INFERENTIAL PROCESSES IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILING OF THE OFFENDER

Massimiliano Aramini, Psicologo, Torino

Introduction

Who commits an offense shows in its execution a particular pattern of behavior; therefore an adequate interpretation of the crime scene allows to infer some characteristics of the offender. This is the assumption on which the psychological profiling of the offender is based. It is an investigative technique that should supply to the investigators specific information that facilitate the identification and the arrest of unknown offenders reducing the set of suspects, initially very wide, to a smaller set of individuals with specific characteristics. The profile does not lead automatically to the solution of the case, it is an useful instrument to develop strategies, to assist in the handling of information and to improve the comprehension of the case (Jackson, Bekerian, 1997; Turvey, 1999). Profiling is used when the traditional investigative techniques cannot be applied and the crime scene shows a great amount of behavioral evidence of the personality of the offender. Profiling is born in the United States at the of the 70’s in consequence of the researches of the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Academy. Originally used in the investigation of violent and serial crimes, nowadays profiling is applied to various offenses in many countries of the wordl (Blau, 1994).

At present there are many ways to elaborate a profile (behavioral evidence analysis, clinical approaches, statistical approaches) but the most known one is the criminal investigative analysis (Douglas et al., 1986). The present study focuses on the stage of the decision process models (Tab. 1) and applies to anecdotal data derived from the personal experience of the profilers or from judicial cases in which techniques of psychological reconstruction have been used. This kind of data are certainly neither representative nor reliable (for example, successes and merits are over-estimated, failures and shortcomings are underestimated), but from what profilers say – and from they don’t say – we can try to comprehend how they reason and how they infer the profile elements from the data at their disposal.

I have examined three cases: the first two are taken from the personal experience of an ex BSU profiler, John Douglas, the third is taken from a judicial case. Techniques of psychological reconstruction are used also in trial, in presence of a defendant, to comprehend the motive, the modus operandi and the mental state of the offender during the execution of the crime or to prove the consistency (or the inconsistency) of the defendant’s psychological characteristics with these inferred from the crime scene analysis.

The analysis of the cases has been carried out using methods and concepts of investigative psychology (Gulotta, 1995) which proposes instruments to examine documents and clues and to comprehend presumptive and probabilistic reasoning.

Table 1. – Psychological profiling stages

Case 1: Carmine Calabro

The first case – a particularly cruel motiveless homicide – has been analyzed proceeding backward, leaving from the outcome of the reasoning, the profile of the offender:

• male;
• caucasian;
• 25-35 years;
• unemployed or part-time employed;
• he lives within a range of one kilometer from the crime place;
• not married, he lives with his family;
• no military experience;
• ordinary look;
• careless;
• nocturnal habits;
• neither sentimental relationship nor close friends;
• no car;
• he follows a treatment in a mental health center (psychopharmaceutical);
• no drug abuse, no alcohol abuse;
• he collects sado-masochistic stuff;
• it is his first homicide, he will kill again.

There are different kinds of profile characteristics: demographic data, relationships, life-style etc. Some of them are generic, other more specific, for example the kind of pornographic stuff collected. There are also various ways to reason to reach these elements. For example, age and ethnicity of the offender are taken from statistical data that indicates that, in case of a sexual motivated homicide, is probable that the offender has approximately the same age and he has the same ethnicity of the victims. The inference of other elements is more complicate. In spite of its complexity, the table 2 is uncompleted because it contains only a part of the profiler inferences in this case, but it shows how various kinds of data come into play (crime scene information, victimology, general information). Proceeding along the chain of inferences the profiler reaches the profile elements and some of them become the premise of a following conclusion.

Although in the scientific literature and in the detective stories, the term deduction is often used, the inferences drawn by the profilers are abductive. There are not conclusions deriving in a certain way from the premises, but possible or at most probable conclusions. In other words, the representation of the sequences is if… then (maybe), not if… then (surely): it is probable that who had psycological problems follows or had followed a treatment in a psychiatric service, but it is not sure; who isn’t full-time employed cannot have a economic difficulties because he is supported by his parents or because he carries out a criminal activity. Also the conclusions more supported by the facts are anything but sure:

Table 2. – Case 1

Nevertheless the profile showed its accuracy and assisted the police forces in the identification of the offender. The inferential chains have wide chances of error, but bring to probable conclusions and they are assisted by the scenery, a sequence of facts articulated in a certain period. The scenery serves to complete the absence of valid elements for the decision, making plausible the inferences and solving the probative ambiguities. Different kind of knowledge (in this case statistical data, profiler experience, common sense) come into play and contribute to fill the gaps. Typically human dimensions, like intuition and empathy – in this case the ability to put himself/herself in the shoes of the offender or of the victim – are important too.

