Police^ jgr

and Profiling
in the
United States

Applying Theory to
Criminal Investigations
CRC Press
Lauren M. Barrow, PhD
Taylor & Francis Croup
Ronald A. Rufo, EdD
Police
and Profiling
in the
United States
Applying Theory to
Criminal Investigations

^arygrovp Cnl,

48221'
 '

. *4
Police
and Profiling
in the
United States
Applying Theory to
Criminal Investigations
Lauren M. Barrow, PhD
Ronald A. Rufo, EdD

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Croup
Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Cover image courtesy of Justin M. Roa.

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2014 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

Version Date: 20130607

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4665-0435-6 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit¬
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names maybe trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Barrow, Lauren M., 1968-

Police and profiling in the United States : applying theory to criminal investigations
Lauren M. Barrow, Ron A. Rufo.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4665-0435-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Criminal behavior, Prediction
of—United States. 2. Criminal profilers—United States. I. Rufo, Ron A. II. Title.

HV6789.B325 2013
363.250T9—dc23 2013018226

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
 My work on this text is dedicated to the campaign against
crime and evil. May we all continue to work toward the
transfer of knowledge from the academic and research
world to those charged with effecting justice.

—Lauren M. Barrow, PhD

It is with great pleasure that I dedicate this book to my dear

wife, Debbie, who has stood by my side and supported me in
writing this book on criminal profiling. She has always been
my inspiration and motivation to follow my dreams.

—Ronald Rufo, EdD

 • •

'

'
Contents

Preface xiii
Acknowledgments xvii
About the Authors xix

1 Introduction 1
Chapter Goals 1
Key Words 1
Introduction to Criminal Profiling 1
Disciplinary Contributions to Criminal Profiling 3
Psychiatry 3
Forensics 6
Criminology 7
Leaders in Criminal Profiling 7
Notable FBI Profilers 8
FBI Behavioral Science Unit 9
References 12

2 Theoretical Foundations 13
Chapter Goals 13
Key Words 13
Introduction 14
Historical Evolution 15
Ancient Era 15
Medieval Age (476-1500) 16
Renaissance Period (14th—16/17th Century) 17
Enlightenment Period (18th Century) 17
Classicalism 18
Marchese de Beccaria 18
Neoclassicalism 20
Rational Choice Theory 20
Positivism 21
Determinism 21
Criminological Theory 22
Biological Theories 22

vii
viii Contents

Psychological Theories 24
Sociological Theories 29
References 33

3 Logic and Reasoning Practices 37

Chapter Goals 37
Key Words 37
Introduction to Togic 38
Fallacies 39
Informal Fallacies 39
Inconsistency 40
Petitio Principii 40
Non Sequitur 40
Fallacies of Ambiguity 41
Formal Fallacies 41
Deductive and Inductive Logic 42
Inductive Reasoning 44
Deductive Reasoning 45
Abductive Reasoning 45
Logic in Criminal Justice 46
References 47

4 Childhood Indicators 49
Chapter Goals 49
Key Words 49
Introduction 50
Historical Factors 50
Child Discipline 50
Theory 53
Biological School 54
Psychological Determinants 56
Cycle of Violence Hypothesis 56
Sociological Determinants 57
Peer Relationships 57
Bullying and Cyberbullying 58
References 64

5 Motives and Criminal Typologies 67

Chapter Goals 67
Key Words 67
Introduction 68
Contents ix

Motive 69
Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) 70
Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) 71
Motive Perspectives 72
Environmental Reconstruction 72
Individual Reconstruction 73
Determining Motive 74
Triggers 74
Intent 75
Criminal Typologies 75
Criminal Event Typologies 76
Criminal Offender Typologies 77
Individual Characteristics 78
Sociological Factors 79
Crime Scene Characteristics 81
References 83

6 Sexually Based Offenses and Motivated Crimes 85

Chapter Goals 85
Key Words 85
Child and Sexual Abuse and Its Effects 86
Child Abuse 86
Child Sexual Abuse 86
Child Pornography 89
Sexual Violence 90
Cycle of Violence or Abuse 90
Characteristics and Offender Patterns 91
Narcissistic Traits and Personality 91
Paraphilia 91
Sexual Perversion 92
Cybercrimes and the Internet 92
Sexual Addiction 95
Behaviors Associated with Sexual Addiction 96
Sexually Violent Persons 97
Voyeurism (Peeping Toms) 97
Stalking 98
Love Stalkers 99
References 100

7 Serial and Rage Killers 101

Chapter Goals 101
Key Words 101
 Contents

Introduction 101
Types of Murder 102
Mass Murder 102
Spree Killing 103
Serial Murder 105
Basic Demographic Profile 105
Gender 105
Race 105
Age 106
Intelligence Quotient 106
Past Profile 106
MacDonald Triad 106
Prior Criminal History 115
Prior Psychiatric History 116
Types 118
Visionaries 118
Missionaries 118
Hedonists 118
Power Control Killers 119
Motivations 119
Causality 120
Causes of Sexual Violence 122
References 122

8 Hero Complex Killers 125

Chapter Goals 125
Key Words 125
Introduction 125
Medical Murder 126
Primary Care Providers 128
Gender Differences 132
Public Service 134
Firefighter Arson 134
Law Enforcement 136
Military 137
References 138

9 Crime Scene Indicators and Investigations 141

Chapter Goals 141
Key Words 141
Crime Scene 141
First Officer on the Scene (Preliminary Investigator) 142
Contents xi

Assessment of the Scene 143

Collection of Data 143
Chain of Custody 145
Locard Principle and Trace Evidence 146
CSA vs. CST vs. CSP? 146
Crime Scene Processing (CSP) 147
Crime Scene Technicians (CSTs) 148
Criminalists 149
Crime Scene Analysis (CSA) 149
Criminal Investigative Analysis: The Future
of Psychological Profiling 151
References 153

10 Geographic Profiling 155

Chapter Goals 155
KeyWords 155
Geographic Profiling 155
Distance Decay Theory 159
Bayesian Method of Estimation 160
Predictive Policing 161
CGT, GIS, COMPSTAT, CEWS, Blue CRUSH, and MAPS 162
Criminal Geographic Targeting (CGT) 162
Geographic Information System (GIS) 163
Computer Statistics (COMPSTAT) 163
Crime Early Warning System (CEWS) 164
Crime Reduction Utilizing Statistical History (Blue CRUSH) 165
Methodology for Evaluating Geographic Profiling Software
(MAPS) 165
Rational Choice Theory in the 21st Century 166
Routine Activity Theory in the 21st Century 167
Social Disorganization Theory 168
Sampson and Groves (1989) 168
Environmental Criminology 169
Environmental Criminology Theory 169
Broken Windows Theory 169
References 173

11 Victim Selection Characteristics 175

Chapter Goals 175
Key Words 175
Introduction 175
Lifestyle Theory 179
xii Contents

Routine Activities Theory 179

Medical Conditions 181
Personality 181
Leisure Activities 182
Routine Activities 182
References 182

12 Conclusion 183
Introduction 183
Research Methodology 183
Crime Scene-Based Approaches 184
Geographic Profiling 184
Investigative Psychology 186
Psychology-Based Approaches 186
Organized vs. Disorganized 187
Criminal Investigative Analysis 187
Behavioral Evidence Analysis 187
References 188

Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers 191

Index 207
Preface

On Friday, December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot his mother,
Nancy, five times in the face and then drove five miles to Sandy Hook
Elementary School, where he proceeded to massacre 20 children (ages six to
nine) and 6 adults who were working at the school that day. This is one of the
worst mass shootings in United States history due to the young innocence of
most of the victims.
Following any mass shooting, the news media engages in a frenzied
attempt to identify a legitimate motive—if only to provide some level of com¬
fort to the public. Polices officers, detectives, profilers, and mental health pro¬
fessionals explore the facts of the case and search the killer’s past history and
behavior to formulate a possible motive, assigning their own human inter¬
pretation to each item found. The speculation of a motive and the promotion
of violence often include elements of a troubled childhood for the killer. This
case was no different. Law enforcement gathered detailed facts about Lanzas
lifestyle, which unfortunately mirrored that of many other mass shooters.
Adam Lanza was a loner, considered awkward in social settings, and had
formed grievances against others—possibly the result of having suffered ill-
treatment at the hand of others (bullying).
The truth is that regardless of what the professionals, whether in criminal
justice or mental health, assume, we can never know for sure what triggered
Lanza’s actions that day, or what he believed he was accomplishing in taking
those actions. The manner in which he gained access to the building (shoot¬
ing out the front window) suggests that he knew his actions were wrong, but
beyond that, little more can be definitively known.
Almost immediately after the massacre, stories hypothesizing a motive
began to hit the airwaves. The reasons as to why these reports occur are many,
understandable, and unimportant because as long as professionals in the
field ethically carry out their professional duties, the answers that so many
seek in times of trouble will eventually emerge. On December 14th, the very
day of the event, a former FBI profiler often interviewed by law enforcement
said that “anyone who kills their own mother is capable of doing anything.”
He added, “What did his mother do? She was a kindergarten teacher. She
had children that loved her and she loved them.... When he shot his mother
and turned on those children, those children were part of his mother and she
was part of them. He killed what his mother loved.” This story accomplished

xiii
XIV
Preface

what it was intended to do. It gave the masses an answer and an explanation
to the burning question of why? The problem is that he was wrong. To date,
no relationship between Nancy Lanza and Sandy Hook Elementary School
has been identified.
The bigger problem is that the profiler made his statements as a represen¬
tative of the profession. The use of his FBI status was intended to lend cred¬
ibility to his statements, when in reality, it simply undermined the profession,
its contributions, and its value... but only to those paying close attention.
He provided insight and answers—though incorrect—to those who needed
it at the moment they wanted it. To his professional colleagues, he simply
added to the long list of incorrect, inaccurate, unscientific, and unconfirmed
profiles. Fortunately, he was not the only former profiler consulted in the
days that followed. Mary Ellen O’Toole, author of Dangerous Instincts, was
also interviewed, although her responses provided less concrete answers.
Almost as a mantra, she counseled patience to allow the professionals the
time for due diligence; she resisted providing absolute answers, citing the
vast amount of unknown information (i.e., the computer and cell phone con¬
tent, the relationship to the school); and she educated people when she spoke
of the definition of psychopathy, the legal considerations of right and wrong,
and the intricate nature of classifying certain behaviors from the crime
scene. To be sure, her interviews did not leave the viewers with a better sense
of understanding and did not have the selling power (read: comfort value) of
the previous interviews, but the long-term gain of quantifiable and reliable
information far outweighs the quick, and often inaccurate, reporting that
plagues the field to date.
This text seeks to undo decades of inaccurate and unreliable evidence by
presenting the reader with information that is useful in conducting investi¬
gations and preparing cases for court. After all, in situations such as the one
above, in which the offender kills him or herself as part of the crime, the
true motive will never be known. Even if a note is left, it can only explain
part of the mental process (the planning), but not the trigger that initiated
the action. Even in situations where the offender is still alive, it is virtually
impossible to completely identify a motive, given the vast amount of inputs,
interventions, and potential outputs. The best one can do is construct a story
that meets the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and the purpose for
that is in court.
This book was written for use as both a university textbook and a police
training text. It was written by an academician and a practitioner with eyes
for offering dual perspectives with respect to criminal profiling, identifying
serial offender traits and characteristics, and identifying reasoning behind
criminal profiling theories. This book also focuses on the importance of crime
scene investigation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and future develop¬
ments in the field. It promises to be a valuable part of the occupational library
Preface xv

for law enforcement and criminal justice professionals alike. It is suitable for
awareness training for police academies and detectives. Although the text is
written as a college textbook, anyone with an interest in the fascinating world
of criminal profiling will find it interesting, as it offers a twist different from
other criminal profiling books.
Students taking the previously mentioned courses may be working
toward a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree, majoring in criminal justice,
criminology, or crime scene investigation. Changes in this field are constant
due to the advancement of technology. It is both authors’ goal to address
these changes and enhance awareness. The primary purpose of this book is
to serve as a comprehensive and readable textbook for a one-semester course
that deals with criminal profiling techniques and theories. This book can
become a permanent part of any law enforcement or criminal justice profes¬
sional’s vocational library.
 <

' ’

** >
Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the help of many dedicated
and caring friends, who are special to me in so many ways. I thank my coau¬
thor, Lauren Barrow, for her dedication and commitment to criminal pro¬
filing and the entire criminal justice field. She has tremendous insight and
knowledge and it was a pleasure working on this book with her. To Linda
Dumke, a dear friend and remarkable editor, thank you.
And I thank Ron Rufo for his steady and reliable spirit. His tenacious
desire to bring real-life experiences into the academic dialogue ultimately
benefits his readers and the field, and his desire to share the “feet on the
street” experience is awesome. His patience with my constant editing and
reediting is also deeply appreciated!
To Drs. Cliff Roberson, Frank Smallenger, Paul Ruffolo, and Laurence
Simon, four very inspirational authors and scholars in the criminal justice
field, we both thank you for your guidance, friendship, and encouragement
throughout the years.
A very special thank you to members of the Chicago Police Department,
Sgt. Cynthia Schumann, EdD, Detective Saul Arambula, EdD, and crime
scene investigator and specialist Herbert Keeler, for their assistance, sup¬
port, and guidance in this undertaking. And a sincere thanks to the students
who offered insight and assistance when called upon, and especially Sarah
Franzone for her quick work, and her enthusiasm. It was infectious.
A special thanks to Justin Roa for his fine artwork. Alinah will be proud.
And finally, we acknowledge Carolyn Spence and the entire staff at
CRC Press and Taylor & Francis Group for their support, guidance, and
expertise. We are deeply grateful.

XVII
■
About the Authors

Lauren M. Barrow, PhD, is currently an assistant professor of criminal jus¬

tice at Chestnut Hill College in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She is a 2007
graduate of CUNY Graduate Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
and a former adjunct instructor at Monmouth University, New Jersey, in
both the undergraduate and graduate programs. She was formerly an online
instructor with the master’s program at Kaplan University. As a generalist, Dr.
Barrow teaches a wide range of criminal justice courses—including drug use
and abuse, organizational behavior, criminal ethics, criminology, victimol¬
ogy, juvenile justice, and homeland security. She was a founding member of
the New Jersey Alliance for Crime Victims with Developmental Disabilities.
She has conducted innovative research in the d/Deaf community pertaining
to their risk of victimization and previously authored a book titled Criminal
Victimization of the Deaf, published by LFB Scholarly Publishing, LLC in
2008. Dr. Barrow has been instructing undergraduate and graduate students,
both in class and online, for over 10 years.

Ronald A. Rufo, EdD, has been a Chicago police officer for the past 18 years.
He has spent most of his career as a crime prevention speaker in the Preventive
Programs Unit and has given hundreds of presentations on profiling offenders,
crime investigation, and street safety. Dr. Rufo has taught many classes in crime
scene investigation, police procedure, and policies. He has been instrumental as
a team leader in the Chicago Police Department Peer Support Group as a com¬
passionate and caring person, especially in the tragic deaths of officers killed in
the line of duty. He has received numerous awards, commendations, honorable
mentions, and letters of appreciation in serving the citizens of Chicago.
Dr. Rufo received his bachelor of arts degree in criminal social justice
from Lewis University in Romeoville, Illinois; he graduated with highest
honors and as a scholar of the university in 2000. He was awarded his master
of arts degree in organizational leadership from Lewis University in 2002
and graduated with his doctoral degree from Argosy University, Chicago,
in 2007. His dissertation was titled “An Investigation of Online Predation of
Minors by Convicted Male Offenders.” Dr. Rufo’s first book, Sexual Predators
amongst Us, was published by CRC Press/Taylor & Francis in 2011. He has
also contributed to the book Terrorism and Property Management.
Dr. Rufo is currently an adjunct professor at Kaplan University and also
teaches at the City Colleges of Chicago.

xix
Introduction

... the unknown suspect as a “Male, former employee of Consolidated

Edison, injured on the job and rendered chronically ill, paranoid, middle-
aged, neat and meticulous persona, foreign background, some formal educa¬
tion, unmarried, living alone or with female ‘mother-like’ relative.”
—Brussel (1968)

Chapter Goals

• To establish historical basis for understanding criminal profiling

• To introduce theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence neces¬
sary to merge practical experience with statistically sound practices
• To identify the fathers of criminal profiling
• To discuss the main disciplines from which criminal profiling evolves

Key Words

BAU
BSU
Criminal profiling
Criminology
James A. Brussel
Leakage
NCAVC
Victimologist

Introduction to Criminal Profiling

Early criminologists theorized that criminal psychology could be identi¬

fied by physical characteristics, and early practitioners made the connection
between crime scenes and offender personality and psychological makeup.
The field of criminology emerged in the late 1700s and early 1800s with the

1
2 Police and Profiling in the United States

writings of Cesare Beccaria and other Enlightenment Age philosophers

(see Chapter 2), but the historical timeline of criminal profiling is less clear.
Throughout the history of profiling, criminologists, psychiatrists, detectives,
investigative consultants, scholars, and researchers have all contributed
to today’s profiling techniques (Welch and Keppel 2006). Since this text is
intended to serve as a tool for law enforcement rather than a reference man¬
ual, the authors of this book chose to use the New York mad bomber (mid-
1950s) case as the starting point for modern criminal profiling.
For decades, law enforcement has tried to get inside the mind of a crimi¬
nal in order to determine not only what makes a criminal commit his/
her crime, but also to identify unknown offenders once an act has already
occurred. This process has been variably referred to as offender profiling,
criminal profiling, forensic profiling, criminal personality profiling, etc., but
each term generally refers to “a behavioral and investigative tool intended
to help investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of
unknown criminal subjects or offenders” (Kocsis 2009). Specifically, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines criminal profiling (CP) as “a
process used to analyze a specific crime, or series of crimes, and to develop
a behavioral composite of an unknown offender” (McGrary 2004). The FBI
recommends using the following elements to develop a profile:

• Input
• Model
• Assessment
• Investigation

This text presents these five elements in terms of how they relate to and
are useful in achieving the ultimate goal of apprehension. Part of that process
includes identifying the characteristics specific to the individual offender(s),
such as telltale signs, signals, indications, or high-priority threats that deter¬
mine the outcome of an offender’s behavior. And, in fact, can an outcome
even be predicted?
Investigators rarely have the opportunity to ask offenders what they were
thinking when the criminal act occurred (before the act) or what crime they
think they will commit next—and why they selected one particular victim
over another. Instead, investigators have to contend with an infinite number
of variables, and even then, it could be just a lucky guess that determines
a criminal’s behavior. Criminal profiling includes poring over crime scene
photographs and videos, autopsy reports and photos, lab reports, and the
investigation synopsis and media reports before an investigator even attempts
to use logic, common sense, a hunch, or an estimated guess as to what the
criminal will do next (Aldred 2007). The process can take many days or
weeks to complete. “If you ask me to do a personality profile,” says RCMP
Introduction 3

Sgt. Pierre Nezan (in Aldred), “I need a lot of material. It’s not something that
gets done over the phone or you can say, ‘Give me the five minute story on
what happened and I’ll tell you who did it.’ It’s a very involved process” (8).
This text seeks to empower investigators to trust their “gut feelings” by
providing them with the theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence nec¬
essary to merge practical experience with statistically sound practices devel¬
oping in the field. Before one can fully appreciate the process of constructing
a profile, some historical perspective is required. Creating offender profiles
must first be viewed from multiple disciplines, mainly because historically,
the multidisciplinary approach to problem solving—particularly within the
social sciences—did not exist. Therefore, in order to understand the founda¬
tions of profiling, the reader must first consider how such processes devel¬
oped within each discipline: psychiatry, forensics, and criminology.

Disciplinary Contributions to Criminal Profiling

Psychiatry
Popular views regarding criminality often include the belief that offenders
have some type of mental disorder—either a disease or defect of the mind that
makes them view their criminal actions as acceptable. The earliest recorded
account of societies’ beliefs regarding the relationship between mental disorder
and violence is found in a dialogue written by Plato, and William Shakespeare
wrote of such a connection in The Taming of the Shrew and Henry IV.
These social perceptions have had important implications for public
policy, such as the involuntary hospitalization of individuals with mental
disorders, and the use of medication to manage inmate populations. This
challenging issue can be defined by two questions: Is there a fundamental
link between mental disorder and violence? If so, can people with mental dis¬
orders who will be violent be distinguished from those who will not be vio¬
lent? The National Institute of Justice and the University of Virginia School
of Law (Monihan and University of Virginia School of Law 1996) reported
that 3% of the variance in violent behavior in the United States is attribut¬
able to mental disorder, and other studies have shown that people with men¬
tal illness are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. Most
significantly, the link of mental disorders to violent behavior is not based
on a diagnosis of mental illness, but on current psychotic symptoms. These
researchers postulate that in a public health framework, the risk factors for
violence can be classified into four categories:

1. Personal/dispositional factors: Age, gender, ethnicity, control of

anger, impulsiveness.
4 Police and Profiling in the United States

2. Developmental/historical factors: History of child abuse, work his¬

tory, history of violence, hospitalization history for mental disorder.
3. Contextual factors: Environmental stress, social support, weap¬
ons accessibility.
4. Clinical factors: Delusions, hallucinations, substance abuse.

Such a view invites contributions from psychiatrists and psychologists to

the process of understanding the motives and actions of offenders. The chal¬
lenge with arguing that psychiatrists/psychologists have some key role in the
development of a criminal profile is that for the most part, their assumptions
about one’s behavioral actions or motives follow face-to-face clinical inter¬
views, use of scientifically approved personality tests, and a comprehensive
assessment and examination of individual history. These elements are gener¬
ally more useful after a suspect has been identified, especially as a case moves
toward trial, than they are when trying to identify an unknown suspect.
Nonetheless, the first contemporary use of a criminal profile is credited to a
psychiatrist, Dr. James A. Brussel, who constructed the first systematic offender
profile used in a criminal investigation. He was invited to develop a personality
profile for an unknown person responsible for a series of indiscriminate bomb¬
ing attacks that spanned 16 years, from 1940 to 1956, in New York City.
In sum. Dr. Brussel’s profile described the unknown suspect in several
ways, including as a male, former employee of Consolidated Edison, injured
on the job and rendered chronically ill, paranoid, middle-aged, neat and
meticulous persona, foreign background, some formal education, unmar¬
ried, living alone or with female “mother-like” relative (Brussel 1968). In the

NY MAD BOMBER: GEORGE METESKY

On September 5, 1931, Metesky was working for Consolidated Edison
as a generator wiper at its Hell Gate plant, when a sudden rush of hot,
noxious gasses threw him to the ground. Doctors who examined him
found nothing seriously wrong.
In the coming months, he argued unsuccessfully for permanent dis¬
ability pay, claiming the accident had brought on serious headaches.
Metesky raged against Consolidated Edison for the next nine years.
On November 16, 1940, police removed an unexploded pipe bomb
from the Edison building on West Sixty Fourth Street in Manhattan.
The device was wrapped inside a toolbox, with a note that read: “Con
Edison crooks, this is for you.”
It was the first of thirty-seven bombs Metesky was to plant in the
next sixteen years at scattered sites throughout Manhattan.
Source: http://www.crimerack.com
Introduction 5

end, Brussel’s profile was deemed quite accurate, but by his own admission,
some of the elements of his profile, while accurate, did not require special
knowledge per se.

• During the 1940s and 1950s, most of the workforce was male, and
since the notes left at the scene indicated that the suspect had worked
at Consolidated Edison, it made sense to assume that the suspect was
male, given the social norms of the time.
. The note left with the first bomb stated, “CON EDISON CROOKS,
THIS IS FOR YOU.” A subsequent note mailed to the Manhattan
police headquarters stated in part, “I will bring Con Edison to jus¬
tice—they will pay for their dastardly deeds.” Other notes were also
sent to Con Edison, as the one shown below. All suggest that he was
an employee who suffered some loss on the job.
• The language of the bomber’s letters showed a fairly well-educated
man, but either foreign born or somebody who lived among foreign-
born people—there was a certain European stiffness to his writing
and a lack of American slang and colloquialisms. Brussel specifically
noted that it was as if the letters were written in a foreign language
first and then translated into English.
• Looking at the hand-printed letters, Brussel took special note of the
paranoiac language and surmised that the bomber suffered from
either paranoia or schizophrenia. Since both disorders tended to
peak in one’s mid-30s, and the bombings had been ongoing for 16
years, he profiled the offender to be between the ages of 40 and 50
with a certain degree of confidence based upon the statistical, medi¬
cal evidence.
• Paranoiacs would make every effort to avoid any appearance of a
flaw. Brussel saw that every letter was perfectly formed, except for
one letter—the W—which was formed like a double U; to Brussel
it symbolized a pair of female breasts. He suggested that the mad
bomber’s mother was probably dead, and he lived either alone or
with an older female relative; he was a loner, had no friends, and was
single—but not a homosexual.
• From the mad bomber’s neatly printed and orderly letters, Brussel
deduced that he was a very neat and “proper” man. He was prob¬
ably an excellent employee, always on time, and always performing
the best work.
• From the workmanship on the bombs, Brussel concluded that he
was trained as an electrician or pipe fitter. He was probably not
involved in any disciplinary infractions at work. If he had been dis¬
missed from work, Brussel concluded, it would be for medical rea¬
sons and not for work performance or disciplinary problems.
5 Police and Profiling in the United States

• Brussel was also struck by the mad bomber’s use of a knife to slash the
movie theater seats, and the choice to use bombs, which were crude
an d sloppy actions uncharacteristic of his ordered and neat personality,
• Gi ven the way that the bomber used the English language (improp-
erly and overly formal), and the use of bombs as a preferred method
of attack, Brussels identified the bomber as uniquely Slavic—prob¬
ably from Poland.
• Knowing that the letters were posted from either New York or
Westchester County, and feeling that the bomber was too smart
to post his letters from where he lived, Brussel surmised he likely
posted them on his way to New York from somewhere else nearby.
Plotting a line from New York through Westchester County, Brussels
arrived at Bridgeport, Connecticut, where he knew there was a large
Polish community.

Armed with this information, the police released the profile to the media
on Christmas Day 1956. Shortly thereafter, Alice Kelly, a Con Edison clerk,
recognized the language and the issues and alerted the police to the consis¬
tencies in worker compensation claims from George Metesky. In the end, the
profile from Brussels was credited with providing valuable insight into the
potential identity of the bomber and narrowing the focus of the investigation.

Forensics
In terms of forensics, it is the job of a forensic scientist to apply principles and
knowledge of the medical sciences to problems in the field of law. Part of that
responsibility includes documenting and understanding the nature of the
interaction between victims and their environment in relation to their death
(Turvey 2012). In some respects, this definition mirrors that of a victimologist,
in that they are described as individuals who objectively study the characteristics
of victims, the suffering the victims endure, their interactions with offenders, and
the public’s reactions to them (Karmen 2009). However, the specific goals dif¬
fer since a forensic scientist is concerned mainly with the identification of the
offender through the use of some victim characteristics, while victimologists
seek to explain the circumstances and reaction to the victim experience itself.
Dr. Paul Kirk was perhaps the first physical scientist (biochemist) to
advocate that accurate crime reconstruction and analysis of physical evidence
could yield a sound criminal profile. Although criminal profiling would not
fully emerge as a respected discipline until the early 1970s, as early as 1953,
Kirk recognized the intrinsic value of physical evidence (Kirk 1953). In 1974,
Kirk and Thornton wrote of how police could effectively use the knowledge
of physical characteristics to facilitate suspect identification:
Introduction 7

Physical evidence is often very useful to the police investigator before he has
a suspect in custody, or in fact, before he even has suspicion of a possible per¬
petrator. If, for instance, the laboratory can describe the clothes worn by the
criminal, give an idea of his stature, age, hair or similar information, the offi¬
cer’s search is correspondingly narrowed.

—Thornton and Kirk (1974)

Given Kirks work in the field of suspect identification and his posi¬
tion at UC Berkeley (the location where so much groundbreaking work in
criminal justice practices emerged), one cannot ignore that his ideas had a
great influence on the field and likely contributed to the emergence of the
FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) in the early 1970s (http://www.fbi.gov/
about-us/training/bsu).

Criminology
Generally speaking, criminology is defined as the interdisciplinary profession
built on the scientific study of crime and criminal behavior, including manifes¬
tations, causes, legal aspects and control (Schmalleger 2011,10). Criminology,
as the study of crime, focuses on the following areas:

• Environment conditions; social problems including poverty, drugs,

and overcrowding; personality and family history
• Motives of why crime is committed
• Criminal behavior, traits, characteristics, and patterns
• Different factors and theories related to crime, including sociologi¬
cal, biological, and psychological as well as psychiatry and emo¬
tional-based issues
• Nature of the crimes committed
• Research, including case studies, crime rates, and statistical data
• Incarceration of criminals and offenders, punishment, and rehabilitation
• Treatment programs that seek to eliminate or reduce recidivism

Leaders in Criminal Profiling

Some authors (Turvey 2012) argue that profiling practices existed even before
Christ (BC), while others suggest that criminal profiling in its modern inter¬
pretation emerged during the early 1800s with the fathers of the biological
school seeking explanations for criminal behavior from measurable char¬
acteristics of the offender. While the origins of modern profiling are up for
discussion, many accepted that in terms of using crime scenes to deduce
8 Police and Profiling in the United States

offender characteristics, Dr. Thomas Bond, the police surgeon who tried to
interpret the behavior pattern of the suspect in the Jack the Ripper cases
(1890s) using the autopsy he performed from the final victim, may represent
the first real profiler (Petherick 2005).
Although the contributions of Dr. James Brussel (see above) were signifi¬
cant in the recognition of the potential value of criminal profiling, efforts
to pursue this field were derailed as a result of social upheaval in the 1960s.
Criminal justice, as an industry, was burdened with learning how to func¬
tion effectively within a new social order, born of precedent-setting Supreme
Court cases decided under the Warren Court (e.g., Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v.
Arizona, Terry v. Ohio) and the rising crime rates in its city centers. This does
not mean to suggest that nothing was happening in the 1960s, but perhaps
the only notable event was the Boston Strangler case that yielded inaccurate
and unreliable profiles at first, until ultimately Dr. Brussel produced a credible
profile in 1964. By then, however, the murders had already stopped and the
suspect was killed while in prison, so the efficacy of Brussel’s work was left
unconfirmed.'
It was not until 1970 when FBI Agent Howard Teten began teaching
“applied criminology” at the FBI Academy that “criminal profiling” became
part of the daily vernacular in criminal justice. Teten’s goal was that the pro¬
filing techniques he had developed while at UCC-Berkeley would be used
in conjunction with accepted and proven investigative tools. By 1972, the
FBI had started the Behavioral Science Unit, whose main function was to
“develop and provide programs of training, research, and consultation in the
behavioral and social sciences for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
law enforcement community” (IBP, 2002).

Notable FBI Profilers

• John Douglas (p. 11)
• Robert Ressler (p. 11)
• Roy Hazelwood (p. 11)
• Roger Depue (p. 12)

Morgan (2000) credited John Douglas and fellow profiler Ron Hazelwood
as definitively proving the value of profiling when they solved the Atlanta
child murders in the 1980s. In that case, poor black children were being mur¬
dered in Atlanta; six had already been killed when Hazelwood joined the
investigation, and the number was up to 16 when Douglas joined a short
time later. Rumors abounded that white supremacists were responsible. But

' In 2001, new evidence emerged to suggest that Albert DeSalvo, the man suspected of
being the Boston Strangler, falsely confessed and in fact was not the suspect.
Introduction 9

Hazelwood noticed that his very presence (as a white male) cleared the streets
where the children had been abducted, despite the fact that he was accom¬
panied by three black officers. He knew instinctively that no white person
would have gone unnoticed approaching the children.
Douglas and Hazelwood pieced together a portrait of a black man in his
twenties who, among other traits, related easily with children and sought
media attention by leaving his victims in obvious sites. Tracking his patterns
enabled the profilers to predict where the next body might be left—the local
river bank. Indeed, after a brief interval of no activity, a body was tossed into
the river and Wayne Williams was stopped near the scene. A 23-year-old
black man, he was regularly involved with children at the auditions he ran in
a supposed attempt to put together the next “Jackson 5.” Though not arrested
at that time, Williams was placed under surveillance that night and eventu¬
ally enough evidence was gathered to take him into custody. Williams fit the
description created by the two behavioral scientists.
The profilers’ insights came in handy one more time in the Williams case.
Day after day, Williams appeared in court as a mild-mannered figure seem¬
ingly incapable of violent murder. But when he got on the stand, Williams
was submitted to a low-key yet relentless examination by the prosecution—a
style of questioning suggested by the profilers to push Williams to erupt, and
he did. Suddenly, the jury saw an angry, out-of-control defendant and they
convicted him.

FBI Behavioral Science Unit

Morgan (2000) noted that profiling arose from the efforts of the FBI’s
Behavioral Science Unit (popularized by the Hollywood movie Silence of the
Lambs). For decades, law enforcement has tried to get inside the mind of a
criminal in order to determine not only what makes a criminal commit his
or her crime, but also to identify unknown offenders once an act has already
occurred. When law enforcement agencies from around the country found
themselves stumped on an unsolved case, they would contact the FBI for assis¬
tance. These unsolved cases were then sent to the BSU, whose agents looked for
evidence that would point to the identity of the criminal.
The FBI BSU in Quantico, Virginia, was formed to analyze and system¬
atically apply the insights of psychiatric sciences to criminal behavior (profil¬
ing). The main purpose of this elite unit was to study the behavior of serial
killers and link patterns of behavior (profiling) to criminals and offenders at
large. The Behavioral Science Unit analyzes a crime scene for clues that will
lead them to a suspect in an unsolved homicide. This unit categorizes killers
into groups in which one suspected/expected outcome often would become
the single or most significant identifier for that individual.
10 Police and Profiling in the United States

Part of the BSU function is to provide cutting-edge training, high-impact

research, and consultation in the behavioral sciences in support of the FBI’s mis¬
sion and the work of the broader law enforcement and intelligence communities.
The BSU consists of supervisory special agents and veteran police officers with
advanced degrees in the behavioral science disciplines of psychology, criminol¬
ogy, sociology, and conflict resolution. The unit also includes criminologists,
clinical psychologists, research/crime analysts, and management analysts. Many
criminal justice experts say the profilers rely too heavily on statistical trends and
may even mislead investigators into chasing the wrong type of suspect.
FBI agents Robert Ressler and John E. Douglas were innovators of the
FBI Behavioral Unit who attempted to identify an offender using his or her
patterned criminal behavior. Ressler and Douglas interviewed 36 convicted
serial killers and developed profile trends and predictions as a result of these
interviews. Both agents believed that serial killers most likely did not know
their victim and had a history of childhood trauma. Criticisms have emerged
from these initial interviews (see Devery 2010) based upon reports that the
methodology was flawed, and any efforts based upon the testimony of con¬
victed offenders should be suspect given their narcissistic and sociopathic
tendencies, as well as their propensity for lying. Regardless, today the FBI’s
profiling activities still exist and are coordinated through the National Center
for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), established in 1985 as part of the
expansion of the BSU. While there appears to be some disagreement as to the
specific role that the BSU currently plays in the field of criminal profiling (it
is as yet unclear if there is pressure to engage in more empirical efforts), the
role of the NCAVC seems clear:

The primary mission of the NCAVC is to provide behaviorally-based, opera¬

tional support to federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies
involved in the investigation of unusual or repetitive violent crimes, commu¬
nicated threats, terrorism, and other matters of interest to law enforcement.
The NCAVC is comprised of four units: Behavioral Analysis Unit-1
(Counterterrorism/Threat Assessment), Behavioral Analysis Unit-2 (Crimes
Against Adults), Behavioral Analysis Unit-3 (Crimes Against Children), and
the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP).
NCAVC staff members conduct detailed analyses of crimes from behavioral,
forensic, and investigative perspectives. The goal of this analysis process is to
provide law enforcement agencies with a better understanding of the motiva¬
tions and behaviors of offenders. The analysis is a tool that provides investigators
with descriptive and behavioral characteristics of the most probable offender
and advice regarding investigative techniques to help identify the offender.
The NCAVC also conducts research into violent crime from a law enforce¬
ment perspective. NCAVC research is designed to gain insight into criminal
thought processes, motivations, and behaviors. Research findings are refined
into innovative, investigative techniques that improve law enforcement’s
Introduction 11

effectiveness against violent criminals and are shared with law enforcement
and other disciplines through publications, presentations, and training.

—“Serial Murder: Multidisciplinary Perspectives for Investigators,”

accessed from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/
serial-murder

John Douglas
John Douglas, one of the FBI’s first profilers, is quoted as saying that “if you
want to understand the artist (offender) then you must look at his paintings
(crime scene)” (Douglas and Olshaker 1995). He, with Ann Burgess (Burgess
et al. 1995), identified seven necessary steps of the profiling process. Criminal
personality profiling has been used by law enforcement, not necessarily to
identify a specific offender, but more so to narrow the focus of the investiga¬
tion by indicating certain unique characteristics of the offender. The seven
steps of the profiling process include the following:

1. Evaluation of the criminal him or herself

2. Comprehensive evaluation of the specifics of the crime scene(s)
3. Comprehensive analysis of the victim
4. Evaluation of the primary officer’s police reports
5. Evaluation of the medical examiner’s autopsy and protocol
6. Development of a profile with critical offender characteristics
7. Investigative suggestions predicted on construction of the profile
(FBI 1990)

Robert Ressler
Robert Ressler is often credited with the FBI’s first research program of vio¬
lent criminal offenders and dedicated his life to identifying, profiling, and
capturing the most notorious serial killers. As a supervisory special agent,
he conducted in-depth interviews with such infamous killers as Charles
Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and Jeffrey Dahmer.
He later became the first program manager of the FBI’s Violent Criminal
Apprehension Program (VICAP) in 1985.

Roy Hazelwood
Roy Hazelwood was an FBI supervisory agent with the Behavioral Science Unit
for 16 of his 22 years of service. He focused his career on analyzing sexual offenses
and the offenders who commit them. He created the typology often used to
describe rapists: (1) power assurance, (2) power assertive, (3) anger-retaliatory,
(4) anger-excitation, (5) opportunistic, and (6) gang that is still heavily relied
upon today. He is also known for his belief that pedophilia and sexual sadism
cannot be rehabilitated, although that is an issue of frequent debate.
12 Police and Profiling in the United States

Roger Depue
Roger Depue was the former chief of the Behavioral Science Unit and retired
after 21 years of service. He became the first administrator of the FBI’s
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime and is the founder of the
Academy Group, which specializes in profiling. He is best known for his
ideas regarding 'leakage,” which essentially holds that one s fantasies, either
consciously or subconsciously, ultimately leak out into one’s crimes.

References
Aldred, K. Tracking down a serial killer. RCMP Gazette, 69(1), 2007: 16-20.
Brussel, J. Casebook of a crime psychiatrist. New York: Bernard Geis Associates (dis¬
tributed by Grove Press), 1968.
Burgess, A., R. Ressler, and J.E. Douglas. Sexual homicides: Patterns and motives. New
York: The Free Press, 1995.
Devery, C. Criminal profiling and criminal investigation. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 26(4), 2010: 393-409.
Douglas, J.E., and M. Olshaker. Mind hunter: Inside the FBI’s elite serial crime unit.
New York: Pocket Books, 1995.
FBI. In the criminal investigative analysis: Sexual homicide. Quantico, VA: National
Center for the Analysis of Crime, 1990.
International Business Press (IBP). US FBI Academy Handbook, 2002.
Karmen, A.. Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. New York: Wadsworth
Publishing, 2009.
Kirk, P. Crime investigation: Physical evidence and the police laboratory. New York:
Interscience Publishers, 1953.
Kocsis, R. Applied criminal psychology: A guide to forensic behavioral science.
Springfield, IF: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 2009.
McGrary, G.O. The unknown darkness: Profiling the predators among us. New York:
Harpertorch, 2004.
Monihan, J., and University of Virginia School of Faw. Mental illness and violent
crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institutes of
Justice, 1996.
Morgan, M. Careers in criminology. Chicago: Fowell House, 2000.
Petherick, W. Criminal profile into the mind of the killer. Fondon: Hardie Grant Books,
2005.
Schmalleger, F. Criminal justice: A brief introduction, 9th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2011.
Thornton, J.I., and P. Kirk. Crime investigation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974.
Turvey, B. Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis, 4th ed.
Fondon, UK: Academic Press, 2002.
Welch, K., and R.D. Keppel. Historical origin of offender profiling. In R.D. Keppel
(Ed.), Offender Profiling (2nd ed.), Ohio: Thomson Custom Publishing, 2006.
Theoretical Foundations

There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made
in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times provid¬
ing against the infliction or suffering of harm.
—Epicurius

Chapter Goals

• To differentiate between the classical (free will) and determinist

(social forces) views on criminal behavior
• To explore the social structure vs. social learning vs. social process
theories
• To research combining different theories or perspectives in order to
achieve a more comprehensive explanation of crime

Key Words

Atavism
Atomism
Behavioral psychology
Cardinal traits
Central traits
Certainty
Classical conditioning
Hedonism
Hedonistic calculus
Offender-specific factors
Offense-specific factors
Operant conditioning
Psychoticism
Severity
Social contract theory
Supertraits
Swiftness

13
14 Police and Profiling in the United States

Techniques of neutralization
Temperament
Transitional zones
Transparency
Utilitarianism

Introduction

Traditional profiling texts focus mainly on the investigative techniques for

law enforcement and the classification of the serial offenses using personal
and environmental indicators. Few texts, if any, comprehensively address the
theoretical frameworks within which to analyze and consider the available
data, in large measure because the range and possibility of theoretical explora¬
tions is exponentially overwhelming. Theoretical explanations can be explored
as either unit analysis or meta-analysis. Unit analysis is used to describe the
development of a theoretical explanation from one perspective, whereas meta¬
analysis describes the union of multiple theories in an attempt to understand
behavior. Since criminal profiling involves several different input perspectives,
including individual indicators, hard and soft evidence, and environmental
factors, profiling efforts must involve meta-theoretical approaches.
This chapter introduces traditional theories from both the classical
school and the positivist school. Future chapters will blend this knowledge
with modern investigative techniques to empower the reader with the oppor¬
tunity to develop a solid retrospective profile of actions based upon existing
evidence (inductive), while also providing a guide for prospective profiles
should the offenses begin to develop a pattern (deductive).
Theory attempts to provide a roadmap for understanding behavior. In
recent years, it has become the cornerstone of criminological policy as the
discipline itself seeks answers that will guide policy, intervention, and prac¬
tice. For example, theoretical assumptions regarding the increasing depravity
of juvenile action (Wilson and Petersilia 1995) presented against a backdrop
of Marvin Wolfgang’s (Wolfgang et al. 1972) findings regarding career crimi¬
nals have guided penal actions for the past 20 years—arguably resulting in
increased punitive approaches to crime control, overcrowding in the prison
system, and a correctional industry that cannot be easily dismantled.
While as an industry criminal justice has always depended upon other
disciplines to supplement its own findings, viewing circumstances through
the lens of criminology offers unique and valuable insights. Within the pur¬
view of criminal profiling, professionals must be willing to explore the con¬
tributions from a multitude of disciplines, and from there gain insight into
certain behaviors and supports for the resultant assumptions. Beyond the
exploration of measurable factors (such as peer involvement and chemical
Theoretical Foundations 15

imbalance), which serve to support deductive analysis, this section attempts

to unite the strength of deduction with the more elusive element of inductive
reasoning. In the context of this examination, positivist approaches (psychol¬
ogy, sociology, biology) provide the deductive foundation, while the classical
school—based mainly upon the concepts of free will and deterrence—unite
those ideas with inductive reasoning. It is only through a union of those two
approaches that profilers can ever hope to make accurate and scientifically
grounded assumptions about criminal behavior.

Historical Evolution

Ancient Era

Epicurus (341-270 BC) was a Greek philosopher who taught of the union between
atomism and rational hedonism. As an atomistic materialist, he believed only in
those beings or entities that were composed of atoms; anything else, such as a
conscience or deity, did not exist because it did not have matter (http://atheisme.
free.fr/Atheisme/Materialism_l.htm). Rational hedonism, as a belief, holds that
the needs and desires of the individual are crucial to being happy, and further
that happiness is paramount. Epicurus preached that moderation of desires and
cultivation of friendships is the key to one’s true happiness.
Epicurius penned several essays from which 40 quotes have been taken
to construct his “Principal Doctrines.” In essence, those quotes formulate
the basis of Epicurean ethics, but also Principal Doctrines 31-35 specifically
foretell the relationship dynamic between a populace and its government
in terms of exercising authority and issuing punishment. In Doctrine 31,
Epicurius stated, “Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent
one man from harming or being harmed by another” (http://www.epicurus.
net/en/principal.html/Doctrines). Herein, one sees the predecessor of the
concept of a “contract” implying a mutually beneficial agreement that pres¬
ents advantages to both participants.
And although Epicurius was writing before the Enlightenment Age,
it is clear from Doctrine 34—“Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in
consequence of the fear which is associated with the apprehension of being
discovered by those appointed to punish such actions”—that he intuitively
understood that rules (and sanctions) are necessary to be able to live peace¬
ably in large groups. However, it cannot be ignored that sometimes indi¬
viduals may choose not to follow the rules, and what then? How is society
expected to manage those who place others at risk by their behavior(s)? It is
those individuals that citizens are most concerned with as they represent the
greatest threat to a safe and ordered existence.
16 Police and Profiling in the United States

Doctrine 32 states, “Those animals which are incapable of making bind¬

ing agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without
either justice or injustice.” While it does not dictate that someone must
accept a “binding agreement,” it does suggests that if one seeks mental peace
(Jaskaw 2009), it is more likely to be achieved by connecting one’s personal
needs with the needs of others.
It was not until the writings of Beccaria and Bentham that such con¬
cepts were presented in the context of a mutual relationship between the
citizen and the government with specific application to justice. Generally, it
is accepted that one’s relationship with his or her government is voluntary,
rather than obligatory; but in the case of social order, it is also assumed that
compliance with the governmental structure will ensure one’s safety.
Epicureans had their moments of relative popularity when they were
introduced to the Latin-speaking world, but for the most part it was the
religious reaction against philosophy that ultimately came to prevail in the
Roman Empire and paved the way for the suppression of philosophy, art, and
education that prevailed in the Early Medieval Age.

Medieval Age (476-1500)

The Medieval Age represented a 1000-year time span that is broken into
three distinct periods: The Early Middle Ages, the Middle Ages, and High
Middle Ages. The early part of this period has been characterized by some
as a “dark age” for science and culture. With the fall of Rome in 476 AD,
most educational institutions ceased to function, and by the Early Middle
Ages, the vast majority of the population was uneducated (Medievality.
com, 2008). Language employed to describe this time period (i.e., the Dark
Ages) reinforces the idea of an uncivilized community, lacking in culture
and dependent upon brutal and torturous forms of punishment. Language
describing the following era (i.e., the Renaissance, Enlightenment) supports
the assumption that no cultural development took place during the medi¬
eval period.
Since this was a time when the law of the church was equal to the law
of the government—more out of necessity than design—it is logical that
the Church would receive much of the blame for the alleged deficiencies
in medieval intellectual life. However, Hannam (2011) asserts that much of
the confusion centers on what role the Church actually played in the daily
management of society. Since the Christian Church was the only central¬
ized institution to survive the fall of the Roman Empire (6th century) mostly
intact, bishops who still studied and knew how to write properly became
more important in the new society and as a result, the “privilege of being
a student or teacher at a university was that of being also treated as a cler¬
gyman under law,” which translated to a high level of immunity to secular
Theoretical Foundations 17

justice and the opportunity to be tried, not in secular courts, but instead by
the most gentler ecclesiastical courts (Hannam, 2007).
While it may be true that the church favored writing and teaching over sci¬
entific discovery—especially since it did not want any challenges to its divine
power—it would appear that charges of the abandonment of intellectual life
are unfounded. Folklore, art, medicine, science, alchemy, and mathematics are
just some of the disciplines that experienced great growth and improvement
during the 1000-year span of the Medieval Age. This led to a very powerful
church that unfortunately was not as devoted to religion as it was to politics.
The demise of the Medieval period came about as a result of the conver¬
gence of several different factors: the Hundred Years War, the Black Death,
the division within the Catholic church, and the fall of Constantinople to
the Turks. But the Renaissance period that emerged from the remnants of
the Medieval Age heralded some of the most influential philosophers for
modern society.

Renaissance Period (14th-16/17th Century)

While there is considerable debate as to when the end of the Renaissance period
(16th vs. 17th century) actually occurred and what the actual contributions
of the period were to society, there is little debate that the Renaissance period
served as a valuable bridge between the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment
era. The renewed interest (and support) in science and art that emerged dur¬
ing the Renaissance period and swept across Europe provided the founda¬
tion for the Enlightenment Age. The marriage of literacy, art, and knowledge
created a perfect breeding ground from which Enlightenment philosophers
would grow (Manchester 1992).
In 1689, John Locke penned the Second Treatise of Government, wherein
he advocated that government derived its “just powers from the consent [i.e.,
delegation] of the governed.” In this manner, the element of voluntariness
is derived and the role of government serves as a defense against those who
wish to “injure and enslave” the citizens. While it is not specifically stated by
Locke, the role of “defender” implied that the government was trusted to act
as an unbiased and impartial “enforcer” and, as such, was infused with the
right to punish.

Enlightenment Period (18th Century)

The roots of classicalism began with Renaissance writers who advocated
utilitarianism, which is encouraging behaviors that are useful, purposeful,
and rational. Within this view, laws are written in such a way that people
will want to obey them. This contributed to the development of social con¬
tract theory. The concept of social contract explores the relationship between
18 Police and Profiling in the United States

individuals and their governments and, more specifically, why rational indi¬
viduals voluntarily relinquish natural freedoms in order to obtain the ben¬
efits of political and social order.
It was during the Enlightenment period when philosophers were not only
trying to insert science into everyday language but, more importantly, were
trying to get the citizenry to behave themselves that philosophers such as
Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham emerged as the fathers of classicalism.

Classicalism

That all men are absolutely free to do or not to do; that they voluntarily elect
and deliberately do wickedness....

—Brockaway (1995)

Marchese de Beccaria
Marchese de Beccaria, hereafter Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), believed peo¬
ple made decisions of their own free will. He felt that neither environmental
nor biological factors influence a person’s decisions with regard to crime,
but rather that human beings seek pleasure and wish to avoid pain. He pro¬
posed that a person’s perspective is often based on three fundamental out¬
looks in life:

1. Each person makes specific choices according to the free will he or

she possesses.
2. Each person looks out for his or her own personal satisfaction and
fulfillment with his or her own interest in mind.
3. Each person’s actions are predictable, foreseeable, and controllable;
and therefore, human behavior can be controlled by punishment or
threat from criminal justice.

Beccaria developed his ideas regarding punishment in his book On

Crimes and Punishment (Young 1985), which essentially represents a collec¬
tion of essays that clearly outline the principles he believed would effectively
reduce or prevent crime. They include ideas such as ensuring that the laws
are clear and simple (transparency), that individuals should be certain of the
outcome of a crime (certainty), that punishment should immediately follow
the offense (swiftness), and that the degree of punishment should be propor¬
tional to the harm the action produced (severity). He believed that compli¬
ance with each of these core concepts would ensure successful deterrence on
the part of the governed.
Theoretical Foundations 19

Beccaria agreed that society needed a criminal justice system, and that
the government had a right to implement laws and impose punishment for
crimes that are committed, in as much as those actions threaten social order
and violate the social contract. He wrote extensively on the need for the
laws to be public,* rational, and logical in terms of encouraging the popu¬
lace to understand them and therefore follow them. He believed strongly
that the laws must be clear and known to everyone. Indeed, he believed that
the greater number of people who knew and understood the law, the fewer
crimes would be committed. In essence, the crux of Beccaria’s position is
the role that punishment plays in the public perception of fairness. Beccaria
believed that the punishment should fit (the severity of) the crime, and that
in order to be effective it must be prompt. He also believed that it should be
rational—not cruel and undiscerning.
It was the issue of punishment—How much? How often? How severe?—
that occupied much of the Enlightenment philosophers’ time. In the end,
while Cesare Beccaria penned the essence of the workable parameters of pun¬
ishment, it was Jeremy Bentham who applied the element of rationalism to
the developing theory. Bentham (1907) believed that human beings engaged
in a process of hedonistic calculus wherein the perceived pleasure of a partic¬
ular action is balanced (mentally) against the potential of pain (punishment).
The final result is that the classical school of criminality highlights a per¬
son’s right to choose his or her own destiny. A person has free will, and he or
she will promote his or her own self-interest. The perception is that societies
and cultures are molded by people according to similarities and relationships
that seem acceptable to the majority, and therefore crime is seen as an outcome
of free choice. If an individual does weigh potential benefits against the poten¬
tial costs of committing a crime and certain, severe, and prompt punishment
is applied, then punishment would theoretically be successful in preventing
criminals from offending on the basis of both specific and general deterrence.
The modern challenge with classicalism is that for many criminals, pun¬
ishment is not a successful deterrent. In fact, in many cases, incarceration is
seen as the cost of doing business. Just as someone who plays the stock mar¬
ket is aware of the risk of losing money, so too is an individual who commits
crime aware of the risk of incarceration. Unfortunately, short-term benefits
of committing a crime outweigh the negative factors of short-term incar¬
ceration. Additionally, as opposed to the perceived social crucifixion of arrest
and conviction, many criminals enjoy the elevation of their status on the
streets as being seen by others as a tough, incarcerated thug.

