Psychology assignment - Assignment Essays

read the article and write a reflection

Psychology Reflection

Requirement:

Max 2 pages; double-spaced. You do not need a title page.

Do not spend more than 2-3 sentences summarizing the reading or presentation/aspect of the reading or presentation that caught your attention.

· • Rather, focus on stating your question/thought/opinion and elaborate on how you arrived at that particular question/thought/opinion.

Discuss either a solution or implications, with evidence of critical thinking.

· • E.g., tell me why you are questioning this particular thing and what you think the answer might be/how we might discover the answer; if you believe something should be different in the world, tell me why and suggest an idea about how that change could be made. Your argument/idea will be stronger if you support it with evidence.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppl20

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppl20

Reframing criminal profiling: a guide for integrated
practice

Wayne Petherick & Nathan Brooks

To cite this article: Wayne Petherick & Nathan Brooks (2021) Reframing criminal profiling:
a guide for integrated practice, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28:5, 694-710, DOI:
10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

Published online: 10 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3779

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppl20

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppl20

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tppl20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-12-10

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030#tabModule

Reframing criminal profiling: a guide for integrated practice

Wayne Pethericka and Nathan Brooksb

aCriminology Department, Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD,
Australia; bSchool of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University,
Townsville, QLD, Australia

Profiling aims to identify the major personality and behavioural characteristics of offenders
from their interactions in the crime. The discipline has undergone numerous changes and
advances since its first modern use by the psychological/psychiatric community. The current
paper reviews the different approaches to criminal profiling, exploring the reasoning and
justification utilised across profiling practices. Profiling aims to assist criminal
investigators; however, the variance in profiling approaches has contributed to
inconsistency across the field, bringing the utility of profiling into question. To address the
current areas of practice deficit in criminal profiling, a framework is proposed to promote
integrated practice. The CRIME approach provides a framework (consisting of crime scene
evaluations, relevancy of research, investigative or clinical opinions, methods of
investigation, and evaluation) to promote structure and uniformity in profile development,
aiming to assist in the reliability of the practice by providing an integrative framework for
developing profiles.

Key words: crime investigation; criminal profiling; offender profiling; psychological
profiling; serial crime.

In its most basic form, criminal profiling (also
known as offender profiling and behavioural
profiling, among others) is an investigative
tool to discern offender characteristics from
behaviour. This base understanding is com-
mon to most, if not all, approaches to profiling,
with the main difference between practices
being the reasoning and decision-making proc-
esses used to arrive at the final profile
(Petherick, 2014a, 2014b). Despite the level of
scientific reasoning being notably different
across the approaches, there has been little
attempt to understand what this reasoning is
and how it impacts on profile content.
Profiling has been subject to discrepancies
across practice, with a dearth of processes or

principles to promote integrated practice.
There have, however, been many attempts to
understand more advanced aspects of profiling
such as the accuracy of one group over another
(Kocsis et al., 2000; Pinizzotto & Finkel,
1990), or the assistance offered by profilers to
end consumers (Cole & Brown, 2011;
Copson, 1995), mental health professional’s
attitudes to profiling (Torres et al., 2006) and
the operational utility of offender profiling
(Gekoski & Gray, 2011).

Criminal profiling details the characteris-
tics of the likely perpetrator of a given crime.
Far from having an abstract relationship to
criminal profiling, logic is pivotal to construct-
ing rational and robust arguments about

Correspondence: Nathan Brooks, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland
University, 538 Flinders Street, Townsville, QLD, Australia. Email: n.brooks@cqu.edu.au

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2021
Vol. 28, No. 5, 694–710, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2022-04-02

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7323-8680

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1784-099X

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

http://www.tandfonline.com

offender characteristics, not only in the profile
itself but also in the communication of the ele-
ments of the profile to consumers. Indeed,
devoid of any logical process, conclusions
about the offender remain nothing more than
unfounded assumption or ill-informed guess-
work. The type of logic reasoning employed
by the profiler is the most fundamental differ-
ence between approaches, and it is critical to
consider the different types of reasoning
employed across profiling practices. Logic, the
process of argumentation, is defined by Farber
(1942, p. 41) as ‘a unified discipline which
investigates the structure and validity of
ordered knowledge’. Further, according to
Battacharyya (1958, p. 326):

Logic is usually defined as the science of
valid thought. But as thought may mean
either the act of thinking of the object of
valid thought, we get two definitions
of logic: logic as the science (1) of the act
of valid thinking, or (2) of the objects of
valid thinking.

Stock (2004, p. 8) adopts a differ-
ent approach:

Logic may be declared to be both the
science and the art of thinking. It is the art
of thinking in the same sense that
grammar is the art of speaking. Grammar
is not in itself the right use of words, but a
knowledge of it enables men to use words
correctly. In the same way a knowledge of
logic enables men to think correctly or at
least to avoid incorrect thoughts. As an
art, logic may be called the navigation of
the sea of thought.

It is the purpose of logic to analyse the
methods by which valid judgements are
obtained in any science or discourse, which is
met by the formulation of general laws dictat-
ing the validity of judgements (Farber, 1942).
More than simply providing a theoretical
framework for structuring arguments, the basic
principles of logic allow for a more rigorous
formulation and testing of any argument. A
better understanding of this theoretical

framework provides a better understanding of
the processes employed by the profiler, as well
as the discipline itself. Additionally, the differ-
ence in the ways that profiles are argued is of
great practical importance (Goldsworthy,
2001, p. 30):

One important factor that should be
considered is how acceptable the method
of profiling is to those who will be using
the profile. . . . Like any product, the
profile must be end-user friendly. Few law
enforcement personnel have qualifications
in psychology or related disciplines, and it
is this very fact that can make
investigators dubious as to how
conclusions presented in the profile were
reached. For instance, a claim that a
particular type of serial murderer will be
40 years old, white and a blue collar
worker will be treated with derision by
investigators unless it can be shown how
that conclusion was reached, and further
that the conclusion is likely to be true.

Goldsworthy argues two key points: first,
that logic and reasoning should be employed
in the construction of the profile, and, second,
that the logic and reasoning employed be
clearly elucidated throughout. While it should
stand to reason that logic and reasoning should
be used in profiling, we use the term in a more
formal sense to move the process away from
such idiosyncrasies as ‘intuition’ or
‘common sense’.

There are primarily three types of logic
used in developing profiles: induction, abduc-
tion and deduction. Rather than representing
different types of logic, these are best thought
of as different points along the logical con-
tinuum, beginning with various hypotheses
about what may have occurred or that may be
true (induction), and through the scientific
method we falsify each conclusion until we
are left with the best possible explanation
(abduction) or only one that is based on uni-
versal laws or principles and cannot be falsi-
fied (deduction). Sometimes, because of the
nature of human behaviour, evidence dynam-
ics or active attempts to thwart the

Reframing Criminal Profiling 695

investigation (referred to as staging, among
others), we are left with the best explanation
for the evidence we are observing – that
is, abduction.

