11/6/22, 10:36 PM Upload Assignment: Week 5 Assignment - Management Liability ...

https://blackboard.strayer.edu/webapps/assignment/uploadAssignment?content_id=_41532743_1&course_id=_487228_1&group_id=&mode=view 1/4

Due Date

Monday, November 7, 2022 9:00 AM

Points Possible

150 View RubricView Rubric

  ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION

Mowers, Inc., a fictional company, has a flourishing lawncare business. The business has two full-time employees who have been with the company for five years.

All employees are trained on using the lawn equipment and, upon being hired, signed a waiver-of-liability contract limiting liability for the company.

The owner, Brian, tells his employees "Not to worry—the company will protect you!”

One employee, Lori, was on the job cutting a lawn.

Lori was riding a mower, a Ferrari 2000, which was three years old and in good working condition.

The step-up on the mower had writing on it with a warning sticker to replace the sandpaper liner for traction every three years due to normal wear and tear.

It was replaced every three years as required.

Lori stepped down off the rider, slipped because of moisture from the grass, and severed her pinky toe on the mower blade.

When she fell to the ground, the mower continued through the grass and proceeded by itself to cut and mulch a neighbor's prize roses.

Peta, the neighbor, was preparing for a rose competition with a potential grand prize of $10,000.

Week 5 Assignment - Management Liability Scenario Overview - In this assignment you apply contract and product liability

law to a business scenario.

SCENARIO FACTS:

Instructions

When finished, make sure to click Submit. Optionally, click Save as Draft to save changes and continue working later, or click Cancel to quit without savin

Heather Daniels 24WEEK 5H

11/6/22, 10:36 PM Upload Assignment: Week 5 Assignment - Management Liability ...

https://blackboard.strayer.edu/webapps/assignment/uploadAssignment?content_id=_41532743_1&course_id=_487228_1&group_id=&mode=view 2/4

Is there a “Design defect?” (Be sure to define these terms and explain them)

Is there a “Manufacturing defect?”

Is there a “Failure-to-warn defect?”

3–4 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), 1- inch margins on all sides.

Include at least three (3) quality references. The textbook for this class is a required source for this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not count as quality references.

Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the Sources list are not included in the required assignment page length.

Consider the above scenario and write 3–4 pages in which you make the following determinations:

QUESTIONS OF THE ASSIGNMENT: 1. Pursuant to contract law requirements, determine the legality of the waiver contract and whether verbal assurances become part of the written contract. Support your response. 2. Determine whether the plaintiff Peta has a product liability case against the manufacturer Ferrari for each of the following defects. Support your response.

3. Determine whether the employee Lori has a claim for injuries and whether the employee Lori can recover pain and suffering damages per tort law or worker’s compensation law. Support your response. Note:

Remember, you are demonstrating your understanding of the law, so explain the law first and then make your determination. Be informative and show what you know! References should be from credible and reputable legal sources.

Formatting Requirements

Resources Use the Strayer Library to conduct your research.

In addition to your textbook, you have access to Nexus Uni through the Strayer Library. You are encouraged to use the Strayer Library to conduct your research. The textbook for this class is a required source for this assignment. When finished, make sure to click Submit. Optionally, click Save as Draft to save changes and continue working later, or click Cancel to quit without savin

Heather Daniels 24WEEK 5H

11/6/22, 10:36 PM Upload Assignment: Week 5 Assignment - Management Liability ...

https://blackboard.strayer.edu/webapps/assignment/uploadAssignment?content_id=_41532743_1&course_id=_487228_1&group_id=&mode=view 3/4

By submitting this paper, you agree: (1) that you are submitting your paper to be used and stored as part of the SafeAssign™ services in accordance with the Blackboard Privacy Policy; (2) that your institution may use your paper in accordance with your institution's policies; and (3) that your use of SafeAssign will be without recourse against Blackboard Inc. and its affiliates.

Write SubmissionWrite Submission

Browse Content CollectionBrowse Content Collection

SafeAssign accepts files in .doc, .docx, .docm, .ppt, .pptx, .odt, .txt, .rtf, .pdf, and .html file formats only. Files of any other format will not be checked through SafeAssign.

To paste text from a Word document: Copy text while in Word, click in the text box below, and then hold Ctrl and press V (Paste).

Institution Release Statement

This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.

The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is as follows: Analyze the legal standing and situation of a specific business to achieve a defined result.

  ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION

Text Submission

Attach Files

  ADD COMMENTS

Comments

Browse Local FilesBrowse Local Files

When finished, make sure to click Submit. Optionally, click Save as Draft to save changes and continue working later, or click Cancel to quit without savin

Heather Daniels 24WEEK 5H

11/6/22, 10:36 PM Upload Assignment: Week 5 Assignment - Management Liability ...

https://blackboard.strayer.edu/webapps/assignment/uploadAssignment?content_id=_41532743_1&course_id=_487228_1&group_id=&mode=view 4/4

P 0 WORDS POWERED BY TINY

When finished, make sure to click Submit. Optionally, click Save as Draft to save changes and continue working later, or click Cancel to quit without savin

Heather Daniels 24WEEK 5H

Chapter 16

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling∗ Richard N. Kocsis and George B. Palermo

Summary

Despite the apparent popularity of criminal profiling among the law enforcement community, scrutiny of its merits does not appear to have occurred to any substantial extent. This chapter identifies and assesses 10 significant problems surrounding the theoretical literature and the professional practice of criminal profiling. It highlights many shortcomings in both the research and the practice of profiling and serves to demonstrate that a disparity exists between the perceptions and the realities of what criminal profiling can reliably achieve. Suggestions for how the research and practice of profiling may be advanced are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

There are few investigative techniques that can rival the notoriety of and public interest in criminal profiling. The concept of the enigmatic profiler who possesses a genius-like insight into the mind and actions of a serial killer has become a common and well-recognized hallmark of contemporary media and crime fiction (1–3). The degree of parity that exists, however, between the reputation generated by such depictions and the realities of profiling in aiding

∗ This chapter is a slightly re-worked version of an article originally published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, Volume 26, issue 2, 2005 that was entitled “Ten major problems with criminal profiling”. The Journal is a publication of the American College of Forensic Psychiatry, PO Box 5870, Balboa Island, CA 92662, USA.

From: Criminal Profiling: International Theory, Research, and Practice Edited by: R. N. Kocsis © Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ

327

328 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

police investigations is an issue that seldom attracts equivalent critical scrutiny. Given the numerous true-crime biographies on the topic (4–12), one can be forgiven for thinking that profilers have done little to counter the often fanciful image of their activities. Indeed, it is arguable that the practice and development of profiling has benefited greatly from such romanticized portrayals (13).

The purpose of this chapter is to offer some critical assessments of the profiling technique, its practice, and the developed research underpinning its use. It should be noted, however, that the issues raised herein are not presented in any order reflective of their priority.

WHAT IS PROFILING? Profiling is a process of observation and reflection during which an attempt

is made to reassemble the collected pieces of a criminal puzzle as the investi- gating profiler tries to answer the basic questions: Why, where, when, how, and who? It may be well served by typologies of past crimes that are useful in the investigation of present crimes. Specifically, it is a technique aimed at identi- fying and interpreting crime behavior or actions for the purpose of predicting the personality of the offender, his/her modus operandi, and, possibly, the motivation for the crime. These factors are derived from an attentive exami- nation of the crime scene, which often yields information valuable to the criminal investigator. The purpose of profiling, however, is not only that of a possible identification of important offender characteristics but also to prevent the repetition of a crime. The practice of criminal profiling thus far has been relegated to major felonies, such as murder, rape, and arson, especially those that are serial in type.

DOES PROFILING WORK? In view of the renown of criminal profiling, it seems somewhat trite

to question the efficacy of the technique given its status alongside other well-established forensic investigative adjuncts (14–17). Surprisingly though, the empirical evidence to support profiling, unlike other forensic techniques, is remarkably scarce (18,19). In the attempt to answer the basic inves- tigative questions mentioned above, various approaches to profiling have been used, including criminal investigative analysis (CIA), investigative psychology (IP), and crime action profiling (CAP). These methods, however, although contributing to reducing the number of suspects in a crime, often fall short of being successful in definitive offender identification. This may be due to a lack of sufficient data for interpretation or to the inadequate interpretive capacity

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 329

of the profiler, but perhaps more so to the uniqueness of each offender and situational variables of his modus operandi.

In assessing the efficacy of profiling, it is important that two distinct but integral concepts be considered. First, the “validity” of a profile is related to its accuracy in correctly predicting the characteristics of an unknown offender. Second, efficacy is also related to the utility of the information yielded by a profile. Assuming that the profile is reasonably accurate, one must consider whether this information actually assists investigators in practical terms.

Validity

Possibly the earliest documented evidence to support profiling emerges from an internal report produced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (20). This report, as an internal document, has not been made available for public scrutiny to date. Even so, this report appears to be the source of a claim that profiles, as composed by the FBI Behavioral Science Unit, possess an approximately 80% degree of accuracy. This appears to have been first promulgated in the public domain by Pinizzotto (21). However, to date it has not been independently verified as is dictated by the scientific method, and until that is done it remains a tantalizing assertion (22).

Putting aside such unilateral claims, the largest publicly available source of information attesting to the accuracy of profiles appears to be in the nature of anecdotal accounts (23). Although anecdotal accounts may be useful in illustrating a particular issue, such information cannot be confidently relied on to confirm the validity of the technique (24,25). To complicate matters further, a large proportion of these accounts originate in true-crime biographies often co- authored by profilers themselves (7,10), which in turn raises issues surrounding the objectivity of the testimonials. Social scientists have often observed that the human psyche typically focuses on success rather than failure (26), so the scope of such chronicles in providing an objective representation must be also considered. Indeed, an illustration of this point can be gleaned from any number of biographies that report cases where the input of profiles was considered valuable in assisting investigations. High-profile cases, however, where profiles were not viewed as having assisted, or were perceived as being detrimental to the course of an investigation (27–30), seldom receive equal coverage.