' Conway (2000) noted that laws should be published so that the public knows what the
acceptable parameters of behavior are—especially if the purpose of law is to protect and
support all communities.
20 Police and Profiling in the United States

If punishment is going to act as a successful deterrent, society must main¬

tain consistency in sentencing criminals for specific acts. Classical philoso¬
phy does not allow alterations of punishment for people who are intoxicated
or mentally impaired. Neoclassical theory, however, does attempt to correct
some of the shortcomings of the classical theory by taking into account indi¬
vidual differences in determining punishment.

Neoclassicalism

Neoclassical criminologists have offered a “revision” to the original theory.

They agree that human beings possess free will, especially in regards to
crime, and that criminal offenders rationalize their behavior based upon a
hedonistic calculus; however, they concede that sometimes, extenuating cir¬
cumstances might inhibit a person’s free will. They believe that a person’s free
will may be compromised through coercion, mental illness, or age.

Rational Choice Theory

Some more modern theorists have posited that that a decision to commit a
crime is a personal decision based on information available at the time the
decision is being made. Traditional rational choice theorists would argue
then that criminal action is either an offense-specific factor or an offender-
specific factor, or a combination of both. Routine activities theory (Cohen
and Felson 1979) suggests that crime will occur when three separate elements
converge in time and space (motivated offender, suitable target, and lack of
a capable guardian). The actual decision whether to commit the act within
the framework of routine activities theory (RAT) represents a combination
of the offense-specific and offender-specific factors. Alternatively, situational
choice theory (Cornish and Clarke 1987) looks to develop a greater under¬
standing of crime through a careful analysis of physical, structural, and
social environments conducive to criminal events. In this way, the focus is
on offense-specific factors that ultimately lead to crime events.
Analysis of these conceptual foundations applies to the field of criminal
profiling in that understanding fundamental differences between offense-
specific factors speaks to one’s likelihood of getting caught given the situ¬
ational considerations of the action, while offender-specific factors address
whether or not one has the ability (mental or physical) to commit the act, as
well as to what degree that knowledge can be used to reconstruct the mental
calculus that an offender employs when deciding to commit a criminal act.
An alternative approach to classical theory is positivist determinism,
which in essence argues that one’s behavior is determined by forces outside
one’s control, and those forces can be explained from different disciplines
Theoretical Foundations 21

within the sciences, including biology, psychology, and sociology. Those

issues are explored below to provide further guidance on what causes certain
behaviors.

Positivism

The positivist approach suggests that crime and an offender’s behavior should
be considered as the result of multiple conditions or factors to which an indi¬
vidual may be exposed, but over which he or she has no control. Some of these
conditions may include social, psychological, environmental, and biological
factors that impact a decision to commit a criminal act. Traditionally, stud¬
ies have focused on discovering a causal relationship between variables in an
attempt to explain crime rates. In essence, finding a cause for criminal behav¬
ior is the key to constructing an appropriate intervention (preventive) or treat¬
ment (rehabilitative) that would essentially reduce or eliminate criminality.
Many researchers denounce the classical assumption that all persons are
created equal and do not believe that the amendments offered by the neoclas¬
sical approach come close to correcting the inherent flaws in the philoso¬
phy. Positivists believe essentially that everyone is born different (biology),
and that those inherent differences dictate how social realities are perceived.
Some of the core ideas inherent in accepting individual differences include
the beliefs that (1) behavior is controlled by social forces (such as poverty,
poor education, disorganized neighborhoods), (2) not all humans have an
equal ability to learn, (3) all behavior is learned, and (4) each person has a
unique potential for learning. Positivists believe that their approach offers
the best opportunity for either prevention or rehabilitation program develop¬
ment and, therefore, crime reduction.
All of these causes have been and continue to be researched in search of
the causes of crime. Positive theorists’ research has historically focused on
biological, psychological, and sociological causes of crime, but more recently,
theorists have begun to examine multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary
causes (e.g., neurobiological, psychosocial, sociobiological).

Determinism

Determinism is a philosophy that all human choices, actions, and occur¬

rences are entirely determined or regulated by previously existing conditions.
According to Hoefer (2010), the determinism principle is a philosophical
doctrine that states that nature follows exact laws; therefore, all events,
whether physical or mental, have a cause. This view, if fully adopted, implies
that events that seem to occur by chance would be fully understood if more
22 Police and Profiling in the United States

was known about them, and that apparently free thoughts and choices are
explainable and, in principle, predictable in terms of neuroscience.

Criminological Theory

Criminological theory is the explanation of the behavior of criminal offend¬

ers, as well as the behavior of police, attorneys, prosecutors, judges, correc¬
tional personnel, victims, and other actors in the criminal justice process. It
helps us understand criminal behavior and the basis of policies proposed and
implemented to prevent and control crime. Every criminal justice profes¬
sional contributes in some way to the overall construction of criminological
theory, but as of late, such theories are often examined from the perspective
of their original discipline (i.e., psychology, sociology, biology, neurology,
etc.). This text attempts to expand the application of criminological inquiry
by incorporating the valuable work that has been achieved in other disci¬
plines and uniting those findings within the context of criminal identifica¬
tion and accepted criminological practices.

Biological Theories
The basic premise for biological positivists is that crime is caused by some
biological inferiority, identified by some physical or genetic characteristic
that distinguishes criminals from noncriminals. The policy implications of
biological theories have traditionally focused on isolation, sterilization, or
execution, but more modern (and humane) perspectives explore treatment
or rehabilitation options such as brain surgery, chemical (pharmacological)
treatment, or improved diet.
In general, very few studies on criminal behavior actually examine the
biological parameters and limitations of criminals. Researchers tend to focus
on a criminal’s past history, on psychological and behavioral indications
more than biological factors. Jones (2005) wrote that “criminal behavior
has always been a focus for psychologists due to the age-old debate between
nature and nurture,” essentially questioning whether an individual’s genetic
makeup makes him or her a criminal, or is it the environment in which he or
she is raised that determines the outcome?
Contemporary research in this area has led to the conclusion that both
genes and environment play a role in the criminality of an individual (Beaver
and Walsh 2010). The research has stated that it is more often an interaction
between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior, since
simply having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior is insufficient to
determine the actions of an individual.
Theoretical Foundations 23

Genetics
Evidence has been generated from a number of twin, family, and adoption
studies, as well as laboratory experiments. Twin studies, both fraternal (dizy¬
gotic, DZ) and identical (monozygotic, MZ) twins, have been conducted and
concordance rates* calculated in terms of criminal activity. In a meta-analy-
sis spanning four decades, DiLalla and Gottesman (1990) reported that the
average concordance rate was 22% for fraternal twins and 51% for identical
twins, with respect to violent crime. This relationship in concordance rates
(MZ greater than DZ) has consistently been replicated in studies of twin
criminality, despite differences in sample sizes, methodology, gender, and age
(Raine 1993). DiLalla and Gottesman (1991) then challenged the field to con¬
sider that since the data suggest that antisocial parents genetically transmit
antisocial tendencies to their children, any individual differences in environ¬
mental experiences might actually be the result of genetic propensities. These
findings added to earlier twin studies that reported the influence of heredity
to be higher for property crime (0.60) than it was for violent crime (Wilson
and Herrnstein 1985), and that juvenile crime tended to be influenced more
by social and peer factors than by genetics (Cloninger and Gottesman 1987).
Another way to analyze the issue of genetics is through adoption studies
wherein children were raised by nonbiologicah parents. Mednick et al. (1984)
found that adopted children’s propensity for crime was higher if a biological
parent was criminal than it was if (1) the adoptive parent was criminal or (2)
both adoptive and biological parents were criminal. It is important to note,
however, that these findings were with respect to property crimes, not violent
crimes. Later studies (Cadoret et al. 1985,1987) did report finding heritability
for adult antisocial behavior, and for antisocial personality disorder (respec¬
tively), but those findings have been criticized on the basis of methodology
and sample size. Still, while these findings do not completely support the role
of genetics in criminality, they do add a dimension to the overall analysis of
the role of biological determinism in predicting future criminality.

Physical Characteristics and Atavism

Cesar Lombroso, an Italian criminologist also known as the father of mod¬
ern criminology, tried to identify criminals through biological and virtu¬
ally unchangeable characteristics that would have existed at birth. Lombroso
used his training in physiology and psychology to profess that a criminal’s
immoral behavior was attributed to certain physical characteristics that he
possessed, especially features of lower primates or early man (atavism). Some
physical attributes or deformities that Lombroso labeled as atavistic included

Concordance rate refers to the percent of pairs of twins who share the same behavior.
f References to the adoptive parents suggest that there was no biological relationship
between the adoptee and the adoptive family.
24 Police and Profiling in the United States

• Pointy fingers
• Sizable jaw
• Elevated cheek bones
• Sloping or pitched shoulders
• Creases or wrinkles across the forehead
• Broad and distinctive nose
• Long arms
• Receding or diminishing hairline

At the time, Lombroso was viewed as being ahead of his time. His ata¬
vistic theory ultimately fell out of favor with positivists, not only because
biological determinism effectively removes liability on the part of the indi¬
vidual doing the action, but also because so many theories are too difficult or
too invasive to study ethically. Still, Lombroso’s initial work inspired many
to seek that one factor, beyond one’s control, that compels criminals to do
what they do.
Charles Goring was a British scientist who found Lombroso’s theory fas¬
cinating but flawed, given that Lombroso studied only inmate populations
in his search for causality. Building upon Lombroso’s ideas, Goring sought
to identify a correlation between certain body types/features and known
offenders. Goring proved that there was no substantial difference between
criminals and noncriminals in terms of physical characteristics and crimi¬
nal propensity. Goring ultimately claimed that Lombroso’s doctrines were
“fundamentally unsound” on the basis that Lombroso did not have a control
group to which he could compare his inmate population.
During the early 20th century, Ernst Kretschmer studied the relation¬
ship between physical characteristics and psychological disorders, and used
that research to suggest the existence of a constitutional body type that was
directly related to personality (Gil et al. 2002). William Sheldon, expanding
upon the work of Kretschmer, also developed a body type classification sys¬
tem. He corrected what he felt was a weakness in Kretschmer’s model (study¬
ing too large an age group) and instead limited the sample to 200 males, ages
15 and 21. Lrom there, he classified individuals as either endomorph (soft and
round), mesomorph (athletic and muscular), or ectomorph (thin and frag¬
ile). His findings later found support from the Gluecks in their 1950 seminal
work on juvenile delinquency.

Psychological Theories
Historically speaking, as society struggles to understand the most heinous of
crimes, it often settles on an explanation rooted in mental defect or disease.
Most psychological explanations for criminal behavior have been grouped
into categories based upon what can be studied or observed. They generally
Theoretical Foundations 25

fall within the following subdisciplines: psychoanalysis, behaviorism, mod¬

eling, personality trait theory, and mental disease or defect.

Psychoanalysis
According to the American Psychoanalytic Association (2012), psychoanaly¬
sis has a double identity. On the one hand, it is a comprehensive theory about
human nature, motivation, behavior, development, and experience; on the
other, it is a method of treatment for psychological problems and difficulties.
For the purposes of this text, the authors will focus on the role of psycho¬
analysis as a general theory of individual human behavior and experience.
Sigmund Freud is widely accepted as the first psychoanalyst, and although
his ideas have enjoyed a variable level of acceptance in the field, they continue
to be valuable in terms of offering insights into human behavior. Perhaps the
most well-known elements of Freud’s theory include the following:

Id: On the basis of the pleasure principle, the id wants whatever feels
good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation.
Ego: The ego is based on the reality principle. It understands that other
people have needs and desires and that sometimes being impulsive
or selfish can hurt in the long run. The ego’s job is to meet the needs
of the id, while taking into consideration the reality of the situation.
Superego: The superego is the moral part of humans and develops due
to the moral and ethical restraints placed on individuals by their
caregivers. Many equate the superego with the conscience as it dic¬
tates beliefs of right and wrong.

Freud’s theory fell out of favor in the 1980s due to complaints that it
lacked empirical support and, therefore, should not exist as a theory, but
rather as a tool. Additionally, other disciplines were being explored in terms
of how behaviors are shaped (i.e., biosocial, biochemical, etc.). However, con¬
temporary theories have revived Freud’s approach because the union of bio¬
logical and psychological findings has failed to provide a grand theory for
criminal behaviors. More significantly, recent work in the field of chemical
mapping of the brain has appeared to lend support to maturational develop¬
ment as suggested by Freud almost 80 years ago (Schmalleger 2011).

Behaviorism
Behaviorism, also known as behavioral psychology, is a theory of learning
based upon the idea that all behaviors are acquired through some form of
conditioning. Conditioning typically occurs through interaction with one’s
environment and is predominantly viewed as a product of stimulus/reward
(classical) or reward/punishment (operant). Behaviorists tend to believe that
26 Police and Profiling in the United States

a benefit to their perspective is that behavior can be studied in a systematic

and observable manner without invasive medical procedures.

Classical Conditioning
Classical conditioning was applied to humans by Watson and Rayner (1920),
but the actual discovery of conditioning occurred by accident. In the early
1900s, Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist and psychologist, identified that a
naturally occurring stimulus creates a response; then, when paired with a neu¬
tral stimulus, it can achieve the same outcome, thereby creating a new behav¬
ior. For example, in Pavlov’s experiment, he used dogs (salivating) and a bell
(neutral stimulus) to demonstrate unconditioned responses. Whenever he gave
food to his dogs, he also rang a bell. After a number of repeats of this procedure,
he tried the bell on its own. Just the bell alone caused an increase in salivation.
Therefore, the dog had learned that there was an association between
the bell and the food, and a new behavior had been learned. The salivating
is now called a conditioned response, and the previously neutral stimulus
(the bell) is called a conditioned stimulus. The impact of Pavlov’s work on
modern behavior studies lies in the understanding that some behaviors are
conditioned, implying of course that they can be changed, or unconditioned.

Operant Conditioning
Operant conditioning (sometimes referred to as instrumental conditioning)
is a method of learning that occurs through the use of rewards and punish¬
ments for certain behaviors. Through operant conditioning an association is
made between a behavior and a consequence for that behavior, which if posi¬
tive, is likely to result in the repeating of the desired behavior.
The best-known theorist in operant conditioning is B. F. Skinner (1904-
1990). He constructed a box (later called the Skinner box) wherein an animal
could operate a lever that if done correctly, would yield food or water (posi¬
tive reinforcement). The result, of course, was that the subject would continue
to do the desired action (pushing the lever) as long as the positive reinforce¬
ment occurred. However, if no more food was dispensed at the pushing of
the bar, then the action would become extinct. In theory then, administer¬
ing negative reinforcement for certain actions (e.g., an electrical shock for
unfavorable choices) would seem to achieve the termination of undesirable
behaviors. However, Pavlov did not advocate the use of negative reinforce¬
ment, as he did not believe it worked as well as positive reinforcement for
desirable behaviors (Skinner 1976).
The challenge with using a reward-punishment scenario is that the degree
of pleasure and pain experienced by the individual doing the learning is a sub¬
jective exercise; that is, from what one may find pleasure, another may derive
pain, which dictates a tailored approach to achieving the desired result.
Theoretical Foundations 27

Cognitive
Cognitive psychology is the branch of psychology that studies mental pro¬
cesses, including how people think, perceive, remember, and learn. It
emerged during the early 1950s as part of the cognitive revolution to restore
scientific respectability to the analysis of how people acquire, process, and
store information.
Gabriel Tarde (1843-1904), a French social theorist from the 1800s, pro¬
posed that biological elements had no effect on behavior, and that the pri¬
mary factor in behavior acquisition was modeling. He wrote of three “laws”
of behavior acquisition:

• Individuals in close intimate contact with one another tend to imi-

, tate each other’s behavior.
» Imitation moves from the top down.
• New acts and behaviors tend to either reinforce or replace old ones.

Whereas Tarde focused on all behaviors, Albert Bandura expanded

Tarde’s ideas by proposing a comprehensive modeling theory of aggression.
In sum, Bandura (1973) argued that one’s “repertoire of aggressive behav¬
ior must be learned... [as people] are not born with them.” He argued that
aggression can be provoked, as in the case of assault, or that it can be rein¬
forcing by itself, as in the case of standing up for oneself to deflect future
attacks (e.g., bullying). The overall impact of modeling has been criticized
in that it fails to explain learned behaviors independently from other social
learning theories. However, it remains a factor in modern applications under
the heading of cognitive social learning theory that represents an effort to
correct the weaknesses of the original theory.

Personality Trait Theory

In psychology, trait theory studies human personality. Trait theorists are pri¬
marily interested in the measurement of traits, defined as habitual patterns of
behavior, thought, and emotion. According to this perspective, traits are rela¬
tively stable over time, differ across individuals (e.g., some people are outgo¬
ing, whereas others are shy), and influence behavior. The core components of
trait theory are perception, intelligence, and personality. Reasoning and logic
determine an individual’s level of mental ability to make decisions, process
information, form ideas, solve problems, as well as dictate perceptions of the
world around him or her and his or her interaction with it.
Unlike many other theories of personality, the trait approach is focused
on differences between individuals. The combination and interaction of var¬
ious traits forms a personality that becomes unique to each individual. Trait
28 Police and Profiling in the United States

theory is focused on identifying and measuring these individual personality

characteristics.
Gordon Allport was an early pioneer in the study of traits, which he
sometimes referred to as dispositions. In his approach, central traits are gen¬
eral characteristics found to some degree in every person (e.g., honesty), sec¬
ondary traits are characteristics that are seen in only certain circumstances
(e.g., individual likes and dislikes), and cardinal traits are those that domi¬
nate and shape a person’s behavior.
Having defined the individual types of traits, Allport hypothesized
about the role of internal (genotypes) and external (phenotypes) forces that
influence an individual’s behavior. He believed that one’s interaction with
these forces generated the behavioral decisions and the development of indi¬
vidual personality traits. Allport was one of the first researchers to draw a
distinction between motive and drive. He suggested that a drive formed as
a reaction to a motive may outgrow the motive as a reason. The drive then
is autonomous and distinct from the motive. Many obsessive, compulsive
acts and thoughts are believed to be manifestations of functional autonomy,
wherein the drive becomes the end in itself.
Building upon Allport’s work, Raymond Cattell used a statistical tech¬
nique known as factor analysis to identify closely related terms, and reduced
the original list of 171 personality traits (Allport and Allport 1921) to just
16 key personality traits. He used these 16 traits to develop one of the most
widely used personality assessments, known as the 16 Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16PF), which consists of 15 temperamental or dynamic fac¬
tors and one general intelligence factor (Cattell 1956).
Hans Eysenck (1947), a German-British research psychologist, consid¬
ered personality differences as growing out of one’s genetic inheritance. As
such, he was primarily interested in what is usually called temperament. He
concluded that all human traits can be broken down into two distinct catego¬
ries, and he further labeled those categories as supertraits:

• Extroversion vs. introversion: Introversion involves directing atten¬

tion on inner experiences (quiet and reserved), while extroversion
relates to focusing attention outward on other people and the envi¬
ronment (sociable and outgoing).
• Neuroticism vs. stability: Neuroticism refers to an individual’s ten¬
dency to become upset or emotional, while stability refers to the ten¬
dency to remain emotionally constant.

According to his theory, everyone exhibits specific responses to both

internal and external stimuli. These specific responses will vary according
to the intensity of the stimuli, the situation, state of mind, and many other
factors. At some point, however, one will begin to see trends in responses.
Theoretical Foundations 29

For example, a person who is very concerned with how he or she is viewed
by other people might shy away from a stranger in most specific situations.
Later, after studying individuals suffering from mental illness, Eysenck
(Eysenck and Eysenck 1976) added a personality dimension he called psy-
choticism to his supertrait categories. Individuals who are high on this trait
tend to have difficulty dealing with reality and may be antisocial, hostile,
nonempathetic, and manipulative.
While most agree that people can be described based upon their person¬
ality traits, theorists continue to debate the number of basic traits that make
up human personality. While trait theory has objectivity that some person¬
ality theories lack (such as Freud’s psychoanalytic theory), it also has weak¬
nesses. Some of the most common criticisms of trait theory center on the fact
that traits are often poor predictors of behavior. While an individual may
score high on assessments of a specific trait, he or she may not always behave
that way in every situation. Another problem is that trait theories do not
address how or why individual differences in personality develop or emerge.

Personality Defects It has been suggested that maybe criminals are just
not nice people. The general approach is to label individuals who demon¬
strate aggressively antisocial behavior or are lacking in empathy as either
psychopathic or sociopathic. Although the general public tends to view these
labels as interchangeable, the medical industry views psychopaths as individ¬
uals who are suffering from a defect or aberration within the person, whereas
a sociopath is the product of destructive home environment.
Medically speaking, psychopaths are manipulative and deceitful, seem
to lack any social conscience, and show little remorse when caught. As a
result, while they tend to commit only a small percentage of all crime, they
represent a disproportionate amount of violent crime, and so it behooves law
enforcement to identify and locate these offenders quickly.

Sociological Theories
Sociological theories propose that crime is caused by either structural ele¬
ments (that work to limit or block opportunities to achieve social aspirations)
in society or learned behaviors (often imposed by social interaction). Some
social theorists have, for many years, presented contrasting views about how
society is governed and who makes the laws, which have in essence laid the
foundation for social conflict theories.
To the extent that environment cannot be removed from any analysis
of criminal behavior, we will present below a brief exploration of the early
social structure theories in criminal justice, beginning with the Chicago
School, progressing through Shaw and McKay’s concentric zone theory,
and ending with Merton’s strain theory because these provide guidance and
30 Police and Profiling in the United States

understanding for contemporary approaches as well as for the direction rec¬

ommended by these authors.

Social Structure Theories

Several factors emerged during the early 19th century due to the sudden
increase of immigrant populations that dictated that researchers focus on the
community as a criminal determinant. Social conflicts emerged as a result
of the sudden influx of immigrants who not only were unfamiliar with their
surroundings, but for the most part were not in a culturally welcoming or
enlightened environment. Additionally, the next generation was becoming
“Americanized” faster than their elders, and the resulting burden of poverty,
gangs, and homelessness after 1920 led to a new breed of criminality. Several
new approaches/theories emerged in response to this time of social upheaval,
which included a focus on economic structure, social structure, social disor¬
ganization, strain, and cultural deviance.

Chicago School of Ecology Some of the first theorists in this field were
Robert Park and Ernest Burgess, two sociologists who studied at the
University of Chicago. During the early 1920s, the population of Chicago
doubled, offering a valuable opportunity for these researchers to study how
crime could be explained through one’s economic and social relationship
with society. Park and Burgess developed the Chicago School, which ulti¬
mately constructed a framework wherein a subject was studied in the context
of his/her social environment, making it more possible to study individual
groups and gain insights into population characteristics (Park et al. 1925).
Ultimately, the Chicago School became synonymous with social ecology that
in essence focused on one’s interaction with one’s environment.

Shaw and McKay Concentric Zone Theory Other Chicago School ecolo¬
gists, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942), examined juvenile delinquency
from the perspective of concentric zones. They constructed a series of five
circles that had stable and significant differences in crime rates. The highest
rates of crime were in zones I and II, the transitional zones. In essence, they
blamed criminality on the neighborhood first—countering the prevailing
belief of the time that criminality resulted from biological causes. Shaw and
McKay identified not only that there was a “tendency for criminal activity to
be associated with urban transition zones, which, because of the turmoil or
social disorganization that characterized them, were typified by lower prop¬
erty values, impoverished lifestyles, and a general lack of privacy,” but also
that “traditions of delinquency were transmitted through successive genera¬
tions of the same zone in the same way that language, roles and attitudes
were communicated” (174).
As they acquire skills and wealth, individuals will move outside of the
inner city, so there tends to be rapid movement of people in and out of the
Theoretical Foundations 31

transitional zone. As one moves farther and farther away from zone I, the
quality of life and opportunities improve. The value of this study to this text
is that it suggests that the neighborhood or environment of the crime must
be considered in terms of where it falls along the social continuum from poor
to affluent in as much as that may dictate the acceptance of certain behaviors.

Strain Theory The foundation of strain theory is based on the writings of

Emile Durkheim (1951) and his theory of anomie. According to Durkheim,
when societies evolve from communities of shared values and beliefs to
communities of specialization where each person is dependent on another
due to division of labor, several breakdowns occur that ultimately result in
a failure of social control enterprises; they include the following:

• Turmoil and erosion of norms

• Crisis (when people become aware of the differences between what they
expect of society (financially) and what society can actually deliver
• Anomie, which is a social condition where there are no or unknown
norms for behavior

Robert K. Merton adapted Durkheim’s theories to fit modern society,

thereby examining strain from a macro-level approach. He believed that
culturally defined goals (e.g., financial success and material wealth) and the
socially approved means of obtaining them (e.g., working) sometimes col¬
lide—causing anomie. When people realize that as a result of societal strati¬
fication they are denied opportunities for attaining wealth, strain develops.
This “strain” can sometimes lead to development of alternative methods to
achieve goals—maybe even criminal. As such, strain theory views delin¬
quency as a form of adaptive, problem-solving behavior, usually commit¬
ted in response to social conditions outside the control of the individual
(Merton 1938).
Using many of Merton’s ideas, Robert Agnew took the macro approach
and adapted it to the individual (micro-level) in an effort to explain (1) why
individuals who feel strain are likely to commit crimes and (2) crime in all
social classes—not just the lower classes (Agnew 1985). Agnews general
idea is that “when people are treated badly they may get upset and engage
in crime,” and that those factors remain true regardless of class level, peer
associations, and future expectations.

Social Process Theories

Social process theories describe an area of research that believes that crimi¬
nality is a function of individual socialization. Within that discipline, social
learning theories attempt to prove that criminality is a product of learned
norms, values, and behaviors associated with criminal activity, and that
32 Police and Profiling in the United States

learning can involve either techniques (e.g., hot wiring a car) or psychology
(e.g., how to rationalize the guilt).

Differential Association Differential association is one of the founding

social learning theories proposed by Edwin Sutherland (1939). In this theory,
Sutherland believes that crime is not a product of individual traits or socio¬
economic status (SES); rather, it is the product of a learning process that can
take place in any culture—especially when the benefits of doing the criminal
act outweigh the potential consequences. Therefore, crime emerges as a by¬
product of interacting with a significant other who sees crime favorably. The
associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority (age of first encounter),
and intensity (closeness of relationship).
Although Sutherland’s theory gains considerable support in drug use/
abuse studies and self-report studies and is capable of explaining deviance on
many levels of society, it fails to account for several factors, such as

• How did the first teacher learn? Then, when did he or she learn to
teach others?
• It assumes behaviors to be rational and systematic, but what about
random, unplanned acts?
• Failure to completely operationalize the terms prevents others from
testing the theory thoroughly.
• It does not take into account the biological and psychological studies
that have empirical support (Void and Bernard 1986).

Differential Reinforcement Theory Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess

used some elements of differential association and joined them with psy¬
chological learning theory to construct the differential reinforcement the¬
ory. According to this theory, people learn which behaviors are appropriate
through interactions with their peers (Burgess and Akers 1966).
One of the benefits of this theory is that it works well with rational choice
in that the ability to choose which actions are acceptable is learned; at the
same time, which actions should be avoided is being learned.

Neutralization David Matza and Gresham Sykes believed that most

delinquents hold conventional values but possess techniques that enable
them to neutralize those values and drift back and forth between illegiti¬
mate and conventional behaviors. Since most people are not “all bad” or “all
good,” this theory recognizes the existence of “subterranean values,” mor¬
ally tinged influences that exist but are publicly condemned (e.g., viewing
pornographic films).
Theoretical Foundations 33

In order to rationalize their drifting between conventional and crimi¬

nal values, individuals develop “techniques of neutralization” to justify their
decision to commit criminal acts. They include

• Denial of responsibility = “Not my fault, he made me do it.”

• Denial of injury = “I didn’t steal it. I borrowed it.”
• Denial of the victim = “He had it coming” or “I didn’t hurt anyone
in particular.”
• Condemnation of the condemners = “It’s a dog-eat-dog world.”
• Appeal to higher loyalties = “Had to do it for the group” (Sykes and
Matza 1957).

While the research into this theory has been inconclusive, it may explain
why some criminals age out of criminal behavior, and it may also explain
why some offenders are not chronic offenders.
This chapter has provided the readers with an understanding of the ori¬
gin for each of the dominant approaches to explaining criminal behavior
(classical vs. deterministic), as well as introduced them to some of the theories
they are likely to encounter in their work as profilers. Chapter 3 will expand
upon this foundation by introducing logic as it applies to the study of crimi¬
nal behaviors.

References
Agnew, R. A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64, 1985: 151-167.
Allport, F., and G.W. Allport. Personality traits: Their classification and measurement.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 16, 1921: 1-40.
American Psychoanalytic Association. About Psychoanalysis, http://www.apsa.org/
About_psychoanalysis.aspx (accessed May 2012).
Bandura, A. Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1973.
Beaver, K., and A. Walsh. Biosocial theories of crime. Oxford: Ashgate Publishers,
2010.
Bentham, J. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1907. (Reprint of 1823 edition.)
Brockaway, Z. The ideal of a true prison system for a state. Journal of Correctional
Education, 46(2), 1995: 68-74.
Burgess, R.L., and R. Akers. A differential association-reinforcement theory of crimi¬
nal behavior. Social Problems, 14, 1966: 128-147.
Cadoret, R., T.W. O’Gorman, and E. Troughton. Genetic and environmental factors
in alcohol abuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48, 1987: 1-8.
Cadoret, R., T.W. O’Gorman, E. Troughton, and E. Heywood. Alcoholism and antiso¬
cial personality: Interrelationships, genetic and environmental factors. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 1985: 161-167.
34 Police and Profiling in the United States

Cattell, R. A shortened “basic English” version (Form C) of the 16 PF Questionnaire.

Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 1956: 257-278.
Cloninger, C.R., and 1.1. Gottesman. Genetic and environmental factors in antiso¬
cial behavior disorders. In The causes of crime: New biological approaches, ed.
Sarnoff E. Mednick, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Susan A. Stack, 92-109. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Cohen, L„ and M. Felson. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 1979: 588-608.
Conway Jr., M. Education and its effects on recidivism. UMASS Amherst doctoral
dissertations. 2000. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI9978487.
Cornish, D., and R. Clarke. Understanding crime displacement: An application of
rational choice theory. Criminology, 25, 1987: 933-947.
DiLalla, L.F., and 1.1. Gottesman. Biological and genetic contributions to violence—
Widom’s untold tale. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 1991: 125-129.
DiLalla, L.F., and I.I. Gottesman. Heterogeniety of causes for delinquency and
criminality: Lifespan perspectives. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 1990:
339-349.
Durkheim, E. Suicide. New York: The Free Press, 1951.
Eysenck, H.J. The structure of human personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1947.
Eysenck, H.J., and S.B. Eysenck. Psychotism as a dimension of personality. New York:
Crane, Russak and Co., 1976.
Gil, F.P., M.M. Weber, and W. Burgamir. Ernst Kretschmer (1888-1964). American
Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 2002: 1111.
Hannam, J. The genesis of science: How the Christian Middle Ages launched the scien¬
tific revolution. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2011.
Hannam, J. “Science and church in the Middle Ages.” Medieval Science and
Philosophy, http://www.jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm (accessed
April 2012).
Hoefer, C. Causal determinism. Spring 2010. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/
spr2010/entries/determinism-causal/ (accessed January 2012).
Jaskaw. Is there such a thing as absolute justice? August 22, 2009. http://beinghu-
man.blogs.fi/2009/08/22/is-there-such-a-thing-as-absolute-justice-6796589/
(accessed December 3, 2011).
Jones, C.M. Genetic and environmental influences on criminal behavior. February
2005. http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html (accessed March
2012).
Manchester, W. A world lit only by fire: The medieval mind and the Rennaisance. New
York: Little, Brown and Co., 1992.
Mednick, S.A., W.E Gabrielli Jr., and B. Hutchings. Genetic influences in criminal
convictions: Evidence from an adoption cohort. Science, 224, 1984: 891-894.
Merton, R.K. Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 1938:
672-682.
Park, R., E. Burgess, and R. McKenzie. The city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1925.
Raine, A. The psychopathology of crime. San Diego: Academic Press, 1993.
Schmalleger, E Criminal justice: A brief introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2011.
Theoretical Foundations 35

Shaw, C., and H.D. McKay. Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1942.
Skinner, B.F. About behaviorism. New York: Vintage, 1976.
Sutherland, E. Principles of criminology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lipincott, 1939.
Sykes, G., and D. Matza. Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 22, 1957: 664-670.
Void, G.B., and T.J. Bernard. Theoretical criminology, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1986.
Watson, J.B., and R. Rayner. Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 3, 1920: 1-14.
Wilson, J.Q., and R. Herrnstein. Crime and human nature. New York: The Free Press,
1985.
Wilson, J.Q., and J. Petersilia. Crime. New York: ICS Press, 1995.
Wolfgang, M.E., T. Sellin, and R.M. Figlio. Delinquency of a birth cohort. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1972.
Young, D. On crimes and punishment. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
1985.
 .

'

■
Logic and Reasoning
Practices

Logic: another thing that

dogs aren’t very good at.

Figure 3.1 Premise truths * conclusion.

Chapter Goals

• To learn the history and role of logic in daily life

• To distinguish between inductive and deductive logic
• To recognize the dangers of fallacies in logical reasoning

Key Words

Argument
Assertion
Fallacy
Inference
Logos
Premise
Reasoning

37
38 Police and Profiling in the United States

Introduction to Logic

Logic represents the critical study of reasoning (Barker 1965): a marriage, if you
will, between theoretical interest and practical utility. The theoretical compo¬
nent encourages creative free thinking, while the practical component teaches
one how to think. This includes the ability to avoid errors in reasoning (fallacies)
as well as the ability to critically analyze situations from multiple perspectives.
The history of logic represents a rich journey through philosophical dis¬
course, mathematical evolution, and the birth of scientific inquiry. The word
itself derives from the Greek word logos and is believed to translate originally
as “to say” and later “to argue.” The word then morphed through usage to
also mean “reason” and “rational principle” (as interpreted by both Aristotle
and Plato), whereupon it was adopted by the emerging sciences to represent
the proving of particular ideas. Although logic has been studied for many
centuries as moral philosophy, aesthetics, theory of knowledge, metaphysics,
etc., the true essence of the word for criminal justice studies has remained
elusive. This is mainly due to the fact that logic is a reflective study, not con¬
ducive to the experimental design or laboratory analysis that has dominated
the scientific field since the 18th-century Enlightenment period.
This is not to say that efforts have not been undertaken to study rea¬
soning or the process of reasoning, but generally those studies are classi¬
fied as psychological experiments (see Politzer 2004; Bonnefon and Vautier
2010) rather than experiments of reason because historically reasoning tests
assumed that everybody was the same in terms of how they processed prob¬
lems. Contemporary research is challenging that assumption and is seeking
to measure instead individual variability. Despite this awareness, experi¬
ments into logic and reasoning still focus on a linear progression of if-then
statements that ideally result in valid (true) conclusions and assume homo¬
geneity among the subjects.
For sure, one of the key stumbling blocks for many attempting to quan¬
tify or even understand logic is that while the vocabulary may be unfamiliar,
the meaning is quite familiar. These dual meanings cause intellectual anxiety
in those not familiar with the new terminology, which may help to explain
why those who claim to not know the actual word can easily and quickly
grasp the concepts being discussed.
Consider, for example, the word argument. This means, for most people,
an oral disagreement, verbal opposition, or debate. But in the context of logic,
an argument refers to a stated conclusion that includes proof of how the con¬
clusion was derived (Barker 1965). Therefore, there are two critical compo¬
nents to a logical argument: the premise (or proof) and the conclusion. For
example, criminals break the law (premise 1), and breaking the law is bad
(premise 2); therefore, criminals are bad (conclusion). Note that this example
Logic and Reasoning Practices 39

was presented with the premise first, but the alternative is also possible, where
the conclusion is stated first and then justified by the premises (i.e., criminals
are bad because they break the law and breaking the law is bad).
In this example, a premise is presented to “establish the truth of the con¬
clusion” (Barker 1965) reached by the author (in mathematical logic, this is
called a proof). It is generally expected that the reader will accept a premise as
true, because if presented in a logical format, one premise should build upon
the truth of a previous premise to encourage the reader then to accept (or
infer) the conclusion as truth. Inference represents the mental act of reaching
a conclusion because the reader sees the conclusion as logically flowing from
previously stated truthful premises; reasoning is perhaps best described as
the critical analysis in which a reader engages to determine the truthfulness
of each preceding premise before accepting the conclusion.
It seems appropriate here to point out that not every statement is an invi¬
tation to reason. As indicated above, an argument represents an invitation
for the readers to consider the stated premises, accept them as true, and infer
the same conclusion as others. Words such as therefore, since, and it follows
indicate to the readers that they are being asked to engage in a process of
logical reasoning; words such as since, because, and then generally point out
the premises used to support the conclusion (Barker 1965, 9). In short, read¬
ers retain their autonomy in that they can choose to disagree with the con¬
clusion. Alternatively, statements can be presented as assertions, which are
statements made without providing evidence. To an untrained individual,
assertions can sound like arguments, but there is no autonomy in an asser¬
tion—the individual is bound to the same finding as the author.

Fallacies

A fallacy is a logical mistake in reasoning which ultimately results in deceiving

the reader when the actual goal is to convince the reader of the veracity of the
conclusion. Fallacies typically emerge from a failure to address the necessary
elements (as noted above) to a premise and generally mean an argument is
problematic for any reason, whether that reason is formal or informal in origin.

Informal Fallacies
An informal fallacy is fallacious because of both its form and its con¬
tent. Informal fallacies represent errors of reasoning that cannot easily be
expressed and can also originate from either a deductive or inductive rea¬
soning process. Deductive standards demand deductive validity (in that the
stated conclusion would logically follow from the elements), but inductive
40 Police and Profiling in the United States

standards require inductive strength (in that generalizations made from

observations lead to a likely conclusion). Informal fallacies often occur when
there is confusion between inductive and deductive reasoning principles
(discussed below). An informal fallacy involves such things as the following:
the misuse of language (words or grammar), misstatements of fact or opin¬
ion, misconceptions due to underlying presuppositions, or just plain illogical
sequences of thought (Bluedorn, 1995). Some specific examples of informal
fallacies include the following:

Inconsistency
Logic is concerned in large part with the consistency of a set of statements,
but consistency is determined not only by absolute truth, but rather by the
possibility of truth. Inconsistency, therefore, is generally identified when
multiple statements either contradict one another or cannot possibly be true
(http://www.changingminds.org). It is subtle because the speaker may not
always be aware of the inconsistencies of his or her statements or the state¬
ments made may in fact be true, but do not represent the only possible out¬
comes, and so impact the truthfulness of the conclusion.

Petitio Principii
Petitio principii (Latin, “begging the question”) refers to a failure to prove
anything because the argument takes for granted what it is supposed to
prove. This also refers to falsely arguing that something is true by repeating
the same statement in different words (circular reasoning).
A subcategory of this issue is th e fallacy of a complex question. This frames
a question in such a way as to take for granted something is controversial
that should be proven. For example, a question posed as “Have you stopped
smoking marijuana?” puts the responder in an essentially no-win situation.
If the responder claims “yes,” then he or she is admitting to smoking it at one
time; if he or she claims “no,” then he or she is admitting to smoking it now.

Non Sequitur
Non sequitur (Latin, “It does not follow”) refers to circumstances whereupon
the conclusion does not follow from the truth of premises. This fallacy is dem¬
onstrated by Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 wherein each statement is true, but
the conclusion does not follow. For example, making the statement that drug
crimes are increasing, and so, punitive sanctions for all crimes should become
more severe. The reader should be able to determine that, while it might be
Logic and Reasoning Practices 41

Figure 3.2 Premise truths * conclusion.

true that drug crimes are increasing, this fact should not have an impact on the
severity of how all other crimes are punished.
This fallacy is demonstrated by Figure 3.1, wherein each statement is
true, but the conclusion does not follow.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
There are two types of ambiguity, lexical and structural, and they typically
occur when a word or phrase has more than one meaning. The most com¬
mon fallacy of ambiguity involves lexical errors; for example, the word note
can mean either

• A musical tone, or
• A short written record.

However, structural errors represents when specific language leads to

a misunderstanding of the logical structure of an argument. Consider this
structurally ambiguous sentence: “The chicken is ready to eat.” This could be
used to describe either (1) a hungry chicken or (2) a broiled chicken. The con¬
fusion regarding the meaning of this sentence in turn leads to an incorrect
interpretation and, ultimately, a faulty conclusion (Kilgore, 1968).

Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies result from errors in only form. That is to say that the con¬
cluding statement of an argument may be objectively true (prisoners are
42 Police and Profiling in the United States

criminals), though the argument is formally invalid (all men are criminals);
or the concluding statement maybe objectively false (John is bad), though the
argument is formally valid (some men are bad and John is a man). Because
formal fallacies pertain mainly to form, they are generally easy to identify.
Note that a change in the actual terms used may affect the actual truth value
of the argument, but a change in terms will not necessarily affect the validity
or invalidity of the argument. Consider for example the following form:

All a are b.
c is a.
Therefore c is b. (where a, b, and c could be anything)

Where a = men, b = criminals, and c = prisoners:

All [men] are [criminals]

A [prisoner] is a [man]
Therefore, [prisoners] are [criminals]

Versus

Some [men] are [bad]

[John] is a [man]
Therefore, [John] is [bad]

Deductive and Inductive Logic

Logic is implemented broadly in two specific ways: inductive and deductive.

Inductive relies upon premises that need to be proven and deductive pro¬
vides a conclusion for the presented premises. As Figure 3.3 demonstrates,

Inductive Deductive

: '

Figure 3.3 Inductive and deductive reasoning. (From http://www.mesosyn.com.)

Logic and Reasoning Practices 43

inductive reasoning can be viewed as a top-down process of allowing obser¬

vations to lead to generalizations and ultimately contribute to the devel¬
opment of a working theory, whereas deductive reasoning is a bottom-up
process that begins with a conclusion, and proceeds with an analysis of exist¬
ing observations for the purposes of determining whether or not observa¬
tions made after the event actually fit the conclusion that exists.
This is not to suggest, however, that inductive and deductive reasoning
should exist independently of one another. Indeed, logic should remain a
dynamic exercise, able to be re-evaluated and reviewed as new information
becomes available. This is true under any circumstance, but it is especially
true in the context of criminal profiling, where new information can emerge
at any time during the course of an investigation. It should also be noted that
while inductive logic is consistent with the process of an ongoing investiga¬
tion (see Chapter 9), it can and often does become deductive during the trial
process when the prosecutor must begin with a conclusion (e.g., the victim is
dead) and proceed to create a series of premises that will ultimately lead the
judge or jury to the same conclusion as the prosecutor.
Another aspect of logical thinking that has direct import on the field of
criminal justice is abductive reasoning, which in essence addresses the “first
stage” of any interpretive process. Abduction is the process of adopting an
explanatory hypothesis which involves the basis of interpretive reconstruc¬
tion of causes and intentions (motives), as well as of inventive construction of
theories (explanations) (Pierce 1958).
There are several other types of logical inquiry that have been used in terms
of criminal justice, including retrospective and prospective logic, or ex ante
and ex post analysis. Logically derived concepts are determined by their tem¬
poral relationship to the crime. Therefore, prospective profiling relates loosely
to stereotyping in that a profile is constructed before a crime has occurred,
and an individual can be made to fit into a specific profile based upon a pre¬
determined set of characteristics or behaviors. Harcourt (2003) cautions how¬
ever that prospective profiling can create a “self-reinforcing” phenomenon and,
therefore, should be viewed critically as a viable tool for law enforcement.
Use of ex ante and ex post logic should be approached cautiously as well.
Loosely translated, ex ante translates to “before the event,” where the oppo¬
site is ex post. The concept was borrowed from economics where ex ante
referred to anticipated returns on investment, and ex post referred to actual
returns (Myrdal 1939). By application, then, criminal profiling, as it is used
to identify an offender or predict an event, would have to fall within the ex
post approach since a crime must have occurred in order to set the profiling
process in motion.
However, that is in conflict with the impression of criminal profiling on
the part of the populace, who generally believe that with enough evidence,
44 Police and Profiling in the United States

profilers can “predict” future events or “identify” offenders based upon their
past actions. That is not necessarily accurate. The reality is that with enough
evidence, profilers can narrow the suspect pool or create a behavioral pattern
that may lead to an arrest, but both of those actions are dependent upon two
key factors: (1) a crime, or crimes, has already occurred that provides the
information used in the profile development, and (2) the offender attempts to
commit the act again, providing an opportunity for capture.

Inductive Reasoning
Within the context of criminal justice, police investigations often involve a
bottom-up approach, where investigations are exploratory and fact-finding
in the beginning. Facts and evidence (testimonial, real, etc.) are collected
without bias, and united to reconstruct the crime that was committed. From
here, inductive reasoning is employed to classify facts and identify specific
patterns from which conclusions can be made that rely on converting specific
observations to predictive generalizations of behavior.
Specific to profiling, law enforcement has long believed that “once a pat¬
tern is discovered, it will reveal the cause [or doer] of the crime” (Athens,
1980). Inductive logic provides the vehicle for the discovery of this pattern. It
is, in essence, the process of making a conclusion based upon a set of obser¬
vations, i.e., “Criminals who exhibit similar crime scene actions have simi¬
lar background characteristics” (Doan and Snook, 2008, 61). However, while
this may be true in some, even most, circumstances, it should not be accepted
as a rule because the relationship has not been proven.
The value then of inductive reasoning is that it encourages the forma¬
tion of ideas regarding the relationship of things or people in real life, but it
makes no statement as to the truth of those relationships. Once those ideas
form, it is the obligation of the reader to critically examine the perceived
relationship to determine whether the conclusions drawn from the observa¬
tions were accurate and supported by careful observations. Indeed, contem¬
porary attacks of criminal profiling focus on the lack of empirical support for
current profiling practices, despite the fact that criminal justice research has
begun to fill empirical voids in this area.
As recently as 2008, Doan and Snook coined the term homology assump¬
tion to refer to the “fundamental premise of profiling that through the study
of past crimes, predictions can be made concerning similar offenses in the
future” (Kocsis and Palermo, 2007, 334). Perhaps the best known example of
this homology assumption is the FBIs organized/disorganized typology (see
Chapter 5).
Logic and Reasoning Practices 45

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning incorporates working with more generalizations of

crimes and offenders. It takes into account a series of related crimes. This
type of approach is also called the top-down approach in that it tries to open
a window into the mind of the offender and reconstruct his or her behavior.
This type of reasoning draws on essential evidence from, and patterns within,
a crime. Despite the elusive nature of logical analysis, individuals have a ten¬
dency to view logic in concrete terms (i.e., logically speaking, if A = B, and
B = C, then A must - C). This example encourages the reader to “deduce” a
conclusion based upon several known elements. The problem with deductive
logic is that if any of the predicated elements used to derive the conclusion
are incorrect, then the entire line of reasoning is at risk due to the fact that
each concept builds upon a previously accepted truth that if determined to
be untrue, yields a very different conclusion.
Another challenge of deductive logic is that it is limited by denying cre¬
ativity because the thinker is bound by what is known (or assumed) to be
true, rather than having the freedom to explore alternative explanations.
Within the context of criminal justice, prosecutors often use deduction in
their cases. Application of deduction requires a starting and ending point in
order to be able to show the progression of events that led to the conclusion.
In a criminal case, the conclusion is generally known and the starting point
is presumed; what is important is that the jury be able to follow the progres¬
sion of events laid out before them to reach the same conclusion.

Abductive Reasoning

The central goal in abductive reasoning is to assemble a set of hypotheses

(causes) that provide good explanations of the data (effects). In general, it
represents a starting place from which to orient one to their surroundings.
In principle, there are infinite possible explanations for any action one may
observe, but persons are inclined to abduce a single explanation (or a few
explanations) for particular observation in order to explain events and elimi¬
nate some possibilities. TTiis is generally done because actions are dependent
upon interpretations of one’s environment, so it can implied that abduc¬
tive analysis takes place in a continuous manner given the changes in one’s
environment.
In practice, abduction logic has been more recently collapsed with induc¬
tive logic (see (Popper 2002). However, Pierce (1958), the father of abduc¬
tive logic, had often claimed that abduction is similar to “guessing,” and
given the unique application that has to the field of criminal justice, wherein
much of the initial stages of any profiling effort are similar to, if not outright
46 Police and Profiling in the United States

guessing, these authors feel that separation of induction and abduction is

in order. Of interest may be that recent efforts have emerged to address the
issues of induction and abduction separately, especially since abductive logic
allows for consideration of many factors and lends itself to the application of
Inference from the Best Explanation (IBE) (see below).
Further, these authors like the “naturalness” of Pierce’s analysis where
he claims that “guesses succeed better than random luck at reaching the
truth or at least advancing the inquiry,” perhaps explained by the fact that
they “are based in instinctive attunement to nature, an affinity between the
mind’s processes and the processes of the real, which would account for why
appealingly natural’ guesses are the ones that oftenest (or least seldom) suc¬
ceed” (Pierce 1958). This approach is consistent with and potentially pro¬
vides an explanation for law enforcement’s tenacious reliance upon hunches
and guesses, as they may perhaps be employing abductive reasoning sub¬
consciously. The role of considering all possible explanations and selecting
the best one plays a particularly important function in the construction of a
motive, or identification of behavioral triggers and impulses.

Logic in Criminal Justice

Northrop (1971, 256) discussed that any inquiry begins with a problem, and
that the problems of natural science are problems of fact—easily tested and
proven—whereas problems of social science represent both problems of fact
and problems of value. Similar to the natural sciences, problems of fact can
be studied and analyzed, and generalizations can be developed to explain
certain phenomena in the social sciences. However, since social institutions
are in large part man-made, the outcomes are unpredictable. The methods
used to test the intuitive knowledge upon which problems of value are exam¬
ined must differ significantly from the methods used to test problems of fact
(i.e., experimental design). Failure to recognize this fundamental difference
translates to limited predictive value of the interpretations made of indi¬
vidual behaviors. This represents what, in our opinion, has limited the field
of criminal profiling in the 21st century. While it cannot be disputed that
advances have been made, law enforcement’s tenacious defense of intuition,
gut instinct, and professional experience without the support of empirical
science has left the field open to criticism (Bailey 1994).

Criminals are bad and so they must be punished.

In this example, there is no opportunity for the reader to contradict the

conclusion. With careful analysis, one can determine that assertions are
Logic and Reasoning Practices 47

generally statements of cause—something exists, and something else must

follow. This is related to another common misconception of arguments, a fac¬
tual statement. Some people assume that if one is given a factual statement, it
must be true, and therefore it is a component of an argument. But remember,
an argument must contain both a premise and a conclusion embedded in an
invitation to the reader to engage in a mental activity of inferring the same
conclusion. Simply stating a fact denies the reader the opportunity to par¬
ticipate in the process of reasoning; therefore, simply stating a fact does not
qualify as an argument. For example:

If an individual is convicted of a crime, he or she will be punished.

An argument exists when there is a statement with both premises and

a conclusion, and the reader is invited to infer the same conclusion based
upon the premises presented. The truth of a conclusion requires three ele¬
ments of the premises: (1) all premises are capable of being true, (2) all
parties can accept the premises as true regardless of the truthfulness of the
conclusion, and (3) the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises
(Barker 1965, 175).

References
Bailey, D. Police for the future. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Barker, S. Elements of logic. New York: McGraw Hill Publisher, 1965.
Bonnefon, J., and S. Vautier. Modern psychometrics for the experimental psychology
of reasoning. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42, 2010: 99-110.
Bluedorn, H. Formal and informal fallacies, http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles
(accessed March 17, 2013).
Doan, B., and B. Snook. A failure to find empirical support for the homology assump¬
tion in criminal profiling. Police Criminal Psychology, 23, 2008: 61-70.
Harcourt, B.E. The shaping of chance: Actuarial models and criminal profiling at the turn
of the twenty-first century. University of Chicago Law Review, 70,2003: 105-128.
Kilgore, W.J. An introductory logic. Geneva, IL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.
http://attitdueadjustment.tripod.com/books/logic.htm (accessed February 2,
2012).
Kocsis, R. Criminal profiling: International theory, research, and practice. Totowa, NJ:
Humana Press, 2007.
Myrdal, G. Monetary equilibrium. London: W. Hodge Publishers, 1939.
Northrop, F.S.C. Logic of the sciences and the humanities. New York: World Publishing
Co., 1971.
Palermo, G.B., and R.N. Kocsis. Offender profiling: An introduction to the sociopsycho-
logical analysis of violent crime. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishing,
2005.
Pierce, C.S. A letter to Paul Carus, 1910. In Collected papers, ed. Charles Hartshorne
and Paul Wiel. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1958.
48 Police and Profiling in the United States

Politzer, G. Some precursors of current theories of syllogistic reasoning. In Psychology

of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives, ed. K. Manktelow and M.
Chung, 213-240. New York: Psychology Press, 2004.
Popper, K. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London:
Routledge, 2002.
Turvey, B. Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis, 4th ed.
Oxford: Academic Press, 2012.
Childhood Indicators

4
One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is to kill or
torture an animal and get away with it.
—Margaret Mead

Chapter Goals

• To understand the historical evolution of society’s relationship with

its children
• To explore the perspectives from each discipline (biological, psycho¬
logical, and sociological) within the context of explaining childhood
deviant behaviors
• To examine existing and current research in the context of the his¬
torical search for an explanation of criminal behavior
• To apply the existing knowledge to the developing understanding of
the motivations and characteristics of emerging criminal behaviors

Key Words

All-around bully
Crime trajectory
Cyberbullying
Graduation hypothesis
Life course trajectory
Parens patriae
Pure cyberbully
Risk factor
Status offending
Surrogate
Survival mode
Trauma-related hypersensitivity

49
50 Police and Profiling in the United States

Introduction

Historically speaking, children have enjoyed very little in terms of court

protection from harm. Legally speaking, concepts that supported the non¬
intervention into family affairs emerged from notions of progeny or chattel
(children as the non-real estate property of their parents), combined with
religious impositions (“honor thy father and thy mother”) and social mores
(“spare the rod, spoil the child”). The confluence of these forces served to
condone, even encourage, the use of corporal punishment in the raising of
children. Parents were permitted to beat their children as they saw fit in the
name of imposing discipline (Karmen 2010) and, in fact, enjoyed virtual
immunity from prosecution, as long as their actions did not risk permanent
injury or death.
It seems that as early as the 1800s, however, there was some concern that
allowing children to be beaten could result in a social problem of delinquency
that would overload the criminal justice system resources. This concern con¬
tinued into the 1900s when recognition of a correlation between child “disci¬
pline” and delinquency emerged, resulting in programs and research focused
on interrupting that perceived cycle and proving causality. To date, however,
the question of causality per se has yet to be determined. At best, the indus¬
try has simply confirmed that there is a high correlation between excessive
childhood punishment and later deviant behavior, but the components of
that correlative relationship remain a mystery. This chapter explores the his¬
tory of American society’s relationship with their children, the emerging and
existing research regarding childhood experiences from psychological, soci¬
ological, and biological perspectives as well as delinquency, and ends with an
exploration into modern issues facing the youth of today, such as bullying
and peer relationships.