An inductive argument is where the con-
clusion is likely or a matter of probability
based on supporting premises, such as physical
evidence or research. While a good inductive
argument provides strong support for the con-
clusion, the argument is still not infallible. For
example, in research on behavioural consist-
ency, Bateman and Salfati (2007) found that
hiding the body occurred 67.8% of the time,
and that moving the body after the homicide
occurred in 61.1% of the time. While cited as
high-frequency behaviours, these results sug-
gest that each will only be found approxi-
mately two thirds of the time. As a result,
investigators using a profile that reports such
statistical inferences may equate probability
with certainty. However, these behaviours
occur in some cases and not others, raising an
issue with both the utility of this information
and in determining where offending behaviour
is consistent and inconsistent with research.
This may be especially true in cases where the
level of certainty is communicated in a vague
or general way, such as ‘most of the time the
body will be hidden’. While technically true,
this argument does not communicate the exact
level of certainty.

Induction proceeds from a specific set of
observations to a generalisation known as a
premise, and the premise is a working assump-
tion (Thornton, 1997). From observations in
each case, comparisons are made to determine
the level of similarity to past cases sharing
similar features. These similarities provide
generalisations that may then be offered as a
conclusion in the current case. For example, a
woman is found murdered, and a generalised
conclusion is reached that the suspect is likely
to be male, due to male offenders perpetrating
between 85–90% of homicides (Federal
Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2002; Mouzos,
2005). The central premise in induction is
similarity, where analysis of unlawful activity

reveals that criminal activity often has com-
mon features (Navarro & Schafer, 2003). The
application of inductive logic where the simi-
larity is drawn from research on criminal
behavioural patterns can be appreciated
through the following (Kocsis, 2001, p. 32):

To use this model to produce a
psychological profile, behaviours from
any of the [behaviour] patterns are
compared and matched with those of the
unsolved case. Once a behaviour pattern
has been matched with the unsolved case
it can be cross referenced with offender
characteristics.

Abduction is a style of reasoning that
could be summed up as reasoning to the best
explanation (Davis et al., 2018). That is, the
evidence in a case is more indicative of a sin-
gle hypothesis from a number of possible
hypotheses, though not inclusive of one to the
exclusion of all others. According to
Niiniluoto (1999) this type of reasoning has
been the staple heuristic method of classical
detective stories, and ‘the logic of the
“deductions” of Sherlock Holmes is typically
abductive’ (p. S441).

Deduction relies on induction, where
hypotheses are drawn based on case similar-
ities and are then tested against the evidence in
the current case. Offender characteristics are
arrived at through a systematic study of the
patterns and themes present in the physical
and behavioural evidence, where if the prem-
ise is true, the conclusion must also be true
(Bevel & Gardner, 2008). Neblett (1985, p.
114) goes further, stating that ‘if the conclu-
sion is false, then at least one of the premises
must be false’. For this reason, when employ-
ing a deductive approach, it is incumbent on
the profiler to establish the validity of each
and every premise before drawing conclusions
from them.

Because a deductive argument is struc-
tured so that the conclusion is implicitly con-
tained within the premise unless the reasoning
is invalid, the conclusion will follow as a mat-
ter of course. Put another way, a deductive

696 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

argument is designed to go from truth to truth.
A deductive argument will therefore be valid
if (Alexandra et al., 2002, p. 65):

� It is not logically possible for the con-
clusions to be false if the premises
are true.

� The conclusions must be true, if the
premises are true.

� It would be contradictory to assert the
premises yet deny the conclusions.

In profiling, deduction relies upon the sci-
entific method which is a ‘reasoned step by
step procedure involving observations and
experimentation in problem solving’ (Bevel,
2001, p. 154). Induction, abduction and deduc-
tion relying on the scientific method go hand-
in-hand in criminal profiling: theories are
developed based on research and experience
(induction), which are then examined in light
of the current case to determine which may or
may not be true given the available evidence
(abduction), and attempts are then made to
falsify those that remain through hypothesis
testing and revision (the scientific method that
in ideal scenarios would lead to deduction).
Only when theories have withstood this pro-
cess of falsification can they be considered
complete, and that a truth has
been determined.

While there is no conclusive data on the
commonality and occurrences of profiling
practices, it would make reasoned sense to
suggest that induction is the most common,
given that many approaches rely on statistics
or case experience in developing the final pro-
file. Furthermore, induction is the foundation
for both abduction and deduction. Owing to
the nature of crime scenes and criminal behav-
iour and the lack of universal principle in
human behaviour overall, deduction would be
considered the least common type of reason-
ing, making abduction second by default.
Although deduction is concerned with abso-
lutes, abduction centres on probable reasoning
derived through hypothesis testing. Hence, in
abductive reasoning, conclusions are reached

without the reliance on a definitive cause,
instead determined based on the likelihood,
feasibility and practicality of a given hypoth-
esis. According to Niiniluoto (1999), in con-
sideration of Pierce’s (1898) position on an
abductive argument, the following is con-
cluded (p. S439):

� The surprising fact C is observed.
� But if A were true, C would be a mat-

ter of course.
� Hence, there is reason to suspect that

A is true.

The use of abductive reasoning is com-
mon practice in the clinical process of differ-
ential diagnosis, along with providing the
underpinnings for crime assessment and pro-
file development (Davis et al., 2018; Rainbow
& Gregory, 2011). As Davis et al. (2018)
observed, ‘profilers should take time to argue
against their opinions and consider alternate
hypotheses (p. 187–206). Consequently, the
current review intends to examine the reason-
ing and decision making employed across
offender profiling. The major profiling practi-
ces are discussed, and the utility of these
approaches explored. As noted by Fox and
Farrington (2018), ‘there appears to be sub-
stantial variation in what is considered to be
OP [offender profiling], who is conducting it,
the methodology and approach that is used,
the findings that are achieved, as well as
where and how the results are presented’ (p.
1248). The significant differences amongst
approaches to offender profiling, along with
widespread disputes between practitioners,
have greatly impeded the field (Fox et al.,
2020). These limitations have caused scepti-
cism about the investigative utility of profil-
ing, along with the scientific efficacy of the
practice (Fox et al., 2020). For offender profil-
ing to have scientific validity and more wide-
spread recognition in investigations and
admissibility in court, a uniformed approach
to practise remains essential (Fox &
Farrington, 2018; Freckelton, 2008). The cur-
rent review contends that for profiling to be

Reframing Criminal Profiling 697

recognised as a scientific and evidence-based
tool, homogeny in practice must be achieved,
best viewed through an integrative approach
to offender profiling.

Profiling approaches

While there is considerable overlap between
practitioners and how they approach the devel-
opment of a profile, there are also significant
differences. Whether these constitute enough
to be considered different methodologies is
currently a subject of debate, with some sug-
gesting that differences are more about
emphasis on various parts of the process
(Davis et al., 2018).