Empirical studies that directly test the abilities of profilers and that are open to public scrutiny are remarkably scarce (31). Possibly the first was undertaken by Pinizzotto and Finkel (32), who compared small groups (four to six participants) of trained profilers with non-profilers such as detectives and university students on various profiling experiments using a closed murder and rape case. Perhaps the most pertinent of these experiments required participants

330 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

to construct a profile of the offender through responses on a multiple-choice questionnaire. This procedure is important as it provides a quantifiable means by which profile predictions can be objectively scored for their accuracy. The results of this experiment were not, however, entirely supportive, with the sampled profilers demonstrating a superior degree of accuracy in predicting the characteristics of the rapist, but not the murderer. Indeed, in contrast to popular culture depictions, the sampled profilers achieved the lowest descriptive score in profiling the characteristics of the murderer.

Following the general design of Pinizzotto and Finkel’s (32) research with respect to the use of an objectively quantifiable questionnaire to measure the accuracy of a profile, Kocsis (33) published the results of a series of studies (34–37) that involved testing participants’ abilities to profile the probable offender in a murder and arson case. The results of this research yielded some tentative support for the abilities of the sampled profilers in that they surpassed all other groups in their abilities to accurately predict the characteristics of the unknown offender(s). Although these findings are encouraging, two notable limitations emerge. First, the sample pool of profilers for this research (i.e., 11 profilers) was modest. Consequently, further replication with larger samples is required. Second, a high degree of statistical variance was found among the profilers, indicating that their capabilities were not uniform. This finding suggests that simply because an individual operates with the title of “profiler” does not necessarily imply that the individual will possess a superior capacity to predict the characteristics of an unknown offender.

Numerous critiques have been made against the present-day psycho- investigative techniques used in criminal profiling. They have focused on the blurred borderlines between instinct/intuition and the scientific procedures adopted by the profiler, which may influence the entire scientific validity of the process (lack of systematic work; lack of real empirical research; simply reassessment of old theories or criticism of the same). Furthermore, the presence of cultural baggage passed from one profiler to another with little or minimal exposure to actual crime scenes, the stress on psychodynamics, and the poor application of in-depth psychology to the crime scene evidence offer little information about those socio-cultural characteristics, lifestyles, and patterns of criminal behavior of an offender that are basic to a thorough investigation.

Utility

The material in support of the utility of profiling unfortunately appears to be little better than the material in support of its validity. It should be recognized, however, that the concept of utility is, in all probability, more

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 331

difficult to quantify, as the usefulness of a profile to an investigation may not manifest itself in a directly tangible manner. Once again, the largest source of material in support of the utility of profiles is in the form of anecdotal accounts. For essentially the same reasons previously articulated in the context of validity, too much reliance cannot be placed on such material.

What presents as an interesting source of material for the utility of profiles, however, are various consumer satisfaction surveys administered to police personnel who have used a profile in the course of an investigation (21,38,39). Clearly, these surveys are not representative of the contribution of a profile but, rather, seek to survey the perceived value of a profile to the personnel who have used one. One common theme seems to emerge from these surveys in that while police personnel genuinely seem to favor and derive some sense of satisfaction from the use of profiles in investigations, when the specific issue of how a profile was of assistance is raised, the responses seem less conclusive. One example of this trend comes from Pinizzotto (21), who found that while 77% of the surveyed police regarded a profile as useful in focusing their investigation in some context, only 17% considered that the profile actually assisted in the identification of the offender. This pattern is not entirely surprising, given that some debate exists as to whether profiles have ever truly assisted investigators in actually apprehending an offender.

Although there are many anecdotal examples where, in retrospect, the characteristics described in a profile are found to resemble those of the appre- hended offender (40), there is little evidence to indicate how this information directly assisted the investigation. Indeed, many profilers admit that, to the best of their knowledge, a profile has yet to actually solve a single case or pinpoint the individual concerned (9,10).

One final issue related to evaluating the utility of profiles involves the breadth of their application. Profiling is generally touted as being useful for the investigation of crimes of an aberrant predatory nature where no identi- fiable suspect(s) seem apparent (41–43), the archetypal circumstance being in the investigation of a serial killer. However, even within this context, there are circumstances where the use of a profile is limited or simply irrelevant, for example, where an offender hoards the corpses of his victims, providing little or no evidence of the murders until the discovery of the bodies and the apprehension of the perpetrator, as in the case of the American serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer (44).

It needs to be questioned, then, whether the amount of resources invested in the development of specialist profiler training programs/units and research is justified, given the low volume of crimes where profiling may prove to be applicable (45,46).

332 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

DISCUSSION

Although some tentative findings have emerged to suggest some limited support for profiling, considerably more work is required to replicate and thus test and bolster the robustness of such findings. In this respect, perhaps the most reliable conclusion that can be drawn concerning the accuracy of profiles is that a significant disparity exists between the reputation of profiling in terms of its accuracy and the reliable evidence that exists to substantiate that reputation. With respect to the utility of profiles, what seems apparent is that, among the law enforcement community at least, there is a general belief that profiles can contribute to an investigation. Quantifying the basis of this contribution however is problematic. Importantly, too, it is crucial to appreciate that satisfaction with a technique must not be confused with equating to proof of its utility or accuracy (47–49). Given the paucity of evidence to support either the validity or utility of profiles, there is still ample reason to question whether profiling really works.

Brilliant Insights, Common Sense, or Just Cold-Reading?

In considering the utility of profiles, one needs to consider the insight they actually provide. One of the oldest criticisms of profiles is that the information they contain is no better than what can be derived through common knowledge or what the local bartender might guess (50). An illustration of this point comes from the study by Snook et al. (51), which examined the abilities of students to predict the location of an offender’s residence in comparison with the predictions made by a geographic profiling computer program (52–54). Despite the sophistication of the computerized system, the areas predicted by the program differed little from the predictions of the students following some rudimentary instruction on crime offense patterns.

Another aspect concerning the insight of profiles relates to the parallels between the content and nature of profiles, and the predictions that can be made by, for example, psychics. The area of parapsychology has for some time studied individuals who have attempted to feign extra sensory perception by engaging in a technique that is commonly referred to as “cold-reading” (55). By providing semi-ambiguous statements that relate to items of infor- mation that possess a statistically high level of frequency, an individual can make statements that appear remarkably insightful (56). It remains to be seen, therefore, to what extent the information typically contained in profiles represents true insight regarding the probable offender’s character- istics, or some manifestation, conscious or otherwise, of the cold-reading technique.

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 333

Mountains of Conclusions From Molehills of Research

One problem that appears to haunt the practice of profiling is a proclivity by some of its practitioners to over-generalize the application of existing research. This problem typically manifests itself in over-generalizations concerning the type of crime profiled, or the applicability of demographic variables to foreign populations. A case that illustrates over-generalization relating to crime modality involves the 2002 “Beltway serial sniper” shootings that occurred in the eastern United States. Many profiles were generated following this series of random shootings (57). When the individuals accused of these crimes were later apprehended, little congruence emerged between the profiles and the accused persons (58,59). Incidents where profiles have been found to bear little similarity to the identified perpetrator(s) are not unique (30,60); however, the issue of significance here is the suitability of a profile for this type of crime given that research undertaken in the area of profiling has predominantly focused on crimes of interpersonal violence such as sexual murder or serial rape (61–65). Indeed, the authors are unaware of any scien- tifically vetted, published research on the profiling of snipers. Consequently, it appears that profiles in this case were most likely based on suppositions derived from research developed in respect of different types of crime.

An example of over-generalization for foreign demographics can be seen in the 1989 case in Sydney, Australia, of the “Granny killer.” Confronted by a series of violent murders, Australian police consulted a foreign law enforcement agency renowned for its work in the area of profiling. The key features of the supplied profile characterized the offender as a young male possibly of African descent. When apprehended, the offender was found to be an elderly man of Anglo-Saxon heritage (66). The incongruity between the profile and the offender is not the pertinent issue but rather the imprudence of the profilers to consider the differing demographics between their country and that of Australia, especially given that the Australian population contains less than 1% of people who can be classified as being of African descent. Although the consulted profilers were undoubtedly familiar with the relevant crime statistics for their country, which included a sizeable population of individuals of African descent, the use of these demographics in the Australian context made it highly unlikely that the predictions of the probable offender would be valid.

Research With Limited Application

Another development in the field of profiling has been the proliferation of research of limited practical application. In this respect, it would appear that the problems that brought about the development of profiling have been overlooked.

334 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

That is, profiling evolved to aid in the investigation of aberrant crimes that were difficult to solve through conventional police methods (15,16,67,68). Conse- quently, the development of profiling theories and techniques for circumstances where the offender is readily apparent, or likely to be identified through conven- tional police methods, seems something of a redundant exercise. The study by Salfati (69), for example, presents an analysis of crime scene behaviors matched with offender characteristics in domestic homicides. Although this research certainly contributes to the scholarly literature on the topic of homicide, its value in terms of profiling can be questioned given that domestic homicides seldom require profiling as the perpetrator (i.e., the spouse/partner) in most instances is readily apparent (70,71).

Allied to this problem of research with limited application is the circum- stance of research that assumes a level of understanding from the reader when reporting its findings, thereby reducing its potential utility. For example, the study by Canter and Heritage (72) presents a model for how rape behavior patterns may be interpreted for the purpose of profiling but fails to articulate how any offender characteristic can be associated with these patterns for the purpose of actually composing a profile. As a consequence, although the study serves to demonstrate the work undertaken by its authors and their capacity to profile such crimes, it limits others from independently and practically applying the findings of this study.

How Reliable is the Data?

