they may not be always right.

The Book compared to the Website:

Most of the information that I read in the book and on the websites were pretty much consistent with each other except for a few things. One main thing that was different between the two was that the book made profiling seem slow and not always accurate as the websites made it seem like profilers have a high success rate and are a huge help. I agree that profilers can be a huge help but I don’t think that they have a high success rate as the websites were saying I would agree with the textbook more.

Profiling is a very interesting thing and I enjoyed learning more about profiling that I was unaware of.

Term: profiling, investigate, serial killer, crime scene

Profiling got it's unofficial start in the late 1800's with the profiling of London's Jack the Ripper. Though Jack the Ripper was never apprehended so the accuracy of the profile could never be assessed, it did mark the beginning of the idea that evidence and circumstances of the crime scene could provide facts about the perpetrator that may lead to their apprehension.
This topic was particularly interesting for me because Criminal Minds is one of my favorite shows, and the premise of the show is following profilers of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit as they profile crime scenes to catch the perpetrator. I was very surprised after reading all the readings by A) How ineffective profiling actually is in real life and B) How little research has actually been done on it. In Criminal Minds they make profiling seem far more precise a discipline, with the person they end up catching almost always fitting the profile exactly. What I learned to be true through my readings was much the opposite.
The main idea of profiling seemed, to me, to be taking a crime scene and the crime its self to put the suspect into smaller and smaller groups until they are in a small enough pool to search systematically. In the case of a murder for example, was the killer organized or disorganized? Did they bring the murder weapon and restraining tools with them? Did they know the victim? Did they plan to commit the murder? If so you are dealing with an organized killer. They came with a plan and the tools necessary to carry it out. In these instances the killer probably takes great care in selecting the victim and planning the abduction and murder, and then cleans up after themselves when they are done, making them more difficult to track down. If, on the other hand, the killer uses a weapon that they found on the scene, abducted their victim out of convenience, and left evidence behind at the scene, you are probably dealing with a disorganized killer.
After you identify to which group your killer belongs, you can identify which "type" of killer they are. Visionary type killers typically have visual or auditory hallucinations telling them to commit this crime. In this case the killing plays a role in the persons psychopathy, and understanding the delusion and what part the killing plays in it will help lead you to the killer. Mission type killers on the other hand, kill to try to rid the world of people they see as evil or unfit to live. This type of people might focus on sub-groups like prostitutes for example, seeing them as evil or unclean. Hedonistic type killers are more of what we tend to think of in pop culture when we think of serial killers. These are the people who kill for the pure enjoyment of killing. They take sadistic pleasure in torturing and killing their victims. This killers often have a sexual component to them. So too do Power-Oriented type killers. These people kill to assert dominance and control over their victims. Though there is usually a sexual component to these murders, it is tertiary. The main focus is on controlling the victim.
Another way to thin the pool of suspects is to identify whether or not they are a serial killer, that is, have they committed three or more separate murders with cooling off periods in between. If so these murders can be linked by their signature. Though their MO may change, their signature will stay largely consistent through each crime. It is important to distinguish that the MO is different than the signature. The MO (modus operandi) is how the crime was committed (how the victim was selected, restrained, murdered, etc.) whereas the signature is why or in what way the murder was done. They can be difficult to tease apart as they are often closely linked. For example, in the silence of the lambs, Buffalo Bills MO was to abduct larger women, keep them for three days, and then kill them. His signature was removing the skin. Keeping them for three days (MO) made it easier to remove their skin (signature).
When I thought of profiling, homicides where the types of crimes I thought of, but the readings pointed out that other types of crimes can be profiled as well. I was very surprised, for example, that studies found that profiles for sexual abuse cases were far more accurate than those made for murder cases, if for no other reason than I would have thought there would be more evidence available at the crime scene of a murder than a sexual assault. That was just one of the things these readings have opened my eyes to.

Profiling, Organized Killers, Disorganized Killers, Visionary Type, Mission Type, Hedonistic Type, Power-Oriented Type, Serial Killer, Signature, MO, Evidence