Criminal investigative analysis

Owing to its depiction in film and television,
perhaps the best known profiling approach
would be that developed by the FBI. Criminal
investigative analysis, or CIA, is inductive and
abductive with its roots in early law enforce-
ment attempts to understand patterns of crim-
inal behaviour. Early CIA thinking allocated
offenders to one of two types: The organised
asocial and the disorganised nonsocial, with
these terms first appearing in The Lust
Murderer in 1980 (see Hazelwood & Douglas,
1980). Between 1979 and 1983, FBI agents
interviewed offenders in federal custody (see
Burgess & Ressler, 1985) to formalise this tax-
onomy and determine whether there were con-
sistent features across offences that may be
useful in classifying future offenders
(Petherick, 2014a). At these early stages, the
FBI method employed this organised/disor-
ganised typology as a decision process model,
which classifies offenders by virtue of the
level of sophistication, planning and compe-
tence evident in the crime scene. According to
the study’s authors, ‘the agents involved in
profiling were able to classify murders as
either organised or disorganised in the com-
mission of their crimes’ further noting that
‘because this method of identifying offenders
was based largely on a combination of

experience and intuition, it had its failures as
well as its successes’ (Burgess & Ressler,
1985, p. 3). Indeed, the study’s two quantita-
tive objectives were to first identify whether
there are crime scene differences between
organised and disorganised murderers and
second to identify variables that may be useful
in profiling sexual murderers for which organ-
ised and disorganised murderers differ.
However, Douglas et al. (1986), acknowl-
edged that profile development did not solely
rely on a classification of organised or disor-
ganised, explaining that profiles are derived
through ‘the classification of the crime, its
organised/disorganised aspects, the offender’s
selection of a victim, strategies used to control
the victim, the sequence of the crime, the stag-
ing (or not) of the crime, the offender’s motiv-
ation for the crime and the crime scene
dynamics’ (p. 412).

An organised crime is one with evidence
of planning, where the victim is a targeted
stranger, where the crime scene reflects overall
control, restraints are used, and there are
aggressive acts prior to death. This suggests
the offender is organised with the crime scene
being a reflection of personality; they will gen-
erally be above average intelligence, be
socially competent, prefer skilled work, have a
high birth order, have a controlled mood dur-
ing the crime, and are more likely to use alco-
hol (Douglas & Burgess, 1986; Ressler et al.,
1992). Conversely, a disorganised crime
shows spontaneity, where the victim or loca-
tion is known, the crime scene is random and
sloppy, there is sudden violence, minimal
restraints are used, and there are sexual acts
after death. This is again suggestive of the per-
sonality of the offender, with a disorganised
offender being below average intelligence and
socially inadequate, and having lower birth
order, anxious mood during the crime and
minimal use of alcohol or drugs (Douglas &
Burgess, 1986; Ressler et al., 1992). Despite
having discrete classifications, it is generally
acknowledged that no one offender will fit so
neatly into either type, with most being

698 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

categorised as ‘mixed’ – that is, having ele-
ments of both types. The FBI dichotomy has
received criticism from some practitioners
(Canter et al., 2004; Canter & Heritage, 1990;
Canter & Youngs, 2003), and there have been
limited empirical findings published by the
FBI in relation to practice changes (Fox &
Farrington, 2018). One exception to this was
the study conducted by Morton et al. (2014),
who observed that ‘Dichotomous typologies
by their very nature have challenges, as an
“either/or” choice, cannot possibly explain
complex, multiple event human interactions’
(p. 5). Further to this, Morton and colleagues
suggested that profiling should serve as a tool
that provides law enforcement investigators
with investigative information, rather than pro-
viding classifications from predetermined cate-
gories or cumbersome typologies.

Diagnostic evaluations

Diagnostic evaluations do not represent a sin-
gle profiling method per se but are instead a
generic description of the services offered by
mental health professionals, and largely rely
on clinical judgement (Bradley, 2003). The
profile provided by psychiatrist Dr James
Brussel in 1956 to assist in the ‘Mad Bomber’
case is by far the most famous example of this
approach to profiling (Brussel, 1968). In the
early stages of profiling, the diagnostic and
clinical approach occurred on an as-needed
basis (Wilson et al., 1997), usually as one part
of a broad range of psychological services.
The contribution of mental health experts to
investigations took shape when various police
services asked whether clinical interpretations
of unknown offenders might help in identifi-
cation and apprehension (Canter, 1989). Even
though other methods have come to the fore,
largely eclipsing these early contributions, at
the time of publication, Copson (1995)
claimed that over half of the profiling done in
the United Kingdom was by psychologists
and psychiatrists using a clinical approach. In
an early study of the range of services offered
by police psychologists, Bartol (1996) found

that, on average, 2% of the total monthly
workload of in-house psychologists was spent
on profiling, and that 3.4% of the monthly
workload of part-time consultants was spent
on profiling. Interestingly, despite diagnostic
evaluations being among the earliest
approaches, research on the attitudes of clin-
ical practitioners revealed scepticism of profil-
ing as a whole. For example, Bartol (1996)
found that 70% of those questioned did not
feel comfortable giving this advice, and felt
that the practice was questionable. What is
more (Bartol, 1996, p. 79):

One well-known police psychologist with
more than 20 years of experience in the
field, considered criminal profiling
‘virtually pointless and dangerous’. Many
of the respondents wrote that much more
research needs to be done before the
process becomes a useful tool.

Torres et al. (2006) show similar disdain
for the practice. Of the 161 survey respond-
ents, 10% had profiling experience, and
25% considered themselves knowledgeable
of the practice. Less than 25% considered
the practice to have sufficient scientific reli-
ability or validity. However, despite this,
many respondents also considered profiling
a useful tool for law enforcement. In exam-
ining their role in profiling, McGrath (2001,
p. 321) suggests that clinicians may be well
suited to the profiling process, owing to the
following reasons:

� Their background in the behavioural
sciences and their training in psycho-
pathology place them in an enviable
position to deduce personality and
behavioural characteristics from crime
scene information.

� The forensic psychiatrist is in a good
position to infer the meaning behind
signature behaviours.

� Given their training, education, and
focus on critical and analytical think-
ing, the forensic psychiatrist is in a

Reframing Criminal Profiling 699

good position to ‘channel their training
into a new field’.

Despite supporting this role, McGrath
(2001) also notes that the clinician should
be careful not to get caught up in, or focus
too heavily on, treatment issues. This role
confusion may come about because those
conducting diagnostic evaluations may not
often be exposed to the needs and wants of
investigations, having little experience in
reviewing crime scene data or witness depo-
sitions (West, 2000). However, the diagnos-
tic evaluation approach to profiling has
largely changed since these empirical studies
were conducted during the 1990s through to
the early 2000s. There has been an uprising
in specialised police roles requiring registra-
tion as a psychiatrist or psychologist along
with knowledge or experience in law
enforcement investigations (e.g. see below a
description of behavioural investigative
advice). Consequently, the clinical and diag-
nostic approach to profiling is now
embedded in specialised police positions,
rather than in general forensic psychology
and psychiatry practice.