The fundamental premise of profiling is that through the study of past crimes, predictions can be made concerning similar offenses in the future. Profiling in effect is a form of retro-classification whereby typologies are developed from past crimes to provide some understanding of present crimes (73). In order for this paradigm to be valid, it is paramount that the infor- mation (i.e., past crimes) from which these typologies are developed is reliable. Herein lies a problem, as the literature in the field of criminology is replete with discussion concerning the unreliability of information surrounding both the reporting and the recording of crime (74–76). There are numerous manifes- tations of this problem, but two distinct aspects seem particularly pertinent to profiling. First, there are limitations concerning sample representation. Second, there are problems relating to the accuracy of the data itself.

The problem concerning sample representation is illustrated by one of the most renowned pieces of research in the field of profiling, the organized/disorganized behavior dichotomy as proposed by Ressler et al. (77). Data for this study were obtained by researchers interviewing a very small number of incarcerated sexual murderers and reviewing their archival records.

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 335

Whether the organized/disorganized dichotomy represents a behavioral typology genuinely representative of sexual murderers in general or merely a typology of sexual murderers who were incarcerated and willing to participate in an interview program is open to debate. This issue appears even more pronounced when one considers examples of infamous sexual murderers who would have been suitable for such research but in all likelihood would have declined to cooperate (78).†

The second major problem surrounding the type of data used in profiling research is the reliability of the information contained in the various archival records often used as source material. A sizeable amount of literature exists in the fields of psychology and criminology that considers the unreliability of information sourced in the recollection of facts from eyewitness testimony (80) and the methods for formally reporting and recording offenses in police catalogues and statistics (76). It must therefore be queried how valid profiling is likely to be, given the limitations of the available data sources on which some research is based and principles espoused.

Uniform Definitions: An Absence of Parity

Part of the motivation for developing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (81) and the ICD-10 (82) was to provide uniformity in the terminology and classification of mental disease. The general acceptance of these lexicons over the decades has rendered the problems of miscommunication among the psychiatric/psychological communities almost obsolete (83). Profiling does not, however, enjoy the benefits of a DSM or ICD.‡ Instead, substantial disparity exists with regard to the use of language that in turn arguably stifles the progression of profiling as a discipline.¶

Possibly the most obvious example of this lack of uniformity is in the nomenclature adopted to describe profiling itself. “Offender profiling,” “criminal profiling,” “criminal psychological profiling,” “sociopsychological criminal profiling,” “criminal personality profiling,” CIA, and IP are all terms variously used to describe the practice of profiling. However, the source of this problem is deeper than semantic differences in terminology, as such dispar- ities are often reflected in differing methodological procedures and the end

† We suggest that the above dichotomy be amended with the addition of a mixed type or even a non-categorical continuum (79), because of the frequency of disorganized features in the organized type of offender.

‡ In the context of creating a uniform lexicon of terminology to avoid miscommunication. ¶ It should be noted that Douglas et al. (84) did publish a text modeled on the DSM. However,

this manual does not appear to have gained any significant degree of universal acceptance.

336 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

product of the research. One of the best illustrations of this concerns the debate surrounding what constitutes serial murder. Some authors argue that “serial” in this context can be defined by a numerical body count, for example, the murder of a minimum of three victims (84,85). Others have suggested a minimum of four (86) and some have suggested the possibility of five (87). Also, it should be noted that, at times, apprehended after one or two murders, an offender may indicate that he/she had had the intention to continue the killings (88). Based on this intention, these offenders could be considered serial killers. Presented with the varying criteria used to sample these populations, it comes as little surprise then that disparities arise between the research findings of studies that all claim to examine serial murder (63,77,86,87).

Inductive Versus Deductive Profiling: Does Such a Distinction Exist?

One recent development has been the suggestion that two distinct forms of profiling exist. The premise for this distinction is based on differing reasoning processes (i.e., inductive or deductive) that are argued to be in use by an individual when composing a profile. Inductive criminal profiling uses inductive reasoning, which in this context is defined as “reasoning involving broad gener- alizations or statistical reasoning, where it is possible for the premises to be true while the subsequent conclusion is false” (89, p. 686). Deductive criminal profiling, on the contrary, involves deductive reasoning, which is defined as “an argument where, if the premises are true, then the conclusions must also be true. In a deductive argument, the conclusions flow directly from the premises given” (89, p. 682). These distinctions form the basis of a method of profiling, referred to as behavior evidence analysis (BEA), which exclusively favors the use of deductive reasoning in combination with an understanding of the forensic sciences for the composition of a competent profile (90).

The problem with such distinctions is that it transposes philosophical paradigms onto the functional processes of the mind. Although the distinction between inductive or deductive reasoning is a well-established concept in the literature pertaining to critical thinking (91), there is debate in the cognitive psychology/psychiatry literature as to whether the mind functions in such a categorical fashion, that is, whether cognitive functions akin to inductive or deductive reasoning can be undertaken to the exclusion of one another (92,93). Unlike the autonomic functions of a computer, it is unlikely that the human mind is truly capable of engaging in such a discrete process of reasoning. Indeed, the brain itself, as a complex and highly active neuronal synaptic system, may subconsciously process diverse and/or intrusive thoughts that may increase the difficulty of full engagement in one or the other method. If the

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 337

cognitive processes of the mind are incapable of engaging in this fashion, the suggestion of a method of profiling premised on the issue of one form of reasoning to the exclusion of the other is rendered highly problematic.

Who Owns Profiling?

In the mid-1990s, profiling was examined by a subcommittee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in the United Kingdom. It concluded that although the technique had not yet been scientifically validated, it should be accepted in faith as being viable, as its validation would eventually be achieved. The committee went on to comment that the practice and work in the area of profiling should be “owned” by the police service (94). Although perhaps not explicitly stated, similar sentiments regarding the acceptance of profiling and its ownership have been echoed in other countries (95–97). The basis for this view appears to be related to a desire to avoid divulging opera- tional information concerning profiling techniques to potential criminals (7,98).

The concern in divulging operational information presumably arises from the publication of research in scientifically peer-reviewed mediums that by virtue of this process can be scrutinized by others. Although there is some merit to the contention that through the publication of literature potential offenders may be alerted to the techniques of police, such concerns need to be weighed against the low level of readership that scientific journals and texts enjoy generally. Additionally, the degree of sophistication such literature typically involves, coupled with the often poorer standard of education found among offenders who are the source of such research (85–87,99), makes the usefulness of this material to such offenders questionable. The scientific development of profiling is likely to be most reliant on social science research methods that are oriented toward the production of scholarly research. This, however, is arguably not the focus of policing agencies that are primarily dedicated to maintaining public order and the apprehension of offenders (100). Although profiling is unquestionably a forensic investigative technique used in the course of criminal investigations primarily conducted by police personnel, its development and practice is not necessarily best achieved by the exclusive efforts of police personnel. Contentions of ownership are counterproductive and likely to impede the genuine scientific advancement of profiling.

Professionalism

Correct professional behavior implies respect among colleagues and scien- tific communication without any ivory-tower attitude that impedes objectivity and the search for truth (27,31,101). In the field of profiling, there should

338 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

be more communication among the proponents of the various theoretical and methodological schools of thought (102), opening avenues of healthy communi- cation and creating an arena for an objective, sound exchange of ideas. Although critical debate (19,27) is a valuable component of scientific development and, as in other disciplines, constructive criticism is essential for the advance in the understanding of profiling, in the literature, disputes over new concepts or new terms appear with disheartening frequency (7,10,101–106). Indeed, it seems that there is a peculiar form of myopia among profilers who are unable or unwilling to cite, acknowledge, or build on the research of colleagues, or may be unaware of it at all. This phenomenon is an impediment to the scientific development of profiling because, without the integration of all research, the field is in serious danger of remaining a fragmented practice, with repetitious errors, duplication, failure to test theories, and a lack of exposure to differing scientific approaches (107).

An Absence of Regulation

From a research, clinical, and practical point of view, one can assume that profiling is in a budding state and has yet to define an objective credentialing process. This is probably the reason why many unreliable statements are made in the various media by self-appointed profilers. The presence of sound creden- tials, as in any other field, should be paramount in the field of profiling. Unfor- tunately, credentials offered as qualifications to engage in profiling range from a familiarity with the published literature, employment with a law enforcement agency, qualifications in a mental-health discipline, authorship of a true-crime novel, the publication of scholarly research, or any combination of the above. The problems that arise from this are obvious and analogous to all other disci- plines that have lacked regulation in ensuring common professional standards among individuals who identify themselves as practitioners within a defined area of expertise. Without regulation, gross disparities in the level of skill among practitioners can occur and the quality of the services rendered may vary considerably. In the context of police investigations, such disparities in the quality of the professional services rendered can have potentially disastrous results for the course of justice (23).

Unfortunately, the solution of introducing some form of regulation is equally problematic. At present, differing proponents, who advocate one approach of profiling over another, have introduced self-styled accreditation programs. However, these programs may exclude and tend to discredit other practitioners within the field who offer different approaches or perspectives, and they create even more divisiveness among profilers.

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 339

CONCLUSIONS

What does the future hold for the practice of profiling and the research underpinning it? Unfortunately, the prognosis for the near future at least is less than encouraging. It seems that, as in any new field, the various participants are too absorbed in their own research and find themselves in an isolationist mode of operating.

Unquestionably, the research and practice associated with profiling needs further development and this needs to be undertaken in the form of original, data-driven studies that are subject to scientific scrutiny (108–110). What is not required are simplistic claims accompanied by little more than a fresh lexicon of newly coined terms and phrases (111). It is often debated whether profiling represents a science or an art (112). At this juncture, the practice of profiling crimes seems to be more of an art (113). However, it must strive to become a science.

In promoting this view, research in the field needs to focus on the development of practical techniques that make use of profiling that will serve to assist in the investigation of crimes and not just the promulgation of liter- ature based on whatever data may be available. Additionally, future research needs to fully articulate its conclusions so that other researchers may replicate, build, and ultimately advance the knowledge gained in the area. In this context, therefore, researchers will need to communicate with one another, because this is the basis of the scientific method.

