Here you go:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/profiling/history_method/9.html
Have to back down from “never.”
A “TruTV” interview of a profiler?
Really?
You forgot to post the cite.
A better approach would be to not make that claim at all – at least, not without any solid evidence for it. One could demonstrate that black mice are genetically impossible to exist, for example. A less demanding and rigorous approach would be to demonstrate (not merely assert) that black mice are genetically improbable, and that we have no reason to believe that any such mice exist. This falls short of an absolute proof, but it’s at last a rough and ready approach to this problem. A statistically significant sampling of mice would also fall short of a rigorous proof, but it would at least provide some justification for the belief that no black mice exist.
“But I can’t prove this claim!” Diogenes protests. Fine. That’s his problem, not mine. He’s the one who’s making the claim, not I.
Czarcasm, you’re normally an intelligent person, which is why I find it bizarre that you’re taking Dio’s side in this manner. You know full well that the burden of substantiation rests on whoever is making the assertion. The burden does not rest on others to disprove it – certainly not on folks like me who fully acknowledge that he could be right.
It is conceivable that criminal profiling has been completely unsuccessful. It is also possible that it has been moderately successful, or that it has a fairly low success rate. In the absence of hard evidence, is it not more reasonable to withhold judgment instead of asserting that criminal profiling has never, EVER been useful at all?
If you know for sure that something has never happened, then you need to demonstrate how you arrived at that conclusion. Otherwise, one can safely conclude that you are pulling “facts” out of thin air.
Rational people start with the evidence and then arrive at a conclusion. In your case, it’s evident that you started with your conclusion (“Criminal profiling has never solved a crime”), simply presumed that the evidence must surely support your conclusion, and then challenged others to prove you wrong. A wiser man would have withheld judgment rather than jumping to such an extreme conclusion in the absence of any evidence to support his case.
This is a safe claim on Diogenes’ part, since profiling alone can never be responsible for an arrest and conviction. The mere fact that someone fit a profile can’t even sustain probable cause for an arrest warrant.
So perhaps refining the question would help.
Diogenes; do you claim that no investigation exists where:
- Profilers developed a profile
- Suspects were collected based on their matches to the profile
- Those suspects were investigated
- One was found to have committed the crime
This is how profiling is used, after all. It’s a tool to narrow the scope of suspects. Profiling alone can never said to have solved a crime. But I can point to crimes where the suspect was identified initially because he matched the profile, and then additional investigation developed evidence against him.
No, I’m afraid Diogenes is correct here. He can’t cite the claim that some event never happened. If you claim that profiling solved a crime, you must demonstrate that it did. Of course, only one case is sufficient to do so.
I’m going with the “Trailside Killer,” David Carpenter, assuming Diogenes accepts my refined definition. Of course, if he means to say that profiling alone never served as the basis for arrest and conviction, he’s right.
As I’ve said twice now, Bricker, I’m not claiming that profiling HAS solved a crime. Did you miss that part?
Rather, I’m saying that in the absence of hard evidence one way or another, a rational person would withhold judgment. Personally, I’m very skeptical of criminal profiling myself. However, instead of declaring that profiling has never, EVER been helpful at all, I’m simply willing to withhold judgment and declare my skepticism.
Therein lies the problem. A more rational person might say that criminal profiling is unlikely to be of much help. Declaring that it has never once helped solve a crime though — not even once in the entire history of the human race — is a much more stringent claim that requires substantiation.
Now that claim, I’m willing to accept, even without an exhaustive study of all criminal history. I say that because of the nature of our legal system, which requires direct evidence before a suspect can be convicted. Any case that was decided based on profiling alone would be an extreme anomaly.
See, Czarcasm? You don’t need to count all the mice in the world before arriving at a reasonable conclusion regarding their blackness.
Completely distinct from the issue of psychological profiling, this assertion regarding psychology more generally is sheer nonsense. Psychology as a science had its beginnings (separately from Freudian psychoanalysis) in the late 1800s. Psychology as a science in the early part of the 20th century helped establish the evidence behind the facts cited here regarding the distribution of intelligence (although it would be accurate to say that most people have an IQ above 99, not 105).
Psychology as a science has helped to scientifically develop our system of classification of disorders, describe their typical ages of onset, prognosis, comorbidity and treatment strategies. The empirical study of treatment strategies has certainly identified non-pharmacological treatments. What medication, for instance, do you believe is effective in treating autism? What is the evidence for the treatment of ADHD?
What in particular makes you believe that psychology is not a science or that it began in 1970? Why should the study of psychology help predict the stock market?
I think that in typical “cold reading”, the fortune-teller has the actual individual in front of them, and can to a great extent “fish” for information from that individual - which can confirm their (initial) guesses.
In “profiling”, the profiler obviously doesn’t have the criminal in front of them - but s/he does have access to the police investigating the crime, and can basically use them to confirm their guesses as information is turned up.
Profiling played no role in the capture of David Carpenter. He was caught because a surviving victim was able to give a physical descripion. That led to the dissemination of a composite image and that led to other tips. He was then identified as as a suspect and forensic evidence was collected (shoe prints, fingerprints). Profiling had nothing to do with it. Douglas likes to tell that story because he called the speech defect, but his profile did not lead even indirectly to a lead or to the arrest. It’s just one of those little instances of confirmation bias that psychics thrive on. Douglas does not mention the things he was wrong about (for instance, he said the Trailside Killer would be in his 30’s. Carpenter was in his 50’s).
Profilers make a lot of predictions. Sometimes they turn out to be true (same with psychics), but that doesn’t mean profiling solves crimes. It did not have anything to do with how David Carpenter was caught.
Fascinating.
But you didn’t actually answer my question. To refresh your recollection, here it is:
I doubt that any such thing has happened, but it wouldn’t be meaningful if it did. The profiles are broad enough that any one characteristic could be a hit. Does it count as a hit if they’re right about a suspect being male or being white?
I think it’s irresponsible to narrow an investigation based on psychological profiling, since it’s woo and doesn’t eman anything. That’s one of the reasons it took so long to catch the DC snipers. The cops were told to look for a white loner.
Is there any way to get a look at the original profile used in the David Carpenter case?
Can you, then, describe specifically what you mean when you say that “Profiling has never solved a case?” For example, can you describe the most permissive example of profiling being useful in the identification of a suspect that you would accept as “solving?”
I mean that profiling has never once had any investigative utitlity whatsoever. It can’t reliably rule anything out, therefore it’s worthless. Investigation is about elimination. If a tool doesn’t allow you to eliminate anything it’s useless.
The very best profiling can do is (maybe) give some very broad parameters, for instance that the suspect is probably a male adult. That’s not something you need a psych degree for.
I’m no expert in the field of criminology or profiling, though I did write my Master’s thesis on the interaction between criminology and crime fiction. Because of my interests, I was looking for that interaction, so there’s probably a hint of confirmation bias in my own work, but I feel that the relationship between profiling and the idea of criminal ‘types’ is directly related to the rise of these ideas in crime fiction.
While there is a reasonable and sound basis to much of profiling, the public’s expectations are in general much to high, and in turn law enforcement officials consistently overstate the importance or success of these profiles. Much of it is like cold reading IMO, and so vague or general to be of little help in investigation. The points of similarity are always highlighted while the points dissimilar forgotten. Examples of a profile being a key point in an investigation are few and far between. It seems, in the end, to be a pretty futile exercise IMO. Perhaps useful to winnow down a field of suspects, but only in the hands of someone who understands the limitations of the profile.
I’m at work so cites are difficult. If wanted, I’ll dig up cites when I’m back home and can get to my thesis and other work.
I agree. Now, if a profiler came up with some details about the subject that weren’t obvious to anyone with an I.Q. over 95, where the police admitted that those details hadn’t already occurred to them, and it was a key factor in eliminating other suspects, that would be something.
Right now, as far as I know, that only happens in fiction.
Can you describe the most permissive example of profiling being useful in the identification of a suspect that you would accept as “solving?”