Investigative psychology

Investigative psychology (IP) employs scien-
tific research and is largely dependent on the
empirical analysis conducted on individual
crime types. Because IP relies more on empir-
ical research than other inductive methods,
strengths of this approach to practice are evi-
dent. However, a considerable issue in the use
of applying this process to developing a crim-
inal profile is the potential variance that may
arise between profilers in determining the
details of the crime and the applicability of
relevant or suitable research. Furthermore, reli-
ance on research may mean that crimes of
extreme violence or low frequency may not be
adequately researched to base a profile on. As
with CIA, IP identifies profiling as only one

part of an overall approach (Canter, 2000,
p. 1091):

The domain of investigative psychology
covers all aspects of psychology that are
relevant to the conduct of criminal and
civil investigations. Its focus is on the
ways in which criminal activities may be
examined and understood in order for the
detection of crime to be effective and
legal proceedings to be appropriate. As
such, investigative psychology is
concerned with psychological input to the
full range of issues that relate to the
management, investigation and
prosecution of crime.

Canter (2011) discussed the action–charac-
teristics equation, whereby crime scene actions
are followed by a process of deriving infer-
ences, resulting in the identification of
offender characteristics. The stage of inference
development employs empirical procedures
and a conceptually driven approach to estab-
lish actions and characteristics. The inference
process seeks to examine interpersonal style,
emotions, intellect, knowledge and familiarity,
and skills. Upon analysis, conclusions are pro-
vided regarding the salience of the crime, case
linkage, offender characteristics and based
location. At the cornerstone of the IP approach
to profiling is advanced statistical modelling
and facet theory, forming both the empirical
and conceptual approaches to IP practice
(Canter & Youngs, 2003; Davis et al., 2018).
However, although IP empirical research has
provided a substantial contrition to profiling
and investigating the nuanced aspects of
offending, there is contention in regard to
whether IP constitutes an individual approach
to profiling, or instead an essential step in the
provision of a profile (Davis et al., 2018;
Rainbow et al., 2014; Snook et al., 2010).

Behavioural evidence analysis

The literature on behavioural evidence analysis
(BEA) identifies that when rigorously applied

700 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

to a criminal investigation the method aims to
be largely deductive in nature; however, it
should be noted than an absence of universal
principles in the behavioural sciences renders
this more an ideal than a reality. Additionally,
given the reliance of deductive logic on induct-
ive theories and the scientific method, it would
be wrong to classify the method as wholly
deductive. The theory of BEA states that con-
clusions about the offender should not be ren-
dered unless specific physical evidence (based
on a detailed crime reconstruction) exists. In
BEA, the profiler spends a great deal of time
establishing the veracity and validity of the
physical evidence and its relationship to the
criminal event. Indeed, this focus on detail is
listed by some as a problem with the practice,
specifically that deductive approaches are time
consuming and provide limited information to
investigators (see Holmes & Holmes, 2002).

Like many approaches, BEA is composed
of steps or stages. The first, forensic analysis,
refers to the examination, testing and interpret-
ation of any and all physical evidence
(Petherick & Turvey, 2008). To be able to
understand any behavioural evidence, a full
and complete reckoning of the physical evi-
dence must be undertaken. Victimology, the
second stage, examines any and all victim-
related information such as height, sex, age,
hobbies, habits and routines. Information
derived during this stage can also help deter-
mine victim risk and target selection. Crime
scene characteristics seeks to establish the dis-
tinguishing features of the crime scene, includ-
ing the method of approach and attack, the
method of control, location type, nature and
sequence of any sexual acts, materials used,
precautionary acts and verbal activity
(Petherick & Turvey, 2008).

Offender characteristics, the final stage,
assesses all of the above information for
themes that collectively suggest personality or
behavioural characteristics of the offender.
In contrast to other approaches, BEA proposes
a smaller number of characteristics that can be
definitively established, including knowledge

of the victim, knowledge of the crime scene,
knowledge of methods and materials, criminal
skill and motive (see Petherick, 2014a).

Behavioural investigative advice

In the early 2000s, a new method of support-
ing police investigation known as behavioural
investigative advice (BIA) emerged in the
United Kingdom. The BIA discipline seeks to
offer a broad range of psychological and scien-
tific assistance to police investigations, includ-
ing, but not limited to offender profiling
(Rainbow et al., 2014). The role of BIAs is to
offer senior investigative officers extra support
and enhance their decision making during ser-
ious crime investigations through the use of
behavioural science theory, research and
expertise (Davis et al., 2018). The use of BIAs
to assist investigations is considered to be
positive and an essential step in incorporating
specialised expertise into policing. However,
in considering offender profiling, it is unclear
as to the processes that BIAs use in assisting
investigations and developing profiles. It
would seem that BIA is a distinct profession,
rather than a variation in profiling practice
(Davis et al., 2018). Although research pre-
sented by BIAs has proposed the use of deci-
sion-making models (see Alison et al., 2003)
to reach profile conclusions, the standards of
evidence required for a BIA to develop a pro-
file appears varied. An example of the decision
making employed in BIA profiles was pro-
vided by Alison et al. (2003) who proposed
the application of Toulmin’s (1958) philoso-
phy of argument. The principles of applying
this structure of argument to profiling was due
to ‘the need for the justificatory functioning of
substantive argument, whilst also being aware
of the limitations of formal deductive, decon-
textualized logic for practical, ‘real world’
issues’ (Alison et al., 2003, p. 174). In apply-
ing these principles to derive a profile, a pro-
file statement must be derived from backing,
warrant, grounds, modality and the consider-
ation of rebuttal. The application of structured
argument and evidence-based consideration in

Reframing Criminal Profiling 701

a profile is considered to be paramount to sci-
entific practice and demonstrates support for
the BIA discipline. BIA appears to be a pro-
gressive approach to criminal profiling and has
received empirical recognition through a
developing body of research (Alison et al.,
2010; Almond et al., 2011; Marshall & Alison,
2011). For example, studies have reported
positive police satisfaction with BIA involve-
ment in cases and recommendations (Almond
et al., 2011; Cole & Brown, 2011). The devel-
opment of BIA practice is considered promis-
ing for both profiling and investigative
assistance; however, the discipline would
benefit from further scientific scrutiny in rela-
tion to operational approaches. The use of
principles to derive a structured argument is
essential in profiling, yet the development of a
supported argument is only part of the required
decision-making processes for producing a
profile, with considerable degree and variation
possible without a standardised practice frame-
work. BIA is a progressive discipline, although
subject to fallibility without process prioritisa-
tion and practice uniformity.