Because profiling is still in a developing phase, its regulation and creden- tialing must be developed through better communication among the various schools of profiling and the investigative agencies concerned. This will take some time. Perhaps the best compromise is for the practice of profiling to be incorporated into an existing professional body that does not hold any specific interest in profiling per se but would nonetheless serve to regulate its practitioners and promote its scientific development. Any of the regulatory bodies that govern the accreditation and practice of psychologists or psychia- trists, for example, may be appropriate. Such bodies would not be exclusively concerned with the practice of profiling but would have the benefit of being allied to the disciplinary origins of the technique. This proposition is not aimed at removing profiling from the province of law enforcement. There are many police personnel who, for example, have formal psychological qualifications and who are already affiliated with such bodies. Arguably, it simply makes sense to have an independent body that governs its membership according to recognized, regulated qualifications most suited to the skills for profiling and not only as membership with a particular employer per se such as a policing or

340 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

investigative agency. No doubt the scientific basis to profiling will need to be advanced before such professional bodies would be prepared to entertain such a proposition, but once again, this arguably would be a positive development.

In the future, better trust will have to develop between profilers and inves- tigative agencies for the success of their common purpose: the identification of the offender. Both will have to overcome their narcissistic tendencies and recognize that they are complementary in the practice of profiling (114). As for the differing approaches to profiling presently used by various method- ological schools, it is to be hoped that their exponents will overcome their respective biases and see that they are all contributors to the definition of a larger puzzle and that no school of profiling holds the final answer. Their continued divisiveness only benefits the offender.

In conclusion, it is hoped that this chapter will inspire debate and encourage original data-driven research that will ultimately serve as the best solution to the problems discussed herein.

REFERENCES

1. Harris, T. (1981). Red Dragon. New York: Putnam. 2. Harris, T. (1988). The Silence of the Lambs. New York: St. Martins. 3. Harris, T. (1999). Hannibal. New York: Delacorte. 4. Britton, P. (2002). Picking Up the Pieces. London: Bantam Press. 5. Canter, D. (1994). Criminal Shadows. London: Harper Collins. 6. DeNevi, D. & Campbell, J.H. (2004). Into the Minds of Madmen. New York:

Prometheus Books. 7. Douglas, J.E. & Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter. New York: Scribner. 8. Douglas, J.E. & Olshaker, M. (1996). Journey Into Darkness. New York:

Scribner. 9. McCrary, G.O. & Ramsland, K. (2003). The Unknown Darkness: Profiling the

Predators Among Us. New York: Harper Collins. 10. Ressler, R.K. & Shachtman, T. (1992). Whoever Fights Monsters. London: Simon

and Schuster. 11. Ressler, R.K. & Shachtman, T. (1997). I Have Lived in the Monster. New York:

St. Martin Press. 12. Vorpagel, R.E. & Harrington, J. (1998). Profiles in Murder. New York: Plenum. 13. Jenkins, H. (1994). Using Murder: The Social Construction of Serial Homicide.

New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 14. Dietz, P.E. (1985). Sex offender profiling by the FBI: a preliminary conceptual

model. In M.H. Ben-Aron, S.J. Hucher & C.D. Webster (Eds.), Clinical Crimi- nology (pp. 207–219). Toronto, Canada: M and M Graphics.

15. Geberth, V.J. (1983). Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures and Forensic Techniques. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 341

16. Geberth, V.J. (1996). Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures and Forensic Techniques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

17. Teten, H.D. (1989). Offender profiling. In W.G. Bailey (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Police Science (pp. 365–367). New York: Garland.

18. Oleson, J.C. (1996). Psychological profiling: does it actually work? Forensic Update, 46, 11–14.

19. Risinger, D.M. & Loop, J.L. (2002). Three card monte, Monty Hall, modus operandi and “offender profiling”: some lessons of modern cognitive science for the law of evidence. Cardozo L Rev, 24, 193–285.

20. Institutional Research and Development Unit, FBI Academy: evaluation of the psychological profiling program. Unpublished manuscript, 1981.

21. Pinizzotto, A.J. (1984). Forensic psychology: criminal personality profiling. J Police Sci Admin, 12(1), 32–40.

22. Muller, D.A. (2000). Criminal profiling: real science or just wishful thinking? Homicide Studies, 4(3), 234–264.

23. Innes, B. (2003). Profile of a Criminal Mind. Leicester, UK: Silverdale Books. 24. Aron, A. & Aron, E.N. (1994). Statistics for Psychology. White Plains, NJ:

Prentice Hall. 25. Gravetter, F.J. & Wallnau, L.B. (2004). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences

(6th ed.). New York: Wadsworth. 26. Baron, R.A. & Byrne, D.E. (2002). Social Psychology (10th ed.). New York:

Prentice Hall. 27. Crace, J. (1995). Inside the criminal mind. New Statesman and Society, February

17, 29–30. 28. Jeffers, H.P. (1991). Who Killed Precious? How FBI Special Agents Combine

Psychology and High Technology to Identify Violent Criminals. New York: Pharos Books.

29. U.S. House of Representatives. (1990). U.S.S. Iowa Tragedy: An Investigative Failure. Report of the investigations subcommittee and the defense policy panel of the committee on armed services. U.S. House of Representatives 101st Congress, 2nd Session.

30. Wilson, P. & Soothill, K. (1996). Psychological profiling: red, green or amber? Police J, 1, 12–20.

31. Wineman, L. (2004). Does profiling actually work? Mon on Psychol, 8, 32. 32. Pinizzotto, A.J. & Finkel, N.J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: an outcome

and process study. Law & Hum Behav, 14, 215–233. 33. Kocsis, R.N. (2003). Criminal psychological profiling: validities and abilities?

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 47(2), 126–144. 34. Kocsis, R.N., Irwin, H.J., Hayes, A.F. & Nunn, R. (2000). Expertise in psycho-

logical profiling: a comparative assessment. J Interpers Violence, 15(3), 311–331. 35. Kocsis, R.N., Hayes, A.F. & Irwin, H.J. (2002). Investigative experience and

accuracy in psychological profiling of a violent crime. J Interpers Violence, 17(8), 811–823.

36. Kocsis, R.N. (2003). An empirical assessment of content in criminal psycho- logical profiles. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 47(1), 38–47.

342 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

37. Kocsis, R.N. (2004). Psychological profiling in serial arson offenses: a compar- ative assessment of skills and accuracy. Crim Justice Behav, 31(3), 341–361.

38. Copson, G. (1995). Coals to Newcastle? Part 1: A Study of Offender Profiling (Paper 7). London: Police Research Group Special Interest Series, Home Office.

39. Jackson, J.L., Van Koppen, P.J. & Herbrink, C.M. (1993). Does the Service Meet the Needs? An Evaluation of Consumer Satisfaction with the Specific Profile Analysis and Investigative Advice as Offered by the Scientific Research Advisory Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Division (CRI). The Netherlands: NISCALE Report NSCR 93-05.

40. Brussel, J. (1968). Casebook of a Criminal Psychiatrist. New York: Bernard Geis.

41. Holmes, R.M. & Holmes, S.T. (1996). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42. Rossi, D. (1982). Crime scene behavioral analysis: another tool for the law enforcement investigator. Police Chief, 18(4), 152–155.

43. Vorpagel, R.E. (1982). Painting psychological profiles: charlatanism, coinci- dence, charisma or new science. Police Chief, 3(8), 156–159.

44. Palermo, G.B. (2004). The Faces of Violence (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

45. Langevin, R. & Handy, L. (1987). Stranger homicide in Canada: a national sample and a psychiatric sample. J Crim L & Criminology, 78, 398–429.

46. Maguire, K. & Pastore, A.L. (Eds.). (1999). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Government Printing Office.

47. Kocsis, R.N. & Hayes, A.F. (2004). Believing is seeing? Investigating the perceived accuracy of criminal psychological profiles. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 48(2), 149–160.

48. Kocsis, R.N. & Heller, G.Z. (2004). Believing is seeing II. Beliefs and perceptions of criminal psychological profiles. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 48(3), 313–329.

49. Kocsis, R.N. & Middledorp, J.T. (2004). Believing is seeing III. Perceptions of content in criminal psychological profiles. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 48(4), 477–494.

50. Godwin, J. (1978). Murder USA. The Ways We Kill Each Other. New York: Ballantine.

51. Snook, B., Canter, D. & Bennell, C. (2002). Predicting the home location of serial offenders: a preliminary comparison of the accuracy of human judges with a geographic profiling system. Behav Sci Law, 20, 109–118.

52. Rossmo, D.K. (1997). Geographic profiling. In J.L. Jackson & D. Bekerian (Eds.), Offender Profiling: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 159–176). London: Wiley.

53. Levine, N. (2000). Crimestat: A Spatial Statistics Program for the Analysts of Crime Incident Locations (Version 1.1). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 343

54. Young, G. (2003). Mapping mayhem: the geography of crime. Computeredge, August.

55. Randi, J. (1982). Atlanta child murderer: psychics’ failed visions. Skep Inq, 7(1), 12–13.

56. Irwin, H.J. (2004). An Introduction to Parapsychology (4th ed.). UK: McFarland. 57. Davis, P. & Morello, C. (2002). Tarot card’s message is a killer’s cry for respect,

experts say. The Washington Post, October 10, A22. 58. Farhi, P. & Weeks, L. (2002). With the sniper, TV profilers missed their mark.

Washington Post, October 25, C01. 59. Holloway, J.D. (2003). The perils of profiling for the media. Mon on Psychol,

34(1), 30. 60. Springer, J. (2003). For profilers missing the mark is common. Court TV Online,

June 1. Available at http://news.findlaw.com/court_tv/s/20030601/01jun2003 112521.html.

61. Godwin, M.G. (Ed.). (2000). Criminal Psychology and Forensic Technology: A Collaborative Approach to Effective Profiling. New York: CRC Press.