Historical Factors

Child Discipline
Historical analysis of cultural relationships with children shows a consistent
devaluation of the role that children play in society’s future. In puritanical
colonial America, extreme discipline characterized families, and parents
were given extensive liberty to punish their children, even to the point of
death. Indeed, anthropologist Laila Williamson (1978) reported that “infan¬
ticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of
cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, includ¬
ing our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, infanticide has
been the rule.” Her research centers mainly on two reasons for killing one’s
Childhood Indicators 51

young: poverty and population control. While surely not all child abuse and
discipline efforts end in the death of the child, it is important to note that
even if they did, for much of history, such a result was largely understand¬
able, if not outright acceptable.
Of additional note is the historical and current relationship between
severe child discipline (even death) and poverty. As pointed out by Williamson
(1978), children of the poor “were by far the most common victims of the
parental negligence and despair.” Even today, infanticide is most commonly
seen in areas of severe poverty. As far back as the Middle Ages, poverty has
been correlated with violent acts, and often manifests itself not only in par¬
enting deficiencies, but also in environmental identifiers.
In summary, family autonomy—discipline without governmental inter¬
vention—was the goal of the developing America. Governmental interven¬
tion into the life of a child happened on very rare occasions (see cases of John
Walker, 1655; Samuel Morison, 1675; and Robert Styles, 1678) or where the
very poor were concerned. In fact, the Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law of
1646 even allowed parents to classify their child as stubborn and seek state
sanction, including capital punishment (Shurtleff 1854). The result was that
the majority of children in colonial America received no protection from
abuse and neglect (Bremner 1970).

House of Refuge Movement

In the early 1800s, the Society for Prevention of Pauperism believed that pov¬
erty was a cause, if not the cause, for crimes committed by children (Ventrell
1998). They conducted an extensive survey of U.S. prisons and criticized the
“spirit of revenge” in the treatment of prisoners while also condemning the
imprisonment of individuals “regardless of age or the severity of crime.”
This practice often meant that children convicted of misdemeanor offenses
were being housed with hardened adult offenders (http://www.archives.
nysed.gov).
As a result of the report and a growing awareness of the fate of young
incarcerated children, New York founded the first House of Refuge that
offered refuge to any juvenile committed for vagrancy or convicted of a
crime. It, in essence, became the first juvenile reformatory in the nation—
even though a criminal conviction was not a condition. In general, the House
of Refuge Movement attempted to save the “salvageable” or neglected poor
children. As such, it is not necessarily incorrect to say that the movement
itself may be society’s first effort to interrupt the cycle of violence. But it
would be incorrect to claim that Houses of Refuge served as a safe haven for
youths, as they were still being housed with adults. In fact, the conditions in
many houses were severely abusive by modern standards, including solitary
confinement and regular beatings (Fox 1970).
52 Police and Profiling in the United States

Despite its failure to protect abused and neglected children, the House
of Refuge Movement spread quickly (Watkins 1998), and by 1860 there
were 16 different houses in the United States. The continued failure of the
houses to stem the tide of juvenile delinquency resulted in a paradigm shift
from governmental nonintervention to an outright usurpation of parental
rights through the emergence of reformatories. Different from the houses in
many respects, reformatories were progressive institutions where, through
civic and moral training, youth would be reformed by their surrogate parent
(Watkins 1998).
In this case, the surrogate parent is the state. The state justified interven¬
tion into parental management of children through the English doctrine of
parens patriae * In essence, reformers argued that they were entitled to take
custody of a child, regardless of the child’s status as victim or offender, with¬
out due process of law because of the state’s authority and obligation to save
children from becoming criminal. Chapter 2 discussed the social contract
theory, which may explain the language employed in the rationale for revers¬
ing the position of the courts and government: obligation, authority, to save.
Quite simply, in order to preserve the social order, the government perceived
an obligation to punish those who were breaking the laws for the purpose of
either reforming future behaviors or deterring future actions.
Parens patriae became the new system focused on “saving” the children
from the expanding poor urban population by removal and placement into
reformatories. Courts authorized the disruption of the parent-child legal
relationship and the subsequent infringement on children’s liberty solely
because the child was not, in the state’s view, cared for properly. The focus
of the intervention was status-offending poor street children, with an occa¬
sional neglect scenario and little, if any, intervention for the abused child
(Ventrell 1998).

Child Savers Movement

While governments and interested parties were struggling with what exactly
their role was in the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency, others
were researching the long-term effects of child abuse on future behavior. In 1860,
Ambrose Tardieu (a French physician) studied 32 children who he believed died
of chronic child abuse. His findings described a syndrome (with medical, psy¬
chiatric, and social conditions) consistent with being a victim of child abuse.
However, his work predated radiographic images and, therefore, lacked the
“visual” proof of his claims. As a result, his findings were largely ignored+ until

' Means "ultimate parent" or "parent of the country."

f Because the syndrome itself is frequently not recognized or, if diagnosed, is inadequately
handled by physicians because of the hesitation to bring the case to the attention of
proper authorities (Kempe et al. 1962).
Childhood Indicators 53

almost 100 years later,* when Dr. C. Henry Kempe and his colleagues pub¬
lished a defining paper entitled “The Battered Child Syndrome (BCS)This
paper was regarded as the single most significant event in creating awareness
and exposing the reality of abuse, and it gave doctors a way to understand
and do something about child abuse and neglect.
By the mid-1800s, a large, active coalition of women’s club members, phi¬
lanthropists, and urban professionals evolved working for the protection and
benefit of children. This became known as the Child Savers Movement, but
it too failed to improve the day-to-day living realities for children in terms of
personal safety (Platt 1977). This particular movement was different in many
respects from those that predated it because it was considered a charitable orga¬
nization. There also remains considerable historical debate (Platt) as to whether
these reformers were influenced by a benevolent urge to help poor children (pre¬
vious periods’ class outlook) or a desire to control the new masses of immigrants
flooding the cities (social control demands of a new industrial order). Regardless
of their motivations, some significant advances resulted from their efforts, such
as regulating child labor, educational requirements, playgrounds, establishing
the juvenile court, improving public health conditions, and reducing infant
mortality rates (http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ch-Co/Child-Saving.html).

Theory

Given that the role of children in society was devalued, and in keeping with
the established theme of marrying theoretical approaches from both the clas¬
sical school and the positivist school with modern investigative techniques,
the following section explores modern explanations for juvenile offending
and the implications for criminal profiling.
Since the classical approach relies heavily upon the concept that individ¬
uals make decisions regarding their actions, it is socially acceptable to pun¬
ish bad choices. This approach has dominated the history of criminal justice
and is reflective of current practices in both adult and juvenile corrections.
On the basis of deterrence, punishment for bad choices continues to escalate
with little to no improvement in the achievement of the goal. This has led
some to claim that incarceration and conviction are simply instruments of
one social class being used to control another.

In the 1960s, pediatric radiologists began the rediscovery of child abuse by focusing
attention on the problem of "excessive physical punishment perpetrated by parents who
had been beaten themselves as children." Their profession offered the best opportunity
to highlight the problem since they had visual evidence (provided through x-rays), lim¬
ited parental contact, and a desire to achieve greater recognition in the medical commu¬
nity (Karmen 2010). See also Kleinman (1989).
54 Police and Profiling in the United States

The positivist approach suggests that ones behavior is determined by

forces outside one’s control, and those forces can originate from biological,
psychological, and sociological causes, among others. Perspectives from each
discipline are presented below.

• Biological school, which holds essentially that individuals are “born

bad”; discussions regarding empirical support of the MacDonald
triad in terms of modern applications
• Psychological school, which holds essentially that individuals suffer
from some “disease or defect” that dictates behavior; explorations
into empirical support for the cycle of violence as a determinant for
future violence
• Sociological school, which explores, among other things, the role of
peer relationships in the evolution of deviance, including the role of
bullying (both traditional and cyberbullying) as it applies to 21st-
century youth

Biological School
The 1960s marked a time of great social upheaval in American society. It
was an exciting, revolutionary, and turbulent time of great social and tech¬
nological change: assassinations, unforgettable fashions, new musical styles,
civil rights, women’s liberation, a controversial and divisive war, the first
man landing on the moon, peace marches, world’s fairs, flower power, great
TV and film, and sexual freedom (http://www.cedarville.edu). However, the
chaos and upheaval of the 1960s were not welcomed by the more conservative
and prosperous citizens from the 1950s. The American public was demand¬
ing that the government take specific action to gain control of the decaying
moral fabric and rampant disorder that pervaded American society.
In response to escalating crime and violence, the government funded
many research efforts through the 1960s with an eye toward identifying
the cause of deviance. The result was a wealth of new theories and poten¬
tial explanations from the positivist school (e.g., the Chicago School, the
MacDonald triad).

MacDonald Triad
In the early 1960s, John MacDonald examined 100 psychiatric referral cases
and developed the MacDonald triad, or the triad of sociopathy (1963). The
triad identified three separate elements that he claimed, if present, were pre¬
dictive of future violence: (1) enuresis (bed wetting), (2) animal cruelty, and
(3) fire setting. In recent years, however, the applicability of this approach has
come under scrutiny in terms of both the methodology employed and the
lack of empirical support. This topic is explored in greater detail in Chapter 7.
Childhood Indicators 55

Modern Explorations into Early Warning Behaviors

In 2007, Connor introduced a new perspective for incorporating long-held
beliefs and modern research regarding predicting future violence in young
children. He proposed viewing the problem of early detection from three
levels of behavior that should arouse concern: early warning signs, gen¬
eral warning signs, and immediate risk/danger. His typology is valuable
in as much as it allows the incorporation of entrenched perspectives (e.g.,
MacDonald triad) with more modern research findings and issues (e.g., peer
relationships and personality development). This perspective travels through
time effectively and efficiently and provides a roadmap for identifying at-risk
behaviors.

Early Warning Signs Connor (2007) uses the MacDonald triad in this first
level of behavior. Short of abandoning the MacDonald findings altogether,
this incorporates long-held, and some would argue not yet empirically dis¬
counted, research. It also allows for a child to outgrow the characteristics
(bed wetting, animal cruelty, and fire setting), since more recent and com¬
prehensive analysis suggests that some of these behaviors are age-appro¬
priate, without creating a negative label. Indeed, through structuring the
analysis by levels, each building upon one another, Connor argues that these
early warning behaviors represent only a starting point for profiling of future
behavior—not an endpoint.

General Warning Signs For the second layer of analysis, Connor (2007)
presents a list of behaviors that when considered in addition to early warning
signs may suggest a greater likelihood (not a conclusion) of future deviance.
Such behaviors include

1. Socially isolated, outcast, or withdrawn

2. Feelings and behavior easily influenced by peers
3. Victimized or treated badly by peers
4. Alcohol or other drug use
5. Dwelling on experiences of rejection, injustices, or unrealistic fears
6. Reacting to disappointments, criticisms, or teasing with extreme
and intense anger, blame, or a desire for revenge
7. Increasing anger, aggression, and destructive behavior
8. Associates with children known to be involved with morbid, destruc¬
tive, or violent behavior or fantasy
9. Preoccupation or interest in destructive or violent behavior
10. Fascination, interest, or an obsession with weapons or potential weapons
11. Violent or destructive behaviors depicted in artistic or other cre¬
ative expressions
56 Police and Profiling in the United States

It is important to note the role that peers and acceptance play in this
level. Of the 11 identified warning signs, one third pertain to relationships or
perceived relationships with peers (this is discussed further in Section 4.5).

Immediate Risk/Danger The final level indicates behaviors that require

immediate intervention, because the existence of these behaviors suggests an
immediate risk of harm to self or others. When taken in the context of the
previous levels, it may be possible to take appropriate interventionary action
and, thereby, arrest the evolution of violent behavior.

• Recently assaulted another child or was recently assaulted

• Brought a weapon to a place or situation that is inappropriate
• Has or may have a weapon that is potentially lethal
• Exhibiting destructive, violent, or threatening gestures or statements
• Has or may have a plan for destructive, violent, or suicidal behavior
• Talking about or implying possible suicide
• May have identified a target for destructive behavior or violence

Psychological Determinants

Cycle of Violence Hypothesis

The cycle of violence hypothesis refers to the repetition of patterns of vio¬
lent behavior across generations. For example, persons who were abused
as children are more likely as adults to be abusive toward others (Widom
1989). Indeed, many researchers would agree that victimization and trauma
exposure seem to play a central role in the development and persistence of
violence; however, they disagree as to why. Most often, this relationship is
studied using cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (Widom and Maxfield
2001). Greenwald (2002) attempted to explain the phenomenon from the per¬
spective of a singular, traumatic event that violated a victim’s sense of per¬
sonal safety, and as a result, the victim is forced to employ “survival mode.”
In this state, potential threats, minor or even neutral stimuli, are misinter¬
preted as threats—resulting in trauma-related hypersensitivity.*
Hosser et al. (2007) critiqued existing studies on the basis that they failed
to take into account the cumulative impact of child maltreatment and (re)
victimization in adolescence on violent behavior in young adulthood. They

Trauma-related hypersensitivity can promote the "misinterpretation of social cues,

heightened arousal and anger, and inappropriate aggression in the perceived cause of
self-protection" (Greenwald 2002, 112). While acting-out behavior can provide immedi¬
ate relief (anger may cover feelings of fear and helplessness), the consequences of such
behavior foster further alertness and mistrust, thus reinforcing reactivity and aggression.
Childhood Indicators 57

hypothesized that, in addition to the relationship between early childhood

victimization and later offending, repeated victimization during adolescence
leads to an increased risk for violent offending and that persons who have
experienced both maltreatment in childhood and revictimization in ado¬
lescence will have the highest risk of violent offending in young adulthood.
While their findings did confirm that there is a high correlation between
parental mistreatment and later offending, they did not find that the cumula¬
tive effect of life course victimization experiences increased one’s chance of
violent offending.
In the end, the correlative relationship between early mistreatment and
later violent offending is weak. The World Health Organization reported that
victims of childhood maltreatment are more likely to become adult victims
than adult offenders, suggesting that only one in six maltreated boys and girls
go on to become violent offenders (Widom 1989), and one in eight sexually
abused boys go on to become sexual offenders (Salter et al. 2003). Ferguson
and Lynskey (1997) also suggest that the relationship is weak, claiming that
while those exposed to harsh or abusive treatment during childhood repre¬
sent an at-risk population, any elevated risk of deviant behavior arises from
the social context within which harsh or abusive treatment occurs, which
when combined with the mere exposure to violence, further increases the
likelihood of violent behaviors.

Sociological Determinants

Peer Relationships
It is a widely accepted idea that peer groups are a powerful force during ado¬
lescence. These groups provide an important developmental point of refer¬
ence through which adolescents gain an understanding of the world outside
of their families. Failure to develop close relationships during childhood can
result in a variety of problems for adolescents—from delinquency and sub¬
stance abuse to psychological disorders (Hops et al. 1997). But delinquency
per se is not the same as violent offending. So why does research continue
to pursue the idea that not adapting well to one’s peers leads to future vio¬
lent behavior? The reason is simple: the research keeps pointing back in that
direction—perhaps not as a direct cause, but certainly as a correlation.
McCord et al. (2001, 80) stated, “Factors such as peer delinquent behav¬
ior, peer approval of delinquent behavior, attachment or allegiance to peers,
time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated
with adolescent antisocial behavior” (see also Akers 2000). However, what is
unclear in all of the research findings is the exact relationship between the
peers, the age of onset, and the level of delinquency. This is true as well for the
58 Police and Profiling in the United States

fact that it is unclear which came first: the delinquent peers (as a function of
neighborhood or environment) or the deviance that may have led to seeking
out like-minded individuals (as a function of socialization).
The criminal justice field in general and the juvenile justice field in par¬
ticular have borrowed methods and practices from other disciplines to assist
in the development of a “risk profile” and, subsequently, a risk factor preven¬
tion paradigm. Table 4.1, adapted from the Office of the Surgeon General
(2001), identifies the risk and protective factors by domain, where domain
represents demographic characteristics of the subjects.
Overall, the risk factor prevention paradigm is a good idea, but the appli¬
cation has significant challenges, most notably: (1) the term risk factor is
not used consistently; (2) operationally, it is not connected to an underlying
theoretical construct (Farrington 2000); and (3) most studies have failed to
clearly identify which factors (risk or protective) are stronger than others.
Without clear delineation of key factors, it is difficult to identify which fac¬
tors to focus on in terms of implementing appropriate policy, be it rehabili¬
tative or retributive in nature. However, this chart clearly identifies some of
the dominant themes found in existing research regarding peer relationships
and offending.
What does appear consistently clear is early peer-related aggression (pri¬
marily in males) is highly correlated with adult violent behaviors in both self-
report studies (Huesmann et al. 1984) and official reports (McCord 1983).

Bullying and Cyberbullying

Bullying, also referred to as peer victimization, can never be taken lightly
or overestimated. Some teachers, principals, and parents seem to take bul¬
lying for granted, dismissing it as a “part of growing up.” Bullying includes
a student being verbally abused (name-calling), emotionally intimidated, or
physically threatened by one or more students. The acts are repeated acts of
harassment that often target an individual. Many see it as “getting picked
on” by tougher kids or the hassling of weaker kids. Schumann (2009) indi¬
cated that almost half of public school principals (49%) report that bullying,
name-calling, or harassment of students is a serious problem at their school.
Surveys indicate that as many as half of all children are bullied at some time
during their school years, and at least 1 in 10 children is bullied on a regular
basis. Studies have shown that teens who are abused by their peers are at risk
for mental health problems, low self-esteem, stress, depression, anxiety, and
a greater risk of suicide.

Physical Abuse by Bullies

Some bullies attack their targets physically by shoving, tripping, punching,
pushing, hitting, kicking, stealing, hiding, or ruining someone’s things; by
Childhood Indicators 59

TABLE 4.1 Risk and Protective Factors by Domain

Risk Factor

Early Onset Late Onset

Domain (ages 6-11) (ages 12-14) Protective Factor3

Individual General offenses General offenses Intolerant attitude

Substance use Restlessness toward deviance
Being male Difficulty High IQ
Aggressionb concentrating15 Being female
Hyperactivity Risk taking Positive social
Problem (antisocial) Aggression15 orientation
behavior Being male Perceived sanctions for
Exposure to television Physical violence transgressions
violence Antisocial attitudes,
Medical, physical beliefs
problems Crimes against persons
Low IQ Problem (antisocial)
Antisocial attitudes, behavior
beliefs Low IQ
Dishonesty15 Substance use
Family Low socioeconomic Poor parent-child Warm, supportive
status/poverty relationship relationships with
Antisocial parents Harsh or lax discipline parents or other
Poor parent-child Poor monitoring, adults
relationship supervision Parents’ positive
Harsh, lax, or Low parental evaluation of peers
inconsistent discipline involvement Parental monitoring
Broken home Antisocial parents
Separation from Broken home
parents Low socioeconomic
Abusive parents status/poverty
Neglect Abusive parents
Other conditions Family conflict15
School Poor attitude, Poor attitude, Commitment to school
performance performance Recognition for/
Academic failure involvement in
conventional activities
Peer group Weak social ties Weak social ties Friends who engage in
Antisocial peers Antisocial delinquent conventional behavior
peers
Gang membership
Community Neighborhood crime,
drugs
Neighborhood
disorganization

Source: Adapted from the Office of the Surgeon General, 2001, https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/
°jjdp/jjjournal_2003_2/page2.html.
a Age of onset not known.
b Males only.
60 Police and Profiling in the United States

sexual assault; by making someone do things he or she does not want to do;
or by even just threatening to do so.

Psychological Control by Bullies

The uses of psychological control shown by bullies also can have a profound
effect on their victims. Kids in popular groups or cliques often bully other
kids they categorize as different through exclusion, gossiping (psychological
bullying), silent treatments, spreading lies or rumors about them, or making
them do things they don’t want to do.

Verbal Bullying
Another venue of bullying includes verbal bullying where a child taunts or
criticizes another child by name-calling, insulting, making fun of the victim,
or just teasing him or her. The bully will use verbal insults to achieve a power
position over the victim.
One of the most painful aspects of bullying is that it is relentless. Most
children can take one episode of teasing or name-calling, but when it goes
on and on, persistent bullying can put a child in a state of constant fear.
Numerous studies have indicated that children subjected to bullying can
become depressed or withdrawn and, in some cases, end their suffering by
committing suicide (Roland 2002; Kim and Leventhal 2008), but other stud¬
ies suggest that children’s depressive symptoms in elementary school pre¬
cede social victimization and isolation later on (Szalvitz 2012). Regardless of
whether the depression was a result of bullying or existed as a targeting factor
for bullying, the effects on the individual and on society are being widely felt
and have elevated this issue to one of national concern.

Cyberbullying
A new study by the National Institutes of Health has found that victims of
cyberbullying are even more vulnerable to depression than those who are
victims of traditional school bullying. Cyberbullying is “any cyber-commu¬
nication or publication posted or sent by a minor online, by instant mes¬
sage, e-mail, website, diary site, online profile, interactive game, handheld
device, cellphone, game device, digital camera or video, webcam or use of
any interactive device that is intended to frighten, embarrass, harass, hurt,
set up, cause harm to, extort, or otherwise target another minor” (Affab n.d.).
Cyberbullying can cause emotional abuse that systematically degrades a vic¬
tim’s self-worth. In cyberspace, this is accomplished in much the same way as
traditional bullying, but can also include the posting of humiliating pictures
and using electronic media to purposely embarrass a victim in a consistent
and unrelenting manner, as well as broadcast to a limitless number of read¬
ers/viewers. While officials attempt to understand the motivations and char¬
acteristics of offenders, no specific attention has been given to the profiling of
Childhood Indicators 61

cyberbullies. In order for the offense to be classified as cyberbullying, there

must be a minor on both sides of the exchange, or at least it must have been
instigated by one minor against another minor. The introduction or involve¬
ment of an adult into the exchange alters the nature of the offense.
According to Lisa Madison (2012) of the Illinois Attorney General’s
office, cyberbullying is a relatively recent phenomenon. The commonality of
computer and social technologies serves to effectively make one vulnerable
to bullying anywhere and at any time—and through them, bullies can follow
victims home. The Illinois Attorney General’s websites reported these facts
about cyberbullying:

• 58% of children have not told their parents or another adult that
someone has said mean or hurtful things to them.
• 42% of children have been bullied online.
• 25% of children have been bullied more than once online.
• 58% of children said someone has said mean or hurtful things to
them online, and 40% of those children reported it happening more
than once.
• 53% admit to saying something mean or hurtful to someone online,
and more than one in three children admitted saying something
mean or hurtful to another child more than once.
• 35% of children have been threatened online.
• Nearly 20% of children have been threatened more than once online.

Despite the increasing rate of cyberbullying, it remains a comparatively

unexamined criminal behavior. Therefore, this information is presented
to provide law enforcement insight with special emphasis on profiling.
Additionally, characteristics of a cyberbully and various typologies and
motivations of such offenders can be used to develop a profile for use in com¬
munity-based interventions.
Profiling can enhance resolution of certain criminal cases by studying
the motivations and characteristics of offenders who perpetrate the crimes.
By developing a deeper understanding of the characteristics of cyberbullies,
authorities can detect potential cyberoffenders and identify the common traits
they generally possess. Community leaders and public safety personnel can also
use profiling as a tool to help understand cyberbullying, to address the growing
challenge of detecting, investigating, and reporting incidents of cyberbullying.
Digital communication has created a new way to bully. But this begs the
question of whether cyberbullies are simply traditional bullies who use new
methods to bully, or are they a new group? It is logical to assume that cyber¬
bullying and traditional bullying are related on some levels, but the nature
of the medium and the damage that can be done suggest also that there are
distinct differences:
62 Police and Profiling in the United States

• Bullies who engage in traditional bullying (in person/real life) are

referred to as all-around bullies.
• Bullies who choose to carry out their attacks exclusively in the cyber¬
world are referred to as pure bullies (Sanders et al. 2010).

According to Sanders et al. (2010), pure cyberbullies do not match the

profile of a typical traditional bully, who is often dominant, popular, but
disliked. In addition, they are less dominant and deviant than all-around
bullies. Pure cyberbullies do not have to be tough to be able to bully. They
can easily access a dramatically wider audience, amplifying the potential for
serious emotional harm. Further, the anonymity of digital communication
enables and may even promote more vicious personal attacks.
Cyberbullies and all-around bullies do not differ in levels of empathy, social
intelligence, relational aggression, or school achievement, or in the motives for
their bullying behavior. Research suggests that many cyberbullies are peers close
to the victim, such as classmates, friends, and schoolmates. Cyberbullies are
more often boys, while the victims are most often girls. The preferred method of
attack is verbal bullying over the Internet, which involves sending cruel instant
or e-mail messages. It is also not uncommon for bullies to incorporate other
children in their verbal assault of another. The relative unfamiliarity of adults
with this technology renders both abusers and victims virtually invisible.

Common Characteristics of Bullies

A common thread among bullies is that something or someone is mak¬
ing them feel insecure, so they are bullying to make themselves feel better.
Bullying is equated to aggressive and pugnacious behavior, and it often leads
to more violent behavior as the bully grows up. It is estimated that one out of
four elementary school bullies will have a criminal record by the time he or
she is 30 (Eron et al. 1987). Teen bullies may end up being rejected by their
peers and lose friendships as they grow older. A bully may try to manipulate
his or her victim by anonymously starting a damaging rumor just to see what
happens. Other characteristics to consider include

• Many bullies have problems in other parts of their life. Look for
something going on in their families or indications that they are
struggling in school.
• They may not feel like they are getting enough attention from par¬
ents or teachers.
• Bullies may report that parents or older siblings get their way by
being angry or pushing other people around. Some bullies act the
way they do because they have been bullied themselves, including
by their own families. Once they are a little older, bigger, and more
confident, they take on the same behaviors.
Childhood Indicators 63

• Bullies may be spoiled or have not been taught to not hurt others.
They are narcissistic and like to dominate others.
• Look into their exposure to violence in movies, TV, and video games.
• Bullies are actually insecure. They put other people down so that
they can feel more interesting or powerful.
• Bullies may have poor social skills and poor social judgment. It is
not uncommon for them to have little feeling of remorse, empathy,
or caring toward their victims.

In My Experience...

Dr. Cynthia Schumann (2009) of the Chicago Police Department reports that
the identification of specific behaviors and characteristics of the cyberbully
provides the clues to uncovering this anonymous and hidden crime. Cyber¬
space is the crime scene where cyberbullying occurs. By increasing the level
of understanding and educating those involved with detecting, reporting, and
counseling cyber-victims, it is hoped that a profile can benefit community lead¬
ers by flagging characteristics, behaviors, and motivators of the typical cyber¬
bully offender.
Profiling is a useful tool in a variety of markets and businesses, for example,
consumer marketing groups profile customers, as do grocery and department
stores, to introduce new products and increase sales. More commonly, law
enforcement uses profiling to aid in the identification of criminals, building
psychological profiles of offenders, targeting postal packages for contraband,
and a host of other miscellaneous criminally motivated occurrences. Profiling
seeks signs or behaviors that are typical or common to a specific crime, a spe¬
cific place, or a specific offender.
When constructing a profile of a typical cyberbully, there are signs of behav¬
ior that are cunning and calculating. They attack a victim’s self-esteem and con¬
fidence. Over time, if left undetected, cyberbullying can result in teen suicide,
social isolation, and academic failure. With respect to the special problem of
cyberbullying among girls, it is the scheming, conspiring, alliance building,
and treachery that results in long-term psychological harm.
The goals in cyberbullying are the same as those exhibited by the schoolyard
bully. However, schoolyard bullying was confined to school grounds and acts of
bullying committed during school days with limited harm perpetrated on the
victim. Today, due to technology, acts of cyberbullying can be perpetrated night
and day. It is a pervasive societal problem with an extreme reach, using vicious
tools that cause much more harm than the more traditional form of schoolyard
bullying. The problem of cyberbullying is exacerbated by the lack of familiarity
on the part of parents and public safety personnel. Therefore, it is imperative
that community leaders understand the modus operandi of cyberoffenders and
move swiftly in detecting, reporting, and intervening in acts of cybercrimes.
Profiling can assist the public safety official in recognizing the nuances of this
insidious unrelenting crime.
64 Police and Profiling in the United States

References
Aftab, P. What is cyberbullying. n.d. www.affab.com/cyberbullying (accessed
September 29, 2012).
Akers, R.I. Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd ed.).
Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2000.
Bremner, R. Children and youth in America: A documentary history. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1970.
Connor, M. The risk of violent and homicidal behavior in children. 2007. www.
oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/childviolence.htm (accessed
May 27, 2012).
Eron, L.D., R.L. Huesmann, E. Dubow, R. Romanoff, and P.W. Yarnel. Childhood
aggression and its correlates over 22 years. In D.H. Cravell, I.M. Evans, and C.R.
O’Donnell (Eds.), Childhood aggression and violence. New York: Plenum, 1987:
249-262.
Farrington, D. Explaining and preventing crime: The globalization of knowledge.
Criminology, 38, 2000: 1-24.
Ferguson, D„ and M. Lynskey. Physical punishment/maltreatment during childhood
and adjustment in young adulthood. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21(7), 1997:
617-630.
Fox, S.J. Juvenile justice reform: An historical perspective. Stanford Law Review, 22,
1970: 1187.
Greenwald, R. (ed.). Trauma and juvenile delinquency: Theory, research, and interven¬
tion. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press, 2002.
Hops, H., B. Davis, A. Alpert, and N. Longoria. Adolescent peer relations and depres¬
sion symptomatology. In Adolescence, ed. J. W. Santrock, 211. Boston: McGraw
Hill Co., 1997.
Hosser, D., S. Raddatz, and M. Windzio. Child maltreatment, revictimization and
violent behavior. Violence and Victims, 22, 2007: 318-333.
Huesmann, L.R., L.D. Eron, M.M. Lefkowitz, and L.O. Walder. The stability of aggres¬
sion over time and generations. Development Psychology, 20, 1984: 1120-1134.
Karmen, A. Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. New York: Wadsworth
Publishing, 2010.
Kempe, C.H., F.N. Silverman, W. Droegemeuller, and H.K. Silver. The battered child
syndrome. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9, 1985: 143-154.
Kim, Y.S., and B. Leventhal. Bullying and suicide: A review. International Journal of
Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20(2), 2008: 133-154.
Kleinman, P. K., B. D. Blackbourne, S. C. Marks et al. Radiologic contributions to
the investigation and prosecution of cases of fatal infant abuse. New England
Journal of Medicine, 320, 1989: 507-511.
MacDonald, J.M. The threat to kill. American Journal of Psychiatry, 120, 1963:
125-130.
Madison, L. Interview by Ronald Rufo. Illinois Attorney General (August 1, 2012).
McCord, J. A forty year perspective on effects of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 7, 1983: 265-270.
McCord, J., C. Widom, and N.A. Crowell. Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention,
Treatment and Control. Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 2001.
Childhood Indicators 65

Platt, A. The child savers: The invention of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1977.
Roland, E. Aggression, depression, and bullying others. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 3,
2002: 198-206.
Salter, A.C. Predators, pedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders: Who they are and
how they operate. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2003.
Sanders, J.B.P., P.K. Smith, and A.H.N. Cillessen. Cyberbullies: Their characteristics,
motives, and features of their bullying behavior. In preparation, 2010.
Sanders, J.B.P., P.K. Smith, and A.H.N. Cillessen. All about cyberbullies: Who they are
and what they do (issue #2), 2012.
Schumann, C. Cyberbullying among preteen and adolescent children. Dissertation.
Atlanta, GA: Argosy University, 2009.
Shurtleff, N.D. Records of the governor and company of the Massachusetts Bay in
New England 1628-1686. 1854.
Szalavitz, M. The relationship between bullying and depression: It’s complicated.
Time.com, February 9, 2012.
Ventrell, M. Evolution of the dependency component of the juvenile court. Junveile
and Family Court Journal, 49, 1998.
Watkins Jr., J.C. The juvenile justice century: A socio-legal commentary on American
juvenile courts. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 1998.
Widom, C. Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Criminology, 27,
1989:251-271.
Widom, C., and M. Maxfield. An update on the “cycle of violence,” brief. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice, 2001.
Williamson, L. Infanticide: An anthropological analysis. In Infanticide and the value
of life, ed. Marvin Kohl. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1978: 61-73.
 .

■
Motives and Criminal
Typologies

It was an urge.... A strong urge, and the longer I let it go the stronger it got,
to where I was taking risks to go out and kill people.
—Edmund Kemper, serial killer

Chapter Goals

• To appreciate the differences between motives, triggers, and impulses

• To explore motives in the context of practical reasoning and legal liability
• To examine crime offense categories in the context of developing
typologies based upon different criminal characteristics
• To apply the typing of offenders and their crimes to the preliminary
development of a profile

Key Words

Actus reus
Aging-out phenomenon
Circumstantial evidence
Classes
Classification
Corpus delicti
Impulse
Intent
Mens rea
Motive
Patterns
Teleological
Trends
Trigger
Typologies

67
68 Police and Profiling in the United States

Introduction

Law enforcement investigators have to contend with an infinite number of

variables in the reconstruction of a criminal event, and even then it could
simply be a lucky guess that predicts a criminals behavior. Some of the fac¬
tors and characteristics that may be possible indicators include motives, trig¬
gers, and impulses.
To begin the exploration into the unique differences between these terms,
one must first consider what is implied by the vocabulary being used. For
example, a motive represents the opportunity to find an explanation for why
certain actions were taken (or choices made). “Motive is the reason, the why,
sometimes the darkest chapter in the darkest book in the massive library we
call the human mind” (Van Zandt 2006). Identifying a motive essentially
involves exploring the driving force that takes a person from the thinking
and planning stages to actually committing the offense.
A trigger suggests that there exists a conditioned response to certain
stimuli. Williams and Barlow (1999, 83) claim that triggers are all the inci¬
dents, large or small, that precede aggressive outbursts. Triggers can be per¬
sonal to the individual or hold some special meaning based on his or her
past experience. Mills (2000) acknowledged that our minds are programmed
with persuasion triggers that activate when we receive an appropriate cue.
Triggers are largely emotionally driven. Morrison (2004) says that emotional
responses should be assessed and rated for intensity in relation to individual
situations, idiosyncratic thoughts, and behaviors. It is important to assess
when the emotion is detected in relation to other components, as it may act
as a cue or trigger.
An impulse conveys the idea that the person cannot help himself or her¬
self—as illustrated in the quote at the beginning of the chapter by Edmund
Kemper: “It was an urge_A strong urge.” Impulse control is based pre¬
dominantly on emotions, where facts and consequences play little or no part.
Such actions, driven by feelings, whether isolated, occasional, or part of a
lifestyle pattern controlled by irresistible urges, must all be seen as poten¬
tially hazardous for the impulse decision maker. Not every decision taken
on impulse can be seen as part of a familiar pattern of behavior. Sometimes
they occur as isolated events. Johnson (2004) explains that violence itself is
not a diagnosable mental disorder or illness, but rather the symptom of an
underlying disorder and problems with impulse control. In the interest of
remaining consistent with previous chapters, this suggests that the search for
explanations follows the same general structure as theory in that a motive is
a choice, and triggers or impulses represent the social learning and biological
schools, respectively.
Motives and Criminal Typologies 69

What follows below is a more in-depth analysis of the role of motive iden¬
tification in the pursuit of an unknown suspect, as well as the legal implica¬
tions of triggers and impulses in the pursuit of justice.

Motive

If analysts approach the issue of motive with the goal of answering the main
questions—who, what, where, when, and why—then it becomes clearer what
the elements and their relationship to one another should be. In many cases,
the who is the person being sought, the what is the criminal incident, the
where is the crime scene (which may be located in more than one place), the
when is sometimes known immediately and sometimes requires scientific
analysis to confirm, and the why answers all of the above questions. It holds
the key to the public rationalizing (read “accepting”) what happened, and is
often important to a victim’s recovery. Sometimes the why is obvious, the
suspect needed money so he or she robbed someone for cash or jewels, but
sometimes the why is less obvious or the offender is unknown, and that is
generally when the process of reconstructing a motive is initiated. Criminal
motives may include one or more of the following:

Hate Anger Sexual arousal/lust/

stalking/desire/fascination

Financial reasons Compulsive/driven Risk/ challenge/detection

Deranged notions Jealousy Revenge

Means/opportunity/ Sadistic thoughts/ Ego/narcissistic

deception/persuasion/ manipulation
weakness

Source: Rufo, R., An Investigation of Online Sexual Predation of Minors by Convicted Male
Offenders, dissertation, Argosy University, Atlanta, GA, 2007.

Within criminal law, motive provides an explanation as to why a

person acted in a certain way, otherwise known as offender motivation.
However, in this context, it is not an element necessary to prove a case, as
it is not part of the corpus delicti. Corpus delicti refers to the body of the
crime, and it is composed of mens rea (guilty mind), actus reus (guilty act),
and a combination of the two, causation and harm. The presence of all five
elements is required to seek a first-degree charge, and the absence of any
one of these elements will reduce the severity of the crime being charged.
70 Police and Profiling in the United States

While not specifically required to prove a crime, motive does, nonetheless,

have a great deal of power in the courtroom in that it can

• Convince a jury of the circumstances that led up to a criminal event

• Provide a potential explanation for what happened
• Provide clues to the offender identification in situations where the
offender is unknown.

Wood et al. (1994) points out that the vast amount of criminological lit¬
erature neglects the empirical study of criminal motivations. This is likely
because motive, per se, is not observable. This research void presents particu¬
lar challenges in criminal justice because so much of the investigative process
is built upon assumptions about one’s mens rea, the guilty mind. Efforts to
quantify the issues surrounding motive reliability have generally approached
the issue from the perspective of reasoning models, such as the BDI and IBE
models discussed below (Walton and Schafer 2006).

Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI)
The belief-desire-intention (BDI) model combines top-down and bottom-
up models of teleological practical reasoning by drawing an inference from
facts and circumstantial evidence using abductive reasoning (see Chapter 3).
Motives, in this model, are defined as immediate internal desires to which
someone is strongly committed and, therefore, has adopted certain behaviors
in an effort to achieve or preserve those desires. Other people can use knowl¬
edge of the desire, or circumstantial evidence, to reasonably infer a particular
motive. Circumstantial evidence of a person’s motive comes from actions
taken, either directly by the person or indirectly through others (Walton and
Schafer 2006). The model is best explained as the following:

Major premise: I have a desire D.

Minor premise: Carrying out this action A is a means to realize D.
Conclusion: Therefore, I carry out action A.

Leonard (2001, 447) argues that once the existence of the motive has
been established, it is reasonable to conclude that the individual committed
a particular act, that the act in question occurred, or that the agent had some
state of mind (in criminal cases, a guilty mind). It is in this context that the
BDI model can prove useful to the criminal justice field in that if the pros¬
ecutor can successfully convince the trier of fact of the conclusion, then a
conviction becomes more possible.
Motives and Criminal Typologies 71

Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE)

Inference to the best explanation (IBE) represents a combination of practical
and abductive reasoning in that it infers a conclusion from a set of observed
or given facts or data (as in the case of a crime scene) by selecting the best one
among several explanations that could account for the facts of a case (Walton
and Schafer 2006). Abductive inference has the following form, showing its
structure as inference to the best explanation {H is a hypothesis):

• D is a collection of data.
• H explains D.
• No other hypothesis can explain D as well as H does.
• Therefore, H is probably true (Josephson and Josephson 1994)

The greatest challenge of this method is that the vehicle of information

(i.e., the crime scene) is fixed in time. The information gleaned from a crime
scene can speak only to what happened at the moment of the act, but does lit¬
tle to explain behaviors that took place immediately before or after the crimi¬
nal event. This represents a challenge for law enforcement officers who believe
that the elements of a particular crime scene or a specific piece of evidence
indicates evolving motives. It requires discipline and training to allow such
information to be analyzed only in terms of the value of the incident itself.
Bex et al. (2009) extended the IBE model by using the argumentation
scheme for practical reasoning, and their analysis goes beyond a simple
explanation by using critical questions to explain certain choices.

CQl: Are there alternative ways of explaining the current circumstances?

CQ2: Assuming the explanation, is there something that takes away
the motivation?
CQ3: Assuming the explanation, is there another motivation that is a
deterrent for doing the action?
CQ4: Can the current explanation be induced by some other motivation?
CQ5: Assuming the previous circumstances R, was one of the partici¬
pants in the joint action trying to reach a different state?
CQ6: Are the current circumstances true?
CQ7: Could the action have had the stated preconditions?
CQ8: Were the previous circumstances the same as the current
circumstances?
CQ9: Could the explanation for the current state provide the motivation?
CQ10: Assuming the previous circumstances, would the action have
the stated consequences?
CQll: Assuming the previous circumstances, would the action have
any consequences?
72 Police and Profiling in the United States

CQ12: Are the current circumstances S possible?

CQ13: Is the joint action possible?
CQ14: Are the previous circumstances R possible?
CQ15: Is the motivation indeed a legitimate motivation?

As a result of asking these 15 critical questions, the analysis is more

technically powerful and shows several ways in which the simpler model
could be extended. However, it cannot be ignored that a simple model has
some advantages as a representation of evidential reasoning about motives.
Indeed, Walton (2011) argues that “the BDI model is the best one suited for
reasoning abductively in legal argumentation from an agent’s actions to a
hypothesis about the motive that may have led to the action” in large measure
because the commitment model and the BDI can be used simultaneously,
and because he feels that the BDI model better adapts to the emotional ambi¬
guity often attendant in legal scenarios.

Motive Perspectives

The motive behind a crime can be apparent from the crime scene investi¬
gation; for example, in other circumstances, potential motives can be ruled
out as a function of the evidence, as in a suspected robbery where nothing
of value was taken from the victim. When a potential motive is eliminated,
detectives are forced to consider other motives for the criminal incident. This
is achieved by implementation of two very different perspectives: environ¬
mental and individual. Environmental perspective refers to evidence recov¬
ered at the crime scene, whereas individual perspective refers to evidence
regarding personality traits of the potential offender.

Environmental Reconstruction
As stated above, environmental reconstruction refers to determining an
offender’s motive based upon evidence recovered at the crime scene. For
example, a seemingly random shooting may begin to take on the charac¬
teristics of a gang-related shooting after investigators collect environmental
information, such as the area where it occurred (gang territory, gang wars,
gang graffiti, gang colors), timing of the event (in terms of other events, as in
cases of retaliation or territorial assertion), the offender’s associated peers, or
eyewitness accounts.
Provided below is an example of where making assumptions about indi¬
vidual behaviors or motives using environmental analysis can prove to be an
obstacle in the construction of a solid profile.
Motives and Criminal Typologies 73

Figure 5.1 Crime scene. (From http://www.harpervalley.wordpress.com/2006/

08/02.) '

When investigators happened upon this scene (Figure 5.1), they determined
that they were likely dealing with a disorganized offender given the state of
the room. They began looking for (and finding?) evidence that supported this
assumption. It wasn’t until they interviewed the victim that they determined that
the state of disarray that they believed to be evidence of the offender’s state of
mind was actually the normal state of disarray for the home. This illustrates the
problems associated with using a crime scene exclusively to make assumptions
about the mental state of an offender. The shift in focus from individual charac¬
terizations to crime scene analysis (Chapter 9) and victim selection (Chapter 11)
as a means of constructing a more complete, impartial, and balanced profile of
the offender promises a more balanced and impartial profile development.

Individual Reconstruction
Using the example presented above, if the indicators are specific to either the
offender or the victim (such as arrest history, gang history, tattoos) involved in
the criminal event, then the motive may be constructed based upon individual
characteristics. Turvey (2012, 314) refers to these factors as state vs. trait, where
state refers to a snapshot of a person evidenced by a cluster of behavior at one
point in time, and trait is a relatively stable and static portrait of a person that
endures over time. Related to this idea is the caution not to attempt to accom¬
plish more than the task at hand. There can be a tendency to assume more
knowledge about the offender (or the victim) than the evidence reveals, which
can ultimately lead to fallacies in logical evaluation (see Chapter 3).
74 Police and Profiling in the United States

Determining Motive
Motives are often determined by the evidence left behind, which suggests
not only a reason for the action, but also how the action was carried out. For
example, in arson cases, a personal attack on the individual could result in the
victim’s personal clothes being burned, the victim’s bed being burned, or items
close to the victim being targeted, and may indicate a personal vendetta from
someone known. Despite the consistency of such observations, corroboration
by a witness or offender often makes the impending criminal case viable.
There is often no one piece of evidence a criminal leaves behind; rather, it
depends upon what is being investigated and the totality of the findings. Take,
for example, a burglary where fingerprints, shoe prints, burglary tools, tool
marks, etc., might be recovered from the crime scene, or a sexual assault where
DNA (saliva, semen, hair, fingernail, bite marks) is recovered. Depending on
the type of investigation, a trained investigator knows what and where to look
for specific evidence when processing the crime scene. The likelihood of the
offender leaving behind DNA is most plausible, so the key would be to locate
and recover the DNA. Most cases are now expected to provide the courts/juries
with some proof of DNA to establish credibility, but that is not to suggest that
all cases can do so. In crimes where DNA is not available, eyewitness and vic¬
tim statements or offender confessions can be crucial to solving crimes.

Triggers

Unlike motives, which speak to providing an explanation for certain actions

and are useful in discussions of mens rea, triggers function more along the
lines of conditioned responses—not unlike those discussed in the behavioral
models (which are grounded in learning theory) of crime. Behavior theory
holds that it is through the imposition of rewards and punishments that
behavior can be shaped. Table 5.1 demonstrates the four different perspectives
regarding the use of rewards and punishments employed in behavior theory.

TABLE 5.1 Four Perspectives on Reward and Punishment

Positive Negative

Rewards Increases the frequency of approved Increases the frequency of approved

behavior by adding something behavior by removing something
desirable, e.g., giving a gift unpleasant, e.g., day off from chores
Punishments Decreases the frequency of Decreases the frequency of
undesirable behavior by adding undesirable behavior by removing
something unpleasant, e.g., something pleasant, e.g., taking
administering a spanking away a favorite toy
Motives and Criminal Typologies 75

Behavior theory implies that the motivations for certain actions are envi¬
ronmentally located—not from within the individual. This is important in
terms of understanding that one’s environment can be changed (theoreti¬
cally), and therefore, the behavior can also be changed. This perspective is
also considered one of the weakest elements of behavior theory because it
negates an individual’s choice to take a particular action. Further, suggesting
that a stimulus compels an action creates the inference that the actor could
not help himself or herself, which of course has implications for legal deci¬
sions regarding liability and responsibility.
Legally speaking, the impact of triggers is in the context of the actus reus
(guilty act) component of the corpus delicti (body of the crime). If it can be
proven that the guilty act took place, but not as a function of the will of the actor,
then the severity of the crime for which the individual can be charge will be
mitigated. In essence, if an individual receives positive reinforcement for actions
taken following a particular stimulus, then it is logical to assume that whenever
that particular stimulus occurs, the specific action will follow. Consider Pavlov’s
dog: whenever the bell rang, the dog salivated—even when there was no reward.
The dog simply could not help it. This is not meant to suggest that individuals
cannot help their actions when faced with certain stimuli, but there is some
research to support that certain stimuli will elicit certain reactions.

Intent

Contrary to motive, intent is defined as the ultimate desired end goal that
guides one’s behavior, and it is a necessary element to prove a criminal case.
Intent represents one of the five elements of the corpus delicti, and proving
the existence of intent (mens rea) increases the severity of the crimes being
charged. It is not necessarily incorrect to use the terms motive and intent
interchangeably, as one often leads to another. However, when speaking in
terms of the court process, intent is the preferred term.

Criminal Typologies

Typologies involve classifying groups according to some measurable criteria

of relatedness or similarity, whereas classification involves a set of attributes
or variables that are linked to form a number of logical classes. The process of
placing groups into similar classes is not unique to criminology, and in fact
occurs every day, e.g., fruits vs. vegetables, boys vs. girls, good vs. bad. Criminal
typologies can refer to several different elements of the same system, such as
offender characteristics, system characteristics, or victim characteristics.
Within each class exist subcategories, including the actual crimes committed
76 Police and Profiling in the United States

(petty or violent), the nature of the offenses committed (habitual or episodic),

or the methods used by the offenders (predatory or opportunistic).
A key difference between classification and typology (although often
used interchangeably) is that typology seeks ways to explain how observed
phenomena can be explained empirically. In general, the goal is to make the
information manageable so that it can be practically applied to the organiza¬
tion, classification, and range of behaviors that violate the law.
What is significant about the categorizing in criminology is twofold: (1)
the category often determines the level of liability and punishment, and (2)
each stage of the criminal justice system applies its discipline’s typology; i.e.,
police determine felony vs. misdemeanor, courts determine guilt vs. inno¬
cence, and corrections determine jail vs. prison. Another important feature
about typing in criminology is that so many of the different disciplines’
typologies will overlap with one another, as in the case of a guilty misde¬
meanant sentenced to prison.
System typologies refer to the process of risk assessment and threat analy¬
sis. These typologies are of particular interest to those responsible for main¬
taining control of offenders, but fall outside the scope of this text and therefore
will not be specifically addressed. Victim typologies can be very important
in the identification of an unknown suspect or in the construction of a work¬
able profile, and therefore are discussed in depth in Chapter 11. Criminal
event typologies are legislatively limited in the manner in which they can be
interpreted or used, but they offer valuable information in terms of identifying
whether certain offenders are maintaining or escalating their criminal behav¬
iors. Offender typologies can provide valuable insight into the motivations for
actions; however, the process of categorizing behaviors can sometimes prove
elusive if there is not sufficient attention paid to particular factors (individual
characteristics, environmental factors, types of crime, and crime scene charac¬
teristics), because the resultant information can prove misleading.

Criminal Event Typologies

The typing of crime offers little opportunity for interpretation. The acts them¬
selves are legislatively or legally defined, which often dictates the category. In
essence, “it is what it is.” If one is to consider crime typologies in the broad¬
est sense of the term, then there are four general categories into which most
offenses can be placed (note that these categories are not always independent
of one another): violent offenses, property offenses, white collar crime/orga¬
nized crime offenses, and public order/victimless offenses (level 1).
Table 5.2 shows specific crimes categorized into the appropriate category
(level 2), and beyond that typology, various methods of committing those
crimes can be typed (level 3), and then finally, the various methods of com¬
mitting the crimes categorized (level 4).
Motives and Criminal Typologies 77

Table 5.2 Crime Offense Categories

Level 1 -» Violent Property White collar/ Public order/
organized victimless crime
crime
Level 2 -> Murder/ Economic Stings/swindles Prostitution
homicide
Level 3 -> • First-degree Larceny/theft • Streetwalkers
murder • Brothel
• Felony murder • Call girls
• Second-degree • Escort service
murder
• Manslaughter
Level 4 -> • Voluntary/ • Petty larceny • Bar girls
nonnegligent • Grand larceny • Circuit travelers
• Involuntary/ • Motor vehicle • Rap booth
negligent theft • Skeezers
• Fraud
• Embezzlement
Level 2 -> Forcible rape Burglary Chiseling Pornography
Level 3 -> • Stranger rape • Securities
• Acquaintance fraud
rape • Insider trading
• Statutory rape
Level 4 -» • Date rape
• Marital rape
And so on...

Criminal Offender Typologies

Beyond the categorization of the crime itself, offenders are also categorized
into general types. The typing of offenders serves many purposes, not the
least of which includes providing a framework for disposition (i.e., rehabili¬
tation vs. retribution) or potentially setting the direction for identifying an
unknown suspect, (i.e., serial offender vs. opportunistic offender). There are
many continuums along which specific offenders can be categorized; a list of
the more common typologies is provided below.

