Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Compareandcontrasttwomainapproachestocriminalprofiling(2011)

Discussthestatementthatprofilingisnomorethananeducatedattempttoprovideinvestegativeagencies
withspecificinformationastothetypeofindividualwhowouldhavecommittedacertaincrime(Gerberth,
1996),withreferencetothetwomainapproachestopsychologicalprofiling(2013)
Criminalprofilingisthepracticeofpredictingacriminalspersonality,demographicandbehavioural
characteristicsbasedoncrimesceneevidence(Douglasetal.,1986).CompareandcontrasttheFBIand
geographicalmethodsofprofiling(2014).

ForensicProfiling
Thegoalofcreatingaprofileistogainanideaofthephysical,behaviouralanddemographiccharacteristicsof
theoffender,whattheirbehaviourislikelytobeaftercommittingthecrimeandwhentheymightstrikeagain.
Theprofilemayalsoprovideusefulinformationforinterrogationmethodsaftertheoffenderisidentifiedand
apprehended(Keppel&Birnes,2003).Criminalprofilinghasalonghistory.Itwasusedasearlyasthe1880s,
whentwophysicians,GeorgePhillipsandThomasBond,usedcrimescenecluestomakepredictionsabout
BritishserialmurdererJacktheRipper'spersonality.Currently,profilingrests(somewhatuneasily)somewhere
betweenlawenforcementandpsychology.Asascience,itisstillarelativelynewfieldwithfewsetboundaries
ordefinitions.Itspractitionersdon'talwaysagreeonmethodologyoreventerminology.Theterm"profiling"
hascaughtonamongthegeneralpublic,largelyduetomovieslike"TheSilenceoftheLambs"andTVshows
like"Profiler",CSI,CriminalMindsandthelike.
Formsofprofilinghavebeenreferredtoascriminalinvestigativeanalysis,investigativepsychology
andcrimeactionprofiling.Despitethedifferentnames,allshareacommongoal:tohelpinvestigators
examineevidencefromcrimescenesandvictimandwitnessreportstodevelopanoffenderdescription.The
descriptioncanincludepsychologicalvariablessuchaspersonalitytraits,psychopathologiesandbehavior
patterns,aswellasdemographicvariablessuchasage,raceorgeographiclocation.Investigatorsmightuse
profilingtonarrowdownafieldofsuspectsorfigureouthowtointerrogateasuspectalreadyincustody.Still
regardedasmuchanart(basedonexperienceandintuition)asascience(basedonempiricalresearchthat
generatesfalsifiablehypotheses),psychologiststogetherwithcriminologistsandlawenforcementofficials
havenonethelessbegunutilisingpsychologysrichstatisticalandresearchmethodstobringmorescienceinto
theart.Thisessayservestocompareandcontrasttwomainapproachestocriminalprofiling,namelyFBI
profilingandgeographicalprofiling,withtheformerconsideredmoreofanart,andthelatterrepresentingthe
scientificapproach.
FBIMethodOfProfiling
ThecornerstoneoftheFBIapproachistheclassificationofcrimescenes(andhenceoffenders)aseither
organisedordisorganised.TodothisFBIprofilinginvolvesafourstageprocessincluding(1)data
assimilation,(2)crimesceneclassification,(3)crimereconstruction,and(4)profilegeneration.Duringdata
assimilationinvestigatorsgathertogetherinformationfrommultiplesourcessuchascrimescenephotos,police
reports,pathologistsreports,witnesstestimonies,etc.Followingthisthecrimesceneisclassifiedbasedon
evidenceofplanningontheoffenderspart.Adisorganisedcrimescenesuggestsunplanned,chaoticbehaviour,
whereasanorganisedonesuggestscontrolandforethought(Geberth,1996).
Duringcrimereconstruction,attemptsaremadetounderstandthecrimeeventasadynamicprocess
involvingaminimumoftwopeople(offenderandvictim)andhypothesesaregeneratedaboutwhathappened
duringthecrime.Theinformationgatherduringdataassimilationiscrucialforthisprocess.Finally,theultimate
profileisconstructed.Itwilloftengobeyondthetypicalcharacteristicsoforganised/disorganisedoffendersand
includeinformationextrapolatedfromthecrimesceneabouttheoffendersphysicalcharacteristics,
employment/skillset,sexualhistory,ageandethnicgroup(whichareusuallysimilartothevictims)(Holmes&
Holmes,1996).