62. Jackson, J.L. & Bekerian, D. (Eds.). (1997). Offender Profiling: Theory, Research and Practice. London: Wiley.

63. Holmes, R.M. & DeBurger, J. (1988). Serial Murder. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 64. Kocsis, R.N., Cooksey, R.W. & Irwin, H.J. (2002). Psychological profiling of

sexual murders: an empirical model. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 46(3), 532–553.

65. Kocsis, R.N., Irwin, H.J. & Cooksey, R.W. (2002). Psychological profiling of offender characteristics from crime behaviors in serial rapists. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 46(2), 144–169.

66. Kennedy, L. & Whittaker, M. (1992). Granny Killer: The Story of John Glover. Sydney: Harper Collins.

67. Ault, R.L. & Reese, J.T. (1980). A psychological assessment of crime: profiling. FBI Law Enf Bull, 49, 22–26.

68. Douglas, J.E. & Burgess, A.W. (1986). Criminal profiling: a viable investigative tool against violent crime. FBI Law Enf Bull, 55(12), 9–13.

69. Salfati, C.G. (2000). The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide for criminal profiling. Homicide Studies, 4(3), 265–293.

70. Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 71. Polk, K. (1994). When Men Kill: Scenarios of Masculine Violence. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press. 72. Canter, D. & Heritage, R. (1989). A multivariate model of sexual offence

behavior: developments in offender profiling. J Forensic Psychiatry, 1, 185–212. 73. Turco, R.N. (1990). Psychological profiling. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol,

34, 147–154. 74. Goldsmith, V., McGuire, P.G., Mollenkopf, J.H. & Ross, T.A. (Eds.).

(2000).Analyzing Crime Patterns: Frontiers of Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

75. Maguire, M., Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (Eds.). (1997). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

344 R.N. Kocsis and G.B. Palermo

76. Pease, K. (1998). Criminal Statistics: Their Use and Abuse. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

77. Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A.W., Douglas, J.E., Hartman, C.R. & D’Agostino, R.B. (1986). Sexual killers and their victims: identifying patterns through crime scene analysis. J Interpers Violence, 1, 288–308.

78. Keppel, R. & Birnes, W. (1995). The Riverman. New York: Pocket Books. 79. Kocsis, R.N., Irwin, H.J. & Hayes, A.F. (1998). Organized and disorganized

behavior syndromes in arsonists: a validation study of a psychological profiling concept. Psychia Psychol Law, 5, 117–130.

80. Gudjonsson, G.H. (1992). The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony. London: Wiley.

81. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

82. World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioral Disorders. Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization.

83. First, M.B. & Tasman, A. (Eds.). (2004). DSM-IV-TR Mental Disorders: Diagnosis, Etiology and Treatment. London: Wiley.

84. Douglas, J.E., Burgess, A.W., Burgess, A.G. & Ressler, R.K. (1992). Crime Classification Manual. New York: Simon and Schuster.

85. Ressler, R.K., Burgess, A. & Douglas, J.E. (1988). Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. New York: Lexington Books.

86. Hickey, E.W. (1997). Serial Murderers and Their Victims (2nd ed.). Fresno, CA: Wadsworth.

87. Egger, S.A. (1998). The Killers Among Us: An Examination of Serial Murder and Its Investigation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

88. Kocsis, R.N. & Irwin, H.J. (1998). The psychological profile of serial offenders and a redefinition of the misnomer of serial crime. Psychia Psychol Law, 5(2), 197–213.

89. Turvey, B. (2002). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press.

90. Turvey, B. (1999). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. London: Academic Press.

91. Aik, K.C. & Edmonds, S. (1986). Critical Thinking: Selected Topics for Discussion and Analysis. White Plains, NY: Longman.

92. Lynn, S.J. & McConkey, K.M. (Eds.). (1998). Truth in Memory. New York: Guilford.

93. Tulving, E. & Craik, F.I.M. (Eds.). (2000). The Oxford Handbook of Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

94. Copson, G. & Marshall, N. (1999). Mind over matter. Police Rev, 7, 16–17. 95. Beck, J.P., O’Sullivan, B.J. & Ogilvie, A.B. (1989). An Australian Violent

Criminal Apprehension Programme: A Feasibility Study. Adelaide: National Police Research Unit.

96. Rayment, M. (1995). Inside the mind of a criminal. NSW Police News, 75, 15–18. 97. Wilson, C. & Seaman, D. (1992). The Serial Killers. London: Cox and Wyman.

Contemporary Problems in Criminal Profiling 345

98. Stevens, J. (1996). Profiling criminals. Police Rev, 8, 22–23. 99. Kocsis, R.N. & Cooksey, R.W. (2002). Criminal psychological profiling of serial

arson crimes. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 46(4), 631–656. 100. Findlay, M. & Zvekic, U. (1993). Alternative Policing Styles: Cross Cultural

Perspectives. Deventer, The Netherlands, and Cambridge, MA: Kluwer. 101. Hazelwood, R.R. & Michaud, S.G. (1998). The Evil That Men do. New York:

Longman. 102. Ainsworth, P. (2001). Offender Profiling and Crime Scene Analysis. London:

Willan. 103. Canter, D. (2003). Mapping Murder. London: Virgin Books. 104. Rossmo, D.K. (2000). Geographic Profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 105. Britton, P. (1997). The Jigsaw Man. London: Bantam Press. 106. Edwards, C. (1998). Behavior and the law reconsidered: psychological syndromes

and profiles. J Forensic Sci, 43(1), 141–150. 107. Kocsis, R.N. & Coleman, S. (2000). The unexplored ethics of criminal psycho-

logical profiling. In M.G. Godwin (Ed.), Criminal Psychology and Forensic Technology: A Collaborative Approach to Effective Profiling (pp. 323–338). New York: CRC Press.

108. Kocsis, R.N., Middledorp, J.T. & Try, A.C. (2005). Cognitive processes in criminal profile construction: a preliminary study.Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 49(6), 662–681.

109. Kocsis, R.N. & Irwin, H.J. (1997). An analysis of spatial patterns in serial rape, arson, and burglary: the utility of the circle theory of environmental range for psychological profiling. Psychia Psychol Law, 4, 195–206.

110. Kocsis, R.N., Cooksey, R.W., Irwin, H.J. & Allen, G. (2002). A further assessment of “circle theory” for geographic psychological profiling. Aust N Z J Criminol, 35(1), 43–62.

111. Hormant, R.J. & Kennedy, D.B. (1998). Psychological aspects of crime scene profiling: validity research. Crim Justice Behav, 25, 319–343.

112. Holmes, R.M. & Holmes, S.T. (2002). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

113. Palermo, G.B. (2002). Criminal profiling: the uniqueness of the killer. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, 2, 383–385.

114. Palermo, G.B. & Kocsis, R.N. (2005). Offender Profiling: An Introduction to the Sociopsychological Analysis of Violent Crime. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

Etiology of the Psychopathic Serial Killer: An

Analysis of Antisocial Personality Disorder,

Psychopathy, and Serial Killer Personality

and Crime Scene Characteristics

Rebecca Taylor LaBrode, MA

The purpose of this article is tomake the distinction between antisocial personality disorder

and psychopathy, discuss possible etiologies of psychopathy, and analyze the crimes,

personality characteristics, and historical aspects of psychopathic serial killers. The research

indicates that both environmental and biological factors affect the development of

psychopathy. Several different serial killers were compared to assess the similarities and

differences between their histories, crimes, and personalities. Though there were marked

differences between their crimes, startling historical and personality similarities were clearly

identified. Based on these findings, the validity and reliability of offender profiling is also

discussed. [Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 7:151–160 (2007)]

KEY WORDS: Psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, serial killer, offender profiling.

Much of the research done regarding the etiol- ogy of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) has been primarily focused on identifying envi- ronmental risk factors (Lahey, Loeber, Burke, & Applegate, 2005; Rutter, 2003; Skilling, Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 2002). However, an increasing number of recent studies have also taken into consideration genetic and biological influences and their interaction with the environment (Moffitt, 2005; Raine, Moffitt, Caspi, Loeber, Stouthhamer-Loeber, & Lynam, 2005; Taylor, Iacono, & McGue, 2000). Even though these studies have been relatively successful in iden- tifying the biological and environmental indica- tors of ASPD, they have been less successful in

isolating these factors as either biological or en- vironmentaldue to the inability tocontrol the in- teraction between the two. Another issue that has affected research in this area is the failure to make an accurate distinction between ASPD and psychopathy (Hare, 1996; Widiger et al., 1996). Research findings have consistently iden- tified similar risk factors for both ASPD and psy- chopathy but have failed to further examine the heterogeneity among the historical, behavioral, and personality characteristics represented in this population. A further classification of these characteristic subsets could potentially lead to thediscoveryofdifferentetiologies,particularly that of psychopathic serial murderers.

Risk Factors

Research concerning the identification of risk factors for antisocial and violent behavior has

From Boston College. Contact author: Rebecca Taylor, Apartment 11, 215

Walnut Street, New Bedford, MA 02740.

E-mail: [email protected].

doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhm004

Advance Access publication April 25, 2007

ª The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].

151

primarilybeenconductedtoaidintheprediction of individuals who are at risk for committing violent offenses (Herve, Mitchell, Cooper, Spidel, & Hare, 2004; Loeber et al., 2005; Rice, 1997; Salekin, Leistico, Neumann, DiCicco, & Duros, 2004) in order to help create more effec- tive intervention and treatment programs for those individuals who are at high risk for committing violent offences or are likely to reof- fend. However, treatment programs for violent offenders do not always have the desired effects. In an evaluation study (Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1994), including 292 male violent offenders (treated for at least 2 years with the average time spent in the program being 5 years), 146 were treated in the therapeutic community and the other 146 were sent to prison. The program’s violent recidivism rate was 40%, with little dif- ference between the groups. However, when the outcome of psychopaths was evaluated sepa- rately, an unexpected discovery was made; the violent recidivism rate of psychopaths in the treatmentgroupwasalmostonethirdhigherthan those who had been sent to prison. It was spec- ulated that the treatment program raised psycho- paths’ self-esteem and consequently increased aggression. It also was speculated that instead of learning to be more empathic and concerned about others, like the nonpsychopaths, the psy- chopaths only learned how to appear more em- pathic in order to better manipulate and deceive others (Harris et al., 1994; Rice, 1997).