Types of Offenders
Homicide, sexual assault, and child investigations often encompass a vari¬
ety of explicit crime scene characteristics that are specific to the crime, the
victim(s), and the relationship with the offender. Different types of offenders
will often exhibit different behavioral patterns, for example:

• An unknown (stranger) vs. known offender (family or acquaintance)

• Offenders who kill adults or the elderly
78 Police and Profiling in the United States

• Offenders who abduct and kill children

• Offenders who commit physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of children
• Preferential vs. situational child molester
• Deceptive vs. narcissistic offender

Types of Crime
In the development of any new profile, the first consideration must be the type
of crime that occurred (violent vs. nonviolent), as many times that informa¬
tion will direct the investigation. For example, upon the reporting of a rape
crime, few, if any, investigators will begin interviewing women—they will,
based on the nature of the crime, statistical probabilities, and experience,
begin a search for a male offender. Therefore, the first typing that occurs,
often without thought, is whether the crime committed was one of violence,
and if so, what type of person would most likely have perpetrated that crime.

Individual Characteristics
Since the type of crime often determines the focus of the investigation, the
next logical typing that takes place is the identification of individual charac¬
teristics that may be identified through elements of the crime or crime scene.
Unfortunately, the classification of individual characteristics takes place
along numerous continuums, not just demographic (gender, age, neighbor¬
hood, etc.). Researchers have examined many factors in their efforts to clas¬
sify specific offenders into like groups, such as mental illness vs. criminal
behavior (Byrne and Roberts 2007), law-abiding vs. law-violating behavior,
psychological vs. sociological factors, classicalism vs. positivism, individual¬
ized vs. socialized criminal* (Lindesmith and Dunham 1941), accidental vs.
professional criminal (Mayhew-Moreau distinction), and social construction
vs. social interaction (Cavan 1962).
The sheer number of possible typologies produces two logical assump¬
tions: (1) typologies are not comprehensive and totally inclusive since so
many categories are required, and (2) with so many different approaches,
overlapping is likely to occur, which has serious implications in any empiri¬
cal analysis of the data. With respect to individuals, typically researchers are
referring to those characteristics that are unique to the offender, such as age,
gender, race, and educational achievement level. Typing offenders accord¬
ing to individual characteristics has provided some valuable and important
information to the field. Consider, for example, the aging-out phenomenon,

* Where individual criminals commit the actions for diverse and personal reasons with
little cultural support, and social criminals' actions are supported by group norms, and
therefore offer the opportunity for the individual to gain status and recognition within
the group (Lindesmith and Dunham 1941).
Motives and Criminal Typologies 79

where researchers have identified that offenders naturally begin aging out of
certain crimes beginning in their mid-twenties, and the corollary finding
that most offenders are criminally active during the ages of 16-24 years. This
information is valuable in terms of identifying the statistical probability that
an offender, known or unknown, would be within a particular age group.
Likewise, typing individuals into specific groups based upon identifiable
characteristics allows the field to observe trends that emerge from analyzing
that specific group.

Sociological Factors

Determinism holds that individuals who commit crimes are compelled

to do so by forces beyond their control and that dictates that some of the
offender typologies address sociological factors as sociology represents one
of the dominant determinist schools (the other two being biological and
psychological). As of late, no one specific factor has been identified as deter¬
mining criminal behavior, but several of the factors discussed in this section
(neighborhoods, peer relationships, and income) have consistently shown,
through research, to have high correlations not only to deviance, but some¬
times to specific types of crime. The individual factors have been applied
to theoretical development in three specific approaches: social structure
(living conditions), social learning (learned behaviors), and social conflict
(relating to society).
Official data sources, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and self-report studies (Monitoring
the Future, National Youth Survey) are used to inform the public and policy
makers alike of what causes crime and victimization. These surveys track
social factors as determinants of criminal behavior and contribute to the
development of policies aimed at successful intervention. Predominantly
research shows that young men from minority or ethnic communities, with
low income, low educational achievement, poorly paid or part-time employ¬
ment (if any), and strained familial relations are the standard defining char¬
acteristics most frequently found in juvenile detention centers and custodial
institutions (Krisberg 2005). The research into why this is so has produced
myriad potential explanations, but a specific cause has yet to be identified.
We have identified several factors that may prove helpful in the construction
of a valid profile and that are consistently supported by empirical evidence.
One such factor is the relationship between social class and criminality.
Jamrozik (2001) defines class levels on the basis of the type and geographi¬
cal location of housing, capacity of parent(s) to provide material support,
nature of education (state school or private school), age at which their for¬
mal education terminates, nature of qualifications (if any) they receive on
80 Police and Profiling in the United States

completion of education, age at entry into the labor market and the nature of
their employment (if any), and the type of leisure activities that they pursue.
Failure to achieve on any of these levels often results in the individual resid¬
ing in the lower classes and potentially being exposed to and engaging in
criminal activity. Data suggest that the more impoverished and deprived an
area, the greater the likelihood that violent and property crimes exist. Since
income levels are often tied directly to social class levels, crime is most asso¬
ciated with the lower class, the unemployed, and the underemployed.
Another factor often identified is peer relationships and crime.
Socialization refers to how children/people learn to act. This learning results
from interactions with teachers, parents, society, and peers. According to Jang
(1999), the long-held belief that there is a distinct relationship between delin¬
quency, age, and delinquent peer association remains largely unaddressed by
research. Research that does exist cannot seem to agree on which came first,
delinquency (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1987) or delinquent peers (Thornberry
et al. 1994), and the research is inconclusive regarding whether delinquent
peers affect the type of criminal behavior, except in the case of drug offending.
Empirical evidence does indicate that increased exposure to delinquent peers
exerts a unique impact on the inclination of older youths to engage in drug
offending (Mears and Field 2002), but not necessarily other deviance. Mears
and Field also identify preliminary evidence that the nature and structure of
peer associations may directly influence the types of offending, but concede
that additional research is needed.
Xu, Pang, and Huo (1994) state, “Typology construction is far from ‘per¬
fect’ (all such systems are based upon unstated assumptions about what the
world is ‘really like’); nonetheless, without typologies, theories themselves
become impossible” (10). Therefore, one cannot be discussed without the
other, as it is necessary to identify similarities before seeking to identify the¬
oretical relationships. Gibbons and Farr (1990) attempted to create a com¬
prehensive typology that would effectively unite the individual and social
factors. They developed a classification system made up of five dimensions:
(1) organizational level at which crime occurs, (2) legitimacy of the organi¬
zational context, (3) organizational alignment of the offender, (4) range of
crime forms, and (5) primary victims. This model was not widely accepted,
and in 1992, Gibbons released a much more specific and refined model that
provided 5 definitional dimensions, 4 background dimensions, and 20 dif¬
ferent offender categories. While extensive detail may be helpful in some
respects, we feel that the sheer number of factors render the model cumber¬
some and unwieldy. Additionally, contrary to efforts to provide a clear path
to rationalization, the elements on an individual basis lack comprehensive¬
ness and on a collective basis tend to overlap one another. This can lead to
confusion and provide an opening for discord.
Motives and Criminal Typologies 81

Crime Scene Characteristics

Finally, perhaps the most well-known and accepted model for typing per¬
sons is the FBIs categorization of organized and disorganized offender.
Menninger and Mayman (1956) used the terms organized and disorganized
to describe episodic dyscontrol in aggressive individuals. The FBI then began
using these terms—as opposed to psychopathic or psychotic, which was too
medicalized—in 1974 to describe particular offenders that demonstrated
psychopathology during the commission of their crimes as evidenced by the
crime scene. Over time, however, it became clear that profilers were assign¬
ing these terms to the wrong variable because this distinction was drawn
from an examination of the crime scene and the victim—not the mental state
of the offender. More recent literature (Flolmes and Holmes 2008; Canter
et al. 2004) has shifted the focus of the organized/disorganized offender to
organized/disorganized crime scene. This subtle change has contributed
greatly to the development of new disciplines focused on providing a better
assessment of offenders and their motivations, including behavioral evidence
analysis (BEA) and crime scene reconstruction.
It is important to note that increasing the levels and dimensions of a
typology serves to narrow focus and creates increased specificity for each
incident. The final result can be a very preliminary profile.

In My Experience...

Detective Saul Arambula, EdD, presents his perspective of working cases on

the violent side of the Detective Division South (Area 2) in the city of Chicago:
Over my 16-year career, I have had the opportunity to work in various units
of the department. I worked my first 2 years in the patrol division in a rapid
response car. Being assigned to the first watch (midnights), I had the opportu¬
nity to handle all types of cases: murders, death investigations, police-involved
shootings, aggravated battery with a handgun or other dangerous weapons,
criminal sexual assaults, robberies, arsons, burglaries, and felony thefts. As the
first responding officer, I had to secure the crime scene, render aid, establish an
inner and outer perimeter, and document the crime scene by sketch or notes
when I first encountered it.
The next 8 years I worked on the tactical teams, auto theft task force, gang
teams, and narcotics teams. During this time I also spent 1 year working as
a crime analyst for Area 1. Upon making detective, I worked in the DOC—
Fusion Center/Counterterrorism; Special Victims Unit; Robbery, Burglary and
Theft Unit; Homicide, Gangs and Sex Crimes Unit; and Bomb and Arson Unit.
Currently, I work mostly on cases involving murder and aggravated battery
with a handgun with the Homicide, Gangs and Sex Crimes Unit.
As a detective, the first thing I do is document the crime scene as I found
it upon my arrival and compare it to notes or a sketch of the first respond¬
ing officer. The documentation of the crime scene begins as soon as I exit my
vehicle. It is important to capture the entire scene, working my way into the
82 Police and Profiling in the United States

inner perimeter of the crime scene. It is critically important to interview the

first responding officer.
Documentation of the crime scene is critically important because the crime
scene/evidence may have been altered, touched, or moved by police officers or
first aid responders. Comparing my notes with those from the first responding
officer, a “pure” crime scene record can be established, which is crucial to the
overall investigation. Maintaining crime scene integrity is also vitally impor¬
tant. Once the detective arrives on scene, it is imperative that only those with
investigative responsibilities have access to the inner-most perimeters. The
outer perimeter should be cordoned off with yellow crime scene tape and the
inner perimeter cordoned off by red crime scene tape. After the initial walk¬
through of the crime scene, the detective can and will most likely adjust the
crime scene perimeter.
Prior to releasing the crime scene, I perform a second walk-through with all
investigative personnel to confirm that all evidence and initial sketches have
been properly collected and documented. The final step is to release the crime
scene. If the crime scene is indoors, I will personally speak with the owner of
the property and request that he or she be readily available to provide access
to the property, if needed. I will obtain a signed consent to search or execute a
search warrant, if further entrance into the crime scene is needed. An outdoor
scene has no reasonable expectation of privacy and will be released once all
investigative duties are complete.
The course of the investigation determines whether the crime scene still has
potential for evidentiary value. Follow-up interviews with the victim (if not
deceased), witnesses, video surveillance, crime lab results (DNA), and addi¬
tional requests from the prosecuting State’s Attorney can all reveal a need for
additional workup of a crime scene. Legally, as long as a crime scene remains
active, law enforcement has the right to control the crime scene until it is offi¬
cially released. Once released, if additional access is needed, a search warrant
can be executed to secure or recover additional evidence. Nature can impose
time limits on the evidentiary value of evidence. A natural dissolution of evi¬
dence or cleaning of the crime scene by those affected after release can do away
with evidence if not retrieved in a timely manner.
In my opinion, I believe that once a crime is committed, the crime scene
and the manner in which the crime was committed can allow an investigator
to theorize how many offenders were involved, the nature of the exchange,
the method of attack, etc. However, unless there are hard facts supporting
one’s ideas or hunches, it would not be prudent to commit to conclusions. A
detective must keep an open mind and allow the investigation to reveal its
true suspect(s).
To be good at your job, I believe that you have to like what you do. I really
take pride in my job as a detective and believe that my investigations produce
results, bring closure to the families affected, and I wholeheartedly expect a
new beginning for those that offend. I continue to seek out cases that chal¬
lenge me, and continue to participate in continuing education and training
seminars that can further my expertise in the field of law enforcement. I also
pursue additional training in fields outside of law enforcement that can have an
impact in furthering my career, such as leadership, psychology, crisis negotia¬
tions, and community outreach. Personal as well as employment growth and
development are key to staying on the cutting edge of criminal investigations.
Although many detectives prefer to specialize in a certain field and handle only
cases particular to their specialty (for example, sex crimes detectives focus on
Motives and Criminal Typologies 83

sex crimes, robbery detectives only do robbery cases), I believe that a detective
should be well versed in all crimes to be most effective. Specifically, the art of
obtaining a confession is a skill that takes time to develop and perfect, and hav¬
ing a wide base of experience helps in that skill development.

References
Bex, F., T. Bench-Capon, and K. Atkinson. Did he jump or was he pushed? Abductive
practical reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and the Law, 17, 2009: 79-99.
Byrne, J.M., and A. Roberts. New directions in offender typology design, development
and implementation: Can we balance risk, treatment and control? Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 12, 2007: 483-492.
Canter, D., C. Missen, and S. Hodge. Are serial killers special? Policing Today, 2(10),
1997:2-11.
Cavan, S. Review: Midwest and its children. Class report, 1962. http://cdclv.unlv.edu/
archives/interactionism/documents/cavan_62.pdf.
Gibbons, D.C., and K.A. Farr. Observations on the development of crime catego¬
ries. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
34, 1990: 223-237.
Gottfredson, M.R., and T. Hirschi. The methodological adequacy of longitudinal
research in crime and delinquency. Criminology, 1987: 581-614.
Holmes, S.T., and R.M. Holmes. Sex crimes: Patterns and behaviors (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008.
Jamrozik, A. Social policy in the post-welfare state: Australians on the threshold of the
21st century. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education, 2001.
Jang, S. J. Age varying effects of family, school and peers on delinquency: A multi-level
modeling test of interactional theory. Criminology, 37, 1999: 643-685.
Johnson, S.L. Therapists guide to clinical intervention: The 1-2-3 s of treatment plan¬
ning. New York: Academic Press, 2004.
Josephson, J.R., and S.G. Josephson. Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy
and technology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Krisberg, B. Juvenile justice: Redeeming our children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishers, 2005.
Leonard, D.P. Character and motive in evidence law. Loyola of Los Angeles Law
Review, 34, 2001: 439-536.
Lindesmith, R., and W. Dunham. Some principles of criminal typology. Social Forces,
19, 1941:307-314.
Mears, D.P., and S. Field. A closer look at the age, peers and delinquency relationship.
Western Criminology Review, 4, 2002: 20-29.
Menninger, K„ and M. Mayman. Episodic dyscontrol: A third order stress adaptation.
Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 20, 1956: 153-165.
Mills, H. Artful persuasion: How to command attention, change minds and influence
people. New York, NY: AMACOM, 2000.
Morrison, A.P. Cognitive therapy for psychosis: A formulation-based approach. New
York, NY: Brunner-Routledge, 2004.
Rufo, R. An investigation of online sexual predation of minors by convicted male
offenders. Dissertation. Argosy University, Atlanta, GA, 2007.
84 Police and Profiling in the United States

Thornberry, T., A.J. Lizotte, M.D. Krohn, M. Farnworth, and S.J. Jang. Delinquent
peers, beliefs and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional the¬
ory. Criminology, 32, 1994: 47-83.
Turvey, B. Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavior evidence analysis (4th ed.).
Oxford, UK: Academic Press, 2012.
Van Zandt, C. Criminals motives are elusive investigators. 2006. www.msnbc.msn.
com/id/11481546/ns/msnbc.tv-the_abrams_report/t/criminals-motives-are-
elusive-investigators/ (accessed May 21, 2012).
Walton, D. Teleological argumentation to and from motives. Law, Probability and
Risk, 10, 2011:203-223.
Walton, D., and Schafer. Character evidence: An abductive theory. Berlin: Springer, 2006.
Williams, E„ and R. Barlow. Anger control training: The anger control training guide,
vol. 2, part 3. London: Winslow Press, 1999.
Wood, P.B., R. Grove, J.A. Wilson, and J.K. Cochran. Motivations for violent crime
among incarcerated adults: A consideration of reinforcement processes. Journal
of Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, #1, 1994: 75-93.
Xu, R., Pang, W., and Huo, Q. Modern inorganic synthetic chemistry. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing Co., 1994.
Sexually Based Offenses
and Motivated Crimes
6
True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand
about ourselves and the world around us.
—Socrates

Chapter Goals

• To be aware of the scope of child abuse and child sexual abuse in society
• To be familiar with the symptomatic patterns of child victims
• To understand what the cycle of violence is and its role in future
violent behaviors
• To be aware of sexual offender characteristics and traits, both online
and in person
• To be familiar with other sexual disorders, namely, stalking and
voyeurism

Key Words

Child pornography
Cycle of violence
Dyadic abuse
Fondling
Incest
Molestation
Predatory behavior
Sexual assault
Sexual exploitation
Sodomy

85
86 Police and Profiling in the United States

Child and Sexual Abuse and Its Effects

Child Abuse
Child abuse is the mistreatment and exploitation of a child, often by a family
member, who is most often male. Child abuse is also putting a child in immi¬
nent jeopardy that is most likely to cause a child severe harm. This chapter
focuses on sexual abuse, physical abuse (nonaccidental physical injury), emo¬
tional abuse (behavioral), and neglect (abandonment).
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families (2011):

• A report of child abuse is made every 10 seconds.

• More than five children die every day as a result of child abuse.
• Approximately 80% of children that die from abuse are under the
age of 4.
• Between 50 and 60% of child fatalities due to maltreatment are not
recorded as such on death certificates.
• Child abuse occurs at every socioeconomic level, across ethnic and
cultural lines, within all religions, and at all levels of education.
• 40.5% of child abuse is committed by biological mothers.
• 17.7% of child abuse is committed by biological fathers.
• 19.3% of child abuse is committed by both parents.
• 6.4% of child abuse is committed by the mother and some other
individual.
• 1.0% of child abuse is committed by the father and one other individual.
• 11.9% of child abuse is committed by someone other than the parents.
• 3.1% of child abuse is committed by an unknown perpetrator.

Child Sexual Abuse

Rufo (2011) reports that all sexual offenses involve the following actions:

• Arousal, stimulation, provocation, or excitement

• Analysis, perception, rationalization, or validation
• Strategy, manipulation, maneuvering, or persuasion
• Secretiveness, intimacy, seclusion, or being discreet
• Exploitation, abuse, manipulation, or influence

Rufo (2011) notes that the sexual abuse of a child encompasses any sex¬
ual activity or sexual assault with a child before the age of legal consent by
an adult or by an older sibling. The most common type of sexual abuse is
known as a dyadic relationship, or one victim and one offender. Many states
Sexually Based Offenses and Motivated Crimes 87

have made sexual assaults felonies that are punishable by lengthy prison
terms. The length of the punishment is often determined by the age differ¬
ence between the offender and the victim. When the offender is an adult, the
court system will often increase the minimum amount of the time he or she
is sentenced. The adult sexual offender will often be required to meet strict
conditions for release. The perpetrator is frequently a male member of the
family that is directly or indirectly related to the child. Most sexual abuse
offenders have been the victim of sexual abuse themselves. Sexual abuse
includes sexual touching or fondling with hands, mouth, or objects or copu¬
lation (penetration). Children can be coerced into disrobing and exposing
themselves, viewing pornography, and watching adults disrobe or engage in
sexual activity. Physical force is not often necessary since the perpetrator is
apt to be someone with whom the child has a trusting relationship and most
likely is in a position of authority over the child. Some of the deviant sexual
acts often involving children include the following:

• Sexual penetration, including intercourse and sodomy

• Any sexual contact, including touching, kissing, or fondling
• Masturbation or manual stimulation of genitals
• Oral/genital contact
• Exhibitionism
• Exposure to pornography

Perpetrators go to great lengths to conceal sexual abuse and oftentimes

believe their sexual behavior is acceptable and not necessarily harmful to the
child. Children who have been sexually abused may not report the behavior
due to threats or a lack of understanding of what has happened. In addition,
they may be confused by the simultaneous physical arousal they may feel
and the clearly covert and possibly threatening nature of the event. Evidence
of abuse may show in physical symptoms, such as rashes, redness, swelling,
bruising, or injuries to the genital area and blood or discharge in bedding or
underwear, or as advanced sexual knowledge for the child’s age; provocative
or seductive behavior toward others; bed-wetting after the child has estab¬
lished the ability to stay dry through the night; declining peer relationships;
fear of a person, place, or object associated with the abuse; or changes in
school behavior or performance. In addition, older children or adolescents
may begin to act out or withdraw, use drugs or alcohol, harm themselves, or
become preoccupied with thoughts of death.
Leach (2011) said that the act of sexual abuse has less to do with sex
and more to do with aggression. It is a false perception of power. The sexual
abuser may act out a reliving of his personal abusive experience, only this
time reversing the power roles. The abuser may perceive the act as a way of
regaining control. Abusers, at times, tend to be loners. They have an inability
88 Police and Profiling in the United States

to develop healthy adult relationships. For all of the above reasons, treatment
is a necessary reality. In some instances, male children who survive sexual
abuse struggle with guilt and anger. This anger manifests itself into frustra¬
tion and revenge. Retaliation motivates the child to eventually abuse others
when he grows older. Valente (2005) said that boys who are sexually abused
may have impaired social relationships and self-destructive behavior. These
children will often feel betrayed and may often question why this terrible
experience is happening to them. Victims often experience, both at the time
of the incestuous act and later as adults, a sense of shame, a feeling of power¬
lessness, and the loss of self-worth.
What is most disturbing in today’s society is the sexual offender’s will¬
ingness to commit a wanton and carnal offense against an innocent victim.
Adults who sexually abuse children are considered to be among the most
serious deviants in any society. Arcus (1998) articulated that children are
sexually abused when they experience sexual contact with an adult or older
child through coercion or deceptive manipulation, and they do not pos¬
sess sufficient maturity to understand the nature of the acts or to provide
informed consent. Wolak et al. (2003), leading authorities in the field of child
sexual abuse, explain the suffering a victim goes through, which includes
confusion about his or her sexual identity, confusion about getting and giv¬
ing care, low self-esteem, depression, and lack of trusting others, along with
guilt, shame, anxiety, and loss of respect for adult authority.
Rufo (2011) acknowledges that if a child molester knows that someone is
watching, it may be difficult to find opportunities to abuse his or her victim
without being caught. Recent studies have found that society has tolerated
child abuse. There is gross underreporting of child abuse and the damage
it causes. It is difficult to fathom how family members can look the other
way, knowing this abuse is occurring, normally to a young and innocent
child. Sex offenders will often target children who display characteristics of
low self-esteem. If a child has a tendency to be a habitual liar, a predator
will use this to his advantage because most people will not believe the child.
This gives the predator additional confidence and power. Normally a child
will use silence to protect a friend, family member, parent, or loved one. The
silence of not revealing the abuse is the pinnacle of helplessness that a child
frequently endures for the rest of his or her life.
Monitoring and detecting a child’s change of behavior may be a way
of discovering that something is wrong, or that possible child abuse has
occurred. A few recent studies have revealed that a child may exhibit specific
signs that often illustrate that a problem may exist. Parents and teachers are
urged to be diligent and informed in their efforts in noticing these specific
signs of trouble. There are a number of symptoms or indicators that a child
has been sexually abused. A child may react to sexual abuse in many different
ways. A few obvious signs are
Sexually Based Offenses and Motivated Crimes 89

• Unexplained, unexpected bed-wetting

• Taking an excessive number of baths
• No valid reason for not wanting to go with someone
• Staying inside the home, not wanting to go to a relative’s or friend’s home
• Experiencing nightmares or bad dreams
• Crying for seemingly no reason
• Not wanting to go to school, constant stomach pains
• Becoming withdrawn and reserved
• Bleeding rectally or vaginally (blood on a child’s underwear, paja¬
mas, clothes)
• Blood in stool or urine
• Trouble walking or a problem sitting
• Unusual infection, swollen tissue near the genital area
• Possible sexually transmitted diseases or unexplained rash
• Concealing their feelings, and keeping the abuse to themselves
• Accepting what has happened to them, and not speaking about it to
anyone
• Showing signs of anger or acting out

Child Pornography

Rufo (2011) found many sexual predators use the Internet to view and distrib¬
ute child pornography, to meet and befriend young victims, and to manipu¬
late their victims into meeting them for sexual encounters. Not only do they
use the Internet to meet their future victims, but they also use it to com¬
municate with each other. Many experts believe that most sexual encounters
that involve children directly involve child pornography, and there seems to
be a clear-cut correlation between child pornography and the likelihood of
physically abusing a child.
In 2009, Bourke and Hernandez studied child victimization and child
pornography and compared two groups of child pornography offenders that
participated in a voluntary treatment program:

1. Men whose known sexual offense history at the time of judicial

sentencing involved the possession, receipt, or distribution of child
abuse images, but did not include any hands-on sexual abuse
2. Men convicted of similar offenses who had documented histories of
hands-on sexual offending against at least one child victim

Bourke and Hernandez’s (2009) findings revealed that the Internet

offenders in their sample were significantly more likely to have sexually abused
a child via a hands-on act.
90 Police and Profiling in the United States

Sexual Violence

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC; 2006) and Prevention define sexual vio¬
lence as the “nonconsensual completed or attempted contact between the penis
and the vulva or the penis and the anus involving penetration, nonconsensual
contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, or anus; nonconsensual pen¬
etration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or
other object; nonconsensual intentional touching, either directly or through the
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks; or non¬
consensual non-contact acts of a sexual nature such as voyeurism and verbal or
behavioral sexual harassment.” All the above acts also qualify as sexual violence
if they are committed against someone who is unable to consent or refuse.
According to jeffery Roberts (personal communication, 2011), a retired
Chicago police detective in the sex and gang unit, sexual violence is a largely
misunderstood area. Roberts further states that one only has to consider a
few of the dimensions of human behavior intrinsic to sexual crimes to appre¬
ciate the complexity and fluidity of the topic, such as the following:

• Sexual crimes can be physically and nonphysically violent.

• Sexual crimes can be committed against a person, inanimate object,
or animal.
• Sexual offenders may preferentially act out against children.
• There are offenders for whom paraphilia behavior is mandatory for their
psychosexual pleasure and is an integral part of their criminal behavior.
• There are offenders who experience remorse and guilt from the
commission of their crimes, and still others who experience no
remorse at all.
• There are ritualistic offenders who develop complex fantasies to act
out on their victims.
• Fantasizing about a child, achieving sexual stimulation over the
abuse the child endured, and masturbation all reinforce sexual
arousal and gratification.
• There are offenders who act out impulsively with little or no pre¬
meditation only to satisfy their immediate needs.
• Emotional needs, often from low self-esteem, are often satisfied after
abusing a child.

Cycle of Violence or Abuse

The cycle of violence is conceived as repetitive acts of physical violence against

a submissive person through intimidation and forced sexual encounters.
Sexually Based Offenses and Motivated Crimes 91

These recurring acts of violence accompany elevated emotions and acts of

reprisal and revenge.
Parents who have abused their children have most likely been abused
themselves. Is it genetic makeup or environmental predisposition? This is
what the parent knew life to be. This is what the child will remember. Is there
a possibility to break the chain or circle of abuse? Most parents regret what
they have done. This may be a combination of guilt for what they have done
to the child and awareness of the consequences if authorities find out. Some
parents will seek out therapy or counseling for their impertinent sexual
behavior. A few parents reoffend again and continue the sexual abuse of their
children or other family members. Children also deal with the guilt of keep¬
ing the abuse a secret or revealing what has happened and seeing the family
break up or one or both parents being sent to jail. The parents will continue
to remind the child what could happen if the family breaks up. The children
will have the propensity of continuing the cycle again in the years to come.

Characteristics and Offender Patterns

Every race, nationality, and religion has its share of sexual offenders and child
sexual offenders that often seem to act out solely to achieve their own sexual
gratification. Rufo (2007) confirms that many sexual offenders and sexual
predators come from dysfunctional families. Growing up in a dysfunctional
family may explain a sexual predator’s need to seek love, affection, and com¬
fort from children. It is this type of dysfunctional pattern that appears to be
a dominant factor in many serial offenders’ lives.

Narcissistic Traits and Personality

Many leading experts on serial offenders often identify narcissistic tendencies—
in that the offenders are completely self-absorbed. Persons with narcissistic
traits will often deny that they are selfish, arrogant, or conceited. Serial offend¬
ers often show a lack of empathy for their victims; in particular, sexual predators
use their charm and power of persuasion to entice unsuspecting victims. Those
with narcissistic personalities have the ability and proficiency to deceive almost
everyone with no moral repercussions. They have an uncanny knack to find a
way to circumvent resistance in their quest for sexual gratification.

Paraphilia

There is a difference between enjoying normal sexual activity and thoughts,

and taking pleasure in abnormal or unusual sexual endeavors. This aber¬
rant attraction to deviant sexual activity is called paraphilia, and almost all
adolescent and adult pedophiles share this trait. Past history has shown that
92 Police and Profiling in the United States

many children who have suffered excessive abuse or neglect and were once
victims themselves have become today’s most proliferate sexual predators.
Studies have shown that a substantial amount of psychologists believe that
many paraphilias can be traced back to a pedophile’s childhood—especially
if he or she was excessively sexually abused, punished, or neglected, and were
forced to find comfort in their calculating and opportunist conduct.
Doermann (2002) claims that paraphilias differ from what some people
might consider normal sexual activity in that these behaviors cause consid¬
erable anguish from day to day, especially their inability to resist sexual and
intense sexual desires. Many pedophiles with this disorder often become
aroused through some form of stimulus such as a fantasy, child pornogra¬
phy, or other graphic item. It is often through these intense sexual urges or
fantasies that pedophiles engage in sexual acts with prepubescent children.
Certain problems sex offenders confront with paraphilia are anxiety issues,
legal consequences, additional sexual dysfunction, and problems with nor¬
mal social relationships. Research has shown that there is often a poor rela¬
tionship with their parents or close family members.
Paraphilias include fantasies, behaviors, and urges that involve nonhu¬
man sexual objects such as shoes or undergarments, or require the suffering
or humiliation of oneself or a partner.

Sexual Perversion

Doermann (2002) explains that sexual perversion is associated with sexual

excitement that often includes abnormal, bizarre, or deviant sexual imagery.
A paraphilia (sexual perversion) is a condition in which a person’s sexual
arousal and gratification depend on a fantasy theme of an unusual situation
or object that becomes the principal focus of sexual behavior. Paraphilias
can revolve around a particular sexual object or a specific sexual or exotic
act. Doerman (2002) associated paraphilia to the Sexual Impulse Disorder
because both are often characterized by sexual stimulation and arousal
through sexual fantasies. This sexual behavior and erotic urges may be con¬
sidered deviant in nature to the general population. The nature of a para¬
philia is generally specific and unchanging, and most of the time paraphilia
is far more common in men than in women, and involve children or other
non-consenting partners.

Cybercrimes and the Internet

Donna Rice Hughes of ProtectKids.com (personal communication, 2010)

noted that pedophiles, when not on the Internet, typically operate in isolation.
Sexually Based Offenses and Motivated Crimes 93

Never before have pedophiles had the opportunity to communicate so freely

and directly with each other as they do online. Their communication on the
Internet provides virtual validation for their behavior. They share their con¬
quests, real and imagined. Pedophiles discuss ways to contact and lure chil¬
dren online and exchange tips with other pedophiles on seduction techniques.
They use the technology of the Internet to train and encourage each other to
act out sexually with children. The Internet also serves as a tool for sexual
predators to swap warnings on the avoidance of law enforcement detection.
In an investigative study done by Middleton et al. (2006), the relation¬
ship of the Ward and Siegert (2002) pathway model of child abuse to the
actions of sexual offenders in five distinct categories was explored. The fact
that such a proportion of this Internet offender sample could be separated
into five distinct pathways by their primary deficits suggests that the Internet
offender population is not a homogeneous group and is as diverse within
itself as other sex offender groups, such as rapists or child molesters. It also
suggests that the Internet offender sample shares similar psychological defi¬
cits as other sex offender groups. Sex offenders are likely to fall into one of
these five categories, or have a combination of signs or indicators that they
may share within other classifications:

1. The first classification is the intimacy/social skills deficit, which is the

most populated pathway for Internet offenders. A sexual offender in
this group often has problems maintaining relationships and may
substitute the intimacy of a child after adult rejection. This group
reported high levels of emotional loneliness. The primary mecha¬
nism hypothesized by Ward and Siegert (2002) for this group is the
formation of insecure attachments leading to low levels of social
skills and self-esteem. Ward and Siegert discuss the primary cause of
sexually abusive behavior is the need to engage in a sexual relation¬
ship with another person to alleviate loneliness and to compensate
for a lack of intimacy. The Internet offenders may be attracted to the
Internet at times of loneliness and dissatisfaction in more appropri¬
ate adult relationships. They perceive children as less fearful and as
more accepting partners. This type of sexual offender will be sex¬
ually aroused around children and will offend at specific times of
loneliness or rejection.
2. The next classification is the distorted sexual scripts. The sex offend¬
ers in this group may themselves have been victims of sexual abuse
or have been exposed to sex at an early age. An individual exhibit¬
ing this behavior often seeks comfort and closeness through sexual
contact and uses sex as a soothing strategy. A sex offender who is
classified with distorted behavior is sensitive to rejection. The sex¬
ual interactions of offenders within this group would be considered
94 Police and Profiling in the United States

purely sexual. This individual is fearful of intimacy and tends toward

impersonal sexual behaviors that lead to frustration and unhappi¬
ness. This can expand to sexual offending at times of rejection or
when experiencing relationship difficulties. Individuals with dis¬
torted sexual scripts may turn to child pornography to meet their
sexual and emotional needs. These sexual offenders seldom display a
preference for children, and their use of child pornography removes
the risk of rejection. This type of sex offender does not do well in
adult relationships.
3. Emotional dysregulation is the third classification of sexual offender.
This type of individual uses sex as a coping strategy and has prob¬
lems identifying emotions, anger, and personal distress. This group
of sex offenders may use the Internet to access both adult and child
pornography during times of emotional unhappiness and to increase
feelings of pleasure. This type of sexual offender justifies his behavior
by externalizing it as “a loss of control” and justifies sexual arousal
for his emotional contentment.
4. Antisocial cognitions is the fourth pathway associated with the
classification of sex offenders. Members of this group, as the name
indicates, have many antisocial attitudes and beliefs regarding sex¬
ual behavior and sexual offending. They feel superior to children
and often make excuses for their sexual contact with them. These
offenders often do not display any deviant sexual preferences, but
will fulfill their needs through opportunities that can lead to sexual
offending of children. They demonstrates little regard for the conse¬
quences of their behavior, which may add to the perception they are
not responsible for their behavior. Their use of child pornography on
the Internet may simply be an extension of their immoral outlook
and behaviors. Their impulsive behavior and opportunistic lifestyle
enhance their gratification.
5. The last classification of sexual offenders is multiple dysfunctional
deficits/mechanisms. These offenders exhibit antisocial behavior and
emotional loneliness and take advantage of any opportunity for sex¬
ual gratification. Sex offenders who constitute this “pure pedophiles”
behavior often have a difficult time controlling themselves and their
deceitfulness. Children are their preferred sexual partners, and these
individuals view sexual relationships between adults and children
as the “ideal.” The use of child pornography on the Internet for sex¬
ual gratification could possibly be an addendum to their careers as
sexually abusive pedophiles. This sex offender’s (with multiple dys¬
functional deficits) primary goal is to abuse children through direct
sexual contact.
Sexually Based Offenses and Motivated Crimes 95

Sexual Addiction

Sexual addiction is manifested as an extreme obsession with sex. A sex addict

often has continuous thoughts and fantasies about sex that may often include
an unusually intense sex drive. A sex addict has thoughts of sexual encounters
that literally dominate his or her mind and way of thinking, making it dif¬
ficult to engage in healthy and personal relationships. According to Carnes
and Wilson (2005), sexual addiction is defined as an ongoing pattern of sexual
behavior. This sexual behavior exemplifies three principal characteristics: an
inability to reliably stop the behavior, a continuation of the behavior despite
potential or actual harmful consequences, and an obsessive pursuit of the
behavior. Sexual addiction can be compared to other addictions, as there are
many similarities they share. A sex addict will have similar urges and desires
as does an alcoholic who has to have another drink or a drug addict who can
only think about getting high. There is a real need to satisfy his or her craving.
Benuto and Zupanick (2009) believe that sex addicts become preoccu¬
pied by sexual thoughts and engage in risky sexual behavior. This behav¬
ior can lead to discord in conventional relationships. Another term used to
describe sexual addiction is compulsive sexual behavior. It is not clear how
many people have this condition, but a general estimation by experts esti¬
mate that 3 to 6% of individuals in the United States suffer from sexual addic¬
tion. Compulsive sexual behavior typically begins in late adolescence or early
adulthood. Experts are not sure what makes a person addicted to sex. It could
be a sexual experience or sexual incident early in one’s childhood. Studies
have shown that it is more common for individuals to become addicted to sex
after they have been sexually abused as children.
There may also be brain impairments in individuals who have a sexual
addiction that makes it so that they cannot judge the danger and negative
impact of their sexual behavior. Alternatively, individuals with sexual addic¬
tion may have such impaired impulse control that they immediately seek
gratification of the sexual cravings without regard for the consequences.
Regardless of the reasons, sex addicts may seek out stimulation by viewing
pornography, engaging in cybersex, or having sex with others or prostitutes.
This puts them at risk for a number of life-threatening illnesses (e.g., AIDS),
legal problems, (e.g., purchasing child pornography), and financial ruin.
Sex addicts have myriad different thoughts and fantasies they want to
explore. Sex addicts have thoughts of sex or fulfilling their sexual fantasies
mostly thinking of their victims while they pleasure themselves, often to
orgasm. Sex addicts may just replay or act out their fantasies in their minds.
It is not uncommon for sex addicts to rationalize and justify their behavior,
often blaming others in the process. They generally deny they have a problem
and make excuses for their actions.
96 Police and Profiling in the United States

A greater percentage of males are addicted to sex than their female coun¬
terparts, and most of the men are in denial. Treating this addiction is like
treating any other addiction; first the person must admit and accept that he
or she has a problem. Treatment of sexual addiction focuses on controlling
the addictive behavior and helping a person manage his or her destructive
conduct. Treatment for sexual addiction includes education about healthy
sexuality, individual counseling, or support groups. These support groups,
often known as Sex Addicts Anonymous, are 12-step recovery programs
modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous. It is not uncommon for hospitals,
community centers, and support groups to have meetings every day of the
week. The sex addicts will often sit in a circle facing each other. They begin
by announcing their name and admitting to the group they are sex addicts.
As the majority of participants (the majority being men) take turns admit¬
ting their sexual thoughts and compulsions, they speak about the problems
(urges) that they have encountered since the last meeting.
These sexual addiction meetings can help the sex addict in a few ways.
The support group understands what the individual is going through. The
support group knows that this is a process, and it takes time, dedication, and
commitment to be successful. The group is always there for emotional sup¬
port, especially if the sex addict has sexual inclinations that may cause him or
her to relapse. Many reformed sex addicts volunteer to be personal sponsors
to another individual, especially one newer to the group. A sponsor checks
in on a new member who often relies on direct personal contact of his or her
sponsor, not only for support but also to prevent any hint of a relapse. It is not
unusual for a sex addict and his or her sponsor to check in with each other
on a daily basis. The sex addict realizes that he or she is not alone, and that a
sponsor and a core support group are only a call away. The support group can
help the sex addict understand the triggers for his or her sexual urges, assist in
managing his or her behavior, and control his or her unique actions.

Behaviors Associated with Sexual Addiction

The following behaviors are often associated with sexual addiction:

• Compulsive masturbation (continuous self-stimulation)

• Multiple affairs (extramarital affairs)
• Multiple or anonymous sexual partners or one-night stands
• Consistent use of pornography (in some cases child pornography)
• Unsafe sex
• Phone or computer sex (cybersex)
• Prostitution or use of prostitutes
• Exhibitionism
• Obsessive dating through personal ads
Sexually Based Offenses and Motivated Crimes 97

• Voyeurism (watching others) or stalking

• Sexual harassment
• Molestation/rape
• Prostitution or use of prostitutes
• Feeling compelled for some form of sexual satisfaction when stressed
or anxious

Sexually Violent Person

To be considered a sexually violent person, three factors must apply:

1. The individual must be convicted of an enumerated sexual offense.

2. The offender suffers from a mental disorder according to the DSM
IV-TR. This is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
3. The result of his or her evaluation is considered “substantial prob¬
ability.” Substantial probability is where the offender is more likely
to reoffend than not.

Voyeurism (Peeping Toms)

Voyeurism is an act of watching a stranger through a window, doorway, or

anywhere the offender cannot be seen. Voyeurism (aka “peeping Tom”) is
a criminal offense. A person who commits this crime attempts to watch a
stranger disrobe or view him or her engaging in a sexual act. According to
Dr. Fallon (2003), voyeurism is a psychosexual disorder in which a person
derives sexual pleasure and gratification from looking at the naked bodies
and genital organs or observing the sexual acts of others. The voyeur is usu¬
ally hidden from view of others. Voyeurism is considered a form of paraphilia.
A variant form of voyeurism involves listening to erotic conversations. This is
commonly referred to as telephone sex, although it is considered voyeurism
primarily in the instance of listening to unsuspecting persons.
The objective of most voyeurs is to observe unsuspecting individuals who
are naked, in the process of undressing, or engaging in sexual acts. The per¬
son being observed is usually a stranger to the observer. The act of looking,
or peeping, is undertaken for the purpose of achieving sexual excitement.
The observer generally does not seek to have sexual contact or activity with
the person being observed. If orgasm is sought, it is usually achieved through
masturbation. This may occur during the act of observation or later, relying
on the memory of the act that was observed. A voyeur may have a fantasy of
engaging in sexual activity with the person being observed. In reality, this
fantasy is rarely consummated.
98 Police and Profiling in the United States

Stalking

Stalking is committed when a person knowingly engages in harassing behavior

that would alarm, frighten, or annoy a victim. This aggressive and threaten¬
ing behavior is a serious crime that affects one in five women and a substan¬
tial number of men, causing them to worry about their safety. Stalkers do not
regard what they are doing as a crime, or even as wrong. Stalkers are known
for their attempted direct or indirect communication with their intended vic¬
tim or target. Stalkers often have above-average intelligence. They will go to
great lengths to obtain information on the person in whom they are interested.
Stalkers seek unconditional and absolute control of their victims and are often
obsessed with the person they are pursuing. Most stalkers suffer from some
sort of mental illness, most often antisocial personality disorders, paranoia,
schizophrenia, or delusional thinking. It is not uncommon for stalkers to abuse
drugs or alcohol which may lead to their aggressive and violent behavior.
It is not uncommon for stalkers to exhibit similar behaviors in pursuit of
their objectives. Some of the more common or typical stalking behaviors include

• Phone harassment
• Multiple calls
• Hang-ups
• Silence on the other end
• Threatening, aggressive, or suggestive talk
• Loitering near the victim’s home, work, or play
• Sexual gifts/letters left on victim’s car or personal property where the
victim will see
• Interference or meddling with victim’s personal property
• Approaching or harassing the victim when he or she is alone
• Restricting and controlling victim’s freedom of movement
• Sending e-mails or letters through the mail

Other characteristics identified as being consistent with stalker person¬

alities include the following:

• Will not take no for an answer, does not give up easily

• Has an obsessive and compulsive personality
• Normally has an above-average intelligence
• No or few personal relationships
• Rarely embarrassed by his or her actions
• Often has low self-esteem or self-worth
• Sociopathic thinking and rationale
• Can be mean and persistent
Sexually Based Offenses and Motivated Crimes 99

Love Stalkers
A specific category of stalker includes the love stalker (erotomaniac). This
kind of stalker has a love interest in his or her victim. This type of individual
will do whatever it takes to be available for his or her “victim.” He or she
does not respect personal boundaries, and will often intrude on the victim’s
personal life. This type of stalker often will interpret any little action by the
victim as a sign of devotion to the stalker. The stalker may have been a for¬
mer acquaintance, friend, coworker, lover, or spouse. Love stalkers are totally
obsessed with their prey and will not accept threats, denial, or hostile actions
in their quest or pursuit of the victim. They will always be convinced of the
victims love and indulgence for them. Erotomanic stalkers are often lone¬
some and totally believe in their delusional and persistent thoughts, fanta¬
sies, and plans. They have been known to be violent and vindictive when they
become frustrated and their planned situation is doomed.

GARY LEON RIDGWAY, THE GREEN RIVER KILLER

Gary Leon Ridgway, also known as the “Green River Killer,” pled guilty
to killing 48 women, after his arrest where DNA evidence proved that
he killed four women. He most likely killed many more women than he
admitted to killing—claiming that he “lost count” of the actual num¬
ber of females that he had killed. Ridgeway chose female victims about
whom no one really cared: prostitutes, runaways, and missing or home¬
less women. He was most active between the years 1982-1984 and was
single at the time of the killings.
Born in Auburn, Washington, his family moved out of state when he
was 11 years old. He was considered below-average intelligence and did
not do very well in high school. He endured a troubled childhood that
included a very domineering mother. Ridgeway was known at work for
his inconsistent behavior, i.e., he carried a Bible and spoke about church
and redemption, but he frequented prostitutes, solicited and flirted with
females at work, and drank beer habitually.
Ridgway preferred to strangle women after he had sex with them, but
he did engage in postmortem sex with six of his victims. In most cases,
when he killed his victims, he did not even know their names—killing
them the first time that he met them. Ridgeway professed wanting to kill
as many prostitutes as possible and often killed them during the act of sex.
Eventually, through routine police work, he was questioned for his role
in the disappearance of many prostitutes. He was the common denomi¬
nator in almost all of them. Ridgeway cooperated with the investigation
and ultimately admitted his crimes. He is serving life in prison in Walla
Walla, Washington.
100 Police and Profiling in the United States

References
Arcus, D. Encylopedia of childhood and adolescence. In Gale encyclopedia of public
health. Florence: Gale Group Publishers, Cengage Learning, 1998.
Benuto, L., and C.E. Zupanick. Sexual desire disorders—Hyperactive sexual aver¬
sions disorders. 2009. www.mental help.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=
29725&cn=10 (accessed 2012).
Bourke, M.L., and A.E. Hernandez. The “Butner study” redux: A report of the inci¬
dence of hands-on child victimization by child pornography offenders. Journal
of Family Violence, 24(3), 2009: 183-191.
Carnes, P.J., and M. Wilson. The sexual addiction assessment process. In A review of
clinical management of sex addiction, ed. Richard B. Krueger and Meg S. Kaplan.
New York: Routledge, 2005: 3-20.
Centers for Disease Control. Uniform definitions for sexual violence. 2006. www.
cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/sexualviolence/definitions.html (accessed January
1,2012).
Doermann, D.J. Gale encyclopedia of medicine. Florence: Gale Group, Cengage
Learning, 2002. www.cengage.com (accessed February 1, 2012).
Fallon, L.F. Gale encyclopedia of mental disorders. Florence: Gale Group, Cengage
Learning, 2003.
Hughes, R. 2010. http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/onlinepred.htm.
Leach, M.A. Interview by Ron Rufo. LCPC, therapist (December 1, 2011).
Middleton, D„ I. Elliott, R. Mandevillenorden, and A.R. Beech. An investigation into
the applicability of the Ward and Siegert pathways model of child sexual abuse
with Internet offenders. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12(6), 2006: 589-603.
Rufo, R. An investigation of online sexual predation of minors by convicted male
offenders. Dissertation. Argosy University, Atlanta, GA.
Rufo, R. Sexual predators among us. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.
Valente, S.M. Sexual abuse of boys. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric
Nursing, 18(1), 2005: 10-17.
Ward, T., and R.J. Siegert. Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A
theory knitting perspective. Psychology, Crime and Law, 8, 2002: 319-351.
Wolak, M., K. Mitchell, and D. Finkelhor. Internet sex crimes against minors: The
response of law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice-
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2003.
Serial and Rage Killers

7
A virtuous man is content to dream what a wicked man really does.
—Plato

Chapter Goals

• To understand the difference between mass murderers and spree

killers
• To define the different types of serial killers
• To explore the various theories of serial killing

Key Words

Cooling-off period
Enuresis
Hedonists
Mass killer
Missionaries
Sadism
Serial killer
Spree killer
Visionaries

Introduction

In 1984, in a desperate move to secure government funding to study serial

murder, officials claimed that 5,000 murder victims per year were the result of
serial murders. That number was ultimately deemed to be drastically inflated,
but how that number came to be remains a mystery. What is clear is that fund¬
ing was released and data collected, and so began the media’s relationship with
murder that permeates pop culture entertainment and yields a plethora of mis¬
information and fascination regarding the challenge of serial killers.

101
102 Police and Profiling in the United States

Types of Murder

Very basically, a serial killer is generally defined as a multiple homicide

offender (MHO). However, there are different types of homicide that involve
multiple victims, so some degree of clarification is necessary. The general
categories of serial killer have to do mainly with how many victims there are
and over what time frame the murders take place.

Mass Murder
According to the FBI (2010), “mass murder is a number of murders (four or
more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period
between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where
the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident, such as the
2007 Virginia Tech murders in Blacksburg, Virginia.” A “distinctive time
period” refers to a temporal separation between the different murders, sepa¬
rate occasions, or a cooling-off period. This break in time is necessary to
distinguish between mass murder and serial murder.
Hickey (2010) produced a compilation of classifications for mass mur¬
ders that incorporate the work of four researchers. We do not fully embrace
the breakdown of the classifications, mainly due to the fact that there are too
many. In order to be of value, classifications should remain as simple and
straightforward as possible, which requires brief, comprehensive categories.
Nonetheless, the complete list of categories identified by Hickey (p. 13) is
presented below to enable the reader to make his or her own determination:

1. Family slayer/annihilator—an individual who kills his or her family

and then himself or herself. It is not unusual for this type of family
to have had previous domestic violence issues or previous run-ins
with local law enforcement officers. Family arguments often involve
excess drinking, monetary concerns, or custody matters. It is often
the male in the family scenario who kills the children first, causing
the spouse heartache. He then kills her.
2. Murder for profit—an individual who kills in order to gain material
(i.e., land, money, jewels, etc.) profit. Greed is often the motive in this
type of killing, where all or part of the reward is intended for the
offender.
3. Murder for sex—an individual with the primary goal of sexually
torturing, raping, and killing others; a relatively rare event (Levin
and Fox 1985). Serial killers who exhibit sexual sadistic behavior
will most likely fall into this category (e.g., Son of Sam, the Boston
Strangler).
Serial and Rage Killers 103

4. Pseudocommando—individual with an obsession for guns and a

fantasy of murder (Dietz 1986). Most likely something triggers an
individual to become incensed with killing by shooting his or her
victims. Collecting weapons could be a positive reinforcement of the
power and control this person seeks.
5. Set and run killer—individual who has an escape as part of his plan.
The assumption is that he wishes to survive the event. This type of
killer would most likely plan his or her killing instead of randomly
selecting a victim. He or she may often rely on a familiar territory or
area. The Green River Killer is an example of this type of offender.
6. Psychotic killer—individual suffering from acute psychosis, perhaps
even legally insane. This type of killer may have a past history of
family dysfunction. Likely candidates that would fit this description
are H. H. Holmes or Ed Gein.
7. Disgruntled killer—individual who is seeking revenge for a real
or imagined wrong, generally from an employer or fellow employ¬
ees. Workplace violence and resentment has caused many innocent
employees to lose their lives. This type of killer often has an obses¬
sion with guns and considers any reprimand at work as a personal
attack. Built up anger and rage is often what leads to the killing car¬
nage of fellow employees and supervisors. This type of individual
will often take his or her own life in the end.
8. Disciple killer—individual who kills at the behest of another, as in
the case of Charles Manson’s followers.
9. Ideological mass murderer—individual who is able to convince oth¬
ers to either kill themselves, kill others, or both, as in the case of
David Koresh and the Branch Davidians.
10. Institutional mass murderer—individual who commits a crime of
obedience when ordered by a leader.

Spree Killing
A spree killing involves the murder of several people at different locations over
a period of several days. Spree killers generally move from victim to victim in
fairly rapid succession. Spree killing is rare, and spree-killing teams are even
rarer, but when they do exist, they are typically composed of a dominant leader
and submissive lover. In 2010, the FBI debated whether it was of value to con¬
tinue to discuss spree killing as a distinct category of murder. The rationale
centered mainly on the idea that the vague parameters of what actually con¬
stituted a cooling-off period rendered the difference between spree and serial
killing moot for law enforcement. The result is that moving forward, the dis¬
tinction between spree and serial is likely to evaporate and the industry will
move toward simply to using serial murder as a category.
104 Police and Profiling in the United States

GILGO BEACH MURDERER(S)—LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK

Shannon Gilbert was reported missing after she did not return home
after meeting a stranger on Craigslist (a free Internet website that offers
services and classified ads often viewed by many people). She was last
seen alive in May of 2010, calling for help in the area of Gilgo Beach,
Suffolk County, New York. Ms. Gilbert was a known prostitute who
would often use Craigslist to solicit men. It was Shannon Gilbert’s dis¬
appearance near Gilgo Beach that led to the gruesome discovery of 9 (or
possibly 10) female victims of homicide.
The Gilgo beachfront is well known for its picturesque scenery, and
abundant vegetation that attracts many out-of-town vacationers as well as
local residents. The shocking discovery of several female bodies along a 4-5
mile stretch of the shoreline worried many citizens of this small commu¬
nity because of the possibility of a serial killer or killer(s) who may be on
the loose and roaming the area. What makes this an unusual investigation
case is the similar, but so far unrelated, evidence. Four of the victims were
wrapped in burlap bags (an indication of a serial killer with the same signa¬
ture). Five to six other victims (which included a baby and partial remains),
did not have any indications that they were killed by the same person.
There are several similarities among the victims suggesting that a
serial killer is the most likely explanation. They include the following:

1. Each victim was a known prostitute (and would often go with

strangers for a long period of time).
2. Each victim used Craigslist to solicit men (Johns).
3. Each victim was known to use/abuse drugs.
4. Each victim lived a transient lifestyle, and it was not uncommon
for them to stay away for periods of time (days to weeks at a time).
5. Each victim had low self-esteem with bouts of depression and
unhappiness.