Towards integrated practice in
criminal profiling

The variation across profiling practices has
resulted in inconsistencies emerging in relation
to the reliance on evidence, conclusions pro-
vided and the investigative utility of profiles
(Almond et al., 2011; Fox et al., 2020). This
has ranged from profiles providing statements
without justification or the possibility of falsi-
fication, being derived predominantly on
research conclusions, dismissing inconsisten-
cies in a case, preferencing typology character-
istics, omitting victimology evidence,
selectively reporting confirmatory evidence,
being provided verbally and without documen-
tation, and failing to evaluate all case materials
(Almond et al., 2011; Morton et al., 2014;
Petherick & Brooks, 2014; Petherick &
Ferguson, 2010; Turvey, 2012; Wilson et al.,
1997). Each approach is characterised by

strengths and weakness. For example, the link-
ing of crime scene evidence with valid conclu-
sions as evident in the BEA method provides
scientific efficacy; however, this method can
also be limiting, offering a narrow profile and
minimal investigate assistance. According to
Alison et al. (2003), the success of a profile is
dependent on the types of conclusions pro-
vided, rather than the method used to derive
these. For substantiated conclusions in pro-
files, there must be evidence of logical argu-
ment and pragmatic utility, ensuring
conclusions are both logical and practical
(Alison et al., 2010; Almond et al., 2011). Any
conclusion/statement provided in a profile
must have grounding, warrant, veracity and
the capacity for falsification consistent with
principles of the structure of argument
(Toulmin, 1958). The grounding of the argu-
ment must be supported by scientific know-
ledge, whilst the warrant of the argument must
permit this to be demonstrated in specialised
research. In relation to veracity, there must be
a form of specification in regard to the likeli-
hood or probability of the claim occurring,
whilst falsification must be possible, ensuring
that that the statement or claim can be tested
or disproven (Alison et al., 2003; Toulmin,
1958). Along with the profiles being derived
from evidence and grounded in logical conclu-
sions, statistical regularities between the types
of offence and the types of offender character-
istics can offer further investigative utility
(Fox et al., 2020). As Fox and Farrington
(2018) state, ‘all future profiles should be
developed using a solid empirical approach
that relies on advanced statistical analysis of
large data sets’ (p. 1263). Consequently, it
appears that the discipline of criminal profiling
would benefit from an integrated approach to
practice that provides a framework for the pro-
vision of profiles. An integrated framework
serves to support the strengths of each method-
ology, whilst providing a structured guide to
profile development. The current issues per-
taining to profiling are akin to the limitations
identified with the early generation of

702 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

psychological risk assessments, with a need to
integrate empirical findings, practitioner
expertise and processes of practice. The issues
in the field of risk assessment resulted in
adjustments to practice and the development
of a new generation of assessment instruments
known as structured professional judgments
(SPJs; Cooper et al., 2008; Davis & Ogloff,
2008; Gormley & Petherick, 2015). The intro-
duction of SPJs has permitted an integrative
approach to risk assessment, assimilating the
scientific basis of the actuarial approach along
with the benefits of the clinical approach. In
accordance with the need for integrated prac-
tice in criminal profiling, a structural frame-
work is proposed, represented by the acronym
CRIME. The CRIME framework seeks to
overcome the pitfalls of singular profiling
approaches and instead provide a structured
framework for profile development, incorpo-
rating the strengths of each of the examined
practices, whilst acknowledging the limitations
and weakness of utilising a specific process.
This framework is similar to other recommen-
dations and is based upon a similar philosophy
to that of at least the works of Davis and
Bennett (2016) and Ackley (2017).

� C – Crime scene evaluations
� R – Relevancy of research
� I – Investigative or clinical opinion
� M – Methods of investigation
� E – Evaluation

The CRIME framework is centred on a
tiered process of profile development. The first
tier, crime scene evaluations, relies largely on
the crime scene and the evidence present to
determine justifications. Consistent with a
BEA approach, conclusions cannot be reached
without the presence of evidence at the crime
scene indicating that a set behaviour or event
has occurred. This tier is considered to carry
primary significance in the profile, accompa-
nied by the other tiers, which provide add-
itional information of assistance to
investigations. At this first phase, evaluations
are determined in respect to crime scene

evidence, victimology and offender behaviour.
The second tier, relevancy of research, is
intended to provide investigators with an over-
view of research on similar offending behav-
iour, noting factors of relevance in similar
crimes and characteristics that have been
found on these occasions. This step must spe-
cify the limitations of relying on this research
and instead seek to provide education and
background on the offending matter. The third
tier, investigative or clinical opinion, is consid-
ered to carry less weight and should be
included in profiles with caution. This may
include investigators’ unique understanding of
factors such as access of local areas, criminal
trends or past victim patterns. These factors
are provided in the profile as suggestions and
knowledge that may be of note for investiga-
tors to consider and review during the investi-
gative processes. This information is
considered of lower investigative relevance
and not based in fact. The penultimate stage
and tier of the CRIME framework is methods
of investigation. This stage aims to provide
detailed implications arising from the afore-
mentioned steps, indicating avenues for inves-
tigators to explore and offering techniques of
investigation and advice in relation to the sus-
pect. The final stage is evaluation, and
involves a critical examination of the profile
itself, the logic, reasoning and sequencing
used to arrive at the profile, and any input the
investigators have about the document. This
also includes an evaluation of the profile in
light of new information or evidence that has
come to light since the profile was generated,
along with a peer review of the profile before
this is provided to the consumer.

An example of the application of the
CRIME framework to the below scenario
(adapted from Aydin & Dirilen-Gumus, 2011,
p. 2615–2616; Douglas et al., 1986, p. 416) is
as follows:

At 3.00 pm a young woman’s nude body
was discovered on the roof top of an apartment
building where she was living. The female had
been extensively beaten to her face, and she

Reframing Criminal Profiling 703

had been strangled with the bag strap that
belonged to her purse. Her nipples had been
cut off after her death, and these had been
placed on her chest. On the inside of her thigh
in ink, were the words, ‘You can’t stop me’.
On her abdomen, the words, ‘Fuck you’ were
scrawled on this section of her body. The pen-
dant that was usually worn by the woman, a
Jewish sign (Chai) for good luck, was missing
from around her neck. The missing pendant
was presumed taken by the murderer. Her
nylon stockings had been removed and loosely
tied around her wrists and ankles near a rail-
ing, with her underpants pulled over her face.
The crime scene revealed that the victim’s ear-
rings that she had been wearing were placed
symmetrically on either side of her head. An
umbrella and ink pen had been inserted into
the woman’s vagina and a hair comb was
placed into her pubic hairs. Her jaw and nose
had been broken, her molars were loosened,
and due to the blunt force trauma, she had sus-
tained multiple face fractures. The cause of
death was determined to be asphyxia by liga-
ture (purse strap) strangulation. There were
also post-mortem bite marks on the victim’s
thighs, along with several contusions, haemor-
rhages and lacerations to the body. The killer
had defecated on the roof top and this was
covered with the victims’ clothing.

The preliminary police reports revealed
that another resident of the apartment building,
a white male, aged 15 years, had discovered
the victim’s wallet. The young male discov-
ered the wallet in the stairwell between the
third and fourth floors at approximately 8.20
am, keeping the wallet with him until he
returned home from school for lunch that
afternoon. Upon returning home, he gave the
wallet to his father, a white male, aged
40 years. After receiving the wallet, the father
went to the victim’s apartment at 2.50 pm and
handed this to the victim’s mother whom she
resided with. The mother contacted the day-
care centre to inform her daughter about the
wallet; however, upon contacting the centre,
she learnt that her daughter had not appeared

for work that morning. The mother, the vic-
tim’s sister and a neighbour began searching
the building. Shortly afterwards they discov-
ered the body, and the neighbour called the
police. Initial investigations by police revealed
that no witnesses had seen the victim after she
left her apartment that morning.

