Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Fox, Bryanna
• Farrington, David P.
• Kapardis, Andreas
• Hambly, Olivia C.

Titel

Progress towards evidence-based offender profiling

Ist Teil von

• Evidence-Based Offender Profiling, 2020, p.19-26

Auflage

1

Ort / Verlag

United Kingdom: Routledge

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Alma/SFX Local Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• This chapter expands upon findings in the Fox and Farrington article in Psychological Bulletin, which presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of 426 publications on offender profiling from 1976 to 2016. The chapter begins with a departure from the original article to more fully discuss the origins of evidence-based offender profiling (EBOP), tracing the history and inspiration back through to David Canter’s formation of the sub-field of investigative psychology in 2000. The assumptions, analytical techniques, and major findings of research from this field are reviewed. Next, the statistical profiles developed by Farrington and Lambert in the 1990s are discussed to illustrate the transition from the use of quantitative statistics to not only develop the profiles but also to analyze the statistical links between certain types of offenses and certain types of offenders. Finally, the EBOP method, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4, is reviewed, so that readers understand the need for EBOP, the basic principles of the new field, and how EBOP is applied in academic research and police investigations. Some key findings from the meta-analysis of offender profiling literature are discussed, such as the most common types of crimes that have been studied were homicides (27%) and sexual assaults (13%), and most research was conducted in the United States (38%) or the United Kingdom (26%). The most prolific authors have been Richard Kocsis, Laurence Alison, and David Canter. Over time, the scientific rigor of studies has increased. In regard to authors, 47% of reports in 1976 to 1985 were written by Federal Bureau of Investigation profilers, but none in 2006 to 2016. In contrast, only 9% of reports in 1976 to 1985 were written by psychologists, but this increased to 47% in 2006–2016. The most common offender profiles that have been proposed for different types of crimes are presented, and unlike in the original article, a full discussion of the resulting and recurring profile types across each crime group and potential reasons for the lack of replicability in offender profiling research are discussed. It is concluded that future offender profiles should be based on an empirical approach that relies on advanced statistical analysis of large datasets and that profiles should be implemented in police investigations and evaluated for their effects on arrest rates in unsolved cases using an experimental design, as EBOP recommends. In the United Kingdom, the clinical approach to offender profiling was set out by G. Copson, R. Badcock, J. Boon, and P. Britton. Copson carried out an extensive review of the early use of offender profiling by British police forces. Copson found that profiling helped to solve the case only 14% of the time and helped identify the offender in only 3% of cases. In the United Kingdom, a statistical approach to offender profiling was pioneered by David Canter. Canter then developed offender profiling into the larger field of investigative psychology. This was based on his work on geographic profiling, which identified that offenders tended to commit crimes close to their homes, and that the offenders’ homes tended to lie within the area that was circumscribed by the crimes. Characteristics of the offenders were recorded on the police description and antecedent history forms that were completed at the time of the arrest.