Are Criminal Profiles Woo?

[TraneWreck]

Just curious, but when was this, approximately? I've only ever heard him say (repeatedly) that he believes the Ramseys are innocent. Has he changed his mind?

I looked back over that and now I'm not convinced it was Douglas. Let me do some more research. I think I have him confused with a profiler that works in a university in California.

My error.

 

[This is The End]

He <snip>, and might be lower class, upper lower class, lower middle class or middle class.

OK, doesn't that cover like 90-95% of people? I like how they still put 'might be'.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Hollywood certainly seems to think they're useful.

Actually... Not even that.
You'll note that most tv shows that go about FBI profiling (profiler, criminal minds etc) always seem to have a good measure of science fiction in the form of a super master hacker that can obtain every piece of information on earth.

Regardless or not if access to such information is even possible online not to mention if it is even legal for the FBI to use such resources.

Not that I expect every tv show to be 100% accurate, but the fact that the profilers seem to rely on something so absurd preety much shows how much pointless it really is.

 

[EHocking]

OK, doesn't that cover like 90-95% of people? I like how they still put 'might be'.

And I think,
"He will be either never married, divorced, or married..", just about hits 100%!

 

[HansMustermann]

Geesh. The thing with the bonus value makes me CRINGE.

As a programmer, I can tell you that in a lot of companies a lot of people, including the database admins as a trivial example, but also a lot of support people, can see everyone's numbers if they want to. A lot of "secret" stuff is only "secret" in as much as people aren't supposed to look at it. In reality that new intern from East Bumscrewistan and that temp from Elbonia can read your emails, see your personnel data, etc.

Sometimes they're even required to look at that kind of stuff, as part of fixing some glitch in a piss-poorly programmed system that didn't accept some data from another system because it was using a dot instead of a comma for decimals, or came in the wrong order, or whatever. So some support guy has to load up the file and edit it to fix it.

Furthermore, in a lot of companies, especially if they're small or not primarily a programming company, there might be one or two databases which everyone knows the password to, or some file server with Excel files where everyone can access everything, or have one password that dozens of people use. E.g., I personally had to remove restrictions on the number of times a user was logged in from a program, because several managers and their secretaries were using the same account, and they liked it that way.

But even pre-computers, the bonus sum would be known by at least one boss who approved it, maybe more, a secretary or two, the accountant, the mailroom clerk putting them in envelopes, etc. And more importantly: more people that those talked to. Or everyone who the guy getting the bonus bragged to. Or everyone their child talked to, if that child heard the sum. Etc.

The idea that people don't communicate such things with each other is freaking absurd as it is, but used to convict someone... it makes me cringe.

In real life, if you can bet on something, it's on people telling stuff to each other, like in a huge telephone game. The thing you think only Cindy saw, actually was probably not that hard for Dick and Jane and Jack and Jill to find out, and is probably also known by Tom and Harry who heard it from Cindy, and Joan who heard it from Jill, etc

 

[Apology]

I would like to see one example of a crime that was solved due to clues the investigators were provided in a criminal profile. I don't believe that there are any, just like I don't believe that there are any crimes that were solved due to clues provided by a psychic.

I enjoy watching the show "Criminal Minds", but I don't believe that it's accurate.

 

[Segnosaur]

But the thing is, large swaths of Agent Douglas' original profile were dead wrong,

Actually, the profilers themselves would probably admit that a lot of what they say is wrong. However, there are likely some things they will be more sure of (and which are more likely to be right) and some things they will be less accurate on.

...and while his revised one was more accurate, the entire thing smacks of just glorified cold reading...

You know, there may actually be some truth that much of profiling is related to "cold reading", but believe it or not I don't think that's a "bad thing".

Part of the reason psychic frauds are seen as genuine is that they use some sort of statistics and logic in their guess work. (e.g. they'll tell someone who has a deceased relative "don't worry about the money" because statistically, its one of the more common problems following a death.) Criminal profiling works in a similar manner... they look at statistics of past crimes and use that as a basis for narrowing down the pool of potential suspects. For example, consider that most serial killers historically tend to kill people in their own race... Based on that, you'd expect the killer of a white woman to usually be a white male.

The difference is, a psychic is a fraud because they use statistics but claim that the information is from "spirits". A profiler is pretty much up front with where they get their predictions from.... from a history of past crimes.

Am I wrong? Are there cases where these sorts of profiles have actually lead to criminals being caught?

Keep in mind that profilers don't actually catch criminals themselves. Often profilers will just "narrow the pool" of suspects.

 

[Segnosaur]

I would like to see one example of a crime that was solved due to clues the investigators were provided in a criminal profile.

Well, there was the case of "The Vampire of Sacrimento" (Richard Chase), who would kill victims and drink their blood.

The FBI profile at the time indicated that the individual would live alone and because of his "disorganized" profile would likely live near the scene of the crimes, be malnourished, and likely unemployed. Because of that, the police concentrated their efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Chase
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/profiling/history_method/9.html

Of course, the trouble with trying to point out successes of profiling is that it just becomes a "battle of the anecdotes". Plus, how do you count it if a profile makes successful predictions, but the suspect is captured through other means? Or what if law enforcement ignores profiler advice that turns out to be correct?

 

[Marduk]

Based on that, you'd expect the killer of a white woman to usually be a white male.

Not if it was an old white woman
then you'd expect the killer to be black
allegedly (according to profilers)

And I think,
"He will be either never married, divorced, or married..", just about hits 100%!

what if he's single

 

[Segnosaur]

This summed up one of my major issues with profiling--that because it's purpose is to limit the population that needs to be investigated, it draws far more specific conclusions than the evidence allows.

“The fact is that different offenders can exhibit the same behaviors for completely different reasons,” Brent Turvey, a forensic scientist who has been highly critical of the F.B.I.’s approach, says. “You’ve got a rapist who attacks a woman in the park and pulls her shirt up over her face. Why? What does that mean? There are ten different things it could mean. It could mean he doesn’t want to see her. It could mean he doesn’t want her to see him. It could mean he wants to see her breasts, he wants to imagine someone else, he wants to incapacitate her arms—all of those are possibilities. You can’t just look at one behavior in isolation.”

Actually, Douglas addresses that sort of thing in some of the books he's written. He does admit that people can do things for various reasons, and that in some cases there is evidence at the scene that doesn't (and may never) actually fit. (He actually used an example of a bank robber who forces kidnap victims to strip; it could be an example of some psychological need, or it could just be part of a plan to distract the victims, who may be less focused on the robber if they're embarrassed.)

However, I think the key point of your quote is the word "in isolation". I doubt that any profiler will look at such a detail (e.g. shirt pulled up by a rapist) as an isolated piece of evidence. Instead, they will consider the totality of the crime (was the bra removed, was the unsub substantially larger than the victim, did other assaults committed by the same individual show the same pattern.)