The general belief regarding the prevention of violent behavior is that the earlier the treat- ment, the more successful it is. This is due to the developmental nature of personality styles. Personality becomes increasingly more solidi- fied over time, so problematic behaviors, such as violence, are more easily treated when an in- dividual is at an earlier developmental level (Salekin et al., 2004). This belief has lead to an increasing interest in studying children and adolescents who are at risk for committing or who have committed violent offenses, particu-

larly those who exhibit antisocial behaviors (Fung et al., 2005; Moffitt, 2005; Raine et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2000). In comparison to non-antisocial children, antisocial children tend to show poor verbal ability, impulsivity, high neuroticism (negative emotionality), low con- straint, failure in school, autonomic hypo- activity, and higher rates of attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant dis- order, and conduct disorder (CD) (Lahey et al., 2005). However, the age of onset is the best predictor of severity and course of antisocial behavior (Taylor et al.)

ASPD Versus Psychopathy

The terms APSD and psychopathy are often used synonymously and incorrectly. APSD is a cate- gory listed in the fourth edition of theDiagnostic andStatisticalManualofMentalDisorders (DSM- IV-TR), conceptualized by sense of entitlement, lack of remorse, apathetic to others, unconscio- nable, blameful of others, manipulative and con- ning, affectively cold, disparate understanding of socially acceptable behavior, disregardful of social obligations, nonconforming to social norms, and irresponsible (American Psychiatric Association,2000).Psychopathsembodymost, if not all, of these characteristics, but they are more accurately described as ‘‘remorseless predators who use charm, intimidation and, if necessary, impulsive and cold-blooded violence to attain their ends’’ (Hare, 1996). The confusion between ASPD and psychopathy may reside in research statistics (Herve et al., 2004; Skilling et al., 2002; Woodworth & Porter, 2002), which state that 5%–6% of adult male offenders are responsible for about 50% of crime (Skilling et al.) and that psychopathy has a prevalence rate among the offender population of about 15%–25% (Woodworth & Porter, 2002). How- ever, what the statistics do not state is that although almost all individuals identified as

LABRODE

152 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007

psychopaths by the Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991) also met the DSM-IV-TR criteria for ASPD, most individuals with ASPD are not psychopaths (Skilling et al.), just like the geometric concept that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

Research studies (Moffitt, 1993; Raine et al., 2005; Skilling et al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2000) have presented evidence to support that iden- tification of the highest risk offenders depends on two things: early age of onset of violent and antisocial conduct and persistence of that anti- social and criminal behavior. In addition to this, another important distinction has been made regarding antisocial behavior. In 1993, Moffitt identified two subgroups of antisocial behavior: adolescence limited and life-course per- sistent. Moffitt defined adolescence-limited offending as normative and results from affili- ation and mimicking peers, whereas life-course- persistent offending is more similar to a disorder (Moffitt, 1993). There is also evidence to suggest that early-onset/life-course-persistent antisocial behavior has more of a genetic influence than late-onset or adolescent-limited antisocial be- havior (Taylor et al.).

Biological Etiology of Psychopathy

In the beginning, that was my most profound admission, that there was something missing in Jeff, the part that should have cried out, Stop!—Lionel Dahmer (Jeffrey’s father)

Even though the etiology of psychopathy is un- known, there are several studies (Blair, 2003; Yang, Raine, Lencz, Bihrle, LaCasse, & Colletti, 2005) that have been conducted which present evidence to support a neurobiological basis of psychopathy. The amygdala and the prefrontal cortex are two of the areas in the brain that have been the primary focus when studying psy- chopathy. The amygdala is involved in aver- sive conditioning, instrumental learning, and

responses to fearful and sad facial expressions (Blair, 2003), which are all processes that have been found to be impaired in people with psy- chopathy. Reduced amygdala volume (Tiihonen et al., 2000) and delayed response to words with neutral and negative associations (Kiehl et al., 2001) were also found in individuals with high levels of psychopathy (.28/40 on the PCL-R). These findings have suggested that amygdala impairment affects socialization (Blair, 2003), which involves aversive conditioning and in- strumental learning. Individuals with psychop- athy do not learn to avoid antisocial behavior because learning to avoid a behavior involves engaging in a certain behavior and then being punished by an aversive response. For example, in order to learn that physically hurting another is wrong, one must inflict pain on someone and then be negatively affected by that person’s distress (aversive response).

It has also been suggested that impairments of the prefrontal cortex are linked to psychopathy. The medial orbitfrontal cortex (OFC) receives and sends projections to the amygdala and is involved in instrumental learning and response reversal, which are both functions that are im- paired in psychopaths (Blair, 2003). Lesions of the OFC have been associated with ‘‘acquired sociopathy,’’ which is psychopathic behavior in previously nonpsychopathic individuals, fol- lowing the development of lesions of the OFC (Blair, 2003). A study by Yang et al. (2005) found a 22.3% reduction in prefrontal gray matter, using structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in unsuccessful psychopaths (psycho- paths who have been caught) in comparison to controlsubjects.Theevidencepresentedinthese studiesstronglysuggestsabiologicaletiologyfor psychopathy. This is not to say that the cause of psychopathyissolelybiologicalor thatallpeople with these neurological impairments develop psychopathy; it only presents a piece of the puzzle in determining what causes people to become psychotic.

Etiology

Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007 153

Infamous Serial Killers

I am the most cold-blooded son of a bitch you’ll ever meet.

I just liked to kill, I wanted to kill.—Ted Bundy

Just like almost all psychopaths have ASPD, but most people with APSD are not psycho- paths, most psychopaths are not killers. They may be successful in the business world by con- niving and manipulating their colleagues or cli- ents for the purpose of embezzling money. However, it is unavoidable that there is a subset of psychopathic individuals who are compelled to kill. Several studies have found that psycho- pathic offenders are as much as three or four times more likely to violently reoffend follow- ing release from custody than are nonpsycho- pathic offenders (Hare, 1996). Even though the DSM-IV-TR criteria for ASPD and psychop- athy (as defined by the PCL-R) overlap in their criterion, psychopathy is a far more relevant factor in studying serial violent offenders in the criminal population. Serial killers such as Gary Ridgeway, Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, BTK (Dennis Rader), John Wayne Gacy, and Ed Kemper can all be identified as psychopaths. Ed Gein was even the inspiration for the characters of Norman Bates from ‘‘Psy- cho’’ and Buffalo Bill from ‘‘Silence of the Lambs’’.Hetooworetheskinofhisvictimswhen he dressed up as a transvestite (Court TV’s crime library,n.d.).Theseserialmurderers intriguethe average person because the average person can- not fathom committing such a heinous crime and never showing any remorse. Even though many serial killers share striking similarities in their personalities, crimes, and histories, they are to- tally different people, born and raised by differ- ent parents, have had different life experiences, and are from different places and different times. Coulditbepossible thatpeoplearebornthisway?

The definition of serial murder is a minimum of 3–4 victims with a ‘‘cooling off’’ period in between. The killer is usually a stranger to the victim; the murders appear unconnected or ran- dom. The murder is rarely ‘‘for profit,’’ and the motive is psychological, not material. The victim may have a symbolic value for the killer, and the method of killing may reveal this meaning. The killer often chooses victims who are vulnerable (children, adolescents, women, prostitutes . . . ) (Court TV’s crime library, n.d.). The average se- rial killer profile is white, male, low-middle so- cioeconomicstatus, inhis20sor30s,hasahistory of childhood abuse or neglect, is sociopathic/ psychopathic, is a chameleon to his environ- ment, and appears normal to others (Court TV’s crime library, n.d.). Many serial killers are also sexual sadists and incorporate their deviant sex- ual fantasies into their killings. Actually, almost all serial killers incorporate some kind of sexual element into their murders. Gary Ridgeway (The Green River Killer), Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Kemper, and Henry Lee Lucas all engaged in necrophilia, which involves engaging in sexual activity with deceased individuals. Ed Kemper even had sex with his mother after he decapitated her and put her vocal cords down the garbage disposal (Court TV’s crime library, n.d.).

Childhood

We’re still blaming the mothers.—Joyce Flint (Jeffrey Dahmer’s mother)

However, when speaking to people who knew them as children, serial killers are usually de- scribed as a little ‘‘off.’’ As children, fledgling serial killers often set fires, torture animals, and wet their beds. These red flag behaviors are known as the ‘‘triad’’ of symptoms. Gary Ridge- way exhibited the triad of symptoms in his childhood (Court TV’s crime library, n.d.). Other historical factors common in serial killers are abuse, trauma, insecure attachment, loss or

LABRODE

154 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007

abandonment of a parent or caretaker, antiso- cial behavior, head injury, and low arousal lev- els. John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgeway, and Ed Gein were all physically and verbally abused by a parent and most likely endured some type of trauma; John Wayne Gacy, Henry Lee Lucas, Ed Gein, and possibly Dennis Rader had child- hood incidents of head injury; Ted Bundy grew up thinking his mother was his older sister and his grandparents were his parents; and Jeffrey Dahmer had a mentally ill mother who ingested numerous drugs while pregnant with Jeffrey. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridge- way, Ed Gein, Ed Kemper, and Jeffrey Dahmer most likely all developed insecure attachments to one or both of their parents and suffered from physical or emotional loss or abandon- ment as well as instability in their childhoods (Court TV’s crime library, n.d.).