The investigation revealed that the victim
was a 26-year-old, 401100, 90-lb, white female.
The victim resided with her mother and father
in the apartment building. She awoke around
6.30 am on the day of her murder, dressed,
had breakfast (consisting of coffee and juice)
and left for work. The woman worked at a
near-by day-care centre, where she was
employed as a group teacher for handicapped
children. When she would leave for work in
the morning, she would often alternate
between taking the elevator or walking down
the stairs, depending on her mood. She had a
slight curvature of the spine (kyphoscoliosis)
and was a shy and quiet woman. The medical
examiner’s report revealed that there was no
semen in the victim’s vagina, but semen was
detected on the victim’s body. There were vis-
ible bite marks on the victim’s thigh and knee
area and the murderer had cut the victim’s nip-
ples with a knife after she was deceased and
written on her body. The stab wounds that she
had sustained were not deep. The examination
concluded that the cause of death was strangu-
lation, first manual, then ligature, with the
strap of her purse.

While the challenges of developing a pro-
file based on a short scenario are evident, the
outline in Table 1 of the integrated CRIME
framework details a summary of how the steps
may be initially formed and subsequently uti-
lised. The profile should start with an over-
view of the crime and the details, before
integrating the CRIME steps. Upon comple-
tion of the five steps, the practitioner produc-
ing the profile should summarise the
information and provide a review of the
importance of the information provided within
the profile, again emphasising the reliance of
evidence-based information in the profile,

704 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

Table 1. CRIME profile development.

Crime scene evaluations
� Perpetrator able to access building without being identified or noticed as being out of place.
� Evidence of mutilation to the body.
� Significant overkill in perpetration of crime.
� Perpetrator had significant time to commit serious of acts in crime.
� Sexual arousal.
� Perpetrator had manipulated body and crime scene.
� Reasonable physical strength and mobility required to commit crime.
� Use of objects present at the crime scene (victim’s belongings) to perpetrate murder.
� No attempt to cover up DNA evidence.
� Words carved into the body may represent an attempt to communicate with either the victim, law

enforcement, another individual, or himself. Alternatively, staging of crime scene should
be considered.

Summary of crime scene evaluations:
The victim’s morning routine, while structured and regular, did not involve a consistent pattern of
leaving her residence. As such, a perpetrator would not know whether she would walk down the
stairs or catch the elevator. That nature of the crime therefore indicates a blitz attack, with the crime
indicating that the offender did not have a pre-determined plan to kill the victim, as indicated by
strangulation with her bag strap. Further, while it may have been due to timing that the perpetrator
was not recognised in the building, it must be considered that the perpetrator was able to access the
building and not appear out of place. The behaviours of the perpetrator indicate both sexual and
violent motivations, with both patterns of behaviour evident. Significant violence was used in
committing the crime, including mutilation of the body post-mortem. The offender was sexually
aroused at the crime scene and able to ejaculate to a mutilated and bloodied female body, indicating
that sexual excitement was obtained from the murder. There are a range of differential diagnoses or
explanations to account for this sexualised violence, ranging from sexual arousal towards the victim,
through to paraphilic conditions such as sexual sadism or haematophilia (sexual fetish for blood).
The perpetrator made no attempt to cover his DNA (e.g. semen and faeces). The role of defecating
at the crime scene remains unclear, whether this was linked to fantasy, anxiety or other motives.
The post-mortem behaviour by the offender, while partially a possible attempt to stage the crime
scene, also involved targeted mutilation of breast and genital areas. This is considered to be an
action above and beyond the need of a sexual crime, indicating excessive fixation and emotional
disturbance.

Relevancy of research
� Provide an overview of the relationship between mutilation of the body and sex crimes, including

offender characteristics.
� Sexual crimes involving defecation.
� Post-mortem behaviour in sexual crimes.
� Strangulation as a means to murder.
Investigative or clinical opinion
This area may depend on the investigators or experts involved in the case, topics may include:
� Past sexual offenders in the local area.
� Similar instances of body mutilation.
� Theories of defecation in sexual crimes.
Methods of investigation
� Interview all residents residing in apartment building and seek to eliminate on DNA.
� Develop a log of visitors who frequent building regularly and seek to exclude.
� Examine any other crimes that have occurred in the building, such as break and enter offences.

Exclude as suspects.
(Continued)

Reframing Criminal Profiling 705

from both the standing research corpus and
crime scene evidence.

Not only is this approach useful for provid-
ing as holistic an understanding of the case as
possible, undertaking the CRIME framework
may also serve as a bootstrapping process for
other types of advice investigators may request
as a natural extension of the assistance. For
example, having a deep understanding of the
crimes of a serial criminal may assist with the
process of case linkage where one attempts to
link previously unlinked cases to one offender
or offender group. Similarly, the profiler/ana-
lyst may be able to provide insight into risk
assessment of a serial or other offender to
determine the likelihood that they will escalate
or graduate to other crimes, such as from a sex
offender to a killer.

Recommendations and conclusion

For profiling to develop as a discipline, greater
scientific rigor is required, with profiles need-
ing to incorporate logic and reasoning that are
supported by appropriate evidence and justifi-
cation. Criminal profiling must have investiga-
tive utility, assisting investigations, rather than
creating confusion or misleading cases.
Secondly, for profiling to advance there must
be a move towards scientific practice, with uni-
formity across the field essential for admissibil-
ity in court (Freckelton, 2008) should the
profiler/analyst be appropriately qualified for
such endeavours. Although profiling is
intended to develop investigative hypotheses,
given the progression towards evidence-based

policing, some proponents have suggested that
for profiling to constitute a scientific method,
court and legal admissibility is essential
(Bosco et al., 2010; Freckelton, 2008;
Petherick & Brooks, 2014). Currently, profil-
ing regularly fails to add probative value to
cases, and instead is considered to have a
greater prejudicial effect (Bosco et al., 2010).
One of the central challenges to profiling meet-
ing admissibility standards in courts has been
due to the inconsistencies in practice, with
large discrepancies observed across approaches
and methods of practice. The reliance on singu-
lar methods appears largely problematic, fail-
ing to consider the strengths of other profiling
modalities, while also exposing investigations
to the fragility of a sole method approach.

For profiling to develop as a forensic sci-
ence and ultimately have admissibility in court,
the discipline must be reliable, subject to peer
review and scientific publication, be generally
accepted amongst fellow practitioners, have
guiding or governing standards, have identifi-
able error rates, and be implemented only in
appropriate and applicable cases (Bosco et al.,
2010). Subsequently, it is proposed that a joint
methodology be employed when constructing
criminal profiles, focusing on the strengths of
each profiling approach and establishing uni-
formity in practice standards. It is suggested
that this approach form the CRIME frame-
work, consisting of crime scene evaluations,
relevancy of research, investigative or clinical
opinions, methods of investigation and evalu-
ation. The CRIME approach provides a frame-
work to promote the scientific practice of

� Complete thorough analysis of victim’s life, excluding former boyfriends.
� Examine previous sexual crimes in region with significant violence and that are unsolved.
Evaluation
� Review any additional information that may be missing from the profile, such as forensic reports

that have been completed yet not supplied.
� Summarise key information contained with the profile, placing the strongest emphasis on

evidence-based conclusions.
� Undertake peer consultation and/or review in relation to the profile or the recommendations made

before releasing the written document.