Once police discovered the first body, they searched the entire area
with canine and cadaver dogs, officers on horseback, police acad¬
emy recruits, and volunteers. Local and national news media quickly
focused attention on the crimes and whatever evidence was found.
Investigators explored the bulk of possible clues, including how the
victims and offender had come together, if there was any likelihood of
DNA evidence, and how many murderers there were.
As of this writing, no offender has been charged with the Gilgo
Beach murders.
Serial and Rage Killers 105

Serial Murder

Serial murder is defined as the unlawful killing of two or more victims by

the same offender(s) in separate events. This breaks down into three separate
requirements in order for the FBI to classify a crime as a serial murder:

1. Kills two or more victims

2. At three or more separate locations/events
3. Has a cooling-off period between murders

Sometimes the evidence is the first indicator that the events occurred
at separate times. For example, referencing the case presented previously,
each of the bodies was in a different state of decomposition, which suggested
that the murders had occurred at different times and, therefore, supported
the conclusion that there had been at least three separate killing events. By
default then, it is safe to assume that there was also a cooling-off period
between the murders derived from the recognition that the murders took
place at different times.

Basic Demographic Profile

It is important to note that serial killers are not limited to any specific demo¬
graphic group on the basis of sex, age, or race, inasmuch as they cross several
demographic categories. However, there are some characteristics that are relied
upon simply because statistically, they are true more often than not. That is,
it is reasonable for investigators to start developing their profiles with known
information unless the evidence suggests otherwise.

Gender

With respect to gender, it is an accepted fact that most offenders are male;
in fact, as of September 2012 the percentage of known male serial killers in
America was listed at 91% (Aamodt 2012).

Race

The breakdown of serial killers according to race can be misleading. Public

perception is that the majority of serial killers are white and that non-white
serial killers are rare, and recent research confirms that a greater percent¬
age of serial killers are white males. Law enforcement indicators suggest that
there has been an increase in not only black serial killers (one in five serial
killers are black) but also black victims.
106 Police and Profiling in the United States

Age
The challenges when examining the impact of age are plentiful, not the least
of which include whether one should consider the offender’s age in terms of
first deviance,* first kill, offender age when caught, etc. The industry reports
generally on the age of first kill as reported by the offenders. Under that
model, Aamodt (2012) reports 29 years old as the average age of first kill for
males and 30.9 years old as the average age for females.

Intelligence Quotient
While the media tends to report that serial killers have high IQs, those find¬
ings are not supported by the research. In data produced by Aamodt (2012),
the findings suggest that when taken as a whole, serial killers appear to be
of normal IQ, with averages occurring around 95.1. The perception of serial
killers as having high IQs is believed to have started with Theodore Bundy,
who, although he identified himself as a law student, never actually com¬
pleted any courses. Since the media likes portraying serial killers as smart,
cunning, and able to dispose of multiple bodies and avoid capture or detec¬
tion, they tend to perpetuate the notion of a serial killer having a high IQ. The
reality is often much different. In fact, the only serial offender known to have
a high IQ (155-165) was Theodore Kaczynski.
It is much more likely to find that most serial killers are employed in
unskilled labor or blue collar positions, such as factory worker, handyman,
and contractor. This is likely due to the fact that many serial killers do not
pursue education past high school. Grover Godwin found that only 16% of
the nearly 107 serial killers he had studied went to college, and of those, only
4% actually graduated (Fox and Levin 2001).

Past Profile

MacDonald Triad
The MacDonald triad refers to the belief that serial killers have some com¬
bination of (1) enuresis beyond the age of 12, (2) animal cruelty, and (3) fire¬
setting behavior.

Enuresis
Bed-wetting, or nocturnal enuresis, is involuntary urination while asleep
after the age at which bladder control would normally be anticipated (on

Defined as often displaying antisocial behaviors such as poor behavioral controls and
early childhood behavior problems that include juvenile delinquency.
Serial and Rage Killers 107

or about 5 years of age). It is typically characterized as either primary (sub¬

ject has never been dry at night) or secondary (bed-wetting returned after
a long period of having nighttime control). Bed-wetting is a complex prob¬
lem with multiple medical, physiologic, behavioral, and environmental
causes and, in fact, may even have a genetic link* (Jayatunge 2010). Modern
medical research gives no indication that bed-wetting has a role in violent
behavior. Instead, medical research is clear that bed-wetting is due to a vari¬
ety of physical causes, such as small bladders, obstructions or structural
anomalies, or pathogenic causes such as urinary tract infections (UTIs).
Additionally, psychological researchers have considered sudden emotional
instability, family crises (violence, death, divorce), child abuse, and extreme
bullying as possible contributors to bed-wetting (Jayatunge). Within the
discipline of criminal justice, even though the MacDonald triad has tena¬
cious supporters reluctant to abandon its role in the prediction of future
violence, modern research seems to suggest that bed-wetting is a better pre¬
dictor of victimization than of aggression (see Hargan 2009; Fekkes et al.
2006; Roesler et al. 1993).

Animal Cruelty
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) studied 35 serial murderers in the
1970s and documented a history of childhood incidents of animal cruelty,
thereby further contributing to the assumption that a connection existed
between animal cruelty and later interpersonal violence. Ressler et al. (1988)
replicated the FBI study using sexual murderers and found that among the 36
sexual murderers, 28 possessed certain childhood characteristics. Of these
28, 36% had perpetrated animal cruelty as children and 46% had commit¬
ted similar acts as adolescents. Despite these weak early findings, it has been
widely accepted by law enforcement officials that animal cruelty is a predic¬
tor of future violence.
In 1993, Ascione recognized a failure to accurately define the term ani¬
mal cruelty, which effectively prevented a useful analysis of the data despite
the fact that such behaviors were identified as “red flags.” Fie attempted to
provide a clear, useful definition for animal cruelty that would succeed in
capturing behaviors that may lead to future violence and would not include
lawful or socially acceptable behaviors such as hunting, agricultural, or vet¬
erinary practices. The result is a definition that has become the industry stan¬
dard for defining acts of animal cruelty (see Figure 7.1):

Socially unacceptable behavior that intentionally causes unnecessary pain,

suffering or distress to and/or death of an animal. (Ascione 1993, 228)

The likelihood of a child wetting the bed is 40% if one parent suffered and 70% if both
parents suffered.
108 Police and Profiling in the United States

Since cruelty to animals is not always reported or identified, research¬

ers must use data from the developmental psychology field, psychopathology
reports, admissions intake records, or self-report surveys of inmates in order
to determine the extent of the problem. All of these methodologies have chal¬
lenges associated with their use, but until reporting of these offenses becomes
more standardized, they offer the only means of providing such data. Indeed,
in a personal interview conducted in March 2012 with New Jersey Humane
Society representatives, it was stated that when cases of animal cruelty by
juveniles are substantiated, those juveniles are referred to educational inter¬
ventions rather than formal dispositions, thereby circumventing proper
record keeping and denying long-term tracking opportunities.
Achenbach (1991) collected reports from parents and caregivers on 2,600
youth (4-16 years old) referred to mental health clinics for problem behaviors
and compared them to 2,600 nonreferred youths. His findings conclude that
(1) males (18-25%), (2) referred youths (7-34% vs. 0-13%), and (3) young chil¬
dren show the greatest propensity for animal cruelty. Further, he reported
that when analyzed by gender, males showed greater stability from child¬
hood to adolescence, whereas females seemed to decline in the cruel behav¬
iors as they age.
Other studies have reported that there is an association between animal
abuse and a variety of antisocial behaviors, but such behaviors are not lim¬
ited to violent acts (Arluke et al. 1999). These researchers further claim that
offenders are just as likely to perpetrate harmful acts against animals after
violent offenses as they are prior, which of course casts doubt on the assump¬
tion that one act leads to another, and therefore calls into question the gradu¬
ation hypothesis.
The basic theoretical premise lies in the belief that children, when frus¬
trated, will seek a weaker being upon which to vent their frustration—that is
often an animal. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Allen Brantley said, “Animal
cruelty... is not a harmless venting of emotion in a healthy individual; this
is a warning sign_It should be looked at as exactly that. It is a clear indica¬
tor that psychological issues can, and often DO, lead to more violent human
crimes” (http://www.petabuse.com).

Fire Setting
In terms of the relationship between fire setting and violent crimes, research¬
ers have yet to find any evidence that fire setting alone is an indicator of future
violent behavior. In fact, fire setting is not likely to exist as a sole precursor
to violence. In many of the articles examined, fire setting was presented as
either a comorbid condition (Wax and Haddox 1974; Lindberg et al. 2005) or
as a symptom of a preexisting conduct disorder (Jacobson 1985).
Barnett and Spitzer (1994) advocate consideration of both individual and
environmental factors in fire-setting behaviors. As criminal justice moves
Serial and Rage Killers 109

Figure 7.1 Cat was doused with a flammable liquid and then set on fire.

toward recognizing its place among multidisciplinary practices, we agree

with that recommendation. To better understand the complex nature of juve¬
nile fire-setting behaviors in the context of leading to future violence, each
perspective (individual and environmental) will be presented below, followed
by a summary of the findings to assist law enforcement during interviewing.

Individual Indicators In terms of individual characteristics, one should

first determine the population of juvenile fire setting to which one is refer¬
ring. The first attempt to classify offender types was by Wayne Wooden in
1985, but the current industry standard is the typology of juvenile fire setters
as presented in the Federal Emergency Management Association’s (FEMA)
widely accepted publication Juvenile Fire Setter Intervention Handbook
(Gaynor 1997). The handbook carefully defines each category of juvenile fire
setter in terms of relative risk by age, specific risk levels for future acts, and
specific motivations. This stepwise description allows the reader to identify
the population of interest in terms of future violent acts.

DAVID BERKOWITZ (1953-)

David Berkowitz (aka “Son of Sam”) was a hyperactive child who was
often teased and bullied. He was regarded by many as quiet, but odd.
Although Berkowitz had a high IQ (118), he also showed signs of being
delusional and paranoid.
At a young age, Berkowitz admitted to starting hundreds of fires in
his neighborhood. He even wrote about his obsession—recording in
his journal that he had started more than 1,500 fires. Berkowitz also
enjoyed tormenting and torturing animals; he even claims to have
killed his mother’s pet parakeet by feeding it toxic cleaning fluid.
Berkowitz ultimately admitted to killing six people in New York City
during 1976-1977, but later recanted and said that he was not respon¬
sible for all of the killings, only three (Ewing 2008; Scott 2007).
 110 Police and Profiling in the United States

Relative Risk by Age This first section will present the breakdown of ages
and what their relationship is to the determination of future violent behaviors.
Fire Interest This is a pre-fire-setting category that describes a child’s
normal fascination with fire. This behavior occurs in children 3-5 years old.
Their fascination is considered consistent with natural childhood develop¬
ment and, if limited to this age, is not considered indicative of at-risk behav¬
ior. This is the population most often injured by their curiosity because they
lack verbal abilities to call for help, or the common sense to recognize the
potential danger of a fire situation. While fire education and intervention is
warranted at this point, there is no indication that fire setting or fascination
at this age is a marker for future deviance. This assumes, however, that no
' other at-risk factors exist, such as emotional disorders or family dysfunction.
Fire Starting This category represents juveniles who have begun to
experiment with “ignition sources,” but the resultant actions are not the
intended outcome. They are often between 3 and 9 years old, and their actions
are not usually motivated by an intent to destroy or damage. The actions
are more consistent with curiosity and empowerment. Sadly, many fires get
out of control quickly due to the juvenile’s reluctance to seek assistance. The
results can be deadly and often costly. This is a good time for fire safety edu¬
cation and intervention.
Fire Setting This category is the one wherein intentional fire-setting
actions are taken by juveniles 10-17 years old. This juvenile population knows
how to practice fire safety, so their actions imply a desire to cause harm or
damage. Although fire setting at this age is not an automatic indication of
psychological or social problems, such factors should not be immediately dis¬
missed. Since fire setting at this age can be indicative of deeper issues, some
factors/elements to look for as indications of future problems include

• Using fire to gain attention in an effort to get help with some crisis,
either psychologically or socially based
• Planned actions (indicated by the collection beforehand of flamma¬
ble materials)
• Presence of other juveniles targeting an item/place of significance to
the fire setter
• Authorities are rarely called, as the fire setter prefers to watch the
fire burn

Arson This category is used to describe a pathological fire setter with

purely delinquent behavior. This type of individual often suffers from men¬
tal disorder or mental illness and intentionally wants to destroy something.
However, given the fact that mental illness is a factor, it is possible that the
individual cannot control him/herself. Very often, these actions are classified
and treated as criminal acts.
Serial and Rage Killers 111

To clarify, the population of juveniles of most interest to this text is those

that fall within the late fire-starting and throughout fire-setting and arson
stages.

Specific Risk Level In addition to classifying juveniles in terms of relative

risk by age for fire setting, Gaynor (2002) also classifies the risk associated
with these behaviors as little, definite, and extreme.
Little (or Low) Risk This category refers to those juveniles who are
motivated mostly by curiosity and a desire to experiment with fire. This risk
classification captures 60-70% of unsupervised fire starting. This population
is not considered to be at great risk of future offending, as they often respond
positively to educational or interventionary efforts.
Definite Risk The juveniles who represent a “definite risk” of future
behavior make up 30-40% of the fire-setting population. This category can
be further broken down into two major classes: troubled and delinquent.
Troubled juveniles are generally described as those “crying out for help”
in an effort to gain assistance with some psychological distress, such as fam¬
ily dysfunction, abuse, or neglect. Any fire intervention at this stage might
help prevent future actions, but if the underlying psychological issue is not
addressed, future deviance will likely occur.
Delinquent juveniles differ from troubled juveniles in that their behaviors
demonstrate aggression, deviance, or criminality. The longer these behaviors
continue unaddressed, the more likely it is that intervention will be unsuc¬
cessful and deviance will become chronic.
Extreme Risk Fewer than 1% of fire-setting juveniles are classified as
extreme risk. These are often juveniles with comorbid psychiatric and psycho¬
logical conditions whose behaviors are outside the scope of existing interven¬
tionary programs. They are viewed as a significant risk to both themselves and
others. As such, their actions often fall to the criminal justice system to handle.

Motivations The varieties of arson behavior (Canter and Almond 2002)

may overlap somewhat with the categories of offender, but they offer slightly
more overall insight into the intersection of motivation and variety and,
therefore, give investigators greater perspective. The four behavior moti¬
vators include youth disorder, maliciousness, emotional expression, and
criminal concealment. Given the consideration that fire setting serves as a
marker for future deviance, each of these motivational structures deserves
consideration.
Youth Disorder The youth disorder category is further divided into two
types of fire setting: curiosity and vandalism. Since curiosity with fire has
already been discussed as a normal development stage, this category will not
be explored in detail.
Vandalism does deserve further examination. Most of the available
data (Swaffer 1993; Strachan 1981) regarding these subjects suggest that
112 Police and Profiling in the United States

the behaviors are consistent with troubled youth moving along a contin¬
uum toward delinquency (see above). As such, if offense characteristics are
recognized to be consistent with vandalism, which may be indicative of a
crime trajectory, then this juvenile should be recommended for aggressive
interventionary and educational programs—not only with an eye toward
arson prevention, but also as a deterrent to future criminal tendencies.
Malicious Malicious motivations indicate that fire has transcended the
role of “instrument” and is being used instead as a “weapon.” This is often the
case in hate crimes, terror incidents, or actions where the goal is revenge or
retaliation. Malicious offenses often involve only one offender and frequently
include an accelerant. The target, if socially significant (i.e., church or politi¬
cal institution), may indicate a group or lone wolf situation.
Emotional Expression Young children seeking attention or using fire
as a cry for help can be part of this category. Additionally, hero complex
or Munchausen syndrome by proxy sufferers can also be included here. In
short, this classification encompasses individuals who recognize the power
of fire and choose to employ that power as a substitute for their own words
or actions because they view themselves as unable or incapable of expressing
themselves or their needs in a conventional manner.
Anger is a common emotional reality for these individuals; therefore,
they require immediate intervention, as their actions may lead to placing
themselves and others at significant risk if their actions were to continue.
Included within the emotional category is the classification of pyroma-
nia. Although pyromania is becoming less popular among mental health
professionals who prefer more specific and perhaps treatable diagnoses (i.e.,
antisocial personality disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, schizophre¬
nia, etc.), it lingers as a function of its historical presence as a form of moral
insanity. After the Civil War, concerns of personal responsibility emerged
regarding individual behaviors and theories that suggested there could be
diseased brains but not diseased minds. Fire setting morphed into an act
dependent upon an individual’s moral fabric and, as such, became a non¬
medical concern that was punishable by law. By 1985, pyromania returned
as a psychiatric condition causing a question as to the efficacy of punishment
vs. rehabilitation (Geller et al. 1986). Regardless of the diagnosis, the condi¬
tion refers to an individual who derives pleasure or gratification from the fire
itself. This captures not only those fire setters who stay and watch the fire,
but also those who feel a need to be part of the chaos and excitement that
surrounds a fire event.
Since these fires represent a hedonistic gain for the setter, it is reasonable
to assume that without intervention or incapacitation, he or she will continue
his or her actions to the detriment of persons or social infrastructure.
Criminal Concealment The final motivational category of criminal
concealment pertains to (1) the individual using fire to conceal a crime and
Serial and Rage Killers 113

(2) the individual seeking financial gain, as in cases of insurance fraud.

Crime concealment is used either to destroy forensic evidence or to conceal
a victim s identity. Clearly these types of offenses indicate a greater level of
involvement with crime, and one can safely assume that evolution to delin¬
quent fire setters is a likely outcome. Frequent involvement with the criminal
justice system is something to look for with these scenarios.
In terms of financially motivated offenses, the long-term criminality of
the offender is not so guaranteed. Such factors are dependent upon the social
and economic realities of the situation. For example, what is the resale value
of the car parts? What is the compensation rate for scrap metal? What are the
economic realities for the offender?

What power I feel at the thought of fire! ... Oh, what pleasure, what heavenly
pleasure!

—Joseph Kallinger

In summary, it is important to note that in terms of profiling, Gaynor

(2002) suggests that the three levels of fire risk typologies do have corre¬
sponding personality profiles.

Environmental Indicators For purposes of presenting environmental

factors that are likely to contribute to future criminal behavior, the follow¬
ing factors are recommended for consideration, which have proven through
research to be indicative of at-risk behaviors for fire setting: location of fire,
peer involvement, materials, gender, and significance of the target.

Fire Location Most early incidents of fire setting occur in or around the
home. These can include the yard area and, if indoors, often the bedroom.
These locations are chosen to aid in the concealment of the action when the
incident is committed by a low-risk individual. The juvenile will show remorse,
and the fires are often an unintended consequence of fire-starting efforts.
Definite-risk juveniles often show greater planning in their actions,
which means the fires may not necessarily be near the home. They can be set
in vacant lots, abandoned buildings, or wooded areas, which are indicative
of the desire to hide their behaviors. Despite the movement away from home
and perhaps because of it, profilers should carefully consider the target, as it
is still likely to have some significance (e.g., a school building).
Extreme-risk juveniles commit actions that amount to criminal events.
Their behavior is often impulsive and uncontrollable. As a result, the location
of the fire setting may not necessarily be predictable or contribute usefully
to a profile.

Peer Involvement The presence of multiple juveniles at a fire-setting event

is suggestive of an older subject. Most fire starters and young fire setters are
114 Police and Profiling in the United States

likely to engage in their behaviors alone. This phenomenon is consistent with

maturational development in terms of peer relationships and increased inde¬
pendence (suggestive of unsupervised activities).
Definite risk-troubled juveniles often present with social problems that
make it difficult to maintain friendships. Immature adolescents may become
excited when committing a number of crimes. This is true when a juvenile
commits the crime of arson. The thrill of doing something destructive along
with the danger involved is a likely combination for the often bored juvenile.
Adolescents are impressionable, and it does not take much to get another
adolescent to be “dared” or prodded into committing the dangerous crime of
arson. Arson is often a way many young juveniles seek attention, notoriety,
and status among their peers. Stone and Faulk (1999) note that relatively nor¬
mal youths are unlikely to set fires once the dominating or disturbed youth
is separated from them.

Materials Fire starters and young fire setters often use materials that are
easily accessible. This characteristic is also consistent with one-time or
impulsive behaviors that can be suggested by the failure to hide evidence.
Evidence consistent with this behavior is often spent matches, singed toys,
burnt paper, ashes, etc.
Older or repeat fire setters demonstrate some level of planning with their
actions. This may be manifested in a collection of flammable materials, pur¬
chase of lighters or lighter fluid, etc. These individuals have evolved from sim¬
ple curiosity to intentionally igniting a fire with the goal to watch or control it.
Gender Both genders engage in fire-starting and fire-setting behaviors,
but as with other criminal behavior patterns, males engage in fire setting
more often than females. Data suggest that between 11 and 15% of females
participate in fire-setting activities (Snyder 1997), but that figure appears to
be increasing to perhaps as high as 18% (Zipper and Wilcox 2005). It is impor¬
tant to note, however, that this increase may be indicative of better report¬
ing methods or increased awareness rather than an actual increase in female
activity. The increase of female involvement in other criminal activity has
also risen steadily since the mid-1980s. According to the U.S. Department of
Justice, the female proportion of the delinquency caseload rose steadily, from
19% in 1985 to 27% in 2007.
Target Significance The significance of a particular target is sometimes
difficult to determine because the target does not always have value to the
juvenile. However, research suggests that (1) females often target something
of specific value to the victim, and (2) hate is emerging as a motivational fac¬
tor. When females engage in fire-setting behavior, they typically target an
item that has special meaning or value to the victim (e.g., vehicle) because
their motivation tends to be revenge driven; when a male is motivated by
Serial and Rage Killers 115

revenge, his actions are more likely to be widespread and destructive (Canter
and Almond 2002).
Another emerging factor is the role hate plays in the selection of an arson
target. Several recent articles suggest that the motivational component of
hate is key in the destruction of property (Janes 2011; AP 2011; DOJ 2011). It
may be of interest to note that these reports also coincide with the 10-year
anniversary of 9/11.
From an investigative standpoint, the target not only plays a crucial role
in determining a motive and, therefore, the type of arson, but it can also offer
valuable data regarding characteristics of the offender (e.g., organized vs. dis¬
organized; see Chapter 5).

Prior Criminal History

The image of a law-abiding citizen who suddenly embarks on a killing ram-

page is good for television, but not necessarily realistic. Harbort and Mokros
(2001) analyzed the backgrounds of serial killers on a variety of variables
and found that 79% of serial killers had previously been convicted of crimes.
This finding was predated by Canter et al. (1997), who analyzed the offend¬
ing backgrounds of 217 U.S. serial killers and found that 75% of them had
previous convictions. It is important to note that the significance of these
findings is not only in the possibility of intervention, but also in the types of
crimes for which they were previously arrested. It is rare that serial murder
occurs independent of other crimes. Typically, the actions are embedded in
other criminal acts (e.g., burglary, rape), and those previous acts can indicate
criminal evolution. In Canter et al.’s 1997 study of serial killers, 22% had
prior convictions for violent crimes, 24% had prior convictions for serious
property crimes such as burglary, 17% had drug priors, and 16% had prior
sexual offense convictions, and nearly half had been arrested as juveniles.
Still, there is an alarming lack of data regarding the past history of chronic
violent offenders, and when prior histories of chronic offenders are examined,
many find that they have “relied more heavily on psychological, sociological,
and offense-specific measures than criminal history variables” (DeLisi and
Scherer 2006, 373). The difficulty associated with collecting this data is due to
several factors: many serial offenders never rise to committing murder, and
even if the offender does commit murder, it is unlikely that he or she will
commit serial murder; many serial offenders are killed prior to or during cap¬
ture; and while official data may be available, it is unclear how many criminal
events took place where the offender was not captured. The data that do exist
suggest that there is a correlative relationship between prior criminal history
and serial offending, but it is as yet unclear what that might be.
For purposes of this text, profilers should pay close attention to the col¬
lection of prior history and to the nature of those offenses, even if they are
116 Police and Profiling in the United States

not violent offenses. In particular, the importance of burglary as a meaning¬

ful prior offense may indicate the presence of a predatory mindset that often
occurs simultaneously with other predatory crimes, such as rape (Douglas
and Olshaker 1998).

Prior Psychiatric History

There has been some debate in the field as to whether the labels psychopath or
sociopath still apply, these terms generally referring to a disease of the mind
and the product of social upbringing, respectively. However, more and more,
professionals in the field are moving toward a more medical model and advo¬
cating for the use of antisocial personality disorder (ASP) as a designation
for individuals who previously would have been categorized as psychopaths
or sociopaths. In order for an individual to be diagnosed with antisocial
personality disorder, he or she must possess three or more of the following
characteristics:

• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors

as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
• Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or con¬
ning others for personal profit or pleasure
• Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
• Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults
• Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
• Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sus¬
tain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
• Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing
having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

This diagnosis is only made if these symptoms exist after the age of 18,
since many of them are consistent with emotional growth and maturational
development. The preliminary diagnosis for application as a minor is con¬
duct disorder. Diagnosis of a conduct disorder is suggestive of a problem but
does not carry the same labeling stigma as ASP. As it is currently written,
diagnosis of ASP requires evidence of these behaviors existent prior to age 15;
however, the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM) drops that designation and, in so doing, presents
a diagnosis virtually identical to that of Robert Hare’s psychopathy. By bring¬
ing the diagnosis in line with Hare’s psychopathy definition, the industry
has greater utility with ASP since Hare’s psychopathy checklist has become
a benchmark against which the criminal justice system measures treatment
outcome, institutional adjustment, recidivism, and violence (Hare 1991).
Serial and Rage Killers 117

Hare s checklist identifies individual traits shared by the majority of psycho¬

paths, which include the following:

• Selfish, callous, and remorseless use of others

• Glibness/superficial charm (smooth talking, engaging, and slick)
• Grandiose sense of self-worth (greatly inflated idea of ones abilities
and self-esteem, arrogance, and a sense of superiority)
• Pathological lying
• Conning/manipulative (uses deceit to cheat others for personal gain)
• Lack of remorse or guilt (no feelings or concern for losses, pain, and
suffering of others)
• Emotional poverty (limited range or depth of feelings)
• Callousness/lack of empathy (a lack of feelings toward others; cold,
contemptuous, and inconsiderate)
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

And with respect to social characteristics, they are described as chroni¬

cally unstable, living an antisocial and socially deviant lifestyle, as evi¬
denced by

• Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom (an excessive need for

new, exciting stimulation and risk-taking)
• Parasitic lifestyle (exploitative financial dependence on others)
• Poor behavioral control (frequent verbal abuse and inappropriate
expressions of anger)
• Promiscuity (numerous brief, superficial sexual affairs)
• Lack of realistic, long-term goals
• Impulsivity
• Irresponsibility (repeated failure to fulfill or honor commitments
and obligations)
• juvenile delinquency (criminal behavioral problems between the
ages of 13 and 18)
• Early behavioral problems (before age 13)
• Revocation of conditional release (violating parole or other condi¬
tional release)
• Many short-term marital relationships (lack of commitment to a
long-term relationship)
• Criminal versatility (diversity of criminal offenses, whether or not
the individual has been arrested or convicted)

Despite the social perception that serial killers must be insane, several
studies have found just the opposite. In fact, insanity is a legal definition
118 Police and Profiling in the United States

designed to determine one’s level of culpability and responsibility in the

commission of a criminal act.

Types

There are several ways to categorize serial offenders, but Holmes and
DeBurger (1988) have provided a typology that divides serial killers into four
broad types: visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic, and power/control.
Note that these are not definitive or exhaustive categories, as serial killers
can demonstrate all or none of these symptoms at any time.

Visionaries
Visionaries are typically out of touch with reality, may be psychotic or
schizophrenic, and feel impelled to commit murder by visions or “voices
in my head.” Their victims are typically strangers to them and are selected
because they represent a category of persons (e.g., prostitutes, mothers,
employers) rather than a specific person. This is the rarest type of serial mur¬
derer, and their killings are often spontaneous and disorganized. Example:
Gary Ridgway.

Missionaries
Missionary killers feel it is their mission in life to kill certain kinds of people,
such as prostitutes and homosexuals. These actions are generated from per¬
sonal goals (not voices) and often reflect the desires to “fix” things, i.e., remove
disease and social decay by killing drug addicts. The victims are often viewed
as those unworthy or disposable and likely not to be missed. These killers
are aware of what they are doing, know that it is wrong, and expect society
to condemn them. Their actions are often well planned, and their victims
are usually strangers to them. They appear normal to others and often enjoy
a certain degree of success in terms of employment and social achievement.
Example: David Berkowitz.

Hedonists
Hedonists represent the majority of serial killers. They kill for the pure thrill
and joy of it, often engaging in cruel and perverted sexual activity as part
of the event. There are really only two types of hedonistic killer: (1) thrill-
oriented killer and (2) lust killer.
A thrill-oriented killer experiences excitement at the mere thought of kill¬
ing. Often times, there is an element of sadism, as defined by the derivation
Serial and Rage Killers 119

of pleasure as a result of inflicting pain, cruelty, degradation, or humiliation,

or watching such behaviors inflicted on others.
A lust killer focuses centrally on the sexual element of the crime, though
he or she carefully plans the criminal event. The offender’s sexual pleasure
is increased by the amount of pain and mutilation inflicted, and his or her
personal gratification is gained through abusing the victim, who is generally
a complete stranger. These offenders usually lead normal lives with normal
relationships except the problem of sexual gratification.
Some authors (see Vronsky 2004) have expanded on this category by
adding subcategories such as black widows and profit killers, which repre¬
sent a female equivalent of a male serial offender. In the interest of keeping
categorizations short and easy to understand, we defer to the four basic cat¬
egories as established by Holmes and DeBurger (1988) while acknowledging
that there is are unique subspecies that exist within the broader approaches.

Power Control Killers

Power control killers gain more satisfaction from exercising complete power
over their victims rather than from “bloodlust,” although sexual activity is
almost always involved. These individuals are difficult to distinguish from
lust or thrill seeking because they have many of the same traits. The key dif¬
ference is that the criminal act is based solely on establishing total control
over other human beings. Power is also a key factor in the crime. Sometimes
sexual abuse of the victim occurs, but only as a means to demonstrate power.
When killings result, they are often sadistic. Example: Ted Bundy.

Motivations

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2010) has attempted to identify specific

motivations for serial murderers. Identifying motives during the investiga¬
tion is standard procedure for law enforcement. Successfully identifying an
offender’s motivation provides police with the means to narrow the potential
suspect pool in cases where the offender is unknown. Since most homicides
tend to be committed by someone known to the victim, police gener¬
ally focus first on those individuals with a close relationship to the victim.
While this presents a successful strategy for most murder investigations, it
does not always work for serial murders because the involved parties are not
acquainted with or involved in a consensual relationship with the victims.
This lack of familiarity between the offender and the victims typi¬
cally distinguishes a serial murder investigation from that of other crimes.
Since these investigations generally lack an obvious connection between
the offender and the victim, investigators are forced instead to narrow their
120 Police and Profiling in the United States

investigative focus. Serial murder crime scenes can have bizarre features that
may cloud the identification of a motive. The behavior of a serial murderer at
crime scenes may evolve throughout the series of crimes and manifest dif¬
ferent interactions between an offender and a victim. It is also important to
remember that there may be more than one offender, which in effect makes it
extremely difficult to identify a single motive. In addition to the above-listed
characteristics, the FBI has suggested that the following considerations be
employed when constructing potential motives for serial offenses:

• Existence of multiple motives may be present for committing the crimes.

• Motive construction should be limited to observable behavior at the
crime scene.
• Recognition that even if a motive is identified, it may not be helpful
in identifying a serial murderer.
• Concentration on motive construction exclusively (as opposed to
offender identification) may derail the investigation.
• Recognition that the level of injury exacted may not necessarily
equate to motivation.
• Acceptance that an offender selects a victim based upon availability,
vulnerability, and desirability, where availability is the lifestyle of the
victim or circumstances in which the victim is involved, that allow
the offender access to the victim, vulnerability is the degree to which
the victim is susceptible to attack, and desirability is the appeal of
the victim to the offender. Desirability involves numerous factors
based upon the motivation of the offender and may include factors
dealing with the race, gender, ethnic background, age of the victim,
or other specific preferences the offender determines. Historically,
the first indication that a serial murderer was at work was when two
or more cases were linked by forensic or behavioral evidence.

Causality

A question that most investigators may ask about a serial killer is what trig¬
gered this person to commit these crimes? Most often an investigator will
study the offender’s behavior, upbringing, or the environment in which he
or she grew up—circumstances that may cause a certain incident or episode
that caused that child to rebel or get even. Did any biological factors or hered¬
itary factors play a role in or influence abnormal behavior?
According to the FBI, Serial Murder Reports and Publications (2010),
causality can be defined as a complex process based on biological, social,
and environmental factors. In addition to these factors, individuals have the
ability to choose whether or not to engage in certain behaviors. Since it is not
Serial and Rage Killers 121

possible to identify all of the factors that influence normal human behavior,
it similarly is not possible to identify all of the factors that influence an indi¬
vidual to become a serial murderer.
Human beings are in a constant state of development from the moment
of conception until death. Behavior is affected by stimulation received and
processed by the central nervous system. Neurobiologists believe that ner¬
vous systems are environmentally sensitive, thereby allowing individual ner¬
vous systems to be shaped throughout a lifetime. The development of social
coping mechanisms begins early in life and continues to progress as children
learn to interact, negotiate, and compromise with their peers. In some indi¬
viduals the failure to develop adequate coping mechanisms results in violent
behavior. Neglect and abuse in childhood have been shown to contribute to
an increased risk of future violence. Substance abuse can and does lead to
increased aggression and violence. There are documented cases of people
who suffered severe head injuries and ultimately became violent, even when
there was no prior history of violence.
Most experts and psychologists agree that serial killers have many iden¬
tifiers, factors, or causes throughout their development that trigger personal
decisions to pursue their crimes. Some identifiers could be, but are not lim¬
ited to, biological traits or predispositions, social distortions or perceptions,
or psychological triggers in their development. While specific causes are
unknown, the FBI (2010) has identified distinctive behaviors and motiva¬
tions for killing that are often displayed at the crime scene. A few common
and shared traits of serial murders include

• Serial killers are driven by their own unique motives or reasons.

• The majority of serial killers are sexually gratified through violence
at some point during their development.
• Most serial killers often lack remorse or empathy for their victims,
have an absence of guilt for their actions, have impulsive behavior
characteristics or tendencies, are in the need for control, and incor¬
porate a predatory behavior.
• Most serial killers use a combination of charm, manipulation, intim¬
idation, and occasionally violence to control others, in order to sat¬
isfy their own selfish needs.
• They often display narcissistic tendencies, are considered selfish and
conceited. They will focus on praising their intelligence, cleverness,
and skill in evading capture. They are often considered pathological
liars with a pompous sense of self-worth and superficial charm.
122 Police and Profiling in the United States

Causes of Sexual Violence

Sexual violence is seen as a complex area of human behavior because it incor¬
porates the mindset of criminal intent and human sexuality. Few children
who have become serial killers became fascinated by sadistic violence at
a very young age. Joel Norris (1989) noted that the cycles of violence are a
direct link to the serial killers’ early, dysfunctional life. Other notable factors
and problems that have been apparent in many serial killers’ lives include

• Overbearing, impulsive parent, domineering mother, harsh father,

or both.
• Abandoned, unloving, or rejecting parent resulting in no foundation
for trust or security
• History of violent victimization: physically abused (head/physical
injuries), subjected to sadistic or threatening behavior, sexually abused
• Subjected to irrational and illogical behavior, victim of psychological
schemes, mind games, feeling inadequate
• Emotional abuse, instability, unmet needs (malnourished), manipulation
• Subject to alcoholism, drugs, or other addictions
• Verbally abused, subject to rants and rages, excessively bullied at school
• Mental illness, developmental disorders in family, religious fanaticism

References
Aamodt, M.G. Serial killer statistics. September 9, 2012. maamodt.asp.radford.edu/
serial killer information center/projectdescription.html (accessed October 2012).
Achenbach, T. Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and the profile depart¬
ment of psychology. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 1991.
Arluke, A., J. Levin, C. Luke, and F. Ascione. The relationship of animal abuse to vio¬
lence and other forms of anti-social behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
14, 1999: 963-975.
Ascione, F.R. Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implica¬
tions for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos, 6, 1993: 226-247.
Associated Press. 4 face arson, hate crime trial for cross burning in California. 2011.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/13/4-face-arson-hate-crime-trial-for-
cross-burning-in-california/#ixzzl216SFG7I (accessed June 2012).
Barnett, W., and M. Spitzer. Pathological firesetting, 1951-1991: A review. Medical
Science and the Law, 34, 1994: 4-20.
Canter, D., and L. Almond. The burning issue: Research and strategies for reducing
arson. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2002.
Canter, D., C. Missen, and S. Hodge. Are serial killers special? Policing Today, 2(1),
1997: 2-11.
DeLisi, M., and A. Scherer. Multiple homicide offenders: Offense characteristics, social
correlates and criminal careers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(3), 2006:367-391.
Serial and Rage Killers 123

Department of Justice. Oregon man charged with hate crime at mosque. 2011. http://
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/august/11 -crt-1088.html (accessed June 2012).
Dietz, P. Mass, serial and sensational homicide. Bulletin of the New England Medical
Society, 62, 1986: 477-491.
Douglas, J„ and M. Olshaker. Obsession. New York: Scribner, 1998.
Ewing, C. Insanity: Murder madness and the law. London: Oxford University Press, 2008.
FBI. FBI crime scene investigation: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government, 2010.
FBI. Serial murder, multi-disciplinary perspectives for investigators. Behavior analy¬
sis unit—National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crimes, 2010.
Fekkes, M., F.I. Pijpers, M. Fredriks, A. Miranda, T. Vogels, and S. Verloove-
Vanhorick. Do bullied children get ill, or do ill children get bullied? A pro¬
spective cohort study on the relationship between bullying and health related
symptoms. Pediatrics, 117(5), 2006: 1568-1574.
Fox, J.A., and J. Levin. The will to kill: Making sense of senseless murder. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon, 2001.
Gaynor, J. Juvenile fire setter intervention handbook. Washington, DC: Federal
Emergency Management Association (FEMA), 1997.
Gaynor, J. Juvenile firesetters intervention handbook. Washington, DC: USFA, 2002.
Geller, J.L., J. Erlen, and R.L. Pinkus. A historical appraisal of Americas experience
with pyromania”—A diagnosis in search of a disorder. International Journal of
Law Psychiatry, 9(2), 1986: 201-229.
Harbort, S., and A. Mokros. Serial murders in Germany from 1945 to 1995: A descrip¬
tive study. Homicide Studies, 5, 2001: 311-334.
Hare, R.D. The Hare psychopathy checklist—Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 1991.
Hargan, V. Posttraumatic stress disorder and crime victimization, 9/28/2009. http://
rn.npdaf.org/upload/PTSD%20and%20Crime%20Victimization.pdf (accessed
March 2012).
Hickey, E.W. Serial murderers and their victims, 5th ed. New York: Wadsworth, 2010.
Holmes, R.M., and J. DeBurger. Serial murder. Newbury Park: Sage, 1988.
Jacobson, R. Child firesetters: A clinical investigation. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 26(5), 1985: 759-768.
Janes, P. Orangevale dry cleaners target of possible arson hate crime. 2011. http://
www.news 10.net/news/article/154778/2/orangevale-dry-cleaners-target-of-
possible-arson-hate-crime (accessed June 2012).
Jayatunge, R. Bedwetting in children. September 1, 2010. www.lankaweb.com/news/
items/2010/09/01/bed-wetting-in-children (accessed March 01, 2012).
Levin, J„ and J.A. Fox. Mass murder: The growing menace. New York: Plenum Press, 1985.
Lindberg, N„ M. Holi, P. Tani, and M. Virkkunen. Looking for pyromania:
Characteristics of a consecutive sample of Finnish male criminals with histories
of recidivist fire-setting between 1973 and 1993. BMC Psychiatry, 5, 2005: 47.
Marks, P. When heroes turn into outlaws: Firefighters’ arson arrest raise complex
questions. New York Times, May 24, 1993.
Norris, J. Serial killers. New York: Anchor Publishing, 1989.
Ressler, R., A. Burgess, and J. Douglas. Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988.
124 Police and Profiling in the United States

Roesler, T.A., D. Savin, and C. Grosz. Family therapy of extrafamilial sexual abuse.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(5), 1993:
967-970.
Scott, G. American murder. New York: Praeger, 2007.
Snyder, H.N. Juvenile arson, fact sheet. Washington, DC: OJJDP, 1997.
Stone, J.H., K. O’Shea, S. Roberts, J. O’Grady, and A. Taylor. Faulk’s basic forensic psy¬
chiatry. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Science, 1999.
Strachan, J. G. Conspicuous fire-setting in children. British Journal of Psychiatry, 138,
1981:26-29.
Swaffer, T. Motivational analysis of adolescent fire-setters. Criminological and Legal
Psychology, 20, 1993: 41-45.
Vronsky, P. Serial killers: The method and madness of monsters. New York: Berkley
Publishing Group, 2004.
Wax, D.E., and V.G. Haddox. Sexual aberrance in male adolescents manifesting a
behavioral triad considered predictive of extreme violence: Some clinical obser¬
vations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 19(1), 1974: 102-108.
Zipper, P., and D. Wilcox. Juvenile arson: The importance of early intervention. Law
Enforcement Bulletin 4(74). Washington, DC: FBI, 2005.
Hero Complex Killers

8
Murder... murder-Can you prove it was murder? [...] I didn’t think you
could prove it was murder. She was dying in any event.
—John Bodkin Adams (1956)

Chapter Goals

• To understand differences between an angel of mercy and an angel

of death
• To explore the different types of murders perpetrated by medical and
primary care providers
• To examine the characteristics and reasoning of parents who mur¬
der their children
• To explore the characteristics of and reasons behind public service
provider crimes

Key Words

Arson
Beneficence
Comorbid
Euthanasia
Factitious disorder
Filicide
First due
Munchausen syndrome
Neonaticide

Introduction

Perhaps it is best to begin the discussion of murder typologies with one of the
rarest groups of murderers—the so-called angels of mercy or angels of death. The

125
126 Police and Profiling in the United States

definition is expanded here to include any offender who seeks to become a hero
through his or her actions. Specifically, the label of angel of mercy/death refers
to those individuals who might believe that they are helping the victims by eas¬
ing their pain; or alternatively, they may create a potentially deadly scenario
wherein they are the saviors. Oftentimes, these individuals can be mistaken as
compassionate and sensitive to the suffering of others; when in actuality, their
motives are often self-serving and their actions tantamount to serial killing.
Traditionally, those in this category of killers are those entrusted with
caregiving roles, i.e., physicians, nurses, or parents. As such, they enjoy an
assumption of goodness since requiring a care provider carries with it the
understanding that individuals who must place their health and well-being
into the hands of others are vulnerable and innocent. Professional caregivers
are trusted by those needing their services, and by the public, to provide nur¬
turing care to those in need and, therefore, tend to enjoy ultimate trust and
respect. This perception of their professional role and character is incongru-
ent with the idea of a killer, who intentionally takes the life of another, and
often contributes to the opportunity to commit these crimes since the public
is resistant to the idea of a caregiver being a killer.
There are some distinct categories of individuals who fall within this cat¬
egory, but for the most part, they are represented by professional caretakers.
This chapter examines the main disciplines wherein one is likely to find a
“hero killer,” where one’s motivation is intended to mitigate the fact that he
or she has intentionally taken the life of another and, therefore, under a legal
definition, has committed murder.

Medical Murder
In his book 100 Years of Medical Murder, Camp (1982) summarized high-pro¬
file medical murders from the early 1800s through the mid-1900s and coined
the term medical murder to mean the killing of patients by their physicians.
This term has been expanded by other authors (see Field 2007) to refer to the
killing of patients by medical care providers in general. The opportunity for
medical practitioners (physicians, nurses, caretakers, EMTs, etc.) to murder
patients generally arises from the independent (unsupervised) nature of their
work and the fact that they typically have easy access to weapons, in this case
poison (in the form of drugs; Field).
The label angel of mercy is invoked and most commonly applied to
descriptions of individuals who have acted in a manner consistent with
authentic euthanasia, as these actions are viewed as being consistent with
the ethical code of beneficence and “do no harm,” and with society’s ideas
of mercy and easing the suffering of others. It is for this reason that such
individuals are often not condemned by society for their actions, though
legally speaking, they have still effectively committed murder. The image of
Hero Complex Killers 127

the good and pure nurse/doctor is retained since what they did had good and
honorable intentions, and as a result, they are able to retain the perception
of a normal nurse/caregiver who does not willfully commit murder. Indeed,
the imagery of angels” reminds one of those who act as guardians, doers of
miracles, and messengers of God (Field 2007, 220).
On the other hand, the angel of death (Kelleher and Kelleher 1998) is
invoked to describe those who murder patients with malice aforethought,
and implies that the death of the patient is not intended to relieve the suffer¬
ing. The authors define this category as “a woman* who systematically mur¬
ders individuals who are in her care or rely on her for some form of medical
attention or similar support” (15). Other terms used to describe these indi¬
viduals include killer nurse or serial killer and are used to remind readers that
care providers can be bad too.
When the victim actually dies, these killers’ motivations generally fall
within three different categories: mercy killing, sadistic killing, or malig¬
nant hero killing. Mercy killers may believe the victims really are suffering
or beyond help (as in terminal illness situations), though this belief may be
delusional or simply ignorant, because they see what they want to see in order
to justify their actions. Sadistic killers tend to use their position as a way of
exerting power and control over helpless victims, and the motive is gener¬
ally financial gain, romantic interest, or pleasure in killing (Camp 1982).
A malignant hero killer typically engages in patterned actions wherein the

MALIGNANT HERO
Genene Anne Jones (born July 13, 1950) is a former pediatric nurse in
Texas who may have killed between 11 and 46 infants and children in
her care. In an effort to “play god,” she injected infants/children with
digoxin, heparin, and later succinylcholine to induce medical crises in
her patients, and later tried to revive them to elicit praise and be recog¬
nized as a hero. Unfortunately, many did not recover.
In 1985, Jones was sentenced to 99 years in prison for killing 15-month-
old Chelsea McClellan with succinylcholine. However, she will serve only
one-third of her sentence because of a law in place at the time to deal with
prison overcrowding. Jones will receive automatic parole in 2017.
Source: http://murderpedia.0rg/female.J/j/j0nes-genene.htm

Historically, the demographic profile of this type of killer has been female, often in
a medical or long-term care profession, or parenting. However, culturally and socially
speaking, the roles of physician have traditionally been held by men. Therefore, it is
consistent to find that most of the documented cases involve male offenders. Field (2007)
also posited that the assumption of female is a result of the long history of nuns, nursing,
nurturing, and care providing.
128 Police and Profiling in the United States

subject endangers the victim’s life in some way and then proceeds to “save”
him or her because the subject wishes to appear a hero, for example, when the
killer feigns attempting resuscitation, even when he or she knows the victim
is already dead (Andresen et al. 2005).

Primary Care Providers

Thus far, this discussion has focused on the medical community, but we rec¬
ognize that there are care providers who also enjoy the luxury of access and
opportunity to harm their victims. Although this text has already explored
the wide latitude that parents have enjoyed in terms of disciplining their chil¬
dren (see Chapter 3), it cannot be ignored that in some circumstances, par¬
ents kill their children. Resnick (1969) identified five major types of parental
filicide, some of which mirror the motives of medical care providers: (1)
altruistic filicide, (2) acutely psychotic filicide, (3) fatal maltreatment filicide,
(4) unwanted child filicide, and (5) spouse revenge filicide.’
Altruistic filicide occurs when a parent claims to have killed his or her
child out of love; the parent believes death to be in the child’s best inter¬
est. An example would be a suicidal mother who does not wish to leave her
motherless child to face an intolerable world, or a psychotic mother who
believes that she is saving her child from a fate worse than death. A clas¬
sic American study of parents who killed their children found that about
50% rationalized their actions as altruistic (Resnick 1969), and a more recent
Canadian study also reported that 5 of 10 (50%) fathers who killed their
children reported that their actions were intended to be altruistic (Marleau
et al. 1999).
While technically such actions conform to the legal definition of murder,
society tends to be more forgiving, especially since it often occurs when the
parent has social and economic stresses, a history of abuse, unsupportive
partner, primary caregiver status, or difficulties caring for the child (Sinclair
2011). Perhaps the most well-known case highlighting this phenomenon
is that of Tracy Latimer (see next page). It would be erroneous, however,
to assume that only parents of young children act in this matter. In 2010,
Patricia Corder, a 65-year-old woman who recently learned that she had ter¬
minal cancer, shot and killed her disabled 39-year-old son, Tracy Corder, and

' In 1990, Bourget and Bradford reclassified filicide as (1) pathological filicide (altruistic
motives and extended homicide-suicide), (2) accidental filicide (battered child syndrome
and others), (3) retaliating filicide, (4) neonaticide—unwanted child, and (5) paternal
filicide. In essence, they did not really change the distinctions as provided by Resnick
in 1969, but their classifications provided a broader application of the situations and
employed more contemporary language.
Hero Complex Killers 129

TRACY LATIMER
Tracy Latimer was born with a severe form of cerebral palsy. She was
unable to walk or talk. She had many seizures and was cognitively dis¬
abled. She depended on others for all of her basic needs in life.
Even though she was unable to do many things, she would smile,
laugh, and cry. She could think, communicate, and recognize the peo¬
ple she knew. She loved music and campfires. She was fed with a spoon
and went by bus every day to school.
Robert Latimer killed his daughter Tracy on October 24, 1993, by
putting her into the cab of the family pickup truck, connecting a hose
from the exhaust into the cab of the truck, and gassing her to death.
Robert Latimer confessed to killing Tracy and allowed the police to vid¬
eotape his explanation. He claims that his motive for killing his daugh¬
ter was that he had no other choice because of how much he loved her.
Source: http://www.epcc.ca.

then killed herself. Officials say the mother probably feared no one would
take care of her paralyzed son (Zapotosky 2010).
Acutely psychotic filicide occurs when a psychotic or delirious mother kills
her child without any comprehensible motive, as in cases where the mother
reports following commands from hallucinations to kill. In these circum¬
stances, although the parent may feel that he or she is doing something heroic,
he or she is suffering from a mental disease or defect and, therefore, is not
likely to be held legally liable for his or her actions.
Fatal maltreatment filicide occurs accidentally in as much as death is
usually not the anticipated outcome. It nonetheless results from cumulative
child abuse or neglect and, in rare instances, from Munchausen syndrome
by proxy (MSP). MSP occurs when a parent (usually a mother) intentionally
harms or describes nonexistent symptoms in her children to get the atten¬
tion given to the family of someone who is sick. A person with MSP uses the
many hospitalizations as a way to earn praise from others for her devotion
to the child s care, often using the sick child as a means for developing a
relationship with the doctor or other health care provider (Johnson 2007). It
is a complicated and difficult-to-diagnose form of child abuse. People with
MSP have an inner need for the other person (often his or her child) to be
seen as ill or injured—but not to achieve a concrete benefit, such as financial
gain. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edi¬
tion, text revision (DSM IV-TR), which is the standard reference book for

This disorder is not unique to child abuse,- it has also been seen in cases where adult
children are caring for their elderly parents.
130 Police and Profiling in the United States

mental illnesses in the United States, recognizes MSP as a factitious disorder.

Factitious disorders are considered mental illnesses because they are asso¬
ciated with severe emotional difficulties that have physical and psychologi¬
cal implications (Cleveland Clinic). As such, although law enforcement may
become involved to protect the child (or elder) from further abuse, it is more
likely that the case will be referred for medical rather than legal resolution.
Nonetheless, it is likely that law enforcement will be called to investigate
these cases and so should have an understanding of what to look for. From
the perspective of the offender, law enforcement should consider the follow¬
ing characteristics of such a killer:

• Most often a parent, usually a mother, but can be the adult child of
an elderly patient
• Might be a health care professional
• Is very friendly and cooperative with the health care providers
• Appears quite concerned (some might seem overly concerned) about
the child or designated patient
• Might also suffer from Munchausen syndrome (http://www.deve-
landclinic.com)

In terms of identifying warning signs of MSP, the following elements

(involving children) have consistently been identified during investigations:

• Child has a history of many hospitalizations, often with strange

symptoms
• Worsening of the child’s symptoms generally is reported by the
mother but is not witnessed by the hospital staff
• Child’s reported condition and symptoms do not agree with the
results of diagnostic tests
• There might be more than one unusual illness or death of children
in the family
• Child’s condition improves in the hospital, but symptoms recur
when the child returns home
• Blood in lab samples might not match the blood of the child
• There might be signs of chemicals in the child’s blood, stool, or
urine (www.clevelandclinic.com)

While the existence of these symptoms does not guarantee that MSP is
a factor, the presence of one or more suggests that investigators should pay
special attention to that possibility. It is also important that law enforcement
approach the suspected care provider in a careful manner. Failing to do so
may result in the care provider removing the child—effectively terminating
the investigation and placing the patient at increased risk.
Hero Complex Killers 131

Unwanted child filicide occurs when a parent thinks of the child as a hin¬
drance. These parents use their authority position as a way of exerting power
and control. It is not unusual, in these cases, for the parent to present himself
of herself as a victim, and actively work to recruit the public in his or her
efforts to “save” the child[ren].
On October 25, 1994, Susan Smith, a mother of two young children,
killed her children by allowing her car to roll down an embankment and
into the fohn D. Long Lake in Union, South Carolina. Susan Smith initially
told officials that she was car-jacked by a black man in his twenties, wearing
a dark-colored cap, a plaid jacket, and jeans, and armed with a handgun, who
took her car with the children in it (www.trutv.com). What resulted was a
nationwide manhunt that continued for nine days. In the end, Susan Smith
admitted to killing her boys, apologized for the problems she had created,
and claimed that she had tried to kill herself with her children. The authori¬
ties later determined that since the children were an obstacle to her future
romantic happiness, she killed them.
Provided below is an excerpt from the letter she received from one of her
love interests at the time, Tom Findlay, of the incident wherein authorities
believe that she decided to eliminate her boys in pursuit of future happiness.

You will, without a doubt, make some lucky man a great wife. But unfortu¬
nately, it won’t be me.” Another passage began, “Susan, I could really fall for
you. You have some endearing qualities about you, and I think that you are a
terrific person. But like I have told you before, there are some things about you
that aren t suited for me, and yes, I am speaking about your children.”

Recent research suggests (there is little empirical support) that men com¬
mit filicide at rates equal to, or slightly above, women. In situations where
the fathers claim the children are unwanted, the reasons often center on
questions of paternity or threats to the marital status, which has led most
researchers to categorize these situations as indicators of fathers’ inability
to handle extreme stress or anxiety. This is an area that requires additional
study, as it is currently unknown what the relationship is between existing
mental illness and the management of day-to-day stressors for males.
Spouse revenge filicide occurs when a parent kills the child specifically
to emotionally harm the other parent. In November 2011, Arthur E. Morgan
III was accused* of killing his 2-year-old daughter by dumping her, still
strapped in her car seat, off a bridge and into a stream in Shark River Park
in Monmouth County, New Jersey. He claims that he was saving her from a
life of drugs and crime by preventing her from being returned to her mother;
the prosecution claims that he killed the child as a means of punishing the

' Case is currently in trial in Monmouth County Superior Court.

132 Police and Profiling in the United States

mother for leaving him. In March 2012, Adriana Cruz was accused of chok¬
ing her 6-year-old son to death. At arrest, she bluntly said, “I killed him to
take revenge on his father” (“I Killed,” 2012). And in May 2012, Stacy Smalls,
believing that her husband was having an affair with another family member
and seeking revenge, killed her 18-month-old twins by drowning and smoth¬
ering them, and then attempted to poison their 4-year-old sister to death
(“Police,” 2012).

Gender Differences
It is impossible, indeed irresponsible, for us to assert anything more than
what the research suggests where parents have killed their children. The
existing research is careful to indicate that there exist myriad reasons for
such actions (of which trying to be seen as a hero is only one). It is necessary
to realize that while men and women are equally capable of killing their chil¬
dren (Kirkwood 2012), their motives for killing, and the characteristics of the
killing itself, are often very different, and recognizing those differences may
aid in the identification or apprehension of a perpetrator. In 1990, Goetting
reported that the majority of parents involved in the killing of their own
child (regardless of gender) shared the following characteristics:

• Minority
• Young
• Un- or undereducated
• An arrest record
• Victims younger than six years old

Since Goetting’s work in 1990, several studies have been conducted to

attempt to identify specific causes and motivations of parents who kill their
children. The following sections examine the differences on the basis of gen¬
der as it relates to the age of the victim.

Maternal Characteristics
When mothers kill, there is little indication their primary motive is to hurt
their partners. Rather, they appear to intend to take their own lives, and
since they believe the fathers were uninterested or incapable of looking after
the children, they kill because they cannot imagine leaving their children
without a mother. Simpson and Stanton (2000) identified that when mothers
commit filicide, they often suffer from social isolation, difficulty in form¬
ing good and stable relationships, and some mental disorder. These factors
may exist overall, but most research reports that mothers are much more
likely to kill their children when they are less than 1 week old (Kunz and
Hero Complex Killers 133

Bahr 1996). This is especially true where the mother is young as well (Resnick
1969; D Orban 1979). Other characteristics consistent with neonaticide are

• Unmarried mothers
• Mothers dependent on family of origin
• Mothers who actively concealed or denied the pregnancy
• Mothers who were physically abused by their own parents when they
were young
• Mothers not suffering from a comorbid psychiatric or psychological
problem (Haapasalo and Petaja 1999, 233)
• Did not use a weapon (method of death was usually drowning or suf¬
focation) (Kunz and Bahr 1996)

The demographic factors are significantly different when mothers kill

their older children (age 13+). In general, this is very rare, occurring in only
3% of the cases and often involving Caucasian mothers (Silverman and
Kennedy 1988, 119). Haapasalo and Petaja (1999) studied 48 mothers who
either attempted to kill or did kill their older children from 1970 to 1996, and
found that these women:

• Were married
• Had family problems
• Reported family-related stress
• Reported being physically abused by their own parents when they
were children
• Were diagnosed with mental disturbance, depression, or delu¬
sional psychosis
• Were considered prone to impulsive aggression
• Used a weapon (one in four mothers where psychosis existed)

Paternal Characteristics
In the few studies that have been done, there appears to be little desire to
involve anyone else, or to appear to be a hero. In fact, unlike women, when men
kill their children, the reasons include (1) death related to abuse of the child'
(including battered child syndrome), (2) mental illness of the father (including
psychosis and depression), and (3) revenge against a spouse (West et al. 2009).
Additionally, when fathers kill, they are more likely to kill the whole family,

' While the presence of excessive discipline or child abuse can appear to contradict mental
illness, Hatters et al. (2005) found evidence of a psychiatric history of psychosis (25%)
and depressive illness (50%) of the fathers (see also Bourget and Gagne 2005; Resnick
1969; Campion et al. 1988).
134 Police and Profiling in the United States

which is consistent with concepts of entitlement to control the whole family

(Kirkwood 2012) and possession (i.e., “if I can’t have them, no one can”).
Bourget and Bradford (1990) reported that while child murder is rare, it
is most often perpetrated by fathers. Motives centered on (1) misinterpreta¬
tion of the child’s behavior, (2) impulsiveness (frequently due to substance
abuse), and (3) social isolation. Drugs and alcohol are often contributing fac¬
tors, particularly when there is evidence of poor tolerance for crying or bad
behavior (Sadoff 1995). Campion et al. (1988, 1143) reviewed the records of
12 men charged and concluded that “eleven of the 12 had significant psychi¬
atric disorders.” Marleau et al. (1999) later studied 10 fathers who killed their
children and identified the following at-risk characteristics:

• Older children are more at risk

• Unemployment
• Developmental (death of parent, parental abuse), situational (the
possibility of separation from spouse), psychiatric (psychotic illness),
and toxicologic (substance abuse of alcohol or drugs) factors existed
• 21- to 42-year-olds represented the at-risk years for fathers
• Separation or divorce existed

Public Service

Individuals who enter into public service (paid or volunteer firefighters, law
enforcement, military, etc.) often choose the profession because it offers an
opportunity to help others. Oftentimes, however, the reality of the job is less
exciting than anticipated, or the desire to help is not fulfilled, and they decide
“to help nature along” (Sapp in Voth 2009). The main motivation is the desire
to be a hero (Mann in Voth 2009). “They want to be the first there,” Mann
said. “They want to be seen by the public as being a hero. Very rarely is it
because of emotional or psychological issues.”

Firefighter Arson
In March 1992, a 26-year-old volunteer firefighter in Oswego County, New York
pleaded guilty to setting 7 of 27 fires he was suspected of starting between 1990
and 1992. “Some of it probably was that he was just trying to be a hero,” said
Sumner R. Hall, an arson investigator in the Oswego County Sheriff’s office
(Marks 1993).

It is unknown how often this event occurs because while the National
Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), the National Fire Incident Reporting System
(NFIRS), and the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) collect data regarding the
Hero Complex Killers 135

crime of arson,* very rarely are data collected regarding the subgroup of
firefighter arsonists. In the early 1990s, the National Volunteer Fire Council
(NVFC) conducted the first empirical exploration into the phenomenon of
firefighter arsonists. Their findings noted specifically that (1) accurate num¬
bers on both arson cases and the number of cases involving firefighters are
not available in most states, (2) many states have no numbers on how many
proven arson cases involve fire service personnel, and (3) many states do little
or nothing in terms of training or awareness on firefighter arson.
In the early 1990s, the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime
(NCVAC) conducted a study of 25 cases of firefighter arson (75 firefighters
were found to be responsible for 182 fires) in 7 U.S. states and 1 Canadian
province. Their study identified the following situational characteristics to
look for when investigating potential firefighter arson cases:

• A sudden increase in nuisance fires within a company’s “first due” area

• New recruits to the department, typically serving less than 3 years
• Escalation of fire risk and frequency over time, even to the extreme
of setting fires in occupied buildings
• Unsophisticated methods to set fires, including easily accessed mate¬
rials such as gasoline and matches

In terms of the personal demographics to look for when investigating

these offenses, research is ongoing (in terms of validity and reliability), but
the following profile characteristics have been identified by both the South
Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) and the FBI as at-risk factors for fire¬
fighter arsonists:

• White male, ages 17-26

• Disruptive, harsh, or unstable rearing environment
• Poor relationship with father, overprotective mother
• If married, poor marital adjustment
• Lacking in social and interpersonal skills
• Poor occupational adjustment, employed in low-paying jobs
• Fascinated with the fire service and its trappings
• May be facing unusual stress (family, financial, or legal problems)
• Average to above-average intelligence, but poor to fair academic per¬
formance in school

According to the NCVAC, the criminal act of arson has to have three elements: (1) there
has been burning of property (must show the court actual destruction), (2) burning must
be proven to be incendiary, and (3) burning must be started with malice, that is, with the
specific intent of destroying property.
136 Police and Profiling in the United States

Researchers have identified six potential motives" for arsonists in gen¬

eral, but the motives that are particular to firefighters arsonists tend to fall
within three main categories: the need to be seen as a hero (to fellow firefight¬
ers and the community they serve), the need to practice extinguishing fires,
or the need to earn extra money. The NCVAC study also suggested that the
number one motive was excitement, in the sense that young firefighters are
eager to put their training to practical use.
Of the approximately 30,000 fire departments in the United States, the
overwhelming majority (possibly as high as 75% or more) are volunteer
departments. While firefighter arson has occurred in all types of depart¬
ments, most confirmed cases originate from volunteer fire departments. This
is consistent not only with the volume of volunteer firefighters when com¬
pared to career firefighters, but also with the fact that due to budget cutbacks,
much training, regulation, and oversight have been cut in volunteer agencies,
leaving open the opportunity for problems.
Since many nonurban areas depend heavily upon volunteer firefighters,
and are also struggling to recruit and retain fire department members, there
exists a valid concern that expensive criminal background checks or time-
consuming training seminars may discourage potential recruits from apply¬
ing. Nonetheless, departments recognize the financial and social impact of
firefighter arsonists, and are actively employing various techniques to iden¬
tify at-risk individuals before they join the department.

Law Enforcement
Logically speaking, it makes sense to assume that just as firefighters have the
opportunity to construct situations wherein they can portray themselves as
heroes, so too would law enforcement. Consider, for example, the Atlanta
bombing in 1996 (see below). Although not a member of law enforcement,
Richard Jewell was a park security officer, and the initial reports were that
he planted the bomb with the intention of finding it, alerting the public, and
receiving the accolades of a hero. The reality is much different for two spe¬
cific reasons.
First, law enforcement is continually monitored, perhaps even more so
due to the advent of dashboard cams and shoulder cams. This monitoring
precludes or interferes with any opportunity to stage a crime wherein they can
emerge as the hero. That is not to say that it never happens, but it is unlikely
to occur successfully, and so far there is no documented or researched syn¬
drome or condition that addresses this phenomenon in law enforcement.

Excitement, vandalism, revenge, profit, extremist/terrorist, .and crime concealment.

Hero Complex Killers 137

On the evening of July 27, 1996, at Centennial Olympic Park,

I did not set out to be a hero. I set out that night simply to
do my job and to do it right.
—Richard Jewell, 1996

CENTENNIAL OLYMPIC PARK BOMBING, JULY 27,1996

Richard Jewell was a 33 year old security officer for Piedmont College.
He had an on- and ofF-again career in law enforcement, and in 1996,
was working part time as a security officer for the Olympics.
The bomb that exploded at Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta
July 27th first made Richard Jewell a hero. He spotted the green knap¬
sack that contained the pipe bomb 13 minutes before it exploded. He
alerted police and helped move people away from the site. As a result of
his quick thinking, only one person was killed and 111 injured by the
crudely made device.
But Jewells days of glory ended three days later when the Atlanta
Journal Constitution rushed out an extra edition headlined “FBI
Suspects Hero Guard May Have Planted Bomb,” and other media out¬
lets began running stories suggesting professional frustrations might
have driven him to crave national attention. Eighty-eight days later, the
FBI reported that Jewell was no longer a suspect in their investigation.

Second, and perhaps more important, is the fact that law enforcement, by
nature of their job responsibilities, enjoy a degree of power and authority. As
such, any transgression that might place the public at risk is construed as a
misuse or abuse of that power and authority, and translates socially into bad
policing, rather than into hero cop. Firefighter arsonists cause fractures in
the level of public trust and confidence, but similar fractures in the delicate
balance between law enforcement and the public would, if present, place
many in harm’s way as well as undermine the integrity of policing in general.

Military
With respect to military personnel, the reality is similar to that of law enforce¬
ment but for slightly different reasons. By the very nature of defending the
country, military personnel are seen as heroes. As a result, it is unlikely that
should an officer actually create a situation wherein his actions might be seen
as heroic, it would be perceived as anything more than simply an act of war.
In that sense, the actions themselves get lost in social perceptions of what is
expected from the military and the public acceptance that they are unfamil¬
iar with the realities of war.
138 Police and Profiling in the United States

References
Adams, J.B. 1956. http://www.murderpedia.org (accessed March 2012).
Andresen, B. D„ A. Alcaraz, and P. M. Grant. The application of pancuronium bro¬
mide (Pavulon) forensic analyses to tissue samples from an “angel of death”
investigation. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(1), 2005: 215-219.
Bourget, D., and J.M. Bradford. Homicidal parents. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
35, 1990: 233-238.
Bourget, D„ and P. Gagne. Paternal filicide in Quebec. Journal of American Academy
of Psychiatry Law, 33, 2005: 354-360.
Camp, J. 100 years of medical murder. London: Triad/Panther Books, 1982.
Campion, J.F., J.M. Cravens, and F. Covan. A study of filicidal men. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 145, 1988: 1141-1144.
D’Orban, P.T. Women who kill their children. British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 1979:
560-571.
Field, J. Caring to death: A discussive analysis of nurses who murder patients.
Dissertation (unpublished), University of Adelaide, South Australia, 2007.
Goetting, A. Child victims of homicide: A portrait of their killers and the circum¬
stances of their deaths. Violence and Victims, 5(4), 1990: 287-295.
Haapasalo, J., and S. Petaja. Mothers who killed or attempted to kill their child: Life
circumstances, child abuse, and types of killing. Violence and Victims, 14, 1999:
219-239.
Hatters, F.S., D.R. Hrouda, and C.E. Holden. Filicide-suicide: Common factors in
parents who kill their children and themselves. Journal of American Academy of
Psychiatry Law, 33, 2005: 496-504.
I killed my son to take revenge on his father. Buenos Aires Herald, March 22, 2012.
Johnson, C.F. Abuse and neglect of children. In Nelson textbook of pediatrics, 18 th
ed., ed. R.M. Kliegman, R.E. Behrman, H.B. Jenson, and B.F. Stanton, 171-193.
Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier, 2007.
Kelleher, M., and C. Kelleher. Murder most rare: The female serial killer. New York:
Dell, 1998.
Kirkwood, D. “Just say goodbye”: Parents who kill their children in the context of sepa¬
ration. Melbourne: Domestic Violence Resource Centre, 2012.
Kunz, J., and S.J. Bahr. A profile of parental homicide against children. Journal of
Family Violence, 11(4), 1996: 347-362.
Marks, P. When heroes turn into outlaws: Firefighters’ arson arrests raise complex
questions. The New York Times, May 24, 1993.
Marleau, J.D., B. Poulin, T. Webanck, R. Roy, and L. Laporte. Paternal filicide: A study
of 10 men. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 1999: 57-63.
Police: Mother killed children to get revenge against cheating husband. Daily Mail,
May 25, 2012.
Resnick, PJ. Child murder by parents: A psychiatric review of filicide. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 1969: 325-334.
Sadoff, R.L. Mothers who kill their children. Psychiatric Annals, 25(10), 1995: 601-605.
Silverman, R.A., and L.W. Kennedy. Women who kill their children. Violence and
Victims, 3, 1988: 113-127.
Simpson, A., and J. Stanton. Maternal filicide: Are formulation of factors relevant to
risk. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 10, 2000: 136-147.
Hero Complex Killers 139

Sinclair, L. What motivates parents to kill their child? Psychiatric News, 46(20), 2011:1.
Voth, S. Report details why some firefighters set fires. Northern Virginia Daily, April
25, 2009.
West, S.G., S.H. Friedman, and RJ. Resnick. Fathers who kill their children: An analy¬
sis of the literature. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(2), 2009: 463-468.
Zapotosky, M. Terminally ill woman apparently kills disabled adult son, then self in
Maryland. Washington Post, June 8, 2010.
V

■
Crime Scene Indicators
and Investigations
9
Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be
wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err.
—Kirk (1953)

Chapter Goals

• Appreciate the critical role that crime scenes play in a criminal

investigation
• Understand the Locard exchange principle and its role in evidence
collection procedures
• Be familiar with different career opportunities that exist surround¬
ing crime scenes

Key Words

Chain of custody
Crime scene analysis
Crime scene processing
Crime scene technicians
Criminal investigative analysis
Criminalist
CSI effect
Locard exchange principle
Preliminary investigator
Trace evidence

Crime Scene

The crime scene represents the first piece of the puzzle for any law enforce¬
ment investigator. According to the FBI (2010), physical evidence has the
potential to play a critical role in the overall investigation and resolution of

141
142 Police and Profiling in the United States

a suspected criminal act. Because of this, there are many important actions
that must be adhered to by officers who first arrive at the scene of any crime,
and then ultimately by any detectives or investigators who follow up on the
initial investigation.

First Officer on the Scene (Preliminary Investigator)

Many crime scenes have been ruined because police officers themselves have
contaminated the crime scene unintentionally, most likely because they were
curious or careless. The role of the first officer on the scene is to determine
if any victims are alive and in need of medical assistance. This could be a
difficult situation even for the most seasoned officer, as the first instinct is to
“go in there and help out.” The motto to “serve and protect” should be discre¬
tionary at a crime scene. Rushing into a crime scene can do more harm than
good. After evaluating any medical emergencies or issues, it is imperative
that the preliminary investigator set up an extensive perimeter that would
encompass the entire crime scene before anything else.
The police tape is a reminder to everyone that the crime scene holds valu¬
able evidence and that this area needs to be treated carefully and thoroughly.
The yellow police tape is primarily used for an outside perimeter, and red
police tape is often used to secure a smaller, more confined internal perime¬
ter. Brass (2011) acknowledged that the first detail an initial investigator must
do is define the physical space in which they are interested and then cor¬
don off this area. This is not an easy task. Obtaining too narrow a boundary
will increase the likelihood that important information will be overlooked.
In any case, no boundary can possibly capture everything or everybody of
interest. The crime scene investigator is expected to invest considerable time
and energy in examining the interior of that quarantined space, recognizing
all the while that drawing too wide a boundary may yield only marginally
more knowledge. A detailed log should be established of everyone who pro¬
ceeds past the yellow tape of the crime scene.
The preliminary investigator should incorporate a detailed log of all law
enforcement personnel who arrived at the crime scene. This log should contain
the officer’s name, star number, and time he or she arrived, and his or her pur¬
pose regarding the crime scene. Officers who are made accountable for their
actions will most likely refrain from entering a crime scene in which they have
no business being involved. Additional officers who arrive should be directed
by the first officer to look for potential witnesses that may have seen what hap¬
pened (testimonial evidence). Each witness should be interviewed separately
so as not to influence or impact other eyewitnesses. An important process is to
accurately question and write down what each eyewitness observed or heard. It
Crime Scene Indicators and Investigations 143

is imperative for a law enforcement officer not to interpret what a witness said,
but to specifically write down exactly what the observer disclosed.

Assessment of the Scene

First impressions and hunches should always be noted and reasoned through.
Each action the criminal made should be substantiated and confirmed.
Proper assessment by the preliminary investigator at the scene will ultimately
determine the type of incident that occurred and what path the investigation
is destined to follow. The assessment of the crime scene should also include
witness statements taken at the scene and canvassing the immediate area for
any potential leads or witnesses.
When the lead detective or investigator arrives at the crime scene, the
exact time of arrival should be noted and documented. A coordinated effort
of identifying physical evidence and exchange of information between the
first responding officers and the lead investigator is important, as this will
assist in the initial walk-through by the follow-up investigative team. Written
documentation at the crime scene (notes, sketches) along with detailed pho¬
tographic images will help support what was originally found and observed
at the crime scene. The identity of the victim(s) and suspect(s) should be
attained as soon as possible. Any detailed information report should be
shared through a database with other outside law enforcement agencies,
especially when the crime involves a homicide.
Since the FBI (2010) acknowledged that the profiling of unknown offend¬
ers has become increasingly accepted as a valuable tool in criminal investi¬
gations, particularly those involving homicides, dependence upon profiling
(and by default training in how to profile) has gained in popularity, despite
the fact that not all homicides conform to the organized vs. disorganized
crime scene patterns that have been developed for the victims of seemingly
random homicides where victims are strangers. Offenders who abduct and
kill children and those who kill elderly women, for example, fit different
behavioral patterns, and ones not always conducive to the development of a
profile, even when the offender is unknown.

Collection of Data

The documented collection of data should be concise and neat involving

the thoughts and initial reflections of both the crime scene investigator and
detective(s). Usually after a crime, a forensic evidence specialist (see below)
will be assigned to the scene. The integrity regarding the collection of evidence
is critical in the criminal justice system, especially since someone’s freedom
144 Police and Profiling in the United States

may be at stake. The best evidence is generally collected when the crime scene
investigator initially processes a crime scene. As time goes on, the crime scene
will eventually lose valuable trace evidence. For this reason, each department
should have policies regarding evidence collection that include

• Establish universal standards for collecting and testing evidence

• Adhere to strict operating procedures when processing a crime scene
• Equip crime processing personnel with the proper (universal) tools
for gathering evidence
• Practice equality in the processing of every crime scene (unbiased)
• Ensure adequate staffing by qualified personnel at each crime scene
• Gather and label easiest evidence first—the physical evidence left at
the crime scene
• Obtain witness statements as soon as possible; it is the hardest evi¬
dence to gather
• Recognize that cooperation of witnesses is crucial to the case

While a crime scene investigator will try to gather as much DNA and fin¬
gerprint evidence as possible, every crime scene is different, and the type of
crime scene will determine the type of evidence collected and the worthiness of
the evidence obtained. The crime scene investigator may be specifically seeking
certain evidence to solve a particular crime. According to Locard (see below),
there is always an exchange of some type of substance, from the victim to the
offender, from the offender to the victim. The possibilities are endless, as DNA
and fingerprints are true indications that place an individual at the crime scene.
Crime scene investigation incorporates many delicate stages in the pro¬
cess to succeed in revealing the perpetrator. Goode (2003) notes that crimi¬
nalists examine physical evidence to solve crimes. Crime scene investigators
usually have only one chance or opportunity to recover the best physical evi¬
dence during their preliminary investigation. Each crime scene is unique,
and because of this, detectives and investigators may approach the incident
differently each time. There is not a specific or step-by-step guide to an inves¬
tigator’s approach, but there are basic fundamentals and common sense on
how evidence should be handled according to local policies and procedures.
The integrity of evidence is key to obtaining a criminal conviction, or some¬
times is responsible for setting the criminal free due to legal technicalities.
The collection and gathering of evidence has been improved by the
enhancement of technology. Preserving and documenting scientific evidence
has become easier, more refined, and more thorough than in previous years.
The definitive outcome is to produce reliable physical evidence that will aid
the investigation, especially in solidifying any legal arguments or objections
to who ultimately committed the crime. Baber (2010) notes that the examina¬
tion of a crime scene is subject to all manner of legal, ethical, and scientific
Crime Scene Indicators and Investigations 145

imperatives, and the evidence collected will be subjected to inspection by a

variety of individuals with different intentions, skills, and knowledge. Frazier
(2009) also confirms that anyone who has watched a modern television crime
show knows that advancements in science and technology have helped crime
scene investigators solve cases, including many long-standing and cold cases
that technological innovations have helped unravel. But those TV shows have
also created a challenge for law enforcement.
Unfortunately, television shows and movies give their audience a false
impression of what really goes on at a crime scene. The television show
CSI (Crime Scene Investigation) in particular has inspired what many pro¬
fessionals have dubbed the “CSI effect,” which is in essence the belief that
the collection and analysis of evidence takes place in a short period of time.
Furthermore, officials believe that the public has an unrealistic expectation
of how convinced they should be of someone’s guilt, based upon the tools
and pseudoscience they see on TV. Despite the fact that research (Shelton
et al. 2006) does not support the claim that jurors have unrealistic expecta¬
tions regarding the use of science in criminal cases, researchers still believe
that there remains a broader “tech effect” that influences juror expectations
and demands, and prosecutors still lament that they cannot get convictions
due to unrealistic expectations. What this means for the process of data col¬
lection is that there must be greater emphasis placed upon ensuring that all
procedures are followed so that the integrity of the data collection process
remains above reproach.

Chain of Custody

The processing of the crime scene, collection of the evidence, documentation

of scene and evidence, and proper evidence packaging, labeling, and mainte¬
nance in a secure, temporary manner until final packaging and submission
to a secured evidence storage facility or crime laboratory are all critical steps
in the evidentiary process. This process of evidence collection initiates the
very important procedure known as the chain of custody. Marking and label¬
ing of evidence begins the system’s control and custody of those evidentiary.
The chain of custody is defined as the witnessed, written record of all of the
individuals who maintained unbroken control over the items of evidence. It
establishes the proof that the items of evidence collected at the crime scene
are the same evidence that is being presented in a court of law. All evidence
collected at the crime scene should be tagged (if the item cannot be tagged,
then it should be labeled or marked) and the information should include

• Description of item
• Police case number or identifier
146 Police and Profiling in the United States

• Date of collection
• Location of collection
• Collectors name and identifier
• Brand name
• Any serial number or garment information

The chain of custody is not completed when the evidence is collected.

It is imperative that all contacts made with the evidence after collection are
recorded with the following information:

• Who had contact with the evidence

• The date and time the evidence was handled
• The circumstances for the evidence being handled
• What changes, if any, were made to the evidence

Crime scene debriefing is the best opportunity for law enforcement per¬
sonnel and other responders to ensure that the crime scene investigation is
complete. Conducting a scene walk-through ensures that all evidence has
been collected, that materials are not inadvertently left behind, and that any
dangerous materials or conditions have been reported and addressed.

Locard Principle and Trace Evidence

Many experts believe that French scientist and professor Edmond Locard was
truly ahead of his time with respect to the collection and analysis of crime
scene evidence. He found that even the most cautious criminal will leave or
pick up traces of identifying material, which he coined as the exchange prin¬
ciple. The Locard exchange principle notes that trace evidence (evidence a
person leaves or takes) could include a person’s fingerprints, strands of hair,
bodily fluids such as blood or semen, fibers from clothing, tools that were
used, glass that was broken, and even dust. He strongly believed that these
key signs of material evidence were instrumental in analyzing a crime scene.
His ideas and thoughts, along with the first microscope and spectroscope
used in his crime lab, were considered the foundation of forensic investiga¬
tions. Locard believed that what a person leaves behind is resilient, factual
physical evidence that cannot be mistaken.

CSA vs. CST vs. CSP?

As criminology (the scientific study of crime) and criminal justice (the sys¬
tem under which justice is administered) have grown, new vocabulary and
Crime Scene Indicators and Investigations 147

methods have evolved to describe what exactly happens during the course of
an investigation. While one may believe that he or she can infer the mean¬
ing of a term from the manner in which it is used, the tendency to apply a
“one size fits all” model to describe jobs and their specific functions leads to
misunderstandings and lost opportunities. The role that a crime scene plays
in the overall successful disposition of a case is intimately connected to the
idea that all parties involved effectively and efficiently carry out their job
responsibilities—which in many cases represents a hierarchy of responsibil¬
ity and tasks. There are several terms employed that pertain to the crime
scene, and it is important to understand the subtle and distinct differences
in the vernacular.

Crime Scene Processing (CSP)

Crime scene processing refers to a specific task—that being the task of pro¬
cessing a crime scene, inclusive of identifying evidence; taking photographs,
not only of the evidence but of the general vicinity and location where the
crime took place; perhaps sketching the environment in a notebook to aid in
memory recall; and carefully noting things that seem awry, as one can never
tell when that might prove helpful. This finding is consistent with a 1976
RAND study that found that “for crimes without an initial suspect identifi¬
cation, we found that many of those eventually cleared are solved by routine
investigative actions” (36) but not necessarily conducted by “investigators.”
In fact, many patrol officers were responsible for the routine activities that
eventually resulted in cleared cases (Chaiken et al. 1976).

CASE EXAMPLE: THE CITY LINE STALKER

In 1979, following a series of car battery burglaries, officers were assigned
to monitor the area. During routine patrol, an officer witnessed a black
male exit a car, lock the doors and begin to leave the scene. He then
returned to the car, retrieved an item, noticed the police officer and ran
away. The officer chased but lost him in an apartment complex. Since he
lacked sufficient probable cause to enter the vehicle, the officer simply
noted what could be seen through the window: an ENTERPRISE receipt,
a camera (back seat), and a parking stub from Atlantic City, time stamped
11pm the night before. The officer called ENTERPRISE who indicated
that the car was stolen.

3 months later...
That same officer responded to a call for a missing nine-year-old girl.
When he arrived at the crime scene, he noted some blood, a necklace,
148 Police and Profiling in the United States

and candy strewn around the parking lot. While officers were secur¬
ing the crime scene, the officer noticed a young man standing with the
victims sister and immediately recognized him as the subject he had
chased three months prior. He urged investigators to question the male.
Ultimately, the suspect was arrested at a construction site in Atlantic
City next to the parking garage listed on the previously noted park¬
ing stub. He was eventually charged with eight murders of women. He
would steal a car, beat them with a baseball bat, and dump the body
far away. It was later determined that the camera seen in the back seat
belonged to another murder victim whose body had been located beside
a parking garage in Atlantic City, that coincided with the parking stub
noted on the dashboard.
—Charles S.
Retired Philadelphia police officer

Since this is a learned activity, there is little empirical analysis that is

needed regarding this exercise. The issues are straightforward inasmuch as
problems arise from improper collection of evidence.

Crime Scene Technicians (CSTs)

Crime scene technicians (or evidence recovery technicians) are those individu¬
als tasked with actually processing the crime scene. Their job responsibilities
include collecting evidence (physical or real) from the crime scene. It is not their
specific responsibility to construct theories about what happened, although in
small jurisdictions this may in fact occur. Specifically speaking, however, their
job functions involve the collection of evidence, initiation and preservation of
the chain of evidence for future evidence analysis and use in court proceed¬
ings, photographing the crime scene so that it can be recreated during later
analysis, documentation of all that was witnessed or collected from the initial
response, etc. The role of the crime scene technician is critical to the stages
that follow. While crime scene technicians are not required to possess a college
degree, they are encouraged to have some industry-specific training, i.e., from
an auto body shop to learn about the proper way to gain access to car interiors,
remove door panels, etc.; a gardening center to learn about the different types
of soil, insects, digging methods, etc.; and a trauma center to orient oneself to
the chaos and mutilation that is common at crime scenes (Byrd 2000).
Again, since this is a learned activity, there is little empirical analysis that
is needed regarding this exercise. The issues are straightforward inasmuch as
challenges arise from improper execution of one’s job responsibilities rather
than from empirical invalidity.
Crime Scene Indicators and Investigations 149

Criminalists
Very simply, criminalists mark the second level of crime scene processing
in that they identify, compare, analyze, and interpret physical evidence.
Their primary role is to objectively examine physical evidence using scien¬
tific methods. This implies that the criminalist works in a laboratory setting
where he or she is able to carefully analyze the evidence. A criminalist works
with an eye toward processing the evidence in a way that will be useful to the
investigation or subsequent court proceeding, because his or her work adds
scientific validity or support to the process. Efficient interpretation of evi¬
dence and accurate test results help identify the circumstances that existed at
the time a crime was committed or may serve to reinforce a witness’s state¬
ment. Lastly, criminalists supply written reports of their findings and may
provide expert testimony in court.
Although there are currently no mandated licensing requirements for
criminalists, they do need to hold at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical,
biological, or forensic sciences. Further, because scientific advances occur at
a rapid pace, continuing education classes are also required. Additionally,
certification from the American Board of Criminalistics is recommended or,
at the very least, the forensic laboratories should be accredited by national
organizations, such as the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/
Laboratory Accreditation Board—the oldest and most well-known crime/
forensic laboratory accrediting body in the world (http://www.ascld-lab.
org/about_us/qualitypolicy.html). Failure to do so may result in a situation
such as that recently reported in the Washington Post. In April 2011, the
Washington Post reported that “Justice Department officials have known for
years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of poten¬
tially innocent people, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their
attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled_Asa result, hun¬
dreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes
that might merit exoneration, a retrial, or a retesting of evidence using DNA
because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects”
(Hsu 2011).
The impact of this revelation is multilayered, as it not only casts doubt
upon the integrity of the convictions that were achieved through findings from
this laboratory for several years, but it also threatens the public’s confidence
that their laws are being upheld in an ethical and judiciously sound manner.

Crime Scene Analysis (CSA)

The third step in the crime scene processing is the application of physical evi¬
dence (objective analysis) to the theoretical reconstruction (subjective analy¬
sis) of the events, which takes place through crime scene analysis, thereby
150 Police and Profiling in the United States

making CSA a task. Police officers customarily try to identify the motive
behind any criminal act, since identifying motive is correlated to the identifi¬
cation of the offender. The process of identifying a motive involves answering
the questions of how, why, where, and when, and it begins at the crime scene.
Traditionally, application of the evidence to the crime reconstruction process
has been carried out from offender perspectives, but creating awareness of
the victim and the victim’s behaviors also can provide valuable insight into
the evolution of the criminal event.
Crime scene analysis involves taking everything into account and for¬
mulating multiple theoretical frameworks. One of the main challenges to
this process emerges when officers decide on one scenario and refuse or are
resistant to consideration of any alternative explanations—especially when
the scientific analysis is contrary to the theory. Joann S., a laboratory analyst,
claims that the “hardest part of her job is when the officers object to my lab
findings and insist that I must be wrong. I don’t tell them how to be a cop,
why must they constantly tell me how to be a scientist? If the labs are not
what they expected, I cannot change the labs.”
Some believe that human beings are creatures of habit, where habit is an
action born of positive reinforcement (see Chapter 2). In this sense, it can
be implied that offenders commit crimes either because they represent what
they are used to doing, what they are comfortable with, or what they do best.
In fact, in 2010, a group of leading Northeastern University network scien¬
tists reported that human behavior is 93% predictable (Song et al. 2010). If
this is true, then the recent evolution of “predictive policing” and geographic
profiling (see Chapter 10) offer great advances to the field of criminal profil¬
ing. However, it must be noted that both of these systems require a database
of past events from which to construct a future prediction.
Motives may be difficult to ascertain in that serial murders will fre¬
quently make strangers their victims and will often have had little or no
contact with them prior to the crime. The involvement of strangers as vic¬
tims broadens the mystique of the crime and makes it difficult to pinpoint
a suspect. The level of the injury should not be directly associated with the
motivation behind the crime. According to the FBI (2010), an offender selects
a victim based on availability, vulnerability, and desirability:

• Availability is explained as the lifestyle of the victim, and often the

circumstances in which the victim is involved, and access to the vic¬
tim is a key factor.
• Vulnerability represents the degree to which the victim is susceptible
to attack by the offender.
Crime Scene Indicators and Investigations 151

• Desirability is what appeals to the offender. This could involve

numerous factors based upon the level of motivation the offender
has to encounter the victim. Factors to consider include race, gen¬
der, ethnicity, background, age, and any other specific preferences an
offender may have (as revealed by victim demographics).

A few factors that can derail investigators include the frequency of the
killings, the location of the killings, especially if the crimes have occurred
in remote police jurisdictions, and overreliance on modus operandi (MO).
Additionally, while technology has improved communications dramatically,
police departments, especially larger police departments, will not necessarily
share information on an active case with other jurisdictions.

Criminal Investigative Analysis: The Future

of Psychological Profiling
Evaluating a crime scene and the behavior of the offender is like putting an
intricate and detailed puzzle together. What are the most probable causes
of the crime, the likely culprit, and possible connection to the victim? This
investigative technique of analyzing behavior of the offender is known as
criminal investigative analysis (CIA). Criminal investigative analysis is the
process of combining experience and knowledge of behavior with the facts
of the investigation. This type of criminal profiling is drawn from clues left
at a crime scene to address any possible motive and purpose of the offender.
Investigators will gain insight about the crime by developing an assessment
of what developed from the start of the crime to when the perpetrator(s)
departed.
The need for criminal investigative analysis (formerly referred to as psy¬
chological profiling) training has become increasingly recognized over the
past few years as law enforcement agencies across the country encounter an
ever-increasing number of rapes and homicides committed by unknown
offenders. Detectives trained in CIA methods use a methodic and systematic
approach to help them match similarities of past crimes and potential offend¬
ers. This technique may also generate possible new crime trends or patterns
to substantiate future occurrences. This type of technique assists detectives
and investigators to interpret criminal behavior with enough confidence to
develop leads and provide expert testimony in a court of law.
The process of identifying a possible suspect(s) will depend on substantial
evidentiary information gathered at the crime scene. A clothing description,
certain body features, obvious fingerprints, or bodily fluids (DNA evidence)
left at the scene will ultimately assist the detective or investigator in putting
that final piece of the puzzle together. Allen (1999) notes that DNA finger¬
printing—called DNA profiling by scientists—compares the genetic code in
152 Police and Profiling in the United States

evidence found at the crime scenes with genetic codes of suspects and vic¬
tims. The source of the DNA is sometimes only a speck of blood or some
saliva from a suspect who spits on the street.

In My Experience...
The following perspective is from a personal interview with Officer Herb Keeler,
police forensic investigator for the Chicago Police Department. Keeler (2011)
stated that the first thing he does when he approaches a crime scene is to view it
from the outside in. He compares processing a crime scene to peeling an onion;
it must be done slowly, peeling back the information layer by layer. Keeler stated
that he will wear a Tyvec suit, which is a disposable protective suit used by the
investigator to prevent contaminating the crime scene with his or her own DNA
or fingerprints. He noted that he looks for probative evidence (relevant evidence
that tends to prove or disprove something) that stands out by surveying the
scene looking for avenues of entrance and escape. Keeler will photograph the
crime scene from a distance in order to capture the many onlookers that have
gathered. His theory is that many offenders will often return to the scene, and
there is always the possibility they may be there when he snaps the picture.
Keeler stressed that it is imperative for a crime scene investigator to take his
or her time when he or she is processing a crime scene. Investigators need to
write down, photograph, and document everything that they have encountered
at the crime scene. Keeler proclaimed that “if a crime scene investigator does
not write anything down, then it never happened.” Keeler remarked that the
easiest evidence to gather is the items left by the offender, such as clothing. He
said the hardest evidence to gather is transient evidence—evidence that can be
easily lost if not recovered immediately and properly (e.g., hair, fingerprints,
and footwear impressions).
When a crime scene investigator discovers the location where a murder took
place (e.g., a woman was killed in her apartment and then dumped in a remote
location), he or she may try to gather DNA evidence after the crime scene was
cleaned up by the offender. The crime scene investigator would utilize several
chemical agents to search for blood. Even though blood may have been cleaned
up, it is still possible to recover blood and develop a DNA profile.
Keeler theorizes that is extremely difficult to accurately determine to any
degree of scientific certainty how many offenders there were at a crime scene.
The crime scene investigator can establish a person’s location during a shoot¬
ing by conducting bullet trajectory analysis, linking that with the recovered
fired cartridge case and gun shot residue (GSR) testing. Bullet trajectory analy¬
sis can show the shooter’s position when the shooting took place. The crime
scene investigator can also establish an approximate location of an offender
in a domestic-related crime scene in which the victim has been bludgeoned or
beaten to death. He or she can accomplish this by evaluating the blood stains
from the victim at the scene. Blood stain analysis (BSA) can determine where
the victim and offender were positioned at the time the crime was committed.
When asked if he ever uses reasoning skills as to why an offender commit¬
ted the crime, Keeler said that he will try and put himself at the crime scene
through the eyes of the victim and the offender. It is easier to reconstruct the
crime as it may have occurred based on the evidence and witness statements.
Keeler stated that crime scene processing will often lead to additional investiga¬
tive leads and the recovery of probative evidence (evidence that establishes or
Crime Scene Indicators and Investigations 153

contributes to the proof surrounding the offense). DNA and fingerprints pro¬
vide a starting point for the detectives assigned to the case. The recovered evi¬
dence accompanied by witness statements and investigative techniques must all
come together to successfully apprehend and prosecute the offender(s). The last
thing that Keeler does is a final walk-through, photographing the crime scene
again to ensure that he did not leave any evidence behind.
Keeler noted that it may be difficult to establish the motive of the offender to
any degree of certainty by the evidence he or she leaves behind. He explained that
it is not uncommon for a crime scene investigator to request a search warrant to
return to a scene after it has been processed to search for any additional evidence
missed, especially if it is in a high-priority case. He mentioned that all types of
evidence assist and support the prosecution’s case and may lead to an arrest.
Officer Keeler believes he is lucky to be part of a great profession. He declared,
“I am dedicated to this profession. I have the utmost respect for any crime vic¬
tim, especially those who were killed. Remember that this victim is someone’s
son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or father. I am given the chance to honor
the dead by telling their story. How they died? What lead up to the crime? The
greatest pleasure I have is providing the victim’s family with some closure after
the offender is ultimately arrested because of the evidence that I gathered.”
Keeler reiterated that it is important for every crime scene investigator to
stay focused and clear of any obstruction or distraction. He stressed the impor¬
tance of additional and innovative training, learning new techniques and pro¬
cedures. Keeler proclaimed that this profession demands that a crime scene
investigator use and be dedicated to sound forensic principles. Forensic tests
and principles are forever changing, something new is always emerging, and
crime scene investigators need to be on top of their profession. Crime scene
investigators will accomplish success by staying well read in their area of exper¬
tise. Keeler suggests a number of valuable tools that can be used in improving
their abilities in the crime scene field:

1. Subscribe to forensic journals.

2. Contribute to the forensic community by writing case studies.
3. Attend forensic conferences.
4. Teach what you have learned to the new technicians so your expertise
is passed on.
5. Develop relationships with forensic investigators around the country
so that crime scene investigators can collaborate with one another on
casework.

References
Allen, W. Your DNA can convict you. Or set you free. Crime labs compare the genetic
code found at a crime scene with that of a suspect. A match can lead to a convic¬
tion. Or like last week in Illinois, it cleared a man who had been on death row.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 23,1999.
Baber, C. Distributed cognition at the crime scene. AI and Society, 25(4), 2010:
423-432.
Brass, C. Investigating the future: Lessons from the “scene of the crime.” The Futurist,
45(6), 2011:47-50.
154 Police and Profiling in the United States

Byrd, M. Duty description for a crime scene investigator. 2000. http://www.cnme-

scene-investigator.net/dutydescription.html (accessed July 1, 2012).
Chaiken, J.M., P.W. Greenwood, and J.R. Petersilia. The criminal investigative process:
A summary report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1976.
FBI. FBI crime scene investigation: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government, 2010.
Frazier, N. Encyclopedia of crime scene investigation. Reference and User Services
Quarterly, 49(1), 2009: 95-96.
Goode, E. The skeptic meets CSI. Skeptic, 10(4), 2003: 75-77.
Hsu, S. Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept.
Washington Post, April 16, 2011.
Keeler, H.M. Chicago police forensic investigator. Chicago, IL 60653.
Kirk, Paul. Crime investigation: Physical evidence and the police laboratory. New York:
Interscience Publishers, 1953.
Shelton, D.E., Y.S. Kim, and G. Barak. A study of juror expectations and demands
concerning scientific evidence: Does the “CSI effect” exist? Vanderbilt Journal of
Entertainment and Technology Law, 9(2), 2006: 331-368.
Song, C., Z. Qu, N. Blumm, and A-L. Barabasi. Limits of predictability in human
mobility. Science Magazine, February 19, 2010, 1018-1021.
Geographic Profiling
10
You don’t solve the crime with geographic profiling. You only solve the crime
with physical evidence, a confession or a witness. Profiling simply assists in
prioritizing and managing information.
—Kim Rossmo (2000)

Chapter Goals

• To develop a basic understanding of the value of geographic profiling

in solving crimes
• To demonstrate how geographic profiling can provide investigators
with an area that can be used to prioritize leads and allocate resources
• To introduce the more modern approaches of computerized crime
fighting, e.g., COMPSTAT, hot spot policing, MAPS
• To reexamine traditional crime theories against the backdrop of
more modern approaches to fighting crime

Key Words

Crime mapping
Distance decay
Geographic profiling
Journey-to-crime estimation
Modus operandi
Pattern analysis
Predictive policing

Geographic Profiling

Geographic profiling is an investigative instrument that law enforcement offi¬

cers use to examine and evaluate the most probable location of an offender’s
residence from previous locations that maybe connected or linked to a specific

155
156 Police and Profiling in the United States

crime. Many experts agree that most crimes occur near an offender’s home,
and they believe that geographic profiling is instrumental as an investigative
tool in solving serial type crimes because it relies upon pattern analysis.
Commander Paul Ruffolo, EdD, of the Bensenville Illinois Police
Department, has been in law enforcement for over 33 years and has played
an integral role in the Illinois State Police, the DEA, and FBI task forces on
crime and investigations. Ruffolo (2012) points out that geographical profil¬
ing is a critical part of the entire crime scene protocol. There are specific
reasons to consider various places where the crime may have occurred. It is
important to locate a similar crime that may be specific to an offender’s pro¬
file. Every crime scene is unique with respect to individual offenders. Ruffolo
offers this example: “An offender may be known to cut a digit off the hand of
his victims. That is the offender’s signature.” It is important for investigators
to scour all reports for similar characteristics of crimes that have occurred.
This may require investigating crime reports in other jurisdictions. Ruffolo
provides the example of when an offender drives across the country, while
committing crimes along the way, there are three actions that should be per¬
formed by the investigators to establish a pattern:

1. Research the type of offense and its specific characteristics

2. Track the offender’s route
3. Locate truck companies that normally drive this route, possible sus¬
pects capable of committing this type of crime who would drive this
route, etc.

Wang (2004) acknowledges that perhaps the most empirically certain

aspect of any crime is the location where it occurred. Therefore, it is natural
to consider whether crime locations can be used to help identify unknown
criminals. This question becomes even more relevant when a linked series
of crimes is identified. Is there significance to the geographic pattern of the
crimes? Most criminal justice personnel are familiar with crime mapping for
purposes of allocating resources to areas of high criminal activity. But recent
applications have explored studying the patterns to see if some something
obvious jumps out at the observer.
Rossmo (2000) suggests that many components are necessary in the for¬
mation of a geographic profile (likely location of the offender’s anchor point
by analyzing the geographic locations of a connected series of crimes):

1. Law enforcement official’s investigators and all involved in the case

must have comprehensive knowledge of the case.
2. The crime scene must be thoroughly scrutinized and documented.
3. Witnesses must be sought out and questioned; investigators must be
brought up to date on new leads and information.
Geographic Profiling 157

4. Analysis and area maps of possible crimes that occurred and the
possible area of where the offender may live must be done.
5. Demographics must be considered concerning the projected vicinity
where the victim was abducted and where the victim was ultimately
discarded.
6. Computer software is used to analyze the information and data received
and to focus on the area through canvassing and police surveillance.

Is it possible to accurately predict an offender’s next crime? Law enforce¬

ment agencies primarily use geographic profiling as a support tool from which
to develop numerous investigative strategies. Many experts agree that there
are a small number of offenders who commit the bulk of crimes. Jackson et
al. (1995) report that a large number of sexual crimes against strangers are
committed by a relatively small number of serial offenders. Investigators who
cover crimes that involve sexual misconduct will often use sex offender reg¬
istries that focus on offenders’ known sexual preferences to assist in locating
possible suspects in the hope of solving the crime.
Crime patterns are often determined by the abundance of data taken from
numerous crime scenes. Warren et al. (1998) claim this observation, coupled
with the potential for studying patterns of events in terms of their usefulness
in predicting future events, has given rise to a growing interest in studying the
behavior of serial or career criminals. Geographic profiling assists investiga¬
tors in narrowing particular areas where thorough police surveillance can be
used to locate possible suspects or offenders. This is typically accomplished by
prioritizing a suspect list linking crime characteristic to known offenders.
Police officers, especially those who walk a beat, are likely familiar with
particular areas that are prone to a particular criminal element and criminal
activity. Human beings are creatures of habit and familiarity—this is espe¬
cially true for offenders. Criminals will most likely commit their crimes in the
same fashion and manner—especially if they have never been caught. This is
often referred to as a modus operandi. More recently, law enforcement agen¬
cies have been attempting to identify possible patterns of criminal behavior
based upon the data that have been collected over the past several years.
Some offenders believe they will never get caught committing a crime,
and often become complacent and comfortable in terms of their behavior
when seeking new victims or new locations in which to commit their crimes.
It is not very often that a criminal will venture out of the comfort zone
where he or she feels most secure—especially if he or she has been histori¬
cally successful committing crimes. Many law enforcement agencies, sup¬
ported by specific computer programs, are able to identify and focus on a
specific characteristic of a crime. Establishing a crime pattern from previous
actions, locations, specific information, investigative skills, and frequency
of the crimes committed serves as a foundation from which to predict, and
158 Police and Profiling in the United States

possibly determine temporally, when the next crime will occur. Law enforce¬
ment personnel could potentially determine burglary patterns, robberies,
sexual assault incidences, etc. Traditionally, 8 to 15 similar crimes were often
required for analysis before an incident was labeled a “crime pattern.” Now,
today’s advance technology allows law enforcement and investigators to
declare the existence of a criminal pattern after only two or three incidents
of accurate and specific behavior (including likely suspects).
Geographic profiling offers experts an opportunity to merge known
details of a specific crime with established patterns for similar behaviors and
potentially identify and even locate offenders. There are a number of crit¬
ics of geographic profiling who claim that the practice is basically educated
guess, interwoven with a certain degree of luck. Rossmo (2000) defends geo¬
graphic profiling on the basis that it requires a definitive mixture of good
police work, knowledge of possible suspects or offenders, familiarity with
local geographic and physical areas, and a comprehensive investigation of
the crime scene.
Crime sites can be invaluable tools in gathering and analyzing data,
especially with respect to the offender’s intentions when disposing of the
bodies of his or her victims. An example of geographic profiling occurred in
the case where investigators were able to piece together a series of murders
that occurred within three states—Illinois, Texas, and Kentucky. In this case,
thorough investigations revealed that 10 people had been killed, and each
victim had been dumped near railroad tracks. The investigators used geo¬
graphical similarities and surmised that the killer was a drifter who accessed
open railroad boxcars. Through fingerprints, and because of the drifter-like
lifestyle and previous encounters with law enforcement, officers were able to
identify a potential suspect, Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, and further, were able
to link him to the various crime scene locations. He was eventually caught,
arrested, and charged with the brutal murders.
Godwin (2000) reports that the placement of a victim’s discarded body
and where the victim was last seen or abducted are very important in geo¬
graphical profiling. The reasoning for the importance of where bodies are
buried is that offenders who bury their victims within a 5-mile radius of
their residence do so because they are familiar with the area; also, they are
not likely to raise suspicion as a stranger, the way someone who has not been
seen before might. In cases where the bodies are buried 10-15 miles from
the offender residence, the rationale is that he is trying to create distance
between him and his victim by seeking out an area where he is not likely
to be recognized. Godwin also notes that visual sightings and eyewitness
accounts are invaluable in determining where the victim was last seen, to
compare with where the victim was found. He uses a computer database sys¬
tem called Predator that highlights in color the probabilities of where the
offender may live in the area. Godwin asks very specific questions: How did
Geographic Profiling 159

the killer interact and relate to his victim? What triggered the offender to
travel the distance that he did to commit the crime?
Godwin was asked by investigators to assist on a case that was plagued by
dead ends. They sought out Godwin and gave him the facts surrounding the
crimes against a number of victims who were all black women, and who died
from asphyxiation and trauma as a result of being beaten. Godwin predicted
the offender’s personality and disposition, the general vicinity of where he
lived, and other descriptors that were detailed and exact. The offender was
eventually arrested for one of his crimes, and Godwin’s predictions were
extremely accurate, especially when he forecast the person’s address within
one block of where the offender resided.
Godwin put together a list of areas where crimes would most likely occur
and where victims would expect a greater risk of harm, especially from a
serial killer:

1. Neighborhoods that incorporate bars and nightclubs, and where

prostitution is prevalent
2. Isolated areas such as dark remote stretches of parks, jogging paths,
and parking lots
3. Sites and buildings that have an excessive number of elderly and
individuals who are poor
4. Run-down areas within the city, slums, gang-infested neighbor¬
hoods, and projects
5. University grounds or college campuses

Distance Decay Theory

Rengert et al. (1999) suggests that the “journey to crime,” or the study of the
distance between an offender’s residence and offense site, has been a subject
of study within criminology for many years. An overriding conclusion from
this line of research is that most crimes occur in relatively close proximity
to the home of the offender. The term distance decay is often associated with
the number of crimes that an offender commits decreasing with increas¬
ing distance from the offender’s residence. Brantingham and Brantingham
(1991) note that the social psychology approach of human behavior basically
favors familiarity, which supports the distance decay model. An offender is
more familiar and would possibly feel more content to offend in familiar sur¬
roundings, but would most likely avoid the immediate area for fear of being
recognized or identified as a person of interest. The area not too near or not
too far, but still familiar, would be considered a buffer zone.
Rhodes and Conly (1991) suggest that travel distances vary according
to the age and gender of the offender. Their study indicates that land use
160 Police and Profiling in the United States

patterns in the vicinity of the offender’s home and offense locations will
influence how far offenders will travel to commit their crime. Older offenders
will often travel farther than their counterparts. Gore and Pattavina (2004)
posit that the emergence of recent environmental criminology theories based
on criminal opportunity and offender rationality, in conjunction with the
development of spatial analysis, provides opportunities to examine, more
closely, the relationship between where offenders live and where they choose
to commit their crime(s). In their research, Gore and Pattavina interviewed
criminals to learn about the processes involved in their target selection. The
data generally support that most crimes are the result of opportunities pre¬
sented to offenders during the course of their daily activities.

Bayesian Method of Estimation

According to Darrity (2008), the Bayesian inference is a collection of

statistical methods that are based on a formula devised by the English
mathematician Thomas Bayes (1702-1761). Statistical inference involves
drawing conclusions about a population or process based upon a sample.
Characteristics of a population are known as parameters. The distinctive
aspect of Bayesian inference is that both parameters and sample data are
randomly collected. Randomness is a specific advantage of the Bayesian
approach because all inferences can be based on probability calculations,
whereas non-Bayesian inference often involves challenges consistent with
nonrandom sampling methods.
Leitner and Kent (2009) report that the Bayesian method supports an
intuitive process for quantifying belief in a hypothesis before and after evi¬
dence is observed. The Bayesian approach is essentially the scientific method,
and as criminal justice as an industry moves toward establishing itself as an
evidence-based practice, adherence to scientific values and methodologies is
more and more important. More recent research efforts in social science have
supported allowing for participant action research where, as data are accu¬
mulated, hypotheses adjust. Because the Bayesian approach quantifies the
degree to which new evidence can modify the hypothesis, it has increasingly
become an attractive paradigm for decision support processes.
Block and Bernasco (2009) asked the question: Can we tell where an
offender lives from where he or she commits crimes? They tested a new
method: empirical Bayes journey-to-crime estimation. It differs from pre¬
vious methods because it utilizes an origin-destination rule in addition to
the distance decay rule that prior methods have used. In the new method,
the profiler asks not only what distances previous offenders traveled between
their home and the crime scenes, but also where previous offenders lived
before they offended? The new method can not only improve predictive
Geographic Profiling 161

accuracy, but also reduce the traditional distinction between prowling and
traveling offenders.
The premise of geographical profiling focuses on the ability to collect
and analyze past data from crime scene locations in order to logically predict
the next calculated or most likely move of the offender. The difficulty is not
the data that are needed, but overall diligence in collecting every bit of infor¬
mation possible surrounding the behavior and evidence that the offender left
behind. A fair amount of experts contend that geographic profiling is not the
most reliable source to focus on when attempting to catch a criminal. The
trustworthiness and consistency of geographic profiling may be questioned
because it involves an objective point of view of subjective or one-sided anal¬
ysis. Most law enforcement investigators may attribute a crime pattern to
an offender’s habitual tendencies, his or her stalking and tracking behavior,
and a number of activities surrounding the offender’s noncriminal life. The
human aspect of an investigator’s ability, experience, and skill in collecting
information may often come into play regarding the accuracy of any predic¬
tions representing a place where gut instinct and hunches would actually
work with science toward a positive outcome.

Predictive Policing

Vlahos (2012) states that predictive policing is one of the hottest topics in law
enforcement today, with more than a dozen experimental efforts under way
in the United States and Europe. The dirty secret of the futuristic approach,
though, is that nobody knows for certain that it works. Causes of crime are
multifactorial and complex, making it difficult to pinpoint which strate¬
gies are best to combat it. Criminologists are only beginning to separate the
effects of predictive police work from myriad other factors that may be low¬
ering crime, such as the aging of the American population. All the experts
know for certain is that police are doing something right. Across the United
States, crime was at its lowest levels between the years 2000 and 2012. In
police work, every call for service, traffic stop, sidewalk interview, and arrest
generates data that tantalize analysts with the promise of actionable leads—if
only they could be mined appropriately from the mountain of information.
Adding to the complication is that the future does not always mirror the
past, so criminologists must identify individual factors and tease out their
influences alone and in combination with other factors. Brantingham and
Brantingham (1991) ask, “Given a cluster of crimes today, can we build a
mathematical model and say what, in a probabilistic sense, the crime pattern
is likely to look like tomorrow?” They imply that while future profiling may
be different from past experiences, it will still be based on material evidence
and the probability of the most likely offender. Investigators historically have
162 Police and Profiling in the United States

read the statistical tea leaves by hand, pulling batches of dusty records from
file storage or simply by sensing that something suspicious is happening.
In the future, a marriage of technology, DNA, detail, and evidence, along
with perceptive police skills, will be most effective in profiling. Using these
tools within the framework of geographical profiling offers the most likely
resource in discovering the offender who committed the crime.

CGT, GIS, COMPSTAT, CEWS, Blue CRUSH, and MAPS

Criminal Geographic Targeting (CGT)

Rossmo (2000) developed a special computer software program called
Criminal Geographic Targeting (CGT). The program quickly assesses three-
dimensional features of a crime. Rossmo took into account crime scene loca¬
tion and any physical characteristics that might not otherwise be noticed,
how a person was abducted, and how and where the body may have been
left. Rossmo stresses the importance of knowing the routine activity of the
victim(s), since that helps to identify the areas where the offender may reside
(from the assumption that offenders first encounter their victims close to
home). The CGT software uses previous locations of known crimes to calcu¬
late the likelihood of offender residences. Rossmo calls each crime a “finger¬
print of the offenders chart,” indicating the more crimes sites, the better the
chance of predicting where the offender resides. To test the efficiency of the
CGT system, he used a case that had already been solved (involving a per¬
son who confessed to killing 11 victims). Using the data retrieved from each
murder, Rossmo (2000) was able to pinpoint the area of the admitted killer to
within four blocks of the killers home.
Rossmo (2000) noted that certain geographical examples or patterns
need to be involved in the dissemination of data:

1. Local demographics: Stay in a certain area (stability). Expectations

and predatory motivations may come into play. Search for victims in
their home territory.
2. Mental maps: Cognitive image of a person’s surroundings, safe
zones, and reference points. As an offender grows bolder and more
daring, his or her mental maps change. Opportunistic.
3. Mobility: Does an offender travel (mobile)? Possible drifter, not
afraid to move. Travels to apprehend his or her victim, plotting a
travel route.
4. Distance: Perceived distance to actual distance. The more he offends,
the more self-confidence, the more his area increases.
Geographic Profiling 163

Rossmo provides a few examples regarding offender traits or habits when

incorporating certain patterns into the CGT system. Movement patterns of
the offender, tracking patterns, and the offender’s comfort zone (the area in
which he or she feels safe) are taken into account. Based upon preliminary
studies, Rossmo suggests some investigative observations gleaned from his
research on geographic profiling, such as (1) right-handed offenders who are
trying to escape quickly will normally flee to the left, often disposing of the
weapons to the right, or (2) female offenders, when lost, have a tendency to go
uphill, quite opposite from males, who will most likely go downhill.

Geographic Information System (GIS)

Geographic information system (GIS) software systems perform detailed
statistical analyses using demographic data and built-in mapping capa¬
bilities. They have the capability to analyze and store geographical behav¬
ior and characteristics of local areas. Wang (2004) declares that crime is
typically a multilocation event with multiple locations implicated through
one criminal incident. Understanding the patterns of the spatial associa¬
tion between crime locations and their corresponding crime-related loca¬
tions (e.g., the residence location of an offender or that of a victim, hunting
ground, encounter location, disposal location) can enhance the capability
to explain and predict crime patterns. GIS technology coupled with spatial
statistics has been widely used to identify areas of high crime (i.e., crime hot
spots). Despite this, limited effort has been spent investigating the spatial
association between crime locations from a crime hot spot and correspond¬
ing crime-related locations.

Computer Statistics (COMPSTAT)

The New York City Police Department developed the Computer Statistics
(COMPSTAT) system in 1994. COMPSTAT is strategic mapping strat¬
egy (GIS) to map particular crime patterns, identify crime hot spots, and
track changing demographics. The COMPSTAT initiative has been credited
with substantially reducing crime in New York over the past 10 years. The
New York City Police Department’s community policing program has been
successful in receiving detailed information where they should focus their
efforts and implement solutions. Superintendent Gerry McCarthy of the
Chicago Police Department believes in the COMPSTAT system and imple¬
mented this resource the day he was sworn in as the head of the Chicago
Police Department. Many law enforcement and police departments are now
using COMPSTAT to fight crime.
Barak (2007) notes two distinct concepts emerging from the COMPSTAT
initiative; the first was that both traditional and functional division-based
164 Police and Profiling in the United States

management changed to geographic jurisdiction-based management.

Traditionally, authority, resources, and power were decentralized to the pre¬
cinct police commanders. Functionally, differentiated units and specialists
(e.g., parole, detective, narcotics, juvenile, traffic) were placed under the com¬
mand of the precinct commander, or arrangements were made to facilitate
their responsiveness to the commander’s needs. Under this new arrange¬
ment, precinct commanders are responsible for crime reduction and com¬
munity disorder control. The second concept to emerge was that a special
unit, called COMPSTAT Unit (CPU), was established. The CPU was designed
for collecting and analyzing crime and managerial data and producing intel¬
ligence reports to facilitate the decision making and performance assessment
of police commissioners and commanders of the NYPD.
Vlahos (2012) notes that COMPSTAT introduced regular, semiautomated
data analysis to policing, but what changed since the early days is not only
the amount of information being recorded, but the computer-aided swift¬
ness with which it can be analyzed. The New York City Police Department’s
widely imitated COMPSTAT program provided law enforcement personnel
with frequently updated maps of high-crime areas when it launched in the
mid-1990s. In the past few years, though, predictive policing has grown even
more sophisticated. The most ambitious criminologists are no longer content
to analyze data from the past—they are trying to predict the future.

Crime Early Warning System (CEWS)

The Crime Early Warning System (CEWS) is a software program that aids
police in visually displaying related crimes that have occurred in a 24-hour
period. This database also identifies crime trends during certain time or
“gap” periods during shift changeovers.
The Crime Early Warning System has the following abilities:

• Allows an officer, supervisor, or crime analyst to receive an e-mail

alert, advising of an increase or decrease in targeted crime (gang vio¬
lence, car prowls, etc.) for a specific geographic area
• Accesses specific information or other map layers to determine loca¬
tion of schools or businesses (for example) in the targeted area
• Permits an officer to follow up on his or her own with additional
inquiries to identify common modi operandi (MOs) or request assis¬
tance from the crime analysis unit
• Allows a supervisor the ability to reassign staff to respond to an iden¬
tified increase in a targeted crime
• Allows supervisors to determine early/late shift coverage needed
• Effectively coordinates staffing and special deployment with
other agencies
Geographic Profiling 165

• Reduces duplicate deployments

• Monitors multiple jurisdictions regarding emerging crime trends
• Provides supervisors with data that can assist in deciding when and
where to deploy teams for maximum effectiveness

Crime Reduction Utilizing Statistical History (Blue CRUSH)

The partnership between the Memphis Police Department and the University
of Memphis is called Blue CRUSH (for Crime Reduction Utilizing Statistical
History), and the campaign is credited with helping to slash the numbers of
major property and violent offenses by 26% citywide since the initiative was
launched in 2006. Car break-ins, muggings, and murders have plunged by
40%. Such powerful crime prediction techniques raise a troubling question:
Are we judging people guilty before they ever commit a crime? Researchers
such as Brantingham say that is not the case with programs like Blue CRUSH.
“This is not about predicting the behavior of a specific individual,” he says.
“It’s about predicting the risk of certain types of crimes in time and space.”
The police forces employing this analytical tool are not locking up free citi¬
zens before they commit a crime; instead, they steer extra patrols to the areas
where the most potentially dangerous people are located.

Methodology for Evaluating Geographic

Profiling Software (MAPS)
In August 2004, the Methodology for Evaluating Geographic Profiling Software
(MAPS) brought together a group of 10 independent experts with backgrounds
in crime analysis, criminology, geography, spatial analysis, and software devel¬
opment in a round table forum to discuss geographic software. According to
the National Institute of Justice (2010), the software for geographic profiling
has its limitations, including the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluating
synopses. The general consensus of the meeting was that accuracy can most
likely be accomplished through a series of comprehensive mathematical calcu¬
lations that include profile parameters and situations such as

1. Behavioral and social probabilities, including personality traits

2. Certain offender types and backgrounds, organized vs. disorga¬
nized, family history
3. Travel patterns, stable or transient behavior of the offender
4. Crime data, similar modi operandi, gender, race, occupation, education
5. Geographic likelihood
6. Time and place crimes have occurred
7. Wounds inflicted, torture, sadism, humiliation, impulsive, compul¬
sive, or spontaneous
166 Police and Profiling in the United States

8. Risk factors, emotional satisfaction, suspected triggers

9. Any evidence of staging or the possibility of a signature or trophy
crime, ritual or fantasy
10. Body placement

Many experts theorize that on any given day the majority of offenders will
commit their crimes in familiar surroundings; that includes areas near schools
and businesses. Experts agree that geographic profiling may work in serial
type offenses such as burglaries and serial killers. Serial type offenders will
either concentrate their efforts in their immediate area, with which they are
familiar, or commit their crimes a substantial distance from their residence.
Committing a crime using an unfamiliar location can be seen two ways:

1. The offender feels his or her actions and behavior will go unnoticed
because he or she is a stranger in the area.
2. Some criminals may see the detriment to this because they may raise
suspicion because they are strangers to the area, and people may
question what their intentions really are.

Rational Choice Theory in the 21st Century

Cornish and Clark (1987) indicate that offenders will explore and rationalize
their decision-making process, no matter how basic that may be. An offender
will seek out which opportunities will both maximize their benefits and min¬
imize their risks of getting caught. One drawback that most offenders face is
a time constraint issue, where they are limited to the best time to commit the
crime. Their decision-making process will use relevant information through
their own cognitive and mental capabilities. An offender’s decision to com¬
mit a crime is considered a rational choice that often depends on various cir¬
cumstances (discussed in detail in Chapter 2). Offenders who plan ahead are
often more successful not only at carrying out their crimes, but also in not
getting caught. Cornish and Clark extend distinct features of rational choice
theory that are often associated with crime and their offenders:

1. The availability of what the offender is after. How accessible is the

person, material possession, or identity of the person he or she is try¬
ing to obtain?
2. In-depth planning for the crime. The offender will rationalize differ¬
ent scenarios on what plan is best, and the time required to success¬
fully finish. How daring is the job, and is it worth the pressure and
anxiety? Are other offenders needed?
3. The technical know-how on trying to obtain what the offender wants.
Geographic Profiling 167

4. The tools, items, or resources needed to complete the crime.

5. What the offender can expect to receive for his troubles. The proceeds
from the crime, or the benefit or pleasure from committing a homicide.
6. The perception of risk of getting caught and being identified as an
offender. The possibility of violence or a confrontation with the vic¬
tim or “good Samaritan.”
7. The outcome of getting caught, being arrested, court system, and
ultimately being punished for committing the crime.

Yochelson and Samenow (1976) point out the inconsistencies surround¬

ing the rational choice theory, especially the fear that most offenders real¬
ize in their criminal thinking patterns. Yochelson and Samenow believe that
offenders exhibit a need for control in their commission of a crime, and that
most offenders have a fragmented way of thinking with little room for trust
and empathy for anyone, especially their victims. Offenders have a secretive
nature and will lie or downplay their actions. They believe that criminals are
not necessarily impulsive, but have planned or fantasized about their actions.
In extending these ideas, Rengert et al. (1999) imply that an offender’s behav¬
ior in space is the product of rational decision making from which the per¬
ceptions of criminal opportunity and target attractiveness are constrained
by the physical and cultural environments in which they exist.

Routine Activity Theory in the 21st Century

Boetig (2006) declares that the routine activity theory developed over 50
years ago and has remained at the forefront of crime analysis and preven¬
tion efforts. The model addresses crime analysis from a perspective different
from most theories preceding it by exploring the convergence of the crucial
components of crime at specific locations in space and time without regard
to the motivation of the deviant act. While most extant theories at that time
focused primarily on criminals and their motivations and environment, the
routine activity theory simplified concepts generally taken for granted by
criminologists; it took the focus away from the criminal and redirected it
toward the criminal act. Boetig states, “The routine activity theory explains
how changes in daily patterns or activities of social interaction affect differ¬
ences in crime rates.”
Cohen and Felson (1979) emphasize that crime is often influenced by
routine activities as well as opportunity. They believe that an offender and
victim must cross paths at the appropriate time (for the offender) for the
predatory crime to transpire. Cohen and Felson allege there are three neces¬
sary ingredients for a crime (often for a predatory crime) to happen:
168 Police and Profiling in the United States

1. An offender needs to be motivated for a crime to take place. Is the

offender’s motivation sexual, monetary, vengeance, or for other per¬
sonal reasons?
2. A suitable or correct victim. A victim that could be sought after (age,
height, weight) or a victim (maybe no particular preference) who was
just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
3. Absence of anyone to help or assist the victim (possible time of day,
deserted area).

Social Disorganization Theory

A few experts define the social disorganization theory as the failure of com¬
munity members to attain and achieve standards necessary to solve mutual
problems. Early indicators reveal that neighborhood victimization was moti¬
vated by the social disorganization theory in the 1980s. The social disorga¬
nization theory can be associated with urban plight and poor conditions. It
is attributed to the delinquency and negligence of various organizations that
make up a community, especially failing schools, churches, and local organi¬
zations, and the breakdown of family units measured by single family house¬
holds, job loss, and a feeling of apathy that things will never improve. The
community loses a sense of responsibility due to the socioeconomic plight
and little or no positive resources to involvement, which could lead to nega¬
tive and criminal behavior. The citizens who experience this type of dilemma
rarely have hope for an improved lifestyle and often do not accept the testi¬
mony that a positive outlook will produce positive outcomes.
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP, 2003), the social disorganization theory specifies that several vari¬
ables—residential instability, ethnic diversity, family disruption, economic
status, population size or density, and proximity to urban areas—influence
a community’s capacity to develop and maintain strong systems of social
relationships.

Sampson and Groves (1989)

Their application of social disorganization to explain victimization expanded

the role of informal social control to limit not only the deviant behavior of
people who lived in the neighborhoods, but also the behavior of those who
might consider committing crimes in the neighborhood, regardless of where
they are located.
Geographic Profiling 169

Environmental Criminology

The social disorganization theory has provided much of the framework for
what current criminologists call environmental criminology. Bottoms and
Wiles (1997) define environmental criminology as the “study of crime, crim¬
inality, and victimization as they relate, first to particular places, and second,
to the way individuals and organizations shape their activities spatially, and
in doing so are in turn influenced by place based or spatial factors.” Recent
theoretical developments in this genre have directly incorporated elements of
opportunity in explaining the spatial distribution of crime. This direction is
supported by Baldwin and Bottoms (1976), who revealed that areas with high
offender rates are not necessarily the same as those with high offense rates,
suggesting that different environmental factors may affect each. Ouimet
(2000) found that although social disorganization variables (e.g., ethnicity
and single-parent families) predict offender rates in terms of where delin¬
quents live, opportunity variables (e.g., subway stations and shopping malls)
help to explain an area’s juvenile crime incident rate.

Environmental Criminology Theory

Zimmerman (2010) notes that studies in this tradition have shown that areas
high in crime also tend to be characterized by factors such as poverty, eth¬
nic heterogeneity, and residential instability. Several studies have compared
offending rates by key individual and community factors. Of these, many
have found that the relationship between individual traits and offending is
invariant to neighborhood context. That is, the highest rates of offending are
found for the highest-risk individuals living in the highest-risk areas, while
the lowest rates of offending are found for the lowest-risk individuals living
in the lowest-risk areas. Strong criminogenic influences in the neighborhood
can dictate behavior, thereby decreasing the influence of individual differ¬
ences, while the absence of strong neighborhood pushes to crime may allow
for the expression of individual traits such as impulsivity. Cohen and Felson
(1979) contend that crime-prone individuals (motivated offenders) are more
likely to offend when they are exposed to a higher frequency of suitable tar¬
gets in the absence of capable guardians. In addition, individuals with low
self-control are equally likely to offend in different settings.

Broken Windows Theory

Two well-known and respected criminologists, James Q. Wilson, a Harvard

professor, and George Kelling, a former director of a police foundation,
170 Police and Profiling in the United States

established their thoughts on the broken windows theory (Kelling and

Wilson 1982). They posited that if a neighborhood allows one broken win¬
dow to stay ruined, it will show that the person just does not care about his or
her property. Many broken windows will ultimately show the neighborhood
does not care about upkeep, and that will invite the criminal element. It will
invite drug dealers and those buying drugs to literally take over, eventually
giving in to violent and property crimes such as burglary, robbery, prostitu¬
tion, and gang activity and intimidation.
Lorenz (2010) mentioned that in 1969, a Stanford College psychologist
named Philip Zimbardo tried an experiment that would tend to prove the
principle behind the broken windows theory. In his experiment, Zimbardo
arranged to have a car appear to be broken down and abandoned on the
street in the Bronx in New York and also in a Palo Alto, California. The car
in the Bronx had no license plates and its hood up.
The scenario in New York did not take long to unfold. Within 10 minutes
vandals attacked the car and removed a few salvageable parts, including the
battery and radiator. Within the first 24 hours virtually everything of value
was removed from the experimental vehicle. Soon after that it did not take
long for the destruction to continue. Windows were smashed and broken,
upholstery ripped and shredded. The vandals appeared to be clean-cut white
individuals who were dressed well.
In Palo Alto, California, the abandoned car experiment had different
results. Initially the car sat untouched for more than a week, until Zimbardo
himself used a sledge hammer to begin the destruction. It did not take long for
vandals (primarily white teens) to join in and destroy the vehicle. Within a few
hours the “abandoned” car was turned upside down and completely wrecked.
Zimbardo concluded that unattended property becomes fair game, espe¬
cially by those who are considered law abiding. Regarding the experiment
in the Bronx, Zimbardo remarked that vandalism begins quickly because
cars are frequently stolen and abandoned in this New York City borough,
and truthfully, it is obvious that “no one cares.” In the Palo Alto experiment,
people there believe that private possessions are appreciated, but vandalism
and destruction can basically occur anywhere and can be costly. Zimbardo
believes that any “unattended” behavior can lead to a breakdown of control
that will prove disastrous even in the best neighborhoods.
Fix the property, care about the neighborhood, and the home owner is
sending a message: “Crime will not be tolerated, not in my neighborhood.”
Yang (2010) noted that the relationship between disorder and violence has
generated much debate in the field of criminology. Yang affirmed that when
disorder goes untended, such as trash on a street or panhandlers approach¬
ing passersby, residents perceive problems and become fearful. The signs of
disorder cause both residents and would-be offenders to conclude that the
level of social control in the area is low; consequently, residents withdraw
Geographic Profiling 171

from the community out of fear, and those would-be offenders invade the
area with criminal activities. Based on the broken windows thesis, it is fair to
conclude that disorder is regarded as a root cause of urban crime problems.
Rufo (2012) indicated a hypothetical “not caring or broken window sce¬
nario” breakdown of a Chicago area neighborhood. This scenario may take
some time to develop or progress. It normally takes years, but it is consid¬
ered a gradual erosion or breakdown; weeks turn into years but the devasta¬
tion continues.

• Stable area, a neighborhood with beautiful homes, children playing.

• A home becomes abandoned, due to foreclosure or another reason.
A few more homes become abandoned on the same block. A down¬
ward spiral. Plight and the economy begin to take their toll.
• Weeds grow; vandals smash windows and burglarize what is left in
the abandoned homes. Wood partitions replace the glass windows.
Hopelessness begins to set in.
• Gangs take over the abandoned properties and claim the neighbor¬
hood. Graffiti, selling drugs from the abandoned homes, and those
who buy drugs and are drug addicted appear. Prostitution, gam¬
bling, drive-by shootings, teens getting shot or killed, downward
spiral, and other crimes begin to increase.
• Burglaries in the area are up, garages broken into, miscellaneous
items being taken from homes. Cars are abandoned and stripped, and
garbage fills the alleys and vacant lots. Violent crime is on the rise.
• Good families move out. Other homes are abandoned, property
values are lowered, and garbage dumping and liter are everywhere.
Pride is gone.
• Teens hanging out on the corners or in front of the neighborhood
liquor store. Merchant can’t control outside of his or her store. Single
cigarettes being sold, drugs sales rampant, loitering, panhandling
apparent, people drinking, fights start, confrontations, strangers
attacked or stabbed. Many area businesses close or are shuttered,
people do not feel safe, homeless sleep in doorways, drunks robbed.
• Streets hardly used, people look the other way, no one wants to get
involved, people fear getting hurt, vulnerable, elderly are scared to
walk. Greater police involvement, not safe at night, muggings, and
rape. Hopelessness.

New York’s Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New York’s Police Commissioner
William Bratton used the broken windows theory in the early 1990s to assist
in alleviating crime in New York City. Barak (2007) said that Police Chief
Bratton adopted the broken windows theory as his guiding principle for his
war on crime, a part of his zero-tolerance policy. It was believed that via
172 Police and Profiling in the United States

aggressive policing, the NYPD would send a strong signal to the public that
it was taking serious actions to reduce crime and maintain community order.
Giuliani and Bratton wanted to address what most law enforcement officials
would call the quality of life and trivial crimes.
Both Giuliani and Bratton believed that the small-time offender (those
who commit petty crimes such as drunkenness, vagrancy, public urination,
prostitution, and littering; a person who jumps a public transportation turn¬
stile; those who aggressively beg or panhandle; and those charged with minor
drug possession) should be arrested and taken off the street. Both individu¬
als trusted that if the actions of a small-time criminal were not addressed, it
would only lead to an influx of additional offenders and the likelihood of a
greater amount of severe, violent, and adverse crimes. Giuliani and Bratton
both felt that even the slightest crime should have a zero tolerance attached to
it. The offenders should be brought to justice no matter how small the crimes;
they should be arrested and criminally prosecuted.
St. jean (2007) found that the link between disorder and crime is more
direct, and that offenders interpret disorder as a signal that no one cares
about the neighborhood; therefore, they can commit crimes there with rela¬
tive impunity. St. jean acknowledged that there are two types of neighbor¬
hood disorders that are invoked by the broken windows theory: physical
and social. Physical disorder refers to the dilapidated or unkempt condi¬
tions of the physical neighborhood environment. This includes the condi¬
tion of buildings, of properties around buildings, and of vacant lots that have
become eyesores.
St. jean (2007) also noted that social disorder refers to patterns of social
activities and interactions that are visible to the public eye and are viewed to
be deviant or distasteful to most citizens. The assumption that unpleasant
neighborhood appearances lead offenders to commit crimes with expecta¬
tions of little to no consequences continues to be the main impetus of com¬
munity policing programs in the United States and elsewhere, despite the
fact that little effort has been made to examine empirically some of the key
assumptions of this theory, which begins with offenders’ interpretations of
neighborhood disorder. The broken windows theory pays no attention to
what motivates people to commit petty or serious crimes. The broken win¬
dows theory focuses on the reactive rather than the proactive aspects associ¬
ated with offending.
In its current form, the broken windows theory is not prepared to offer
long-term solutions to neighborhood crime problems.
In a related study, Funk and Kugler (2003) found that an increase in
minor crimes dynamically triggers more severe crimes without the reverse
being true, and that tougher enforcement, when it comes to mild offenses,
reduces minor crimes and also significantly deters more severe offenses.
Geographic Profiling 173

References
Baldwin, J., and A. E. Bottoms. The urban criminal. London: Tavistock Publications, 1976.
Barak, G. Battleground: Criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007.
Block, R., and W. Bernasco. Finding a serial burglar’s home using distance decay and
conditional origin-destination patterns: A test of empirical Bayes journey-to-
crime estimation. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling,
6(3), 2009: 187-211.
Boetig, B. The routine activity theory. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 75(6), 2006:
12-19.
Bottoms, A. E., and P. Wiles. Environmental criminology. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan,
and R. Rainer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology, 2nd ed., 305-359.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.
Brantingham, P. L., and P. J. Brantingham. Notes on the geometry of crime. In
Environmental criminology, 2nd ed., ed. P. J. Brantingham and P. L. Brantingham,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1981: 27-54.
Cohen, L., and M. Felson. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 1979: 588-608.
Cornish, D., and R. Clarke. Understanding crime displacement: An application of
rational choice theory. Criminology, 25, 1987: 933-947.
Darrity Jr., W. Public goods. In International encyclopedia of the social sciences, 2nd
ed., London: MacMillan Ltd., 2008: 13-14.
Funk, R, and P. Kugler. Dynamic interactions between crimes. Economic Letters, 79,
2003: 291-299.
Godwin, G. M. Hunting serial predators: A multivariate classification approach to pro¬
filing violent behavior. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.
Gore, R. Z., and A. Pattavina. Applications for examining the journey to crime using
incident offender proability surfaces. Police Quarterly, 7(4), 2004: 457-474.
Jackson, J., P. Van den Eshof, and E. DeKleuver. In Offender profiling—Apprehending
the serial criminal, ed. D. Bekerian and J. Dennett. Chichester: John Wiley 8c
Sons, 1995: 107-132.
Kelling, G. L., and J. Q. Wilson. Broken windows: The police and neighborhood
safety. Atlantic Monthly, March 1982.
Leitner, M., and J. Kent. Bayesian journey-to-crime modeling of single and multiple
crime types. New York: John Wiley 8c Sons, 2009.
Lorenz, A. S. The windows remain broken: How zero tolerance destroyed due pro¬
cess. Public Integrity, 12(3), 2010: 247-259.
National Institute of Justice. Geographic profiling. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, 2010.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Community correlates of rural
youth violence, division report. Washington, DC: OJJDP, 2003.
Ouimet, M. Aggregation bias in ecological research: How social disorganization and
criminal opportunities shape the spatial distribution of juvenile delinquency in
Montreal. Canadian journal of Criminology, 135, 2000: 156.
Rengert, G. F., A. R. Piquero, and P. D. Jones. Distance decay examined. Criminology,
37(2), 1999: 427-446.
174 Police and Profiling in the United States

Rhodes, W. M., and C. Conly. Crime and mobility: An empirical study. In

Environmental criminology, 2nd ed., ed. P. J. Brantingham and P. L. Brantingham.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1991: 167-188.
Rossmo, K. D. Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.
Ruffolo, P. Interview by Ronald Rufo, EdD (August 1, 2012).
Rufo, R. Chicago police officer and crime prevention speaker. Personal opinion, 2012.
Sampson, R. J., and W. B. Groves. Community structure and crime: Testing social
disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1989: 774-802.
St. Jean, P. B. Pockets of crime: Broken windows, collective efficacy and the criminal
point of view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Vlahos, J. The department of pre-crime. Scientific American, 306(1), 2012: 62-67.
Wang, F. Geographic information systems and crime analysis. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing, 2004.
Warren, J., R. Reboussin, R. R. Hazelwood, A. Cummings, N. Gibbs, and S. Trumbetta.
Crime scene and distance correlates of serial rape. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 14(1), 1998: 35-59.
Yang, S. Assessing the spatial-temporal relationship between disorder and violence.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(1), 2010: 139-163.
Yochelson, S., and S. E. Samenow. Tlie criminal personality: A profile for change. New
York: J. Aronson Publishers, 1976.
Zimmerman, G. Impulsivity, offending and the neighborhood: Investigating the per¬
son-context nexus. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(3), 2010: 301-332.
Victim Selection
Characteristics
11
To blame victims for crime is like analyzing the cause of World War II and
asking “What was Pearl Harbor doing in the Pacific anyway?”
—A victim (1982)

Chapter Goals

• Envision how victims can be used to identify unknown offenders

• Understand the personal and mental issues and concerns facing a
victim immediately following a criminal event
• Appreciate the complexity of interviewing and obtaining informa¬
tion from a crime victim
• Navigate the delicate balance of offender identification with the
potential of victim blaming

Key Words

Cleared
Deconstruct
Forensic victimologist
Lifestyle theory
Patterns
Schema
Trends
Victim advocate
Victim blaming
Victim service provider

Introduction

The study of crime victims in terms of their role in the criminal justice sys¬
tem is relatively new; the study of crime victims in terms of their value in

175
176 Police and Profiling in the United States

identifying unknown suspects is still developing. Crime victims are usually

forced to deal with a number of challenges (including medical, psychological,
and financial problems) caused by having illegal criminal acts, both violent
and nonviolent, perpetrated against them. There is no specific profile avail¬
able for crime victims—they are represented by all ages, races, ethnicities,
socioeconomic levels, etc. While it is true that no one characteristic can iden¬
tify crime victims, researchers have identified that lifestyle, location, and race
appear to accurately predict who is more likely to become a victim of crime.
The field of victimology (the scientific study of crime victims) began in
the 1940s and 1950s with the work of Benjamin Mendelsohn and Hans von
Hentig. Historically, victimology saw itself as a subdiscipline to criminology,
and so it tended to focus on developing typologies that lent themselves to
classifying victims in terms of how they contributed to their own victimizing
incident. Initially, Mendelsohn determined that victims had characteristics
that made them more prone to be victimized. He identified six types of vic¬
tims, but five of his typologies describe victims who somehow contributed to
their own harm, otherwise known as victim precipitation. Von Hentig built
upon Mendelsohn’s early classification system and determined that there
were specific types of individuals most likely to become homicide victims.
These early reports that victims had something to do with their own vic¬
timization have plagued the study of crime victims in that there is a general
stigma now with becoming a crime victim because of the subconscious belief
that victims could have done something to prevent the action, or that they
somehow contributed to the events. Readers will see how this perception
impedes active investigations when victims perceive that they are not being
fully believed by law enforcement, or that investigators are trying to assign
them some degree of responsibility (see below).
As discussed in Chapter 5, focusing on victim characteristics and exam¬
ining the role those play in victim targeting or selection promises much
richer information in criminal profiling than individual offender analysis.
One of the greatest challenges in victimology is determining which factors
are more pertinent and from whose perspective the data should be analyzed.
For example, the industry itself is divided in terms of the role that individual
professionals (victim advocate, victim service provider, victimologist, etc.)
play in the overall analysis and resolution of a criminal incident. The ques¬
tion should be: Which of these professionals has access to and can provide
information useful in creating a profile for an unknown offender? Further, to
what extent is the developing field of forensic victimology able to offer insights
unique to victim target selection criteria?
Perhaps the greatest challenge to using victim profiles to determine the
identity or motives of an offender is the stigma attached. Victimology, as
a discipline, is much younger than criminology, and broad understanding
of what it is attempting to accomplish or is supposed to achieve is lacking.
Victim Selection Characteristics 177

Ideally, the field has the opportunity to offer information valuable to those
attempting to identify selection characteristics, but historically, such ques¬
tions have been posed in a way as to suggest that the victim was somehow
responsible for what happened, victim blaming, and that is not the goal.
Additionally, while victimology refers to the scientific study of victims,
the many outgrowth disciplines serve to confuse and confound the goals of
the field. That is, while victim service providers have a specific job function
to work hard to help victims restore their lives, victim advocates, although
related, have a different job function. A victim advocate can be a victim ser¬
vice provider, but his or her function in that role is to assist victims navi¬
gate the legal system and support crime victims through the legal process.
As opposed to the intimate nature of these careers, a forensic victimologist
must remain impartial and unbiased with respect to the immediate needs
and emotional states of a victim. In a very broad interpretation, law enforce¬
ment officers are the first wave of victimologist at a crime scene because they
are the first individuals to begin the data and evidence collection process.
However, law enforcement has not always enjoyed an easy relationship with
crime victims, as oftentimes the victims report that the officers were distant,
asked irrelevant or judgmental questions, and sometimes made the victims
feel like they deserved what happened to them.
It is important to realize that police officers, while charged with protecting
society, are also responsible for the identification and detention of suspects/
offenders. During the 1970s, the RAND Corporation published findings that
reported a direct relationship between how soon after the incident the crime
was reported and the crime being successfully cleared. For that reason, most
officers focus on suspect identification and crime solution happening within
the first 48 hours after a reported incident. The result of this attitude is that
they are primarily focused on the collection of evidence and information at a
crime scene—not necessarily the feelings or needs of a crime victim. Actually,
it is exactly because of this reality that the positions of victim service providers
came to be, since they are better equipped and trained in responding to the
multiple needs (emotional, physical, practical) of a victim.
On the other hand, victim service providers may find it difficult to main¬
tain impartiality given the intimate nature of their relationship with the vic¬
tim. This can present a dilemma given that they are more likely to glean
valuable and pertinent information from the victim about the incidents or
events leading up to the incident. However, their job responsibilities dic¬
tate that they focus on securing a sense of safety for the victim and assist¬
ing him or her in accessing social services that are in place to assist him or
her through recovery. While certainly providing liaison services between the
victim and law enforcement is a part of his or her responsibility, a victim ser¬
vice provider’s job focus may sometimes interfere with police investigations.
178 Police and Profiling in the United States

Although the approach to some may seem cruel, the most effective way
to profile an unknown offender using the victim perspective is to decon¬
struct the victim. This may at times involve, and in fact should involve, prob¬
ing questions. This impassive approach frees investigators to ask questions
that may provide insights into targeting factors on the part of the offender, or
exposure opportunities for the victim. While this may seem self-explanatory,
the actual process has proven difficult to effectuate—especially when inves¬
tigators are forced to ask difficult and personal questions. Difficult in this
sense may include questions that may be uncomfortable for the victim, seem
personally invasive, or create a perception of something inconsistent with
what the victim wants known to others.
This discomfort should not discourage investigators or profilers from
asking the questions. Researchers know, from studying the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) together,
that some patterns and trends exist in victim data. The following chart pres¬
ents some of the key findings that researchers and practitioners find useful
when analyzing crime and victimization trends and developing policies.

Measuring Changes

TRENDS = changes that occur over time

PATTERNS = connections between the attributes of the victim and frequency

of being targeted, as revealed by the data.

The ability to detect patterns and trends helps one predict future events.

Identification of these patterns and trends also contributes to the devel¬

opment of crime prevention programs with the idea that less crime equals
fewer victims. Despite this information and the crime prevention pro¬
grams, crime continues to happen, and in some cases, the offender remains
unknown. These are cases where the victim, if able, should be used as a valu¬
able resource for identifying the offender. Some may wonder how a victim
can help an investigation if he or she did not see, or cannot remember, an
offender. The value is often in the details.
By shifting the vocabulary from cause to correlation, the reader is able
to see where certain factors may be highly correlated with victimization, but
not necessarily the cause of victimization. Law enforcement refers to these as
at-risk behaviors, such as going out alone to bars late at night. While there
is nothing wrong with that choice, in the context of victimization data, (1)
being alone, (2) drinking alcohol, and (3) going out late are each highly corre¬
lated with becoming a victim of crime. As such, each of these lifestyle choices
creates the potential for an exposure opportunity.
Victim Selection Characteristics 179

Lifestyle Theory

Originally, lifestyle theory focused on explaining why certain groups of

people (e.g., youths, males, poor, singles, minorities) had higher rates of vic¬
timization than others. Specifically, researchers posited that “the patterned
way in which people distribute their time and energies across a range of
activities” (242) placed them at greater risk of victimization (Hindelang et
al. 1978). The value of the theory is that it offered an opportunity for crime
intervention through social services, as well as crime prevention programs to
be developed in response to certain vulnerabilities, e.g., after-school activi¬
ties, meals-on-wheels, and personal safety classes.
It is important to note that the initial theory used victim data to explain
victimization, not criminal exposure. Using the basics of lifestyle theory to
develop a theory of criminal behavior requires an innovative and disciplined
approach. Mainly because without the willingness to probe deeper, and
ask difficult questions, one will find that (1) existing victim data have finite
application, and (2) repackaging old information does not always yield a new
product even if the ingredients are the same. In other words, this is not to
suggest that lifestyle theory should be used in the construction of a criminal
profile per se, but elements of one’s lifestyle that might provide insight into
when or where an offender began to target a victim can prove invaluable in
the construction of a profile.

Routine Activities Theory

Routine activities theory (RAT) marked the first time that traditional life¬
style approaches were married with offender motivations. The result was a
theory that appeared to include a dual approach to criminal opportunity and
victim selection. In short, Cohen and Felson argued that the existence of
three separate events must unite in two spheres in order for a criminal event
to occur. The three separate events are (1) lack of a capable guardian, which
can be a person (police officer, parent) or an item (car alarm, burglar system);
(2) suitable target, which is generally referred to as an item that can be easily
removed from the scene; and (3) a motivated offender, which of course is an
individual willing to risk punishment in order to obtain the desired target.
However, it is not enough that these three events are present; they must con¬
verge in two spheres, time and space, in order to maximize the likelihood of
a criminal event (Cohen and Felson 1979).
Considering the victim in his or her entirety involves the deconstruction
of the victim and his or her life. Doing so may identify specific details about
the incident that may lead to discovery of characteristics of an unknown
180 Police and Profiling in the United States

offender, but it may also expose the victim to unintentional harm. The utmost
of professionalism must be employed in this process. If the victim exhibits
discomfort or evasiveness following a particular question, it may help if the
investigator is able to explain why that information is necessary and what the
answers may reveal.
It is also important to realize that the investigator is not only looking for
obvious targeting factors, e.g., uses a cane, but perhaps more importantly, is
seeking information that is not so obvious, e.g., works late every Tuesday and
takes a cab home. Although seemingly unrelated to a mugging on Saturday
afternoon, the identity of a young woman who lives alone and does all of her
shopping on Saturday may appeal to someone who is aware of, or has stud¬
ied, her weekly routine.
This refers not only to legitimate business pursuits, but to deviant ones as
well. Keep in mind that the goal is to identify what parts of one’s life might be
increasing one’s chances of victimization (see Figure 11.1). Questions that should
be asked include: Are you currently working in a job that places you at increased
risk of personal harm, e.g., bartender, nighttime store clerk? Or in contact tvith
known offenders, e.g., probation/parole officer, corrections officer, law enforce¬
ment officer, attorney, etc.? Do you currently work in a profession that operates
on the fringes of society, e.g., prostitution, gambling, drug dealing?
It is impossible to provide an exhaustive list of potentially risky jobs/
careers, but what is provided here illustrates the value of asking very spe¬
cific questions. Simply asking “What do you do for a living?” would not suc¬
cessfully elicit the depth and information that the above model provides.
Whenever possible, asking yes/no questions is more appropriate. This is true
for many reasons, but the main ones include that following victimization,
most individuals need for steps to be as simple as possible. Their schema has

Figure 11.1 Target selection characteristics.

Victim Selection Characteristics 181

been disrupted and complex, and open-ended questions may prove too diffi¬
cult at that time. Additionally, investigators want to get as much information
as possible in a short amount of time; preventing a victim from having to
think of a response will help prevent the victim from becoming overwhelmed.
Do not assume, though, that asking sensitive questions quickly will prevent
the victim from reacting. Particularly for victims who have been party to a
violent crime, their self-protective instinct is working overtime, and if they
perceive that you are trying to trick them or “suggest” something, they may
shut down the questioning. Better to go slowly, allow them to process the
question, and ask you clarifying questions, and get the responses you want
and need to proceed.

Medical Conditions
Again, reference to medical conditions refers not only to diagnosed conditions,
but also to undiagnosed and perhaps deviant ones. Obvious physical condi¬
tions (wheelchair, prosthetic, female, being alone, etc.) may serve as a targeting
factor for offenders, so identifying them or determining a pattern with other
victims is key to profiling an offender. However, there are many conditions
that may serve to place victims in high-risk categories that may not be so obvi¬
ous, e.g., drug or alcohol issues. Determining if these exist and what they may
be requires asking personal and probing questions of the victim. Given the
stigma and social condemnation attached with some behaviors, it is advisable
to explain that such activities can present particular challenges in an investi¬
gation if they are unknown to the investigators. Since the goal is to find the
perpetrator, the detectives/investigators need to know this information. Keep
in mind that the victim may not see his or her behaviors as addictive or prob¬
lematic. He or she may internally rationalize his or her position by observing
that “the bar was packed that night and he or she was the only victim, so there
must be something else happening” or “I have done this every weekend and
nothing has happened to me before, so the police are wrong.”

Personality
It is important to ascertain the personality of your victim, as it can lead to
insights into the offender. Is the victim mild mannered, polite, and shy? If
so, you may be seeking a more predatory offender than you would perhaps
if your victim is strong-willed, outspoken, and aggressive. Does the victim
show patterns consistent with impulsivity or risk taking? If so, you may be
seeking an offender who found himself in the “right time at the right place,”
as opposed to someone who planned to commit a crime. As noted above,
these qualities are not meant in any way to suggest that a victim deserved
what happened to him or her, but if the focus is on identifying the offender
182 Police and Profiling in the United States

and the type of offender (predatory vs. opportunistic), then these factors
must be considered for the role they play in the overall picture. Qualities
or characteristics of a victim that make him or her attractive to a particular
offender have direct impact on the type of offender one is seeking to identify.

Leisure Activities
Determining when or where an offender gained access to a victim is impor¬
tant. Therefore, it is equally as important that investigators identify not only
what the victim was doing at the time of the criminal encounter, but also
what he or she did leading up to the criminal event. If it has been determined
that investigators are seeking a predatory offender, then it is important to
identify two separate categories of behavior. Leisure activities refer to those
activities that a victim is likely to do to unwind (movies, bar, out to dinner,
etc.). These are not necessarily part of a victim’s regular day, and therefore
may require a little more thought as to how he or she spent his or her leisure
time over the past 2 to 4 weeks, depending on whether or not he or she had
a particularly unusual event that may have exposed him or her to motivated
offenders, e.g., vacation, business trip.

Routine Activities
Contrary to leisure activities that vary over time, routine activities refer to
those activities that are conducted regularly and that are required for main¬
tenance of daily life, e.g., dry cleaner’s, grocery store, public transportation.
If investigators determine that the offenders are methodical and planning
criminal events, it is likely that they have an understanding of the victim’s
regular schedule in terms of what he or she does on a daily basis (for pur¬
poses of identifying an opportunity for an encounter) and where he or she
frequents (for purposes of identifying special opportunity).
Some criminologists (Turvey 2012) refer to these elements as situational
vs. lifestyle exposures. These distinctions may help in the overall analysis of
the case, but they are irrelevant at the moment of the interview with the victim.

References
Cohen, L., and M. Felson. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 1979: 588-608.
Hindelang, M. J„ M. R. Gottfredson, and J. Garofalo. Victims of personal crime: An
empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger, 1978.
Turvey, B. E. Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis.
Oxford: Elsevier, 2012.
Conclusion
12
Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in obser¬
vation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.
—Thomas Henry Huxley

Introduction

This text has attempted to provide the reader with some level of orientation
to the issue of criminal profiling. It has introduced a marriage of ideas from
the evolution of gut instinct and experience to the solid foundation of science
and empirical support. The field of criminal profiling is ever changing, but
the paradigm shift from anecdotal reports to scientific inquiry has yielded
a practice that assists in the narrowing of a suspect pool when the offender
is unknown. This is true mainly because criminal profiling will most likely
be undertaken if the more traditional knowledge regarding violent offenses
proves to be untrue, namely, that the offender is generally someone known
to the victim.
We would be doing the reader a disservice if we failed to acknowledge
that there is considerable debate regarding criminal profiling in terms of
the foundation upon which it is based and the current methods it employs.
The following sections will present the prevailing criticisms without taking
a position either way. The ideas are presented for the benefit of the reader to
determine, given his or her own knowledge of the subject matter, whether to
accept or dismiss the criticisms.

Research Methodology

FBI profilers John Douglas and Robert Ressler conducted interviews in the
1970s of 36 known (incarcerated) sexual murderers. According to Devery
(2010), those interviews, upon which much of the profiling practices are
based, contain several methodological flaws that may render the findings
useless:

183
184 Police and Profiling in the United States

• The interviews were relatively informal and were likely different for
each offender.
. There was no indication of knowledge of research design.
• The sample was one of convenience, resulting in a population of only
incarcerated killers who wished to speak with them.
• The killers who chose to speak with them likely suffered from a range
of mental illnesses (including narcissism and pathological lying) that
may have yielded unreliable information.
• There was no control sample of nonserial killers, resulting in an
inability to determine how often the “identifying” characteristics
occurred in nonincarcerated persons.

It is important to note that while there appear to be challenges in research

methodology, there does not appear to be any suggestion that Burgess and
Ressler intended to conduct a research project when they began the inter¬
views. They merely hoped that any information gathered from those articles
would assist in the analysis (note: not solving) of future crimes. The fact that
their interviews became the foundation for a developing science may not
have been their intention or fault. Indeed, the use of sound research practices
is new to the social sciences in general, so it is unclear how responsible they
are for the overreliance on their research.
This is not to say, however, that there is no obligation on the part of
researchers and practitioners now to utilize sound research methods. In fact,
there is probably a greater obligation to do so given the recent awareness and
desire to be recognized as a scientific field, independent of sociology.

Crime Scene-Based Approaches

Geographic Profiling
The value of geographic profiling, as presented by Rossmo, is that the approach
is focused solely on geography with little regard for characteristics of the
scene of the crime, or the offender. It blends environmental criminology
and math into a computerized model that effectively removes any subjective
input. The removal of subjectivity dictates that the results are purely objec¬
tive and empirically supported. On the surface then, this is an ideal situation.
Subjectivity breeds differences, and differences hold with them the possibility
of error. One’s confidence that the suspect identified is the right one increases
when the identity is derived through an impassive, unbiased manner.
However, the very nature of geographic profiling is that it relies heavily
on the concepts of distance decay and circle theory—both of which exist
independently of the geographic terrain and characteristics. This calls into
Conclusion 185

question which of the inputs is most important, the location of the criminal
event, the location of encounter between the victim and the offender, or the
location of where the body was discovered. Inclusion of all three may create
skewed data, as it will likely increase the range under consideration by the
program.
Another key criticism of geographic profiling is that it assumes that the
subject being sought is a marauding offender. As a marauder offender, several
assumptions exist, including that the individual:

• Is a static localized or geographically stable serial offender

• Commits crime within a confined area
• Is bounded by psychological barriers and landscape features
• Operates within his or her awareness space
• Is likely to have an anchor point (haven) from which to operate
• Has a haven that lies within the distribution of crime sites (Laukkanen
and Santtila 2006)

This assumption of a marauding offender provides little accommodation

for the fact that the offender may have traveled into the region for the pur¬
poses of committing an offense, thereby negating the geographic identifica¬
tion of a haven (commuters). Commuter crimes are identified as those crimes
where the offender:

• Disperses mobility or is a geographically transient serial offender

• Commits crimes over a large area
• Crosses cultural or psychological boundaries
• Commits most offenses outside the offender’s awareness space
• Involves complex hunting strategies
• Hunts without a definable anchor point (Laukkanen and Santtila 2006)

Geographic profiling also does not accommodate drifters, who are repre¬
sented by those offenders who do not have a permanent location to call home,
or who commit offenses while constantly moving.
One final consideration presented herein lies in the potential suspect
pool. It is a logical assumption that the identification of a haven will yield
drastically different results if the central locus is positioned in an urban area
vs. a rural location. Since the identification of the area to be searched con¬
tains no definable characteristics of the offenders, the potential suspect pool
can potentially be quite large. It is partially for this reason that even Rossmo
advocates for the input of investigators and psychological profiling in the
construction of a geographic model. His rationale is based upon the prem¬
ise that local personnel are most aware of the region, as well as particular
characteristics of the offender, and perhaps even of some unique identifying
186 Police and Profiling in the United States

characteristics from potential suspects. This is true for purposes of identi¬

fying victims, encounter locations, and body disposal purposes. Note that
the reintroduction of the subjective perspectives of investigators also reintro¬
duces the possibility of error.

Investigative Psychology
Investigative psychology was developed by David Canter as an improvement
on the previous practice of “offender profiling,” which he perceived to be
plagued by too much subjective input. The goal of investigative psychology is
to unite geographic inputs with psychological inputs to achieve a more sci¬
entifically sound conclusion. The five main elements examined for inclusion
in the model include

1. Interpersonal coherence—considers interactions with other people

(including offender-victim relationship)
2. Individual criminal characteristics—used to consider the type of
crime committed
3. Domestic and social characteristics—examines the background fac¬
tors (family, upbringing, environment, etc.) to determine the type of
crime one is likely to commit
4. Occupational and educational history—used to examine consis¬
tency and learning capacity, particularly in terms of how it applies to
forensic adaptation
5. Significance of time and place—speaks directly to the geographic
element

This model, because it incorporates elements other than simply location,

does offer a correction to the issue of marauder vs. commuter challenges.
However, since it is so statistically dense, and many have an aversion to sta¬
tistics in general, the language and process render this model inaccessible to
the individuals who are most likely to employ it. Related to this is the fact
that the vernacular used is mathematically based, not justice based, and so in
terms of the effort in the industry to move toward “translational language,”
this model does not lend itself well to wide uses in the field.

Psychology-Based Approaches

These efforts to type offenders seek to infer psychological characteristics

from the study of crime scene variables, behavioral traits (as suggested by the
crime scene), and personality characteristics.
Conclusion 187

Organized vs. Disorganized

As was already mentioned, the most well-known categorization of behav¬

iors is known as the organized/disorganized dichotomy. It was developed by
the FBI following the interview of 36 convicted sexual murderers (Ressler
and Burgess 1985). Overall, the simplest interpretation is that a disorganized
offender will leave behind a disorganized crime scene. However, there have
been several criticisms wherein the state of the crime scene can be misleading
if the offender is aware of the classification system and intentionally attempts
to derail investigators by leaving behind a disorganized crime scene, when
the very knowledge and planning implies an organized offender (and vice
versa). Also, the state of the crime scene itself is simply the state of the crime
scene; there is little support for using the crime scene to dictate classifications
about an offenders behavior or personality.

Criminal Investigative Analysis

Criminal investigative analysis uses various inputs (victim, police, witnesses,
formal reports, e.g., autopsy, forensics) and continual reevaluation of data to
construct a profile. In short, the belief is that there are certain factors present
at a crime scene that will suggest and support assumptions about an offend¬
er’s personality. The process is described as using “brainstorming, intuition
and educated guesswork” (FBI 1980). One the biggest gains of this method
is that it does not have the complicated and intimidating vocabulary that
is consistent with the geographic and statistical models. Its reliance on the
traditional and familiar criminal justice lexicon make it much more user-
friendly. However, from an analytical perspective, it lacks the same degree of
rigor that the previous methods provide. Since it is based largely on preexist¬
ing data, the assumptions derived do not always conform to new information
or new cases. Also, oftentimes the process does not incorporate the rereview
as advised by the FBI, and so any new case information that becomes known
after the original inputs are entered is not generally reflected in the original
profile. This oversight is most likely the result of the fact that law enforcement
is under a great deal of pressure to find a perpetrator. Since they couch their
findings in generalities, and since the profile is never intended to be specific,
but rather to simply narrow the suspect pool, the rationalization is that the
time lost in rereview and regeneration of profiles based upon new informa¬
tion may not always be justified.

Behavioral Evidence Analysis

In an effort to correct the shortcomings of criminal investigative analysis in
terms of the comparisons to previously existing cases, behavioral evidence
188 Police and Profiling in the United States

analysis (BEA) concentrates on analyzing crime scene characteristics from

each individual case in order to deduce information about the offender. In
this way, assumptions about the offender are directly linked to evidence
located at the scene rather than surmised from a compilation of various facts.
This method encourages input from several disciplines, including but not
limited to victimologists, crime scene professionals, and investigators/detec¬
tives. The end result is a well-rounded profile that is based upon identified
facts or evidence recovered from the crime scene since the profile is almost
entirely crime scene dependent. The amount of input from various perspec¬
tives also allows for the profile to be more uniform in that regardless of how
many individuals are reviewing the information, if all of the information
is complete, it is reasonable to assume that uniformity will result. In some
ways, this borrows from statistics in the rationale of the law of large numbers,
which holds in essence that the greater the number of samples, the closer to
“normal” the results will be.
Despite the value of the approach, this model is lacking in utility for
law enforcement because the goal of any profiling activity is to narrow the
suspect pool. The easiest way to facilitate identity of a suspect is to be able
to determine age and gender. While crime scene analysis can achieve some
narrowing, it does little to identify these demographics. From a strict law
enforcement perspective then, BEA offers little help to the field.
Another consideration that works against the utility of BEA is the
time involved in collecting the information and constructing the profile.
Traditionally, time is not friendly to a police investigation. This is true for
many reasons, not the least of which includes that some evidence degrades
over time, some witnesses forget what happened or disappear over time, and
some offenders may disappear or move over time. Additionally, it is accepted
in the industry that the greater the time between the event occurring and the
discovery of the event, the less chance the crime will be solved. This is all to
say that while the results of BEA may be accurate given the number of inputs,
the usefulness may be lacking given the time needed to effectuate an arrest
based upon the profile.
And finally, while the industry strives to achieve a more impartial and
unbiased approach to the construction of a valid profile, BEA relies heavily
upon the job experience for the interpretation of the information. As such, it
requires education and experience—neither of which is a guarantee of accu¬
rate interpretation.

References
Devery, C. Criminal profiling and criminal investigation. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 26(4), 2010: 393-409.
Conclusion 189

Laukkanen, M., and P. Santtila. Predicting the residential location of a serial commer¬
cial robber. Forensic Science International, 157 (1), 2006: 71-82.
Ressler, R., and A. Burgess. Crime scene and profile characteristics of organized and
disorganized murders. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 54(8), 1985: 18-25.
 1

'
Appendix: Profiles of
Notorious Serial Killers

Albert DeSalvo (The Boston Strangler)

Albert DeSalvo, better known as the Boston Strangler, confessed in specific

detail regarding his role in raping and killing 13 women in the Boston area in
a 2-year span in the early 1960s. Albert DeSalvo, notably by his actions and
testimony, wanted to be famous and have women love him. He turned out to
be a deranged killer. All 13 women that he killed were strangled, and most
of them were found with their own nylon stockings wrapped around their
necks several times, often with such force that blood was found oozing from
their ears. This type of killing became DeSalvo’s trademark or signature.
Albert DeSalvo was born in Chelsea, Massachusetts, on September 3,
1931, to Charlotte and Frank DeSalvo. Frank DeSalvo was known to be phys¬
ically, verbally, and emotionally abusive to his wife, young Albert, and his
siblings on a daily basis. The children never knew how their dysfunctional
father would act when he came home from work. Albert especially was the
brunt of Frank’s physical abuse, once being lifted up by his neck and shaken
until he was thrown to the floor. Frank DeSalvo would bring prostitutes into
their home and have sex with them in front of the children.
It was this troubled childhood that led Albert to have his first encounter
with the law. He was arrested the first time for assault and battery at the
age of 12, and after his arrest for the second time, Albert was sent to reform
school. Albert’s life was inundated with sexual promiscuity and sadistic acts
with animals in his teen years. At 17, Albert joined the army and was sent
to Germany, where he met Imgard Beck at a United Service Organizations
(USO) dance. The young couple soon married, but life became difficult and
alarming because of Albert’s obsession with sex. His abnormal number of
requests for sex and masturbating on a daily basis startled the young bride.
She was not able to handle his overpowering sex drive and daily numerous
sexual advances. In 1955, the army sent Albert and Imgard back to the United
States, where Albert was assigned to Fort Dix in New Jersey. Imgard gave
birth to a girl in 1955. It was not long after his arrival that Albert was accused
of molesting a 9-year-old girl. The parents of the young victim declined to

191
192 Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers

press charges, and DeSalvo was subsequently discharged from the army.
Albert’s downward spiral of internal conflict escalated after being arrested
twice for robbery. Imgard gave birth to a boy in 1960. It was not uncom¬
mon for Albert to frequently beat Imgard, and she eventually divorced him
because of the abuse and she would never see him again.
Soon after his divorce and desperate for sex, Albert came up with the idea
to promote and recruit women for a fictitious modeling agency. This was a way
that he could get women alone and concentrate on taking advantage of their
gullible nature of success. Albert would persuade them that he would need
photographs. He would pay $15 for them to pose for him in their bra and pant¬
ies. He would give them $25 for taking pictures of them in the nude. He would
pay the girls $10 to take their measurements. This gave him the opportunity
to touch them and take advantage. He often slept with many of the unsuspect¬
ing women. He was arrested after a few women complained about his sexual
touching and advances. Charges were never filed, even though there were
many complaints filed, and Albert became known as the “measuring man.”
Bizarre killing began evolving in the Boston area in June 1962. The first
few women were older. After the fourth murder was reported, women in the
Boston area became paralyzed with fear. Headlines in the local newspapers
highlighted the brutal murders and rapes that were occurring, with no wit¬
nesses or leads in any of the cases. The first five females strangled were older
white women. The sixth killing proved to stun the police and the community,
because this victim was a young black woman.
The entire city was in frenzy because it seemed that no female was safe.
There was no apparent motive, as burglary and robbery were ruled out. Panic
ruled the city, as females fortified their residences with new locks, and some
females even bought guard dogs. The Boston police believed that they were
dealing with a person who was not necessarily entirely psychotic, but just
wanted to be noticed. The police believed the killer wanted to articulate his
exploits about the killings and reveal his identity. Police detectives exhausted
every possible lead and became frustrated in not finding the killer. They
interviewed over 5,000 known sex offenders and institutionalized suspected
offenders, but to no avail. Albert’s arrests were never for sexual misconduct,
and he was able to escape being interviewed or even considered as an offender.
Albert was arrested for burglary and served 11 months in prison. It was
in prison that he admitted being the measuring man. DeSalvo bragged to
a fellow inmate, George Nassar, that he was the Boston Strangler and said
that over a 2-year period he reportedly raped over 300 women in four states.
He raped up to six victims in one day. He admitted impersonating a handy
man, often wearing green clothes to get into the victims’ apartments. Nassar
turned DeSalvo in as the Boston Strangler, in order to collect the reward
money being offered. It was believed that Nassar and DeSalvo struck a deal
that some of the reward money would be sent to DeSalvo’s wife and children.
Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers 193

Albert DeSalvo was arrested in 1964 and remanded to Bridgewater State

Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. On January 10, 1967, a young lawyer
named F. Lee Bailey tried to cut a deal for Albert to serve life in prison. Bailey
said there was no physical evidence and nothing connecting Albert to the
crime, except for his own admission.
Albert said that his sexual urges overwhelmed him, but never served
time for the Boston murders. He admitted that he wanted to be famous, write
books, and star in movies. Albert was considered a sociopath, manipulative
and terribly insecure. Many prisoners disliked him. Albert DeSalvo was
stabbed to death by a fellow inmate in 1973.
A few experts said that Albert had a mother fixation, and that is why he
assaulted older women. The only survivor insisted that George Nassar was her
attacker. There are a few experts that doubt Albert’s direct involvement in these
crimes. The family of Mary Sullivan (a 19-year-old victim) found out through
DNA evidence that Albert DeSalvo was not the person who murdered her.

David Berkowitz (The Son of Sam)

David Berkowitz, the “Son of Sam,” admitted killing six innocent victims
in New York City in 1976-1977. Before Berkowitz was caught, Dr. Brussel,
a highly regarded psychologist and profiler, determined that whoever was
guilty of these murders was most likely neurotic, schizophrenic, and para¬
noid. Dr. Brussel profiled the suspect as sexually frustrated with feelings that
he is demonically possessed. A cold and calculating serial killer, he focused
on killing women but also killed male companions who accompanied them.
Berkowitz was born out of wedlock to a young couple in 1953. He was
adopted by Pearl and Nat Berkowitz a few days after he was born. Berkowitz
had an uneventful childhood and did not do very well in school. He was
regarded as quiet and a loner, and did not appear to have many friends.
Young Berkowitz was a hyperactive child who was often teased and bullied.
In later years, Berkowitz was heavier than most children his age and would
use his girth to bully others in the neighborhood.
At a young age Berkowitz admitted starting hundreds of fires in his
neighborhood. He had an obsession for starting fires and recorded in his
journal that he had started or reported more than 1,500 fires. Berkowitz
enjoyed getting away with tormenting and torturing animals. He tortured
and killed his mother’s pet parakeet by feeding it toxic cleaning fluid.
Pearl Berkowitz passed away from breast cancer when David was 14 years
old. He became depressed by her death and became more of a recluse and
outcast. Depression and loneliness set in as his father remarried and moved
to Florida 4 years later. David developed an interest in setting fires and jour¬
nalizing his exploits and behavior.
194 Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers

Berkowitz joined the army and left after 3 years. It was around this time
that he also found out he was adopted, and that his birth mother wanted to
reunite with him. Berkowitz also found out he had a sister. Their friendship did
not last long and soon began to wane. He again was isolated and depressed. His
mental state began to deteriorate as paranoia and delusional thoughts against
women began to fill his world. His personal conflict escalated, as he attempted
to kill two women in December 1975. Berkowitz began to target women using
a .45 caliber gun. This became known as his signature.
Berkowitz had a moderately high IQ (118) but showed signs of being delu¬
sional as well as paranoid. There were many issues regarding his mental state
and competency to stand trial. After many years of courtroom and judicial
uncertainty, Berkowitz was convicted of killing six people, was sentenced to
25 years to life in prison, and eventually was sent to a secure mental facility.
Berkowitz spent enough time in jail to warrant a parole hearing, but wrote a
letter to the governor explaining why he should still be incarcerated.
Berkowitz took on the persona of the “Son of Sam” from his neighbor
named Sam Carr, who owned a black Labrador retriever. He believed that
demons or Satan himself, through his neighbor, was instructing him to con¬
tinue to kill. Berkowitz was caught after a parking ticket put him near a murder.
After an investigation, David Berkowitz was arrested for and admitted guilt to
killing six victims. Berkowitz was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Dean Corll

Dean Corll, a sadistic homosexual serial killer, would tie up, torture, sodom¬
ize, and eventually kill each young male victim with whom he came into
contact. He had two young accomplices who helped him entice unsuspecting
male victims into his home, by inviting them to a drug, alcohol, and glue¬
sniffing party. Dean Corll has been held accountable for 27 known deaths in
the Houston area, but that figure most likely is much higher.
Dean Corll was born on December 24, 1939. He had a troubled and dys¬
functional childhood. Corll’s parents constantly argued and fought. His
mother was very possessive of him and his younger brother. Corll’s father
was uncaring and would harshly punish the two boys for what would be con¬
sidered insignificant actions. Corll spent most of his teen years at home and
as a loner.
Corll was drafted into the army, even though he was diagnosed with
a heart murmur from a bout with rheumatic fever as a child. It was in the
army that Corll realized his homosexual urges and tendencies were genu¬
ine. After serving time in the military, he began associating with teenage
boys named David Brooks and Wayne Henley. Both boys became emotion¬
ally and financially attached to Corll. It was these young men who provided
Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers 195

most of Corll’s victims. They both assisted Corll in a few of the killings and
the disposal of the bodies.
One day Henley arrived at Corll’s home unannounced with a female
and another male friend. This upset Corll, and he planned on making the
young Henley and his friends his next victims. He tied the trio up, but
Henley persuaded Corll to free him. Henley used Corll’s gun and shot and
killed him in self-defense and was charged with justifiable homicide. Wayne
Henley explained Corll’s deviant behavior and deviant actions and admit¬
ted his participation in a few of the murders. David Brooks also was impli¬
cated in six of the murders with Corll. Both Henley and Brooks are serving
life sentences in Texas.

Donald Gaskin (Pee Wee)

Donald Gaskins was a sociopath serial killer who raped, brutally tortured,
and mutilated his victims before disposing of their bodies in South Carolina.
He would sadistically kill people that he knew, often preferring females.
Gaskins even raped a child and pursued victims who were unlucky enough
to travel the highway near his home.
Donald Gaskins was born on March 13, 1933. His mother dated many
men during his young life. Most of his mother’s male acquaintances were
mean and physically abused and hit him, often for no apparent reason.
Gaskin’s mother did very little to protect him from her physically abusive
partners. He grew up in an erratic family environment. Many men in his
mother’s life often did not stay very long. Gaskin received the nickname of
“Pee Wee” because of his small stature. He would often get into fights and
he bullied at school because of his size. Gaskin dropped out of school at a
young age and became a burglar. He had a short temper and would hurt or
injure anyone who got in his way. Gaskin was married three times and had a
daughter by his last wife.
Gaskin spent time in reform school, often being sexually abused by larger
and stronger boys who were also confined. He tried to escape numerous
times, but was often caught and punished for his behavior. Gaskin drifted
from carnival to carnival searching for work, often relying on burglarizing
homes to survive. It did not take long for Gaskin to get caught and serve time
for a variety of crimes. In prison he was known for the brutal killing of an
inmate who wanted to sexually manipulate him.
Once released from prison, Gaskin began killing people at will. He com¬
mitted many murders by himself. On occasion he would incorporate his
friend Walter Neeley to help dispose of victims that he had killed. Gaskin
was suspected in the disappearance of a 13-year-old girl after a police inves¬
tigation found her clothing in his apartment. It was Walter Neeley who went
196 Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers

to the police and confessed to what he knew about Gaskin and his role in the
murders of eight victims. Gaskin was convicted of murdering eight victims
and was sentenced to life in prison. In 1982 Gaston killed another inmate.
He was electrocuted in 1991 for killing the inmate. Gaston claimed to have
killed 181 people, mostly within a 6-year period from 1969 to 1975, until he
was caught by police.

Ed Gein (The Butcher of Plainfield)

Ed Gein, born on August 27, 1906, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, was a deviant

serial killer who grew up in a dysfunctional family. Gein had an alcoholic
father and an overbearing and dominant mother. He lived on a farm with pigs
and took care of them and considered the animals as part of the family. At the
age of 10 Gein witnessed a pig being slaughtered by his father. The killing of
the pig caused emotional trauma, and his father called him a “wimp” because
he could not catch the blood dripping from the swine. Gems father constantly
criticized him and blamed him for the financial mess they were experiencing.
After the death of his father and brother, Gein had the responsibility
of taking care of his mother. She controlled every aspect of his life. Gem s
mother was religious and stern, and always spoke against the evils of women.
Gein was always seeking her approval and attention. After her death, he
dressed in his mother’s clothing and said he heard voices from his mother
demanding him to kill.
Gein was a loner who never married and who likely questioned his own
sexuality. He was fascinated by the female anatomy. Gein thought of a sex
change but could not afford the operation.
Gein admitted to

• Draping himself in human skin

• Having a fascination with death and the dead
• Having sex with dead bodies
• Eating organs from those he killed
• Making a belt out of nipples
• Making furniture out of skin
• Making a mask and breasts and acting like his own mother

Gein and a neighbor were responsible for digging graves on his farm
that ultimately were used to bury dozens of female corpses that he killed.
Gein was caught by the son of one of his victims (who happened to be a sher¬
iff), when he went to speak to Gein about his mother’s disappearance. Gein’s
house was filled with gruesome artifacts of death, cannibalism, and body
dismemberment. Gein confessed to his crimes and was found not guilty by
Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers 197

reason of insanity. He spent the rest of his life in a mental hospital after being
diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia. Gein was nearly 78 years old when
he died in prison. His actions inspired a few deviant-related movies such as
Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Silence of Lambs.

Gary Ridgway (The Green River Killer)

Gary Ridgway, also known as the Green River killer, pled guilty to killing
48 women after his arrest that proved that he killed 4 women because of
DNA evidence. That number is most likely smaller than the actual number
of murders he committed. He could only recall killing 48 because he “lost
count” of the actual number of females that he had killed. Ridgeway chose
female victims about who no one really cared: prostitutes, runaways, missing
or homeless women. Ridgway killed most of his victims between 1982 and
1984. He killed most of his victims when he was single.
Gary Leon Ridgway was born in Auburn, Washington. He was consid¬
ered to be of below-average intelligence. Ridgway did not do very well in
high school. He endured a troubled childhood that included a very domi¬
neering mother. The Ridgeway family moved to Washington State when he
was 11 years old.
Ridgeway sought out prostitutes as a young man. He carried out this
routine throughout his life, up until he was caught and arrested for murder.
After joining the navy, Ridgway married his first wife before being deployed
to Vietnam. This marriage lasted only a short time before ending in divorce.
After returning to the states from serving his country, Ridgeway began
working for Kenworth Truck Company as a truck painter. He worked there
for 32 years and would be considered a hypocrite for his bazaar behavior.
Ridgeway was known to carry a Bible and spoke about church and redemp¬
tion, but he frequented prostitutes, solicited and flirted with females at work,
and drank beer habitually. He was known for telling filthy and appalling
jokes and revealed the best advice on how to pick up prostitutes.
Ridgeway was married a second time, this time for almost 8 years. He had
a son by this marriage and continued to seek out prostitutes. He was arrested
for soliciting an undercover police officer. Ridgway married his third wife
in 1988. His mother continued to be demanding throughout his marriages.
He preferred strangling women after he had sex with them, and he
had sex with six victims after he strangled them. Ridgeway was eventually
caught by old-fashioned police work. The police, through their investigative
procedures, eventually questioned him for his role in the disappearance of
many prostitutes. He was the common denominator in almost all of them.
Ridgeway cooperated with the investigation and admitted to his crimes of
murder. He is serving life in prison in Walla Walla, Washington.
198 Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers

Dr. Henry Howard Holmes (H. H. Holmes,

Herman Mudgett)

It was during the 1883 Chicago World’s Fair that a clever and deviant socio¬
path named H. H. Holmes emerged to become the most prolific serial killer
in history. Herman Mudgett changed his name to H. H. Holmes. He is con¬
sidered one of the most innovative and calculating killers of his time. The
Chicago World’s Fair brought thousands of lone travelers to the city to expe¬
rience the popular tourist attraction. Holmes was able to draw in unknowing
victims by building a hotel to accommodate the tourists who were visiting
the world fair. Holmes turned a three-story hotel into a chamber of death and
torture. The hotel itself was set up with secret rooms, doorways that led to
brick walls, gas-lined controlled rooms, outside locking doors, and an execu¬
tion chamber that included a dissection room in the basement. He even had a
chute that led to the basement. The basement included an execution chamber,
a dissection room, a stretching rack, and vats of poison. The third floor of the
hotel was windowless. Holmes was able to suffocate and torture his victims
without any trace of wrongdoing or witnesses.
Herman Holmes was born Herman Mudgett into a troubled family. His
father was an alcoholic and often verbally abused and beat him for no apparent
reason. Herman was bullied almost every day at school, and on a few occasions
was forced to touch a human skeleton. This particular experience obviously
had an effect on him later in life. As he grew older, Herman was caught cutting
up small animals and had a fascination for torture. Holmes grew up a hand¬
some man. He was known to be a ladies’ man, and was married a few times.
Holmes was able to finance his own education and went to pharmacy school.
He also became quite adept at getting what he wanted and was able to scam
other people, especially with his charm, good looks, and money.
Holmes worked in a drug store on the South Side of Chicago for Dr.
Holton. Soon after Dr. Holton died, he bought the drug store from Mrs.
Holton. After the sale Mrs. Holton mysteriously disappeared. Holmes said
that she went to live in California, but she most likely became one of his early
victims. Holmes bought land across the street from the original drugstore
and began construction of a three-story hotel that had a pharmacy on the
first floor. Holmes was clever as he methodically hired, fired, and swindled
different contractors in building his hotel of horror. No contractor was there
long enough to know of his secret plan of creating a maze of rooms that only
he knew existed. His elaborate and intricate hotel did not cost him very much.
Holmes may have never been caught if it were not for his greed to defraud
and scam an insurance company. Holmes hired and befriended a carpenter
named Ben Pitelel. He killed Mr. Pitelel and his children in an attempt to col¬
lect on a life insurance claim. An investigation by police implicated Holmes,
Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers 199

and he was eventually arrested for murder. It was not until police raided
his home that they found the underlying mysteries and labyrinths of secret
rooms. Conservative estimates are that Holmes killed and tortured hundreds
of victims and multiple spouses who mysteriously disappeared. Holmes con¬
fessed to killing only 27 victims.

Harvey Murray Glatman (The Lonely Hearts Killer)

Harvey Murray Glatman was known as the Lonely Hearts Killer. He com¬
mitted his crimes in the late 1950s. He moved to California when he was 30
years old and opened up a TV repair business. Glatman would entice women
who were interested in modeling and becoming famous. He would tell the
young vulnerable girls that they would be featured on a detective magazine
cover. Glatman convinced them to be tied up or pose for him in different
bondage positions and poses. He would sexually molest them and take pic¬
tures of them, before he strangled them. Glatman would dump his murdered
victims in the desert or a remote location. This was his signature as a killer.
Harvey Murray Glatman was born in the Bronx in New York in 1927. His
family moved to Colorado when he was teen. As a child Glatman displayed
sadomasochistic behavior. He had an affection for ropes and bondage. He
admitted to hanging himself and masturbating at the same time. Glatman,
as a teen, would break into womens apartments and tie them up, and take
pictures of them after he had sexually molested them.
Glatman was eventually caught for murdering three women. Most experts
speculate that he killed many more women that were never accounted for. He
received the death sentence and died in the gas chamber at 32 years old.

Jeffery Dahmer (The Milwaukee Monster)

Jeffrey Dahmer, a cannibalistic serial killer and sex offender, was responsible
for a series of gruesome murders. The first murder was in 1978, with most of
the murders occurring from 1987 to 1991 in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, area.
Dahmer murdered 17 boys and men; his killing of them included sodomy,
dismemberment, and cannibalism.
Jeffery Dahmer was born in May 1960. He grew up in Wisconsin until
the age of 6, when his family moved to Bath, Ohio. Accounts differ as to when
Dahmer’s demeanor began to change. Dahmer spent most of his time alone
and did not have many friends. His early child and teenage behavior should
have been a warning sign of the times to come. Dahmer’s outlandish behav¬
ior included looking for dead animals, and torturing or killing animals in
order to dissect and dismember them.
200 Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers

Dahmer began drinking at a young age and would be considered an alco¬

holic. By the end of high school, Dahmer’s family problems began to esca¬
late as his parents divorced before he turned 18 years old. He lived with his
father after the divorce and enrolled at Ohio State University. Alcoholism
again plagued his life, as he missed most of his classes and soon dropped
out. Lionel Dahmer, Jeffs father, was troubled by his son’s drinking. He told
his son to either get a job or enlist in the army. After 2 years in the military,
Dahmer was discharged for his excessive drinking and belligerent behavior.
It was after his discharge from the army that Jeffery’s homosexual ten¬
dencies began to surface and he killed his first victim, a hitchhiker with
whom he drank and had sex. He cut up the hitchhiker’s body and buried him
in various graves on his father’s property. Annoyed by his son’s behavior,
Lionel sent his son to live with his grandmother in West Allis, Wisconsin. It
did not take long for Dahmer to get arrested twice for indecent exposure. His
interest in young men continued, and he was caught by police masturbating
in front of two young boys. Dahmer’s grandmother had difficulty accepting
her grandson’s behavior and soon asked him to leave.
Dahmer would pick up his victims in gay bars. Once he enticed them
into his apartment, he would drug his victims and handcuff them with the
intent to either torture them or have sex with them, or both. Dahmer would
often strangle his victims, masturbate over their dead bodies, and dismantle
and retain certain body parts. Dahmer would dismember and cannibalize
his many victims. He was caught after one of his victims escaped from his
apartment with one hand in handcuffs. After investigating the allegations,
police arrested Dahmer after finding incriminating evidence of several sev¬
ered skulls and various body parts in his apartment, along with many pic¬
tures of mangled and severed bodies.
Dahmer was originally charged with 17 murders, but was indicted for
killing only 15 young men. He pled guilty by reason of insanity. The court
found that Dahmer was not insane at the time of his murders and charged
him accordingly. He was sentenced to life in prison, a total of 957 years. In
1994, Dahmer was beaten to death by a fellow prison inmate. He died in the
ambulance on the way to the hospital.

John Wayne Gacy

John Wayne Gacy, a sadistic child molester, was born in Chicago in March
1942. He had what seemed like an uneventful childhood, and as a young
teen worked in a grocery store or delivering newspapers to earn extra money.
Gacy’s father, who was an alcoholic, was verbally and physically abusive to his
wife and John. At the age of 11, Gacy was struck in the head with a swing. Five
years after the accident a blood clot was discovered in Gacy’s brain, causing
Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers 201

him discomfort, pain, headaches, and blackouts. Gacy’s health problems con¬
tinued to plague him throughout his teenage years, and at 17 he was diagnosed
with heart-related problems as well. He was known to frequently complain
about the pain, but doctors were unsure of the causes. In the years to come
Gacy’s weight fluctuated and his medical problems continued to be a problem.
Not being able to succeed in high school, Gacy began working for a shoe
company. Friends encouraged him to enroll in a business course, where he
learned the art of selling. Gacy’s initiative and eagerness to do well and suc¬
ceed helped him get into the management program. Gacy became involved in
the local Jaycees (the U.S. Junior Chamber that gives young people between
the ages of 18 and 41 the tools they need to build bridges of success for them¬
selves through volunteering, fund-raising, and helping others in the commu¬
nity). It did not take long for this organization to name him “man of the year.”
Gacy met a young lady named Marilyn Myers at the shoe company and
dated her for a short time before they were married. Gacy’s father-in-law
owned a few Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises in Waterloo, Iowa. He saw
the potential of his new son-in-law and offered Gacy and his daughter the
opportunity to manage a new location. Gacy was excited about the oppor¬
tunity to make money and be his own boss. John and Marilyn were living
comfortably and started a family and were soon raising a son and daughter.
The happy life that Gacy knew would slowly deteriorate. Gacy began
associating with young boys who worked for them. Rumors in the small town
began to escalate about his extracurricular activities. Gacy lured a young
male employee named Mark Miller back to his home for oral sex, and then
attempted to sodomize the young man when his requests were denied. Mark
Miller reported the incident to police, who soon arrested Gacy and charged
him with sexual molestation. Gacy’s excuse was that Mark wanted to have
sex willingly for the extra money. Once released, Gacy hired another boy
to attack the young Mark Miller to prevent him from testifying. The attack
was unsuccessful and Gacy was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Marilyn had
enough of his improprieties and soon divorced Gacy, who was released after
only serving 18 months of his sentence. Gacy underwent a psychiatric evalu¬
ation during his incarceration and was diagnosed with antisocial personality
and behavior.
Disgraced, alone, and without work, Gacy moved back to Chicago. He
lived with his mother for a short time and found a job working as a chef.
With the help of his mother he bought a house on the north side of Chicago
located at 8213 W. Summerdale. It was not long before Gacy began to regress
to his previous ways. He was charged with disorderly conduct for forcing a
young boy to perform a sex act with him at a bus station. The charges against
Gacy were dropped after the teenage boy never appeared in court.
Gacy met a young woman named Carole Hoff, who was recently divorced
with two daughters. She knew of Gacy’s past and accepted him with the hope
202 Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers

that he would change. It did not take long for Gacy to revert to young boys.
Carole suspected something was wrong when John began to act differently. He
became an insomniac, rarely sleeping at night. His mood swings were constant
and his temper was explosive. John and Carole’s passion for each other waned
and their sex life became nonexistent. Their marriage soon ended after Carole
discovered magazines of young, naked boys hidden in a drawer. He admitted
to Carole that he preferred men rather than women.
After his divorce Gacy started a construction company named PDM
(Painting, Decorating and Maintenance). This presented an opportunity for
Gacy to hire teenage boys “to keep his costs low,” he would say. Gacy was
duplicitous in his obsession and desire for young boys as perspective victims.
Gacy remained active in the community even after his second divorce and
volunteered his services to help the Democratic Political Organization.
It did not take long for Gacy to convince a new employee named Tony
Antonucci to come to his house. Gacy joked about handcuffing him as he
made sexual advances toward the young boy. Tony fought off the bigger Gacy
and was able to get away, never mentioning the incident to anyone. Gacy
continued his quest to lure young men to his house by posting “help wanted”
signs for his construction business. Once a young boy was in his home, he
would overpower him, knock him unconscious, and begin to sadistically
torture, rape, and murder him. A teenager named Robert Priest answered
Gacy’s ad. His mom went to pick him up at the local drugstore where he
worked, but Robert never returned from meeting Gacy. Mrs. Priest notified
the Des Plaines, Illinois, police department.
A Des Plaines police officer went to Gacy’s house on Summerdale Avenue
to investigate the disappearance of Robert Priest. He noticed an unusual
smell in Gacy’s house when questioning him. After checking Gacy’s back¬
ground and finding he had a previous history and criminal record regard¬
ing sexual transgressions with boys, the police began to take a closer look
at Gacy as the prime suspect in the disappearance of Robert Priest. The Des
Plaines Police Department obtained a search warrant for Gacy’s home. Once
inside Gacy’s house, they soon discovered the multiple dead bodies of young
male victims. The police eventually found and linked Gacy to 29 murders of
young men, ranging in age of 9 years old to their mid-twenties.
Gacy eventually admitted to the killings after he was arrested and charged
with the murders. Gacy’s defense team contended that he was insane. Their
expert psychologists found that Gacy was borderline schizophrenic and suf¬
fered from a personality disorder, including antisocial behavior. In 1980, it
took a jury 2 hours to find Gacy guilty of murder. Gacy received the death
penalty and was sent to Menard Correctional Center to serve his time and
await execution. John Wayne Gacy spent 14 years on death row before he was
put to death by lethal injection on May 10, 1994. Gacy’s last words before he
died were: “Kiss my ass, you can go to hell.”
Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers 203

Juan Corona (The Machete Murderer)

fuan Corona was a serial killer known for his planned killing of 25 male victims
whom he sodomized before using a machete across the back of their skulls. His
bloodbath killing spree lasted 6 weeks before he was caught. He was a well-
organized, bisexual, lust killer. The male victims ranged from 40 to 68 years old.
fuan Corona was born in Mexico in 1934. He moved to California and
worked as a migrant worker picking fruits and vegetables as a young teen.
When he wasn’t working, he would often be seen reading the Bible. Corona
was married twice, marrying his first wife when he was 19 years old. Corona
often complained that his mind was not right and that he had mental issues.
He was admitted to a mental hospital when he was 23 years old. He was
diagnosed with a schizophrenic personality, associated with paranoid ten¬
dencies. Psychiatrists at the hospital administered over 20 shock treatments
to Corona over a short period of time. Friends and family members admitted
that these treatments had an adverse affect on him.
Even with his mental instability, Corona still worked on farms picking
crops. He was elevated to the position of foreman because of his reliability.
He married his second wife in 1960 and eventually had four daughters. At
36, Corona continued to experience mental issues and was again admitted to
a mental hospital.
Corona, a bisexual, was in an ideal position to select his victims. Almost all
of his victims were migratory workers, alcoholics, transient drifters who rarely
had family and would most likely not be missed. After a fresh grave was dis¬
covered, a farm owner called police. The police, upon their investigation, found
that a few of the murdered men were buried with information tied to Corona,
and that he was the murderer. Corona was careless after killing his victims. He
was seen with many of his victims before they disappeared. Police found blood¬
stained clothes, machetes and knives, and ledgers with the names of victims.
Corona was arrested, charged, and given 25 life sentences. In prison he
had health problems. Corona suffered two heart attacks and was beaten and
cut in prison, where he lost an eye in a tense prison altercation. At this writ¬
ing he is incarcerated in Corcoran State Prison with no chance of parole.
Corona thought his lawyers were incompetent; he felt that his pleas should
have been not guilty by reason of insanity. A second trial confirmed the orig¬
inal verdict of guilty.

Richard Speck

Richard Speck is considered a spree killer. He was arrested for killing eight stu¬
dent nurses in Chicago on July 13, 1966. Richard Speck was also a small-time
204 Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers

thief, burglar, drug addict, and alcoholic. That night in July, his first inten¬
tion may have been to rob the female nurses that he encountered as he cut the
screen door entering their apartment. He told them that that no one would get
hurt and that all he wanted was their money. Speck had them all gather in one
room where he threatened them with a gun and a knife. The notion of robbery
vanished as the thought of murder began to cultivate in Speck’s mind. He tied
each girl up one at a time with bed sheets in the room. He then murdered them
one by one. He also killed two nurses who arrived home later. One young nurse
was also raped before she was killed. Corazon Amurao was able to hide under¬
neath a bed, where she waited hours before escaping out of a window to safety
and to seek help. The brutal murders of eight student nurses, who were stabbed
and strangled, stunned the city.
Richard Speck was born in Kirkwood, Illinois, on December 6, 1941.
Speck never knew his biological father because he died when Speck was just 6
years old. His stepfather was an alcoholic with a violent temper and was often
physically and verbally abusive to young Richard.
Ms. Amurao was able to describe the offender as a tall, blond man with a
southern drawl. It did not take long before police found who they were look¬
ing for. Richard Speck was their prime suspect, as police exposed his picture
to newspapers and television stations in the hope of arresting him. Speck
attempted to commit suicide and wound up in the emergency room, where
a young physician recognized him from the pictures in the newspaper. Ms.
Amurao was able to positively identify Speck as the killer of her colleagues.
Speck was found guilty and was sentenced to death. His sentence was eventu¬
ally commuted to 50-100 years after the Supreme Court ruled against capital
punishment and the death penalty. Speck died in prison of a heart attack at
49 years old. He never showed any remorse for his killing spree. Speck had a
tattoo on his arm that exemplified his life: “Born to raise hell.”

Robert Berdella

Robert Berdella was a sadistic serial killer who would often sexually exploit
his male victims before killing them. It was not uncommon for Berdella to
dismember his victims and discard them in the garbage. Berdella would
focus on male prostitutes and drug addicts as his potential victims. He would
entice them with drugs to get them back to his house. After drugging the
young men, he would tie them up, torture them, and then sodomize them
before ultimately killing them.
Robert Berdella was born in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, in January 1949. He
was the older of two boys, and his father would discipline him by beating
him with a strap. Berdella had a difficult time in school; he was continuously
teased because of his thick bottle-like glasses, and he spoke with a lisp. When
Appendix: Profiles of Notorious Serial Killers 205

Berdella was 16 years old he claimed that he was raped by a coworker at his
part-time job. It was after this incident that Berdella began to show early
signs of sadistic behavior by torturing and drugging animals, to see their
adverse behavior and the effects drugs had on them.
Berdella, an admitted homosexual who often lived alone, would some¬
times take in a roommate. He moved to Kansas City, Missouri, where he
worked as a cook and eventually opened up an antique and satanic cult¬
like shop. Berdella began his illustrious serial killing at 35. He would keep
his victims’ wallets and identification after killing them. Berdella’s killing
scheme was exposed after a captive male prostitute freed himself and sought
help from police, who discovered the grim and incriminating evidence of
sodomy, barbarous torture, and restraining devices used in sadomasochistic
slavery. Police found over 350 pictures and a detailed log of Berdella’s victims
who had been drugged, tortured, or sodomized. A few were also believed to
have been victims of homicide.
After Berdella’s arrest, he admitted in graphic detail to the sadistic crimes
and murders he had committed. He admitted to injecting bleach and caustic
substances into his victim’s eyes and throat. Berdella would anally rape his
victims with different objects and leave the foreign object in them. He had
torture devices, occult literature, and ritual objects that he confessed to pos¬
sessing. Berdella was sentenced to life in prison, where he died of an apparent
heart attack at age 43. Berdella admitted to being impressed by the movie
The Collector, a movie about a woman who was held captive by a man who
kidnapped her.

Reference
Ev/ing, C. (2008). Insanity: Murder, madness, and the law. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
*
Index

A Brussel, James A., 4, 5, 6, 8

Bullies, characteristics of, 62-63
Abductive reasoning, 45-46
Bullying, 58, 60, 62. See also Cyberbullying
Abuse, cycle of, 90-91
Bundy, Ted, 119
Addiction, sexual, 95-97
Burgess, Ernest, 30
Agnew, Robert, 31
Burgess, Robert, 32
Akers, Ronald, 32
Butcher of Plainfield. See Gein, Ed
Allport, Gordon, 28
Ambiguity, 41
American Psychoanalytic Association, 25 c
Angels of death, 127-128
Cattell, Raymond, 28
Angels of mercy, 126, 127
Centennial Olympic Park Bombing, 137
Animal cruelty, 107-108. See also
Chain of custody, 145-146
MacDonald triad
Chicago School of Ecology, 30
Antisocial personality disorder (ASP), 116
Child abuse, 52. See also Child sexual abuse
Arambula, Saul, 81-83
defining, 86
Arson. See Fire setting
prevalence, 86
At-risk populations, 57
Atavism, 23-24 Child pornography, 89
Atlanta child murders, 8-9 Child Savers Movement, 52-53
Child sexual abuse, 86-89
Circumstantial evidence, 70
B City line stalker, 147-148
Bandura, Albert, 27 Classical conditioning, 26
Bayesian method of estimation, 160-161 Classicalism, 17, 18-20
Beccaria, Cesare, 2, 18-19 Cognitive psychology, 27
Behavioral evidence analysis, 187-188 Computer Statistics (COMPSTAT) system,
Behavioral Science Unit, FBI, 8, 9-10, 11 163- 164
Behaviorism, 25-26 Concentric zone theory, 29-30, 30-31
Belief-desire-intention (BDI), 70 Conduct disorder, 116
Bentham, Jeremy, 19 Corder, Patricia, 128-129
Berdella, Robert, 204-205 Corll, Dean, 194-195
Berkowitz, David, 109, 118, 193-194 Corona, Juan, 203
Biological school, 54, 55-56 Corpus delecti, 69
Black Death, 17 Crime Early Warning System (CEWS),
Black widow killers, 119 164- 165
Blue CRUSH, 165 Crime patterns, 157
Bond, Thomas, 8 Crime scene analysis (CSA), 149-151
Boston Strangler, 191-193 Crime scene technicians, 148
Branch Davidians, 103 Crime scenes
Bratton, Benjamin, 171, 172 assessment of scene, 143
Broken windows theory, 169-172 characteristics, 81

207
208 Index

custody, chain of, 145-146 Distance decay theory, 159-160

data collection, 143-145 DNA evidence, 144
description, 141-142 DNA profiling, 151-152
preliminary investigators, 142-143 sexual assault, from, 74
processing, 147-148 Douglas, John, 8, 9, 10, 11
Criminal geographic targeting (CGT), Durkheim, Emile, 31
162-163 Dysregulation, emotional, 94
Criminal investigative analysis, 151-152,
187 ' E
Criminal profiling (CP)
definition of, 2 Ego, 25
FBI definition of, 2 Emotional dysregulation, 94
history of, 1-2, 7-8 Enlightenment Age, 2,17-18, 38
process of, 2-3 Environmental criminology, 169
psychiatry, contributions to CP, 3, 4 Epicurus, 14, 15
traditional, 14 Euthanasia, 126
Criminal typologies Exchange principle, 146
criminal event typologies, 76 Extroversion, 28
offender typologies, 76-77 Eysenck, Hans, 28, 29
overview, 75-76
Criminalists, 149
F
Criminological theory. See also specific
theories Fallacies
biological theories, 22, 23-24 ambiguity of, 41
overview, 22 formal, 41-42
psychological theories, 24-29 informal, 39-40
sociological theories, 29-33 overview, 39-40
Criminology Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
applied, 8 Behavioral Science Unit. See Behavioral
definition, 7 Science Unit, FBI
focus, areas of, 7 criminal profiling (CP), definition of, 2
CSI effect, 145 profilers, noted, 8-9. See also specific
Cyberbullying, 58, 60-62. See also Bullying profilers
Cybercrimes, sexual, against children, Federal Emergency Management
92-94 Association (FEMA), 109
Cycle of violence hypothesis, 56-57,122 Filicide, 128, 131-132
Fire setting. See also MacDonald triad
arson, 110-111
D
environmental indicators, 113-115
Dahmer, Jeffrey, 199-200 firefighter arson, 134-136
Deductive analysis, 15 individual indicators of/risk levels, 109,
Deductive reasoning, 45 110-113
Depue, Roger, 8, 12 violent crime, relationship to, 108-109
DeSalvo, Albert, 191-193 Forensics
Determinism, 21-22, 53 definition, 6
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental history of, 6
Disorders (DSM), 116 overview, 6
Differential association, 32 Freud, Sigmund, 25, 29
Differential reinforcement theory, 32
Discipline, child, 50-51
G
Disorganized offenders. See Organized
versus disorganized offenders Gacy, John Wayne, 200-202
Index 209

Gaskin, Donald, 195-196 K

Gein, Ed, 103,196-197
Kaczynski, Theodore, 106
Genetics, role in criminal behavior, 23
Kelling, George, 169-170
Geographic information system (GIS), 163
Kelly, Alice, 6
Geographic profiling
Kemper, Edmund, 68
body placement, 158-159
Kirk, Paul, 6, 7
crime patterns, 157
Koresh, David, 103
overview, 155-157
usefulness, 158
L
value of, 184-186
Gilbert, Shannon, 104 Latimer, Tracy, 128, 129
Gilgo Beach murders, 104 Leakage, concept of, 12
Giuliani, Rudy, 171-172 Lifestyle theory, 179
Glatman, Harvey Murray, 199 Locard exchange principle, 146
Green River Killer, 99, 197 Locke, John, 17
Logic
abduction, 43
H
abductive reasoning, 45-46
Hazelwood, Roy, 8, 9, 11 argument, 38-39
Hedonism, rational, 15 assertions, 39
consistency, 40
Hero complex killers
deductive reasoning, 45
firefighter arson, 134-136
definition, 38
law enforcement crimes, 136-137
ex ante, 43
medical murder, 126-128
ex post, 43
military personnel, 137 implementation of, 42
overview, 125-126 inductive reasoning, 43, 44
primary care providers, 128-132 inference, 39
Holmes, H. H„ 103, 198-199 premise, 39
House of Refuge, 51-52 Lombroso, Cesar, 23-24
Hughes, Donna Rice, 92 Lonely Hearts Killer, 199
Hundred Years War, 17 Love stalkers, 99

I M

Id, 25 MacDonald triad, 54, 55

Inconsistency, 40 animal cruelty, 107-108
Inductive reasoning, 15, 43, 44 enuresis, 106-107
fire setting. See Fire setting
Inference to the best explanation (IBE),
Machete Murderer, 203
70-72
Mad bomber case, 4-6, 6
Intent, 75
Manson, Charles, 103
Introversion, 28
Mass murder, 102-103
Investigative psychology, 186
Matza, David, 32
Mayhew-Moreau distinction, 78
J McKay, Harry, 30
Mendelsohn, Benjamin, 176
Jack the Ripper, 8 Mental illness
Jewell, Richard, 137 diagnosing, 3
Jones, Genene Anne, 127 violence, link between, 3
Justice, natural, 15 Merton, Robert K, 31
210 Index

Metesky, George, 4, 5, 6 Pee Wee, 195-196

Methodology for Evaluating Geographic Peeping tom, 97
Profiling Software (MAPS), Peer relationships and crime, 23, 57-58. See
165-166 also Bullying
Middle Ages, 16-17 SQcialization, role of, 80
Modus operandi, 157 Personal decision, 20
Molestation, child, 88 Personality trait theory, 27-29
Morgan III, Arthur E„ 131-132 Perversion, sexual, 92
Motives Petitio principii, 40
belief-desire-intention (BDI), 70 Plato, 3, 101
determination, 73-74 Pornography, child. See Child pornography
environmental reconstruction, 72-73 Positivism, 21, 54
individual reconstruction, 73 Predictive policing, 161-162
inference to the best explanation (IBE), Principal Doctrines, 15, 16
70-72 Profiling, criminal. See Criminal profiling
overview, 69-70 (CP)
serial killers, of, 119-120 ProtectKids.com, 92
Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSP), Psychoanalysis, 25
129-130 Psychoanalytic theory, 29
Psychopaths, 29, 116, 117
Punishment, 19, 20, 46-47
N
deterrence, as, 53
Narcissism, 91
National Center for the Analysis of Violent
R
Crime (NCAVC), 10-11, 12, 135
National Crime Victimization Survey Rapists, typology of, 11
(NCVS), 79, 178 Rational choice theory, 20-21, 166-167
National Institute of Justice, 3 Rational hedonism, 15
Neoclassicalism, 20-21 Reasoning, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45
Neuroticism, 28 Reciprocal benefit, 15
Neutralization, 32-33 Refuse, House of, 51-52
Non sequitur, 40-41 Renaissance, 17
Ressler, Robert, 8, 10, 11
Ridgway, Gary Leon, 99, 118, 197
o Routine activities theory (RAT), 20,
Offender typologies, 77-78 167-168, 179-182
Olympic Park Bombing, 137
Operant conditioning, 26
s
Organized versus disorganized offenders,
81, 187 Serial killers
causality, 120-121, 122
criminal histories, prior, 115-116
P
demographic profile, 105, 106
Paraphilia, 91-92 hedonists, 118-119
Parens patriae, 52 lust killers, 118, 119
Parent-killers. See also Hero complex killers missionary killers, 118
gender differences, 132 motivations, 119-120
maternal characteristics, 132-133 overview, 101
paternal characteristics, 133-134 power control killers, 119
Park, Robert, 30 profiles of, 10
Pavlov, Ivan, 26 psychiatric histories, prior, 116-118
Pedophiles, 91, 92 public fascination with, 101
Index 211

thrill killers, 118-119 u

visionaries, 118
Serial murder, 105 Uniform Crime Report (UCR), 79, 178
Sexual abuse, child. See Child sexual abuse Utilitarianism, 17
Sexual addiction, 95-97
Sexual cybercrimes against children, 92-94
V
Sexual Impulse Disorder, 92
Sexual perversion, 92 Victimologists, 6
Sexual violence, 90, 97 Victimology
Shakespeare, William, 3 challenges, 176-177
Shaw, Clifford, 30 history of, 176
Silence of the Lambs, 9
interviewing victims, 180-182
Skinner, B.F., 26
patterns, 178
Smith, Susan, 131
profiling of victims, 178
Social class and criminality, 79-80
trends, 178
Social contract, 17-18, 19
Victims, crime. See also Victimology
Social disorganization theory, 168
Social order, 19 challenges faces by, 176
Social process theories, 31-32 needs of, 177
Sociopathy, 54, 116 study of, 175-176
Son of Sam, 109, 193-194 Violence
Speck, Richard, 203-204 cycle of, hypothesis, 56-57
Spouse revenge filicide, 131-132 mental illness, link between, 3
Spree killing, 103 predicting, 54, 55, 56
Stalking, 98, 99 risk factors for, 3, 4
Strain theory, 31 sexual. See Sexual violence
Superego, 25
Virginia, University of, 3
Sutherland, Edwin, 32
Von Hentig, Hans, 176
Sykes, Gresham, 32
Voyeurism, 97
System typologies, 76

T W

Tarde, Gabriel, 27 White supremacists, 8-9

Tardieu, Ambrose, 52 Wilson, James Q„ 169
Temperament, 28 Wolfgang, Marvin, 14
Teten, Howard, 8
Transparency of law, 18
Triggers, 74-75
z
Twin studies of crime, 23 Zimbardo, Phillip, 170
 - • mm ■ !

'

■
 MARYGROVE COLLEGE LIBRARY
1 1 |
'3 Jj
1 ]D2CH4flcl 1

DATE DUE

PRINTED IN U.S.A.

-V

.4
rv'Hh
i-
FORENSICS & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Police and Profiling in the United States

Applying Theory to Criminal Investigations

Traditionally, criminal profiling texts have focused exclusively on the

technicalities of conducting an investigation, but recent developments in
criminal justice have encouraged greater consideration of the related fields
of psychiatry, forensics, and sociology. Highlighting the current paradigm
shift in criminology toward a cross-disciplinary understanding of behavior.
Police and Profiling in the United States: Applying Theory to Criminal
Investigations provides investigators with the insight necessary to view
events, data, and evidence in the context of contemporary theory.

Topics include

• Classical and determinist views on criminal behavior and

social theories on crime

• Inductive and deductive logic and the dangers of fallacies in

logical reasoning

• Childhood deviant behaviors and research on the historical search

for an explanation of criminal behavior

• Developing typologies based on different criminal characteristics

• Sexually based offenses, serial and rage killings, and hero complex killers

• The critical role of crime scenes in investigations and the Locard

exchange principle

• The value of geographic profiling in solving crimes and modern

approaches such as COMPSTAT

• Balancing the role of victims in crime solving with concern for

their well-being

The book concludes with scintillating profiles of 13 of the most notorious serial
killers. Written in a practical and approachable manner, this book enables
investigators to combine theory, instinct, and hunches with contemporary
technology to construct a solid criminal profile.
Kmsn
ISBN: 37fl-l-4bbS-0435-b
10000
6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW
CRC Press Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487
Taylor & Francis Croup 711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017 1 7fll4bb
an informa business
2 Park Square, Milton Park
www.crcpress.com Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, UK www.crcpress.com