You step into a dimly lit room, the first thing that hits you is the pungent odor, making you slightly nauseous. But your focus is at the center of the room, where a tragic scene is painted before you. The victim’s body is twisted in unnatural angles, signs of their desperate struggle for survival. You take a moment to look at your surroundings. The walls bear strange markings, deliberate patterns that could tell you a lot about the perpetrator, if correctly interpreted. But as the investigator of this case you are not only responsible for gathering physical evidence, but also understanding the motivations behind this horrible act. What drove the killer? What patterns can you discern? Meticulously, you recall your criminal profiling training, an investigative technique that combines psychology and behavioral analysis, where every detail matters to uncover the characteristics, motives, and potential future actions of the offender.
However, as you sift through the clues, you begin to wonder: Can this method really work? Is it as reliable as popular media portrayal suggests? For years, criminal profiling has been depicted as an almost infallible science, one that is “highly accurate, operationally useful, and leads to the apprehension of the offender” (Greiwe and Khoshnood, 2022). Yet, beneath the compelling narratives of crime-related media lies a web of misconceptions that often clouds the real life application of criminal profiling. In practice, this method is far less precise and more controversial than many might believe. While profiling techniques can be helpful, they are not foolproof and can be influenced by confirmation biases, stereotypes, and lack of empirical support. This article delves into the illusion of criminal profiling, exploring its history, its limitations in law enforcement, and associated risks.
Popularized by the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), criminal profiling emerged as a tool for investigating serial crimes in the late 20th century (Douglas & Olshaker, 1995). In the 1970s and 1980s, a series of bombings terrorized the United States. The bomber, later coined the “Unabomber”, targeted universities and airlines, spreading fear and destruction throughout the country. As the bomber’s identity was still a mystery after years of investigations, the FBI created a criminal profile of the Unabomber based on the psychological patterns observed in his conduct and the nature of his attacks. From the bombs’ sophistication, analysts noted that the bomber was a highly intelligent individual, likely with a background in mathematics or engineering. Using this profile and linguistic analysis of his manifestos, the FBI was able to narrow down their search and eventually identified and captured the perpetrator, Ted Kaczynski (Douglas & Olshaker, 1995; Kocsis, 2007). This case highlights the real-world applications of criminal profiling, demonstrating how it can be a valuable tool to solving complex cases.
Nevertheless, despite the increased use of this particular forensic technique over the years, there are still controversies regarding the validity of criminal profiling. Existing scientific research on the validity of different criminal profiling methods point out two major issues: “1) the technique is considered to be flawed and reductive; 2) criminal profiling neither contemplates empirical evidence on how it actually functions, nor evidence of its validity” (Ribeiro and Soeiro, 2021). Profiling techniques are often based on subjective interpretations of a crime scene, which can lead to improper extrapolations or overly generalized conclusions (Canter, 2004). Additionally, critics argue that the use of profiling may contribute to confirmation biases, in which people tend to seek and favor information that supports their preexisting beliefs, rather than offering concrete evidence (Levin, 2002). Profilers may unconsciously incorporate stereotypes based on race, socio-economic status, or gender into their analyses. According to the selective processing hypothesis, “evidence that corroborates stereotypic expectations receives more processing, whereas contradictory evidence is cognitively neglected” (Bodenhausen, 1988). This can shift the focus of the investigation to the wrong individuals or groups. Thus, the role of criminal profiling in law enforcement becomes more illusory than concrete, possibly misleading investigators.
Beyond misdirecting police investigations, using criminal profiling despite little to no evidence of its validity can also lead to “hindered apprehensions of the actual offenders and wrongful convictions of innocent citizens” (Greiwe and Khoshnood, 2022). The disparity between the ongoing adoption of profiling techniques, the overall positive attitude towards the method, and the lack of empirical evidence for its validity is a concept known as “criminal profiling illusion” (Greiwe and Khoshnood, 2022). Literature on the explanations of this phenomenon is still scarce, however, a recent study highlighted the impact of fictional crime-related media consumption to explain this discrepancy. Popular crime dramas such as “Criminal Minds”, “NCIS”, and “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” tend to present a distorted version of reality, showing disproportionately high success rates of using criminal profiling to solve cases (Donovan and Klahm, 2015). These crime-related series blur the line between fiction and reality, making it harder for the audience to distinguish between fact and fiction.
The research applies the cultivation theory by Gerbner and Gross (1976), a theoretical approach that examines how media consumption influences perception, to analyze the relationship between media portrayal of profiling and the criminal profiling illusion. Criminal dramas frequently depict profiling as an infallible science, reinforcing the belief that profilers can accurately predict an offender’s traits and that criminal profiling is highly reliable. Over time, individuals who consume such content develop perceptions that align more with the distorted narratives than with reality (Greiwe and Khoshnood, 2022). Thus, the study results support the notion that criminal profiling is widely misperceived in society, both in relation to its accuracy and its validity. This misconception has real-world consequences. By shaping public and professional expectations, media-driven distortions can lead to flawed decision-making within the criminal justice system, harming law enforcement and criminal investigations.
Thus, despite its portrayal in popular media, criminal profiling remains a controversial and imperfect tool within law enforcement. While this investigative technique has undeniably aided in solving high-profile cases like that of the “Unabomber”, its broader application raises concerns about reliability and biases. The “criminal profiling illusion”, partly fueled by crime dramas, has skewed public perception towards a positive view of criminal profiling, making it seem more effective than it truly is. In reality, profiling methods can be influenced by confirmation biases and subjective interpretations, which may lead to wrongful convictions or misled investigations. As such, criminal profiling should be used with caution and in combination with other investigative strategies to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the criminal justice process. Moving forward, a more empirical-based approach to profiling is essential to better understand its capabilities and limitations in solving crimes.
References:
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 726–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.726
Canter, D. (2004). Criminal Psychology: A Guide to Criminal Profiling. Hodder Arnold.
Donovan, K.M. and Klahm, C.F. (2015). The Role of Entertainment Media in Perceptions of Police Use of Force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, [online] 42(12), pp.1261–1281. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815604180.
Douglas, J. E., & Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit. Pocket Books.
Greiwe, T. and Khoshnood, A. (2022). Do We Mistake Fiction for Fact? Investigating Whether the Consumption of Fictional Crime-Related Media May Help to Explain the Criminal Profiling Illusion. SAGE Open, 12(2), p.215824402210912. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221091243.
Kocsis, R. N. (2007). Criminal Profiling: A Comprehensive Guide to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. CRC Press.
Levin, D. T. (2002). The effects of criminal profiling. Psychological Science, 13(3), 214-220.
Ribeiro, R.A.B. and Soeiro, C.B.B. de M. (2021). Analysing Criminal Profiling validity: Underlying Problems and Future Directions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, [online] 74(74), p.101670. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101670.
B.BIAS 