706 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

profiling, aiming to assist in the reliability of
the practice by detailing a standardised process
of developing profiles. It is intended that
through the CRIME framework profiles will
encompass error rates, specified in the crime
scene evaluation and relevancy of research
stages, whilst the evaluation stage seeks to
incorporate peer review and consultation into
practice. For profile to continue as a discipline,
systemisation and evidence-based practice is
required. Although the CRIME framework is
not the ultimate solution to developing a ‘gold
standard’ in criminal profiling, the approach
seeks to promote integration and unity in prac-
tice, an essential first step in establishing prac-
tice consistency. It is recommended that future
research seek to explore the benefit of profiles
derived through the framework, reviewing the
consistency and emergence of evidence-based
practice. This could be investigated through
police satisfaction, profile accuracy and the
evidence of reasoning underpinning profiles
derived through the CRIME framework. The
future of profiling is dependent on the discip-
line progressing towards science, and inte-
grated practice is the first fundamental step
(Fox & Farrington, 2018).

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Wayne Petherick has declared no conflicts
of interest
Nathan Brooks has declared no conflicts
of interest

Informed consent

The article does not contain any studies with
human participants or animals performed by
any of the authors.

ORCID

Wayne Petherick http://orcid.org/0000-
0002-7323-8680
Nathan Brooks http://orcid.org/0000-0003-
1784-099X

References
Ackley, C. N. (2017). Criminal investigative

advice: A move toward a scientific, multidis-
ciplinary model. In V. B. Van Haselt &
M. L. Bourke (Eds.), Handbook of behav-
ioural criminology (pp. 215–238). Springer.

Alexandra, A., Matthews, S., & Miller, M.
(2002). Reasons, values, and institutions.
Tertiary Press.

Alison, L., Smith, M. D., Eastman, O., &
Rainbow, L. (2003). Toulmin’s philosophy
of argument and its relevance to offender
profiling. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9,
173–183. doi:10.1080/106831603100011
6265

Alison, L., Goodwill, A., Almond, L., van den
Heuvel, C., & Winter, J. (2010). Pragmatic
solutions to offender profiling and behav-
ioural investigative advice. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 115–132.
doi:10.1348/135532509X463347

Almond, L., Alison, L., & Porter, L. (2011). An
evaluation and comparison of claims made
in behavioural investigative advice reports
compiled by the National Policing
Improvement Agency in the United
Kingdom. In L. Alison, L. Rainbow, & S.
Knabe (Eds.), Professionalising offender
profiling: Forensic and investigative psych-
ology in practice. Routledge.

Aydin, F., & Dirilen-Gumus, O. (2011).
Development of a criminal profiling instru-
ment. Procedia Social and Behavioural
Sciences, 30, 2612–2616.

Bartol, C. R. (1996). Police psychology: Then,
now and beyond. Criminal Justice and
Behaviour, 23(1), 70–89. doi:10.1177/
0093854896023001006

Battacharyya, S. (1958). The concept of logic.
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,
18(3), 326–340.

Bateman, A. L., & Salfati, C. G. (2007). An
examination of behavioral consistency using
individual behaviors or groups of behaviors
in serial homicide. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 25(4), 527–544. doi:10.1002/bsl.
742

Bevel, T. (2001). Applying the scientific method
to crime scene reconstruction. Journal of
Forensic Identification, 51(2), 150–165.

Bevel, T., & Gardner, R. M. (2008). Bloodstain
pattern analysis with an introduction to
crime reconstruction (3rd ed.). CRC Press.

Bosco, D., Zappal�a, A., & Santtila, P. (2010).
The admissibility of offender profiling in
courtroom: A review of legal issues and
court opinions. International Journal of Law

Reframing Criminal Profiling 707

https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000116265

https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X463347

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023001006

https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.742

and Psychiatry, 33(3), 184–191. doi:10.
1016/j.ijlp.2010.03.009

Bradley, P. (2003). Criminal profiling: What’s it
all about? Inpsych.

Brussel, J. A. (1968). Casebook of a crime
psychiatrist. Bernard Geis Associates.

Burgess, A. W., & Ressler, R. K. (1985). Sexual
homicides: Crime scene and pattern of criminal
behaviour. National Institute of Justice Grant
82-IJ-CX-0065, US Department of Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/
abstract.aspx?ID=98230.

Canter, D. (1989). Offender profiles. The
Psychologist, 2(1), 12–16.

Canter, D. (2000). Investigative psychology. In
J. Siegel, G. Knupfer, & P. Saukko (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of forensic science. Academic
Press.

Canter, D. V. (2011). Resolving the offender
“Profiling equations” and the emergence of
an investigative psychology. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1),
5–10. doi:10.1177/0963721410396825

Canter, D. V., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., &
Wentink, N. (2004). The organized/disorgan-
ized typology of serial murder: Myth or
model? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
21, 293–320.

Canter, D. V., & Heritage, R. (1990). A multi-
variate model of sexual offence behaviour:
Development in “offender profiling”: I. The
Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 1(2),
185–212. doi:10.1080/09585189008408469

Canter, D. V., & Youngs, D. (2003). Beyond
‘offender profiling’: The need for an investi-
gative psychology. In D. Carson & R. Bull
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal
contexts (2nd ed., pp. 171–205). Wiley.

Cole, T., & Brown, J. (2011). What do senior
investigative police officers want from
behavioural investigative advisers. In L.
Alison, L. Rainbow, & S. Knabe (Eds.),
Professionalising offender profiling:
Forensic and investigative psychology in
practice. Routledge.

Cooper, B. S., Griesel, D., & Yuille, J. C.
(2008). Clinical-forensic risk assessment.
The past and current state of affairs. Journal
of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(4), 1–63.
doi:10.1300/J158v07n04_01

Copson, G. (1995). Coals to Newcastle? Part 1:
A study of offender profiling. Police
Research Group Special Interest Paper 7.
Home Office.

Davis, M. R., & Bennett, D. (2016). Future
directions for criminal behaviour analysis of
deliberately set fire events. In R. M. Doley,
G. L. Dickens, & T. A. Gannon (Eds.), The
psychology of arson: A practical guide to
understanding and managing deliberate fire-
setters (p. 131–146). Routledge/Taylor &
Francis Group.

Davis, M. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2008). Risk
assessment. In K. Fritzon & P. Wilson
(Eds.), Forensic psychology and crimin-
ology: An Australian perspective (pp.
141–164). McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd.

Davis, M., Rainbow, L., Fritzon, K., West, A.,
& Brooks, N. (2018). Behavioural investiga-
tive advice: A contemporary commentary on
offender profiling activity. In A. Griffiths &
R. Milne (Eds.), The psychology of criminal
investigation: From theory to practice (pp.
187–206). Routledge.

Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986).
Criminal profiling: A viable investigative
tool against violent crime. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 55, 9–13.

Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W.,
& Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling
from crime scene analysis. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 4(4), 401–422. doi:10.
1002/bsl.2370040405

Farber, M. (1942). Logical systems and the prin-
ciples of logic. Philosophy of Science, 9(1),
40–54. doi:10.1086/286747

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2002). Uniform
crime report. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/
web/index.html

Fox, B., Farrington, D. P., Kapardis, A., &
Hambly, O. C. (2020). Evidence-based
offender profiling. Routledge.