One of the most common and disturbing fac- tors found in many serial killers’ histories is their unusual or unnatural relationships with their mothers, which often included sexual and sadistic elements. Bobby Joe Long, Henry Lee Lucas, Gary Ridgeway, Ed Gein, Charles Manson, and Ed Kemper all had inappropriate relationships with their mothers. Bobby Joe Long, Charles Manson, and Henry Lee Lucas were all exposed to their mothers’ sexual ac- tivities when they were children, and Charles Manson and Henry Lee Lucas were both dressed as girls for a significant portion of their child- hood. Gary Ridgeway stated that his mother ‘‘dressed likeawhore’’whenshewentout (Court TV’s crime library, n.d.). Ed Gein, Gary Ridge- way, and Ed Kemper were all subjected to sexual sadism by their mothers. The victims of these se- rialmurderersall shareuncannysimilaritieswith their mothers or in some cases were their moth- ers. Gary Ridgeway and Bobby Joe Long killed women, who they characterized as ‘‘whores and sluts’’; Ed Gein killed elderly women; Henry Lee Lucas’ first murder was his mother; and Ed Kem- per’s lastvictimwashismother(CourtTV’scrime

library, n.d.). The relationship between mater- nal characteristics and victimology are too sim- ilarly close to disregard; there is no question that thesekillers’relationshipswiththeirmotherssome- how impacted their psychopathic development.

Victimology

Worthless little queers and punks—John Wayne Gacy’s description of his victims

Victimology is the complete history of the vic- tim. It is thought that by identifying why a par- ticular person was targeted for a violent crime, the motive will be uncovered, which will then lead to the offender. Victim’s risk, history, and physical and personality characteristics are some of the factors analyzed during the evalu- ation of a crime scene. Victims usually consist of vulnerable populations (e.g., children, adoles- cents, elderly, females, prostitutes, runaways, etc.). It can help link separate crimes to one of- fender. It is one of the most valuable tools for classifying and solving violent crimes (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992).

Victimology is particularly useful when at- tempting to capture a serial killer because, like most serial killers, the victim is a stranger to the perpetrator. Gary Ridgeway targeted prosti- tutes; John Wayne Gacy lured adolescent boys to his home by promising them payment; Ted Bundy attracted kind-hearted, college-aged females with long hair to his car by faking in- jury; and Jeffrey Dahmer baited young men into coming to his home with the promise of money if he could photograph them. Analysis of the similar characteristics between the vic- tims of a serial killer provides important clues that aid in profiling and capturing these crim- inals by helping to identify who and where the killer would be likely to strike next; but, what if the victimology is not so homogeneous? Dennis Rader killed men and women, young and old; Henry Lee Lucas killed both old and

Etiology

Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007 155

young women; and Gary Ridgeway claimed to have killed at least two boys when he was young but only targeted prostitutes when he was older. A variation of victim characteristics makes it difficult to infer characteristics about the perpetrator, which is why investigators re- ly on other aspects of crime scenes to profile and catch serial killers.

The Modus Operandi and Signature

Aspects

The modus operandi (MO) is the offender’s actions during the perpetration of a crime. It is a learned behavior, developed and used over time because it works, it continuously evolves, and is modified according to experiences with previous victims (Douglas et al., 1992). Both Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy were arrested for sexual assault of a teenage boy and spent time in prison. From then on, they killed their victims, so there would never again be a witness. While Dennis Rader waited in Kathryn Bright’s home, she arrived, unexpect- edly, with her brother, Kevin. Rader did not bring his ‘‘tool kit,’’ which he used to bind his victims, so he used articles at the scene. Eventually, Kevin escaped after being shot twice, but Kathryn was not so lucky; she be- came Rader’s fifth victim. Surprisingly, Rader was not implicated in this crime; however, he did state at his trial that ‘‘from then on, I always brought my kit.’’ These examples illustrate how and why an MO evolves.

The signature aspect, or calling card, is the unique, personal expression or ritual demon- strated by the offender while he is committing the offense and is based on the offender’s fan- tasies. When a signature is left, so is an aspect of the offender’s personality (Douglas et al., 1992). The signature aspect is different from the MO because it is conduct that goes beyond the nec- essary behaviors needed to commit the crime. It is driven by the killer’s fantasies and needs to

be done in order for the killer to gain satisfac- tion from his crime. An MO may evolve, but a signature aspect remains constant. However, it is possible for a signature aspect to increase in intensity. Gary Ridgeway increasingly engaged in necrophilia with his victims. After he dumped the bodies of his victims, he often re- visited them numerous times to reengage in sexual activity with them, hence reliving his crimes. Dennis Rader enjoyed taunting the po- lice with letters describing his crimes and indi- cating where they could find his most recent victim’s body. To certify the authenticity of the letters, he signed them BTK (Figure 1) and arranged the letters in a sexually explicit way.

The Organized/Disorganized Typology

of Serial Murder

In addition to victimology, MO, and signature aspect, the organized/disorganized classification of serial killers is extremely important in crim- inal profiling. Organized offenders are hypoth- esized to kill after undergoing some sort of precipitating stressful event, are of average intelligence, are socially competent, are apt to plan his offenses, use restraints on his victims, take ‘‘trophies’’ or ‘‘souvenirs’’ (items, of little extrinsic value, which belong to the victim and serve to later stimulate the offenders fantasy), bring a weapon to commit the murder and take it with him when he leaves the crime scene.

FIGURE 1

BTK’s signature Court TV’s crime library: Criminal

minds and methods (n.d.).

LABRODE

156 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007

Disorganized offenders are hypothesized to kill opportunistically; may leave blood, semen, fin- gerprints, and the murder weapon at the scene; minimally restrain their victims; display vic- tim’s bodies in open view; are of below-average intelligence; and are thought to be socially in- competent (Douglas et al., 1992). The third type is themixed offender, whose crimes include both organized and disorganized characteristics. Some of the reasons a crime scene might be clas- sified as mixed are (a) there is more than one offender, (b) the crime may have been planned, but an unexpected event occurred, (c) the offender is young or inexperienced, (d) drugs or alcohol are involved, or (e) following exter-

nal stressors, a previously organized offender may decompensate into a disorganized offender (Douglas et al.). Even though there are techni- cally three categories for classifying crimes, it is rare that a crime is solely either organized or disorganized.

Table 1 (Canter, Alison, Alison, & Wentink, 2004) classifies 39 crime scene variables as either organized or disorganized and gives the percent- age of their frequency, based on 100 crimes from 100 different serial killers. The data from the study conducted by Canter et al. (2004) regard- ing the organized/disorganized typology of se- rial murder was taken from the data archives at the Centre for Investigative Psychology.

TABLE 1. Variables From the Missen Corpus Reflecting Organized or Disorganized Crime Scenes

Organized Disorganized

Variable % Variable %

Victim alive during sex acts 91 Vaginal rape 74

Body positioned 75 Overkill 70

Murder weapon missing 67 Multiple sex acts 66

Multiple crime scene 61 Beaten 61

Body concealed 58 Body left in isolated spot 54

Torture 53 Belongings scattered 47

Restraints 40 Tease cuts 38

Body covered postmortem 37 Bludgeoned 38

Ligature strangulation 34 Clothing scattered 36

Firearm used 23 Object penetration 35

Tampered with evidence 21 Improvised murder weapon 31

Gagging 16 Manual strangulation 27

Bitemarks 5 Violence directed at genitalia 23

Weapon left in victim 19

Facial disfigurement 19

Throat cut 19

Trail of clothing to murder scene 13

Ransacking 11

Genital mutilation 10

Body parts missing 10

Thoracic mutilation 9

Burns on victim 8

Abdominal mutilation 8

Innards extracted 6

Decapitation 5

Dismemberment 3

Note. Frequency across the sample of 100 cases indicated in parentheses.

Etiology

Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007 157

Figure 2 (Canter et al., 2004) is a smallest space analysis (SSA), which is a multidimensional scaling procedure of the data given in Table 1. The SSA represents the relationships between variablesbytheamountofdistancebetweenvar- iables. The closer two variables are to each other on the SSA, the more likely they are to co-occur. The contours indicate frequency (Canter et al.). Figure 2 shows that the organized variables are much closer in proximity to each other and have a higher frequency of occurrence than the disor- ganized variables.

Criminal Profiling

The idea of criminal profiling is to gather a body of data yielding common patterns so that inves- tigators can develop a description of an UNSUB (unknown suspect). A profile is based on the idea that people tend to be guided by their individual psychology and will inevitably leave idiosyn-

cratic clues at the crime scene. Criminal profiling draws information from victimology, MO, sig- nature aspects, and crime classification. Clues from these areas supply information to aid inves- tigators in creating a profile of the offender.

Some research studies (Alison, Bennell, Mokros, & Ormerod, 2002; Canter et al., 2004) have attempted to discredit methods used for offender profiling by focusing on the flaws used in the process. A study by Canter et al. argues that ‘‘no empirical evidence has been demonstrated to support the validity or reli- ability of the organized/disorganized typology of serial murder.’’ Another study by Alison et al. (2002) argues that ‘‘most current profiling methods rely on a naı̈ve and outdated under- standing of personality and trait approach and global traits, or broad personality types, are un- likely to be useful in predicting criminal behav- ior.’’ Even though it is important to constantly reevaluate themethodsusedforoffenderprofiling

FIGURE 2

Frequency of variables in organized/disorganized crime scenes

LABRODE

158 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007

in order to improve the process, neither of these studies offers feasible solutions. They are very quick to attack the imperfections but fail to men- tion the success of this process. The process of of- fender profiling has helped apprehend numerous serial murderers. In order to create an offender profile, you must work with the information youhave,which,manytimes, isnota lot.Offender profiling has never claimed to be an exact science; it is only used to provide a general description of the offender.

The profile of BTK was criticized after the ar- rest of Dennis Rader because the profile claimed that BTK ‘‘would not have many friends,’’ ‘‘all of his relationships would be superficial,’’ and ‘‘he would not be married or have any chil- dren’’. However, this was not the case. Dennis Rader was in fact married and had two children. He was considered to be a nice, normal guy and was a Boy Scout leader and was active in his church. Even though BTK’s profile was not 100% accurate, it does not mean that the whole profiling process should be discredited.

It is apparent from the research presented that elements of a serial killer’s personality and his- tory are inevitably left at the crime scene. Clues about the killer are able to be extracted through victimology, MO, signature aspects, and crime classification to help create a psychological pro- file of the offender. Even though it is not an exact science, offender profiling, along with forensic science and eyewitness accounts, is one of the most useful and reliable tools in apprehending serial killers. Although the exact causal relation- ship is unknown, the characteristic similarities between the subset of psychopathic serial murderers implicate common etiological factors in its development.

References

Alison, L., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., & Ormerod, D. (2002). The personality paradox in offender

profiling: A theoretical review of the processes

involved in deriving background characteristics

from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public

Policy, and Law, 8, 115–135. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic

and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.,

Rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Blair, R. J. (2003). Neurobiological basis for

psychopathy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182,

5–7.

Canter, D. V., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., & Wentink,

N. (2004). The organized/disorganized typology

of serial murder: Myth or model? Psychology,

Public Policy, and Law, 10, 293–320. Court TV’s crime library: Criminal minds and

methods. (n.d.). Jeffrey Dahmer. Retrieved

November 6, 2005, from http://

www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/

dahmer/index.html.

Court TV’s crime library: Criminal minds and

methods. (n.d.). John Wayne Gacy. Retrieved

November 6, 2005, from http://

www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/

gacy/gacy_1.html.

Court TV’s crime library: Criminal minds and

methods. (n.d.). Most notorious. Retrieved

November 6, 2005, from http://

www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/

gein/bill_1.html.

Court TV’s crime library: Criminal minds and

methods. (n.d.). Psychopaths? Retrieved

September 28, 2005, from http://

www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/

tick/psych_6.html.

Court TV’s crime library: Criminal minds and

methods. (n.d.). What makes serial killers tick?

Retrieved November 6, 2005, from http://

www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/

tick/victims_1.html.

Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., &

Ressler, R. K. (1992). Crime classification manual:

A standard system for investigating and classifying

violent crimes. New York: Simon and Schuster. Fung, M. T., Raine, A., Loeber, R., Lynam, D. R.,

Steinhauer, S. R., Venables, P. H., et al. (2005).

Reduced electrodermal activity in psychopathy-

prone adolescents. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 114, 187–196.

Etiology

Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007 159

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-

revised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder: A case of diagnostic

confusion. Psychiatric Times, 132.

Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1994).

Psychopaths: Is a therapeutic community therapeutic?TherapeuticCommunities, 15,283–289.

Herve, H. F., Mitchell, D., Cooper, B. S., Spidel, A., & Hare, R. D. (2004). Psychopathy and unlawful confinement: An examination of perpetrator and

event characteristics. Canadian Journal of

Behavioural Science, 36, 137–145.

Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D., et al (2001). Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by

criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological

Psychiatry, 50, 677–684. Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Burke, J. D., & Applegate,

B. (2005). Predicting future antisocial personality

disorder in males from a clinical assessment in childhood. Journal of Counseling and Clinical

Psychology, 73, 389–399. Loeber, R., Pardini, D., Homish, L., Wei, E. H.,

Crawford, A. M., Farrington, D. P., et al. (2005). The prediction of violence and homicide in young

men. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1074–1088.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life- course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review,

100, 674–701. Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral

genetics on developmental psychology: Gene- environment interplay in antisocial behaviors.

Psychological Bulletin, 131, 533–535. Raine, R., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Loeber, R.,

Stouthhamer-Loeber, M., & Lynam, D. (2005). Neurocognitive impairments in boys on the life-

course persistent antisocial path. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 114, 38–49.54. Rice, M. E. (1997). Violent offender research and

implications for the criminal justice system. American Psychologist, 52, 414–423.

Rutter, M. (2003). Commentary: Causal processes leading to antisocial behavior. Developmental

Psychology, 39, 372–378. Salekin, R. T., Leistico, A. M., Neumann, C. S.,

DiCicco, T. M., & Duros, R. L. (2004). Psychopathy and comorbidity in a young offender sample: Taking a closer look at

psychopathy’s potential importance over disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 113, 416–427. Skilling, T. A., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey,

V. L. (2002). Identifying persistently antisocial offenders using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist

and DSM antisocial personality disorder criteria. Psychological Assessment, 14, 27–38.

Taylor, J., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2000).

Evidence for a genetic etiology of early-onset delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

109, 634–643. Tiihonen, J., Hodggins, S., Vaurio, O., et al (2000).

Amygdaloid volume loss in psychopathy. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 2017.

Widiger, T. A., Hare, R., Rutherford, M., Alterman, A., Corbitt, E., Hart, S., et al. (1996). DSM-IV

antisocial personality disorder field trial. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 3–16.

Woodworth, M. & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood:

Characteristics of criminal homicides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

111, 436–445. Yang, Y., Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., LaCasse, L.,

& Colletti, P. (2005). Volume reduction in prefrontal gray matter in unsuccessful criminal

psychopaths. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1103– 1108.

LABRODE

160 Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention / 7:2 May 2007

Week 5: Profiling—Prevention and Investigation

Law enforcement is effective for solving most murder cases. However, serial and mass murderers are the exceptions. In serial murder cases, murderers continue to terrorize the public and commit a significant number of murders before they are apprehended. The BTK killer, for example, evaded arrest for more than 30 years. During this time, he killed at least 10 people and taunted law enforcement by writing letters to the media.

Given that law enforcement encounters difficulty in apprehending serial and mass murderers, there is considerable interest in trying to prevent serial and mass murderers from developing in the first place. Criminal profilers are at the forefront of this movement by using their expertise to help guide and inform prevention programs for serial and mass murderers. Criminal profilers also provide specific details to law enforcement about serial and mass murderers that otherwise would be unknown, should they strike. This enables law enforcement to narrow their list of suspects. This week, you consider the use of profiling in the prevention of serial and mass murders. You also explore how profiling is used to address challenges encountered by law enforcement in the criminal investigation of serial and mass murders.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Analyze the use of profiling in the prevention of serial and mass murders

Analyze challenges related to the criminal investigation of serial and mass murderers

Apply profiling to address challenges related to the criminal investigation of serial and mass murderers

Identify and apply the role of profiling in the prevention and investigation of serial and mass murders

Discussion: Prevention

The goal of a criminal profiler is to create profiles of serial and mass murderers to help law enforcement track down and apprehend them. Criminal profilers also are integral in preventing serial and mass murders by identifying risk factors of individuals who commit these crimes. As a result, the incidence of serial murders can be reduced. For example, if childhood abuse is a risk factor in the development of serial murderers, preventing childhood abuse might lead to a reduction in the number of serial murderers. Some prevention programs use details about the causes of crime gleaned from criminal profilers to develop and implement effective violence prevention programs. Therefore, criminal profilers not only work to aid law enforcement agents in crime solving, but also help social service professionals prevent violence, including serial and mass murders.

To prepare for this Discussion:

Review the article "Etiology of the Psychopathic Serial Killer: An Analysis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, Psychopathy, and Serial Killer Personality and Crime Scene Characteristics." Focus on how identifying risk factors associated with serial murderers can be used to help prevent the development of serial murderers.

Review the video clip, "Crime Scene: The Virginia Tech Massacre." Consider the warning signs exhibited by the mass murderer and how these warning signs, if used timely by the police and the investigators, could have prevented this mass murder.

Review the serial or mass murderer that you created for the Discussion in Week 1. If you need to, you may add additional details about the murderer.

Think about some of the characteristics you would include in the murderer's profile and how they might inform prevention efforts.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post a brief profile of the serial or mass murderer you selected. Then explain how you might use specific aspects of the profile to develop prevention efforts of serial and mass murders. Be specific and use examples to illustrate your explanation.

Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.

BELOW IS YOUR WEEK 1ASSIGNMENT

DISCUSSION WEEK #1 Serial Killer and Mass Murderer

A serial killer entails a person who assassinates three or more individuals within a period exceeding a month, with resting time between murders. In this case, the murders are separate events that result from a psychological pleasure or thrill (Holmes & Holmes, 2009). Serial killers lack guilt and empathy, becoming egocentric individuals. The killers remain psychologically motivated and organized to commit murder. Serial killers employ a sanity mask to appear charming and ordinary while hiding their actual psychopathic tendencies. For instance, Ted Bundy was an appealing serial killer who methodically planned out murder (Stone, 2019). He would fake injuries to seem harmless to victims. He committed about thirty murders between 1974 and 1978 before his capture.

Mass murderers slay many people, usually at the same time, within a single location. For instance, James Holmes attacked and shot at a Colorado movie theater (Allely, 2020). As a result, he injured fifty-eight people and twelve individuals, making him a mass murderer. A psychiatry professor from Columbia argues that mass murderers comprise dissatisfied people with few friends and poor social skills. Generally, mass murderers’ motives are less apparent compared to serial killers. Professor Stone claims that males facilitate most mass murder cases, with most of them lacking clinical psychotic. Instead of remaining a sociopath like serial killers, mass murderers are distrustful persons with acute social and behavioral syndromes. Comparable to serial assassins, mass murderers exhibit psychopathic inclinations, including being uncompassionate, cruel, and manipulative. Nevertheless, most mass assassins are loners or social nonconformists whose actions result from triggers by some overpowering events.

Generally, mass murderers and serial killers often demonstrate similar manipulation characteristics and lack of empathy. Factors that distinguish the two involve the sum of murders as well as timing. Mass murderers assassinate people in a single time frame and location. On the other hand, serial killers often murder in different places and over a long period.

References

Allely, C. S. (2020). The contributory role of psychopathology and inhibitory control in the case of mass shooter James Holmes. Aggression and violent behavior, 51, 101382.

Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2009). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stone, M. H. (2019). The place of psychopathy along the spectrum of negative personality types. In Psychoanalysts, psychologists and psychiatrists discuss psychopathy and human evil (pp. 82-105). Routledge.

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.

Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com