Asthefirstsystematicapproachtooffenderprofiling,theFBIsapproachhasbeenenormously
influential.Ithasbeenadoptedbylawenforcementagenciesallovertheworld,manyofwhom,liketheNCID
OffenderProfilingUnitintheNetherlands,haveadaptedandenhancedit.Ainsworth(2001)suggeststhat
offendertypologiesarepotentiallyveryusefulinallowingoffencestobelinkedandfacilitatingpredictions
aboutthetimeframeofthenextattackandhowtheseriesofoffencesislikelytodevelop.FBIinspiredattempts

toobtainandorganisedataaboutdifferenttypesofoffenderhavebeenimportantinchallengingthestereotypes
thatinvestigatorsmayholdaboutoffendersandwhichmaymisleadinvestigations.Forexample,Clarkeand
Morley(1988)interviewed41convictedrapistsresponsibleforover800offencesandfoundthat,contrarytothe
stereotypeofaninadequateloner,theyweretypicallyveryaveragemen,livinginnormalfamilycircumstances,
oftenintelligentandinskilledemployment.
TheFBIsapproachtoprofilinghas,however,comeinforseverecriticismonhowobjectivethe
processis,thescientificstatusoftheevidenceonwhichitisbased,andtheusefulnessoftheprofilesit
generates.Instrictsocialscientificterms,theproceduresemployedbytheFBIteamwhilefirstdevelopingideas
aboutserialkillingwerenotthemostrigorous.Indeed,oneofthemostremarkablethingsistheextenttowhich
somuchinformationaboutoffendertypologiesemergedoutofastudyofjust36offenders,whomaywellhave
adistortedrecalloftheirowncrimes,onpurposeoraccidently,raisingquestionsaboutthedatasvalidity.
(Howitt,2009).Thissampleofoffendersisverysmallconsideringtheusetowhichthedatahavebeenputand
itisnotobviousthatthemethodsandmotivesoftheveryraretypesofoffenderinterviewedgeneralisereadily
tootheroffenders.Ainsworth(2001)pointsoutthattherehavebeenfewseriousattemptstoestablishthe
validityoftheFBIsoffendertypesusingscientificallyverifiablemethods.Additionally,Canter(2000)notesthat
thecrimesceneevidenceonwhichprofilesarebasedisoftenincompleteandambiguous,whichmeans
judgementsbasedontheevidencearenecessarilyspeculative.Furthermore,itisuptotheprofilertodecide
whichaspectsofthecrimesceneevidenceareimportantindeterminingtheprofile.Consequently,different
profilersmayreachdifferentconclusionsfromthesameevidence.Finally,atypologicalapproachtoprofiling
assumesthatoffendersareonethingortheotherandthatthisisstableovertime.Wilsonetal.(1997)suggest
thatneitherassumptioniscorrect:mostoffendersshowbothorganisedanddisorganisedfeaturesintheircrimes
andthattheymayshiftfromonetotheotherbetweencrimes.Thisobviouslylimitstheusefulnessofsuch
profiles.ThusnowadaystheFBIstyleofprofilingispresentedmoreasaspecialart(Canter,2004)ratherthan
ascientificendeavour.
GeographicalMethodsofProfiling
Criminologistshavelongrecognisedtheimportanceofenvironmentalfactorsincrime.Asearlyasthe1940s,
theChicagoSchoolofSociologyestablishedthatoffenderstendtobeconcentratedinparticularzonesorhot
spotsofacitywhichattractmuchpoliceattentionrelativetothesizeofthearea(Shaw&McKay,1942;
Shermanetal.,1989).Thisideahassubsequentlybeenappliedtotheindividuallevelforgeographicprofiling,
whichblendsenvironmentalcriminologyandmathematicsinitsstatisticalanalysisofsiteswherevictims
bodieswerefound(Godwin&Canter,1997).InkeepingwithCircleTheory,thelocationofoffencescan
provideinferencesfortheoperatinghomebaseoftheoffender(Rossmo,2000).Witheachoffencecommitted,
thelocationoftheoffendersbasecanbeestimatedwithincreasingspecificity(Godwin&Canter,1997).These
additionalcrimesspreadoutfromacentrallocationand,usingthedistancefromthetwofurthestlocationsas
thediameter,acirclecanbedrawnencompassingmostoftheoffencelocationsandthehomebase.
Thetendencytoremaincentraliseddemonstratesactivitydecay,commontobothcriminalandnon
criminalbehaviour,wherebythefrequencyofactionsdecreasesasthedistancefromhomeincreases
(Laukkanen&Santtila,2006).Oftenarticulatedastheleasteffortprinciple,thefallingfrequencyofoffences
demonstratesthetendencyofindividualstoselectnearbysitesforbehaviour,withotherfactorsbeingequaland
theexceptionofabufferzonearoundthehomewherefew,ifany,offencesoccur(Godwin&Canter,1997).