Fox, B., & Farrington, D. P. (2018). What have
we learned from offender profiling? A sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis of 40 years
of research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12),
1247–1274. doi:10.1037/bul0000170

Freckelton, I. (2008). Profiling evidence in the
courts. In D. Canter & R. �Zukauskien _e
(Eds.), Psychology and law: Bridging the
gap (pp. 79–102). Routledge.

Gekoski, A., & Gray, J. M. (2011). It may be
true, but how’s it helping?’: UK police
detectives’ views of the operational useful-
ness of offender profiling. International
Journal of Police Science & Management,
13(2), 103–116. doi:10.1350/ijps.2011.13.2.
236

708 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.03.009

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=98230

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410396825

https://doi.org/10.1080/09585189008408469

https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v07n04_01

https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370040405

https://doi.org/10.1086/286747

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/index.html

https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000170

https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2011.13.2.236

Goldsworthy, T. (2001). Criminal profiling. Is it
investigatively relevant? [Master of crimin-
ology dissertation]. Bond University.

Gormley, J., & Petherick, W. (2015). Risk
assessment. In W. Petherick (Ed.), Applied
crime analysis: A social science approach to
understanding crime, criminals, and victims
(pp. 172–189). Elsevier.

Hazelwood, R. R., & Douglas, J. E. (1980). The
lust murderer. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, 49(4), 1–5.

Holmes, R., & Holmes, S. (2002). Profiling vio-
lent crimes: An investigative tool (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications.

Kocsis, R. N. (2001). Serial arsonist crime
profiling: An Australian empirical study.
Firenews.

Kocsis, R. N., Irwin, H. J., Hayes, A. F., &
Nunn, R. (2000). Expertise in psychological
profiling: A comparative assessment. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 15(3), 311–331.
doi:10.1177/088626000015003006

Marshall, B. C., & Alison, L. (2011).
Stereotyping, congruence and presentation
order: Interpretative biases in utilizing
offender profiles. In L. Alison, L. Rainbow,
& S. Knabe (Eds.), Professionalising
offender profiling: Forensic and investigative
psychology in practice. Routledge.

McGrath, M. (2001). Criminal profiling: Is there
a role for the forensic psychiatrist? Journal
of the American Academy of Forensic
Psychiatry and Law, 28(3), 315–324.

Morton, R. J., Tillman, J. M., & Gaines, S. J.
(2014). Serial murder: Pathways for investi-
gations. U.S. Department of Justice.

Mouzos, J. (2005). Homicide in Australia: 2003-
2004 national homicide monitoring program
(NHMP) annual report. Australian Institute
of Criminology.

Navarro, J., & Schafer, J. R. (2003). Universal
principles of criminal behavior: A tool for
analyzing criminal intent. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 72(1), 22–24. https://
heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/fbi-
leb72&i=23

Neblett, W. (1985). Sherlock’s logic: Learn to
reason like a master detective. Barnes and
Noble Books.

Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Defending abduction.
Philosophy of Science, 66, S436–S451.
http://www.jstor.com/stable/188790

Petherick, W. A. (2014a). Criminal profiling
methods. In W. A. Petherick (Ed.), Profiling
and serial crime: Theoretical and practical

issues in behavioural profiling (3rd ed.).
Anderson Publishing.

Petherick, W. A. (2014b). Induction and deduc-
tion in criminal profiling. In W. A. Petherick
(Ed.), Profiling and serial crime: Theoretical
and practical issues in behavioural profiling
(3rd ed.). Anderson Publishing.

Petherick, W. A., & Brooks, N. (2014). Where
to from here? In W. A. Petherick (Ed.),
Profiling and serial crime: Theoretical and
practical issues in behavioural profiling (3rd
ed., pp. 241–259). Anderson Publishing.

Petherick, W. A., & Ferguson, C. E. (2010).
Ethics for the forensic criminologist. In
W. A. Petherick, B. E. Turvey, & C. E.
Ferguson (Eds.), Forensic Criminology.
Elsevier Science.

Petherick, W. A., & Turvey, B. E. (2008).
Behavioral evidence analysis: An ideo
deductive method of criminal profiling. In
B. E. Turvey (Ed.), Criminal profiling: An
introduction to behavioral evidence analysis
(3rd ed). Academic Press.

Pierce, C. S. (1898). Reasoning and the logic of
things: The Cambridge conferences lectures
of 1898. In K. L. Ketner (Ed.). Harvard
University Press.

Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990).
Criminal personality profiling: An outcome
and process study. Law and Human
Behavior, 14(3), 215–233. doi:10.1007/
BF01352750

Rainbow, L., & Gregory, A. (2011). What
behavioural investigative advisers actually
do. In L. Alison & L. Rainbow (Eds.),
Professionalizing offender profiling:
Forensic and investigative psychology in
practice (pp. 35–50). Routledge.

Rainbow, L., Gregory, A., & Alison, L. (2014).
Behavioural investigative advice. In G. J. N.
Bruinsma & D. L. Weisburd (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal
justice (pp. 125–134). Springer.

Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E.
(1992). Sexual homicide: Patterns and
motives. Free Press.

Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Gendreau, P., &
Bennell, C. (2010). The importance of know-
ledge cumulation and the search for hidden
agendas: A reply to Kocsis, Middledorp, and
Karpin (2008). Journal of Forensic
Psychology Practice, 10(3), 214–223. doi:10.
1080/15228930903550541

Stock, G. W. J. (2004). Deductive logic. Project
Gutenberg Press.

Reframing Criminal Profiling 709

https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015003006

https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/fbileb72&i=23

http://www.jstor.com/stable/188790

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01352750

https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930903550541

Thornton, J. (1997). The general assumptions
and rationale of forensic identification. In
D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J.
Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence:
The law and expert testimony. West
Publishing.

Torres, A. N., Boccaccini, M. T., & Miller,
H. A. (2006). Perceptions of the validity and
utility of criminal profiling among forensic
psychologists and psychiatrists. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(1),
51–58. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.51

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument.
Cambridge University Press.

Turvey, B. E. (2012). Ethics and the criminal
profiler. In B. E. Turvey (Ed.), Criminal
Profiling: An introduction to Behavioral
Evidence Analysis (4th ed., pp. 601–626).
Academic Press.

West, A. (2000). Clinical assessment of homi-
cide offenders: The significance of crime
scene in offense and offender analysis.
Homicide Studies, 4(3), 219–233.

Wilson, P., Lincoln, R., & Kocsis, R. N. (1997).
Validity, utility and ethics for serial violent
and sex offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology
and Law, 4(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/
13218719709524891

710 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.51

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719709524891

Abstract

Profiling approaches

Criminal investigative analysis

Diagnostic evaluations

Investigative psychology

Behavioural evidence analysis

Behavioural investigative advice

Towards integrated practice in criminal profiling

Recommendations and conclusion

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Informed consent

Orcid

References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Psychology assignment ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order