Then show us the best case of profiling you’ve got that does this.
Cite that it ever actually does this in a statistically reliable way?
Ok.
There is no scientific basis for this assumption, and no data to show that this works reliably. At best, you have some confirmation bias from time to time, but since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it’s has no investigative utility.
This is a good summary. I believe there ARE cases in which profiling made a contribution to the investigation, but I suppose one may differ about the criticality of that contribution. And I agree that there have been cases in which profiling led the investigation astray.
But that can be said of any investigative technique. I mentioned earlier the usual practice of interviewing sex offenders in an area following a sex crime. Obviously this does not produce results 100% of the time. But is it a valid technique? Does it help more than it hurts?
Those are the questions that profiling must answer. I think it’s… ill-advised… to claim it never works. Claiming that it works well enough to be relied on is a more uncertain claim.
Instrumental in bringing a conviction in a criminal case.
If you can’t manage that simple feat, just present a profile, period.
When a murder is discovered, one technique police would use is to ask about any enemies the victim had.
This cannot truly rule anything out, but it’s still a valid investigative technique. It has “investigative utility.”
True?
How about a case where profiling narrowed the pool enough to lead to a viable suspect.
I agree that profiling alone has never been instrumental in bringing a conviction in a criminal case.
A single viable suspect? No, I agree profiling has never done that.
Is this an attempt to broaden the definition of “criminal profiling” to encompass standard police procedure?
Not really since the technique doesn’t seek to rule anything out but to rule something in. Profiling is supposed to narrow the pool. Asking about enemies is not an attempt to narrow the pool, but to examine the pool that already exists.
This isn’t really analogous to profiling anyway, since profiling doesn’t even rise that level of investigative utility. It doesn’t highlight any suspects.
Criminal profiling is part of standard police procedure.
I see you didn’t answer my question directly.
YOU: Since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it’s has no investigative utility.
ME: Asking about enemies can’t rule anything out either. But it has investigative utility.
YOU: Profiling doesn’t even highlight suspects.
My questions:
Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no?
Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no?
Is victimology the same as criminal profiling?
I hate to interject here, but I have a question. I was watching a special about the Atlanta Child Murders a few days ago, and I remember the case mentioned in Douglas’s book as well.
There was huge fear that the murders were being committed by a white supremacist group. Douglas claimed he knew, based on the victims (adolescent black boys) that it was a black man doing the killings. Is that profiling?
For those who don’t know, have forgotten, or are trying to ignore, the specific “profiling” being discussed in this thread can be found in posts #1 and #5.
These are not analogous. If I say that a knife without a blade has no utility it is not a rebuttal to say that a fork also has no blade. We are talking about two different kinds of tools.
Yes. Victimology is part of profiling.
Still didn’t answer the questions.
Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no?
Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no?
Why are those questions relevant? Because you said, “Since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it has no investigative utility.” This is a syllogism, or more accurately the contrapositive of a syllogism: If NOT B, THEN NOT A. Since profiling can’t rule anything out, it has no investigative utility. I can test this statement by exploring whether ruling something out is the key to investigative utility. In your example, it would be IF a knife has no blade, it has no utility. That’s not the same as SINCE a knife has no blade, it has no utility.
Again:
Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no?
Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no?
I’ve answered them twice now.
Not especially, no.
No, but it isn’t supposed to. That’s not the purpose of the tool.
But that’s the only function profiling is supposed to have. If it’s not effectiove at the one function it’s supposed to have, then it has no utility. As I said, you are comparing knives with forks.
Sometimes. Too vague to answer.
Sometimes. Too vague to answer.
Care to talk about whether the specific profiling that is described in posts #1 and #5 work?
OK, good.
I think we’ve reached a pretty clear demarcation of what each of us means by “investigative utility.”
You claim that homicide investigators asking about a murder victim’s enemies has no particular investigative utility. I say it has a self-evident utility.
I’m content to let the reading audience draw their conclusions from here, and agree to disagree.