Case 2: David Carpenter

The inferential process is complex for the entanglement of the variables, as in the previous case, and for the complexity of every inferential chain, like in this case (Tab. 3).

Table 3. – Case 2

The abductions involved in a single inferential chain have could have different grades of originality and inventiveness:

• 1^st type, hypercodified hypotheses: the link between premise and conclusion is semi-automatic (if the subject can overcome his victims then his handicap (almost) certainly is not physical or it is modest);
• 2^nd type, hypocodified hypotheses: the link is selected on the ground of the available knowledge (as in the conclusive inference);
• 3^rd type, creative hypotheses: the link is constructed ex novo (for example, the offender strikes in isolated places because he is embarrassed by an handicap).

Case 3: Clarence Simmons

This case is an example of the use of a psychological reconstruction in court to verify, in a homicide case, the aggravating circumstance of the sexual motive, extenuating factor for the death penalty (Cochran, 1999). The reasoning is expounded in a more cautious and probabilistic way (Tab. 4-A), the data derived by the crime scene analysis are corroborated by medical examiner data (B), various hypotheses are proposed and criticized (C), reasoning in a counterfactual way (Catellani, Milesi, 1997).

All the cases, especially the third, point out the use of the triangulation method. It allows the corroboration of many aspect of the investigation even if it cannot be verified in its entireness. Many sources have been used: various data, different investigators (FBI profilers, police officers, medical examiner, criminal laboratory department). Because of the lack of different theories and methodologies there is the risk to subdue the data to the profiler’s mental schemes.

Conclusions

The research about the psychological profile has followed two fundamental directions: a) the evaluation of its utility also in confrontation with the traditional investigative techniques (for example, Gudjonsson, Copson, 1997; Jackson, Eshof, Kleuver, 1997); b) the study of the processes that lead from the crime scene elements to the profile characteristics. This study focuses on the inferential and decisional processes, showing how these are essentially founded on conjectures and that they bring to highly plausible conclusions. Nevertheless, the presence of errors in the psychological profile could have dramatic outcomes. Therefore the development and the application of systematic procedures is necessary to eliminate the chance of error and to augment the utility of profiling in the investigation.

About the use of the profiling and of similar techniques in trial, there is the problem of the weight of this evidence: it cannot contribute in a relevant way to the verification of the fact, on the other hand there is the risk to influence the jury. The profile is a list of characteristics that cannot indicate specifically a certain individual, on the other hand there is the risk that the profile could be constructed to "fit" the defendant. In the Italian judiciary system the prohibition of psychological (expert) report (art. 220 c.p.) is a strong obstacle to the use of the psychological profiling. The justification of this article is the need to avoid, in presumptive proceedings, that someone could be sentenced for his/her personality traits and not for the evidence (Gulotta, Aramini, in corso di pubbl.)

Table 4. – Case 3

Readings

Blau T.H.(1994), Psychological profiling, in Blau T.H. (a cura di), Psychological services for Law Enforcement, Wiley, New York, 261-74.

Catellani P., Milesi P.(1997), Reale e controfattuale nel ragionamento giudiziario, Kos, 138, 46-51.

Cochran D.Q.(1999), Alabama v. Clarence Simmons: FBI "Profiler" testimony to establish an essential element of capital murder, Law & Psychology Review, 23, 69-89.

Douglas J., Ressler R., Burgess A., Hartman C.(1986), Criminal profiling frome crime scene analysis, Behavioral sciences and the law, 4.

Douglas J., Olshaker M.(1996), Mindhunter, Rizzoli, Milano.

Gudjonsson G.H., Copson G.(1997), The role of the expert in criminal investigation, in Jackson J. L., Bekerian D. A. (eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research and practice,Wiley, Chichester, , 61-76.

Gulotta G.(1995), La scienza della vita quotidiana, Giuffrè, Milano.

Gulotta G.(2000), con la coll. di Aramini M, Il profilo psicologico del criminale, in Elementi di psicologia giuridica e di diritto psicologico: civile, penale, minorile, Giuffrè, Milano.

Jackson J.L., Bekerian D.A.(1997), Does offender profiling have a role to play, in Jackson J. L., Bekerian D. A. (eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research and practice, Chichester, Wiley, 1-7.

Jackson J.L., Van der Eshof P., De Kleuver E.E. (1997), A research approach to offender profiling, in Jackson J. L., Bekerian D. A. (eds.), Offender profiling: Theory, research and practice, Wiley, Chichester, 107-131.

Knight R.A., Warren I.J., Reboussin R., Soley B.U.(1999), Predicting rapist type from crime scene variables, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25 (1), 46-80.

Turvey B.,(1999) Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis, Accademic Press, San Diego.