Snooketal.(2005)demonstratedtheseideasinastudywhichexaminedthewayinwhichagroupof53German
serialkillersdecisionmakinginrelationtooffencelocation,wasmediatedbytheirsocial,economic,and
cognitivecharacteristics.In63%ofmurdersthekillerlivedwithin10kilometresoftheplacewherethebody
wasfound.
Althoughmuchlesscommon,notalloffenderscommitcrimesneartheirhomes.Thereisstillhowever,
informationtobegleanedfromstudyingthegeographicallocationofcrimes.Whentherearenogeographic
commonalitiesbetweenthehomebaseandtheareaofoffending,accesstosomemethodoftransportation,
whetheraprivatelyownedautomobileorpublictransportsystem,mustthereforebenecessaryinordertomove
fromoneareatothenext(Young,2006).Thuseventhoughinvestigatorsmaynotbeabletoidentifythe
offendershomebase,theymaystillgatherusefulinformationabouttheirmovementsandfactorsthataffecttheir
executionofoffences.Forexample,youngserialkillersandthosewiththeirowntransporttravelledfurtherto
commitmurderthanthosewithaccesstopublictransportonly(Snooketal.,2005).Insomecases,theareathat
theoffendertravelstomayalsorepresentaplacethatisemotionally/personallysignificantormakesthe
offenderfeelcomfortablebecauseheorsheisfamiliarwiththelocationsactivities(Kocsis&Irwin,1997).
AswithFBIprofiling,theassumptionofgeographicalorstatisticalprofilingisthatfeaturesofthe
crimescenecontainevidenceofsalientbehaviourscarriedoutbytheoffenderwhilecarryingoutthecrime.

Thesethenmayhelprevealthedistinguishingfeaturesorcharacteristicsoftheoffender.Theessentialdifference
betweenFBIprofilingandstatisticalprofilingisthatthelatterconcentratesonestablishingtherelationships
empiricallyusingstatisticaltechniqueswhichidentifypatternsinlargedatasetswhereasFBIstyleprofiling
lacksthisempiricalcore(Howitt,2009).Thus,statisticalprofilingisbasedonitsowndistinctethosdespitethe
overlapsbetweenitandtheFBIprofilingapproach.Itismuchmoreempiricalandisnowherenearsorelianton
intuitionandclinicalinsight.
Statisticalprofilingcannottellpoliceexactlywhocommittedanoffence,butitpotentiallycanmake
predictionsaboutthecharacteristicsanoffenderislikelytopossess.Thiscanhelppolicetargettheir
investigationmoreeffectivelyandprioritisesuspectsoncetheyhavebeenidentified.SalfatiandCanter(1998)
examinedtherelationshipbetweenmurdercrimescenesandthemurdererscharacteristics.Amajorhypothesis
wasthatthemurdererswouldshowsimilarmodesofinteractionduringthehomicideasinmuchoftherestof
theirlives.Asampleof82Britishhomicidesinwhichasingleoffenderattackedastrangerwasstudied.These
weremurdersinwhichthepolicedidnotknowtheassailantatthetimeofthediscoveryofthecrime.Fromtheir
workanumberofinformativefeaturesofthecrimesemerged:thehomicidesoftentookplaceintheevening
(66%)andthevictimsbodieswereleftattheirplaceofdeath(76%).Themajorityofoffendersweremale
(72%)and/orwerelocalorfamiliarwiththeareainwhichthecrimeoccurred(79%).Additionally,theuseof
smallspaceanalysisbytheresearchersallowedthemtogroupthecrimescenecharacteristicsandthe
correspondingoffendercharacteristicsintothreemajorcrimegroupsbasedonwhetheranoffence/offender
displayedinstrumentalopportunistic,instrumentalcognitive,orexpressiveimpulsivequalities.Twothirdsof
thehomicidesstudiedcouldbereadilyclassifiedintoeachofthethreecategories(Salfati&Canter,1998).As
such,thecontributionofprofilingtoacaseistohelpthepolicenarrowdownalistofthousandsofsuspectsand
totargettheirsubsequentinvestigationsmoreeffectively.
StatisticalprofilinghasabandonedmanyoftheshibbolethsofFBIstyleprofiling.Thiscanbeseenmosteasily
inthemuchwiderrangeoftypesofcrimeswhichitcoverscomparedtoFBIprofilingsemphasisonserial
violentsexualcrimescontainingbizarreelements.Sostatisticalprofilingisincreasinglylikelytolookat
crimessuchasarsonandfraudwhichareverydifferentfromthefocusoftheoriginalFBIprofilers.Statistical
approachestopatternfindingarealsocharacteristicallyalittleinaccessible.Consequently,thereisagreatdeal
ofworktobedoneifthestatisticalapproachistoinformpoliceinvestigationsinwaysasinfluentialasthoseof
theFBIprofilers.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen