So you have no facts to back up your definition of profiling, correct?
And your assumption that serial killers operate “within some kind of reasonably reachable distance” is based on logic and human nature, not research of the subject. Is that also correct?
Really? Stating that a serial killer has to be able to physically get to his crimes from where he lives is a “definition dodge?” you guys need a profiler to tell you that? You can’t figure it out on your own.
Once told that this happens, it sorta makes sense - after all, when serial killers start killing, they are (probably) more likely to be ultra-cautious about being caught, and so go through great efforts to commit their crimes far from home - but as time goes by and they are not caught, they are more likely to grow lazy.
It’s based on physics.
What does physics have to do with human nature _ and warped human nature at that? It’s possible that certain types of killers only act when they’re far away from their homes and feel confident the crime will never be connected to them.
You’re deciding what seems logical to you and then declaring that this must be the way the world works. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong, but it’s definitely not based on any deep knowledge of how profiling works.
As for the Wikipedia definition you linked to, it splits the subject into two categories: offender profiling and psychological profiling. Does your claim of zero value apply to both types of profiling or just one? Please explain your reasoning.
“Physically proximate” to their crimes doesn’t imply that the distance will decrease as time goes on, does it?
Neither do the laws of “physics,” right?
/me wanders about with a lantern before him. “I am seeking an honest goalpost.”
It has to do with the killer needing to be able to physically get to the location of the crime. It’s probable (not certain) that the killer will live within some kind of reasonable proximity to the crimes (i.e. driving distance). A bunch of crimes committed in the Bay area of California are probably not living in Bangor Maine.
Exactly. That’s why even this kind of limited excuse for profiling is useless and has no reliably predicative value.
Criminal profiling cannot predict that this will happen with any reliability.
Stating what is required to make a study scientifically valid is “moving goalposts?”
Still waiting to see a single crime that was ever solved by criminal profiling. I’m sure it can’t be for lack of Googling.
No, but the laws of economics do. Having been successful previously at weighing outcomes for the binary outcome of caught or not caught, it’s “common sense” that the killer will decrease his effort in choosing a dumping ground provided that his previous choices have been successful. He is seeking to minimize effort for reward. Unfortunately for him, he may underestimate the consequences of failure during this optimization effort.
I agree with you: This is becoming an argument about definitions. What separates profiling from normal investigative techniques?
Diogenes has not yet explained what research he did before concluding the profiling has never solved a crime. Nor has he said whether his conclusion applies to “offender” profiling, “psychological” profiling or both, and he hasn’t explained his reasoning. Nor has he explained what studies he reviewed to conclude that killers operate near their homes.
In fact, he hasn’t done anything but make assertions without offering a shred of proof or even an explanation. Some debate.
You don’t understand burden of proof. Prove a smurf has never solved a crime.
:dubious:
Easy. Smurfs are "small blue fictional creatures". Fictional creatures can not solve real crimes.
QED.
Oh, goodie! All I ever have to do is make a negative claim, and I can never be expected to support that claim! I win automatically! Yay me!
:rolleyes:
And criminal profiling cannot solve a crime because it’s bunk with no predicative power or investigative utility.
I’m making a claim based on the knowledge that an alleged technique has no scientific validity or utility. I know it hasn’t solved any crimes becauseI know it CAN’T solve any crimes.
I’m still waiting to be proven wrong, by the way. It should be fucking child’s play. Why can’t anybody do it?
I couldn’t give two shits about profiling. I neither know nor care whether it can solve crimes.
I just wonder what else you do with your time besides being pointlessly argumentative.
I didn’t start the argument. Just stated a fact.