(bolding in the quote is mine) I don’t read that as any sort of endorsement of the validity of profiling. I agree that his position is one of a desire to see scientific investigation of profiling. As I said in my first post, there’s no real reason why this topic area should be any more or less difficult to investigate empirically than describing and predicting behavior as in any other domain of psychology. Thus, I read him as saying that at present, there is no solid theoretical and empirical basis upon which to build a profile. In that circumstance, according to other quotes from the article, we may as well (at present) rely on psychic visions.
The Godwin and Canter (1997) paper is one examining typical distances from the homes of serial killers that they a) encountered their victims and b) dumped their bodies. That’s certainly very useful information in terms of understanding criminal behavior, but it’s a stretch to point to it as support for profiling. Otherwise, your quote simply states what the aim of profiling is. How does that aim, as expressed in your quote, differ from the aim of psychics involved in criminal profiling?
That data can be used to narrow the field: when a future serial killer begins dumping bodies, we may use the predictions offered by that study to create a geographical area on which to focus our investigation.
That’s profiling.
We’ll know if it can be used successfully in an investigation when it is used successfully in an investigation. A good example of this would be…?
Can’t answer. Too vague.
Then, until evidence for the contrary comes in, you won’t mind if we assume that such evidence does not exist? Of course, if such evidence does come in I’d be more than willing to change my stance, because that would be the logical thing to do, wouldn’t you say?
Wait a minute. If the article in question says that “there is no reliable published information on the effectiveness of the various approaches,” then how can Diogenes claim that profiling is never, EVER instrumental in a police investigation?
Surely if there is no reliable information out there, then the rational approach would be to withhold judgment for now, right?
Sure. Also, we can often tell if someone was shot with a firearm. That restricts our profile to people who had access to a firearm. We can usually conclude from the site in which a body was dumped whether or not the offender was likely wheelchair-bound or not.
I find it to be not terribly consistent with the typical connotation of profiling. That is to say that such knowledge is useful in determining whether the offender probably lives in Topeka versus St. Louis, or likely travels along Interstate 70 or does not. It tells us very little about who or what type of person in Topeka is more likely to have committed the crime than not. So, I do agree that knowing the likely geographic region of the offender may help in terms of focusing investigative efforts. If that’s the hill you’re defending, then congratulations.
But it really can’t because you can’t extropolate specificity from generality. Most serial killers are white. That doesn’t mean you can therefore narrow the field to white people.
In the same way that, given a lack of reliable published information on the effectiveness of psychic predictions in criminal investigations would lead one to rationally withhold judgment, sure.
Easy. Because it never has been before.
The particular sketch that caught him wasn’t based on the witnesses descriptions of the white male seen driving the station wagon after the crime, but on the description of one woman who had seen a dirty and disheveled young white man in an orange parka leaving the scene of a burglary in the same area. The phones were ringing off the wall with the public reporting everything out of the ordinary, so the profile might have helped focus police attention on Chase sooner rather than later…or it might not have, and Chase might have been the prime suspect right away anyway. A profile at best will only help turn police attention in the right direction (and at worst will focus police attention in the wrong one, which is while profiling should always be taken with a healthy grain of salt). In the study quoted in Czarcasm’s link, out of 192 profiles requested only 17% were actually used to identify the subject, but 77% reported that the profile helped focus their investigation. I wouldn’t bet good money on it, but I wouldn’t completely discount it as an area that should be further examined, either.
I don’t mind if you make that assumption, because (so far as I’m aware) no one is depending on you to solve any murder cases.
Apparently they aren’t depending on profiling either, so I’m not too put out.
I’m completely with you until the last two sentences. I think he’s saying that an educated guess is better than a guess, and that there’s some evidence that profiling can be based on good theory, but the evidence isn’t in as to whether it’s useful or not in its current state - it can be based on good theory and still be wrong. As to it being demonstrably no better than the use of psychics, I think that’s contrary to the author’s stated position. He clearly states that profiling may have some validity, while psychics have clearly been definitively shown to have none whatsoever.
You should get put out.
Ok, but either way, the tip was called in by the killer’s old classmate not because she knew anything about a profile, but because she saw that he matched a police sketch:
I am fully aware about their claims, just as I’m aware of other claims. Claims are claims, and results are results.
Here’s another manuscript apparently attributed to the same author. I have no idea of the state of this as a publication, peer-reviewed or otherwise.
Given this, I find it hard to believe that he is asserting any validity to profiling. How could he, if he believes that it does not reduce uncertainty and in fact may increase it?
I’d like to thank everyone who is digging up papers and websites related to this question. It’s an interesting topic and deserves informed discussion, not blanket assertions pulled out of thin air.