Disputed profiles
By Wendy Barnaby
Police hunting serial killers often use psychologists to profile the sort of suspect they're looking for. Dr Craig Jackson is not a fan.
"Behavioural profiling has never led to the direct apprehension of a serial killer or a murderer," he says. "It's based on really spurious science: small datasets, limited numbers and a biased sample – those who got caught. It's not good science. It has also led to miscarriages of justice," he says.
Jackson recalls the case of Rachel Nickell, murdered in 1992 on Wimbledon Common. Largely guided by offender profiling, the police charged Colin Stagg, who spent 14 months in prison. The real killer, Robert Napper, is now in Broadmoor Hospital.
"The profiles which are given are too vague to be useful," says Jackson. "It's giving too much credibility to a scientific discipline – a serious issue that psychologists need to address. There are no randomized controlled trials to test whether it works and no league table of offender profilers.
"There's a fine line between prejudice and profiling," he says.
Dr Jackson is addressing the British Science Association's Festival of Science in Birmingham.
UK profilers
UK police forces use offender profilers on a Home Office database. The profilers – forensic psychologists - have to be chartered members of the British Psychological Society and registered with the Health Professions Council.
Hard science
Jackson also recalls the case of US serial killer Dennis Rader, who murdered 10 people between 1974 and 1991. The FBI used an offender profiler to describe and capture him. He was eventually caught - but not by behavioural science. Police traced him from the metadata on a floppy disk he sent them.
Offender profilers have interviewed murderers but have not made the data public. "They have no data we can inspect independently," says Jackson. Serial killers won't be straight with you: they want parole, transferal to another prison, they're bored and want to talk, or they want to enhance their profile. You can't base your methodology on what serial killers tell you."
Claims disputed
"Behavioural Investigative Advice [BIA: what Jackson calls offender profiling] is not an established science," comments Lee Rainbow. As the secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Sub-Committee for Behavioural Science, he is responsible for the national provision of BIA and also the strategic development and management of the discipline within the UK.
"This is not however a mortal failing of the activity, rather a recognition of its investigative, rather than evidential focus," he says.
"The aim of BIA is not to 'solve' a case, nor to directly lead to the apprehension of a serial killer. Every contribution from a behavioural science perspective has the single goal of supporting investigative decision making."
Rainbow also maintains that the use of BIA within the UK has never led to a miscarriage of justice.
"Any comparison between published historical memoirs from US 'offender profiliers' and contemporary UK practice is wholly invalid," he continues. "We would urge the interested critic to understand and acknowledge the significant methodological, professional and evidence-based advancements in the UK."
Good work
"Dr Jackson is correct to criticise the anecdotal approach some people have taken in advocating offender profiling," says forensic scientist Dr Vince Egan at the University of Leicester. "You can't just jump from looking at a crime scene to infer something about the person who did it. The closer they are to using data rather than learning from the FBI, the more useful they'll be."
However, Egan also points to some good profiling work, such as that done by David Canter (Professor of Psychology at Liverpool University) on the movement of suspects, which is based, amongst other things, on proper forensic use of mobile phone records. "There's more emphasis in looking at geographical movements of suspects these days," says Egan.
The Division of Forensic Psychologists of the British Psychological Society is responsible for training forensic psychologists. Its Vice-Chair, Dr Carol A. Ireland, commented, "We are scientist practitioners. We try to make sure that whatever we do is grounded in theory and science."
Police hunting serial killers often use psychologists to profile the sort of suspect they're looking for. Dr Craig Jackson is not a fan.
"Behavioural profiling has never led to the direct apprehension of a serial killer or a murderer," he says. "It's based on really spurious science: small datasets, limited numbers and a biased sample – those who got caught. It's not good science. It has also led to miscarriages of justice," he says.
Jackson recalls the case of Rachel Nickell, murdered in 1992 on Wimbledon Common. Largely guided by offender profiling, the police charged Colin Stagg, who spent 14 months in prison. The real killer, Robert Napper, is now in Broadmoor Hospital.
"The profiles which are given are too vague to be useful," says Jackson. "It's giving too much credibility to a scientific discipline – a serious issue that psychologists need to address. There are no randomized controlled trials to test whether it works and no league table of offender profilers.
"There's a fine line between prejudice and profiling," he says.
Dr Jackson is addressing the British Science Association's Festival of Science in Birmingham.
UK profilers
UK police forces use offender profilers on a Home Office database. The profilers – forensic psychologists - have to be chartered members of the British Psychological Society and registered with the Health Professions Council.
Hard science
Jackson also recalls the case of US serial killer Dennis Rader, who murdered 10 people between 1974 and 1991. The FBI used an offender profiler to describe and capture him. He was eventually caught - but not by behavioural science. Police traced him from the metadata on a floppy disk he sent them.
Offender profilers have interviewed murderers but have not made the data public. "They have no data we can inspect independently," says Jackson. Serial killers won't be straight with you: they want parole, transferal to another prison, they're bored and want to talk, or they want to enhance their profile. You can't base your methodology on what serial killers tell you."
Claims disputed
"Behavioural Investigative Advice [BIA: what Jackson calls offender profiling] is not an established science," comments Lee Rainbow. As the secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Sub-Committee for Behavioural Science, he is responsible for the national provision of BIA and also the strategic development and management of the discipline within the UK.
"This is not however a mortal failing of the activity, rather a recognition of its investigative, rather than evidential focus," he says.
"The aim of BIA is not to 'solve' a case, nor to directly lead to the apprehension of a serial killer. Every contribution from a behavioural science perspective has the single goal of supporting investigative decision making."
Rainbow also maintains that the use of BIA within the UK has never led to a miscarriage of justice.
"Any comparison between published historical memoirs from US 'offender profiliers' and contemporary UK practice is wholly invalid," he continues. "We would urge the interested critic to understand and acknowledge the significant methodological, professional and evidence-based advancements in the UK."
Good work
"Dr Jackson is correct to criticise the anecdotal approach some people have taken in advocating offender profiling," says forensic scientist Dr Vince Egan at the University of Leicester. "You can't just jump from looking at a crime scene to infer something about the person who did it. The closer they are to using data rather than learning from the FBI, the more useful they'll be."
However, Egan also points to some good profiling work, such as that done by David Canter (Professor of Psychology at Liverpool University) on the movement of suspects, which is based, amongst other things, on proper forensic use of mobile phone records. "There's more emphasis in looking at geographical movements of suspects these days," says Egan.
The Division of Forensic Psychologists of the British Psychological Society is responsible for training forensic psychologists. Its Vice-Chair, Dr Carol A. Ireland, commented, "We are scientist practitioners. We try to make sure that whatever we do is grounded in theory and science."
search this section
