Assessment of The Procedure of Offender Identification and Its Applications

"Criminal Profiling is the process of inferring distinctive personality characteristics of individuals responsible for committing crimes" (Swanson, Chamelin & Territo, 2003). A process they claim has a history of fifty years can actually be dated back more than twice as long.

Introduction to Criminal Profiling

The first documented act of criminal profiling involves Dr. Thomas Bond, the surgeon who performed autopsies on the five women killed by Jack the Ripper. Bond said that one person alone who was physically strong, cool, and daring had committed all five. He thought the man would be quiet and inoffensive in appearance, middle-aged, and neatly attired, probably wearing a cloak to hide the bloody effects of his attacks out in the open. He would be a loner, without a real occupation, eccentric, and mentally unstable. He might even suffer from a condition called Satyriasis, a sexual deviancy. Very likely, those who knew him would be aware that he was not right in his mind (Ramsland, 2006). Sadly, Jack the Ripper was never brought to justice, and profiling shifted from the autopsy table to the couch, now in the hands of psychiatrists.

Historical Development of Profiling

Actual profiling took a backseat for the next fifty years as the science was studied. Doctors would interview killers to better understand the tendencies of these men, including the 1960-spree killer Charles Starkweather and the 1930 German serial killer Peter Kurten. The U.S. Office of Strategic Services even requested a profile of Adolf Hitler in 1942. Dr. Walter C. Langer found that Hitler was meticulous, conventional, and prudish about his body. He was robust and viewed himself as a standard-bearer and trendsetter. He had manic phases, yet took little exercise. He was in good health, so it was unlikely he would die from natural causes, but he was deteriorating mentally. He would not try to escape to some neutral country. Hitler always walked diagonally from one corner to another when crossing a room and whistled a marching tune. He feared syphilis, germs, and moonlight, and loved severed heads. He detested the learned and the privileged, but enjoyed classical music, vaudeville, and Richard Wagner's opera. He also liked circus acts that endangered people. He showed strong streaks of narcissism and sadism, and he tended to speak in long monologues rather than have conversations. He had difficulty establishing close relationships with anyone. Since he appeared to be delusional, it was possible that his psychological structures would collapse in the face of imminent defeat. The most likely scenario was that he would end his own life because he'd threatened it before, although he might get one of his henchmen to do it for him (Holmes, 1989).

The Landmark Case: The Mad Bomber

Of course, the landmark case involving criminal profiling came in the mid-1950s with New York's 'Mad Bomber.' George Metesky started his career on November 16, 1940, when he planted a pipe bomb in a toolbox set on the windowsill in the Consolidated Edison office. Following up a year later with another device in the gutter of another Con Edison building. He then took a four-year hiatus before which he stated, "I will make no more bomb units for the duration of the war - My patriotic feelings have made me decide this - Later I will bring the Con Edison to justice." He assumed his task again on March 29, 1950, at Grand Central Station and continued to pollute the city with 30 bombs over the next six years (Pagewise, 2000).

Traditional police methods were failing and the public was crying for a solution. The detectives decided to turn to criminal profiling, and specifically Dr. James Brussel. After reviewing the case and letters from the Mad Bomber, Dr. Brussel found that the Mad Bomber was a male, middle-aged, meticulous, largely self-educated, Slavic and Roman Catholic, with an Oedipal Complex, who lived in Connecticut. He would have worked for Consolidated Edison or one of its subsidiaries. Dr. Brussel insisted to the skeptical police that to draw out the Bomber, the case and the profile would have to be widely publicized. He also suggested they have Con Edison search its files of past employees ... "and when you catch him ... he'll be wearing a double-breasted suit. And it will be buttoned" (Pagewise, 2000).

It was this very profile pasted in every newspaper that eventually led to the capture of Metesky. Not by a neighbor as one would assume, rather, it was Metesky's response to the profile that led to his capture. During this time, the bomber stepped up his attacks and wrote more letters. He also called Dr. Brussel directly - a feat of cleverness in and of itself since the doctor's number was unlisted. Dr. Brussel felt it was only a matter of time before the bomber's arrogance got the better of him (Madden, 2006).

Meanwhile, Con Edison assigned several of its administrative staff members to go through its vast "troublesome" employee files searching for anyone who fit the profile. As a clerk named Alice Kelly shuffled through the stacks of files, she came upon a file for a George Metesky of Waterbury, Connecticut. He'd worked for United Electric & Power Company. He fit the profile, so Kelly took a closer look. Metesky had suffered an onsite accident at the plant where he worked. He blamed his subsequent tuberculosis on that accident - a claim that could not be proven. After his disability claim was denied, Metesky had written several angry letters to the company - one promising revenge for the firm's "dastardly deeds" (Madden, 2006).

In a response to an open letter in the Journal-American, the bomber gave the details of the accident that had injured him. In doing so, he made the kind of arrogant slip-up that Dr. Brussel had predicted he would. The bomber assumed the records of his accident and claims were long lost in the files of the utility giant he hated. He didn't know that Alice Kelly had found his file or that the police would soon discover the places and dates in the Metesky file matched the ones he'd given to the newspaper (Madden, 2006).

A few nights later, the neighbors were shocked when the police came and arrested Metesky. Dressed in his bathrobe, he pleasantly and politely confessed to being the bomber. He revealed that F.P. stood for "Fair Play." The police requested that Metesky change clothes before they arrested him. He obliged, and when they took him away he was wearing a double-breasted suit - buttoned (Madden, 2006).

The Evolution of Profiling

It would be decades before profiling would become a standard investigative tool. Profiling first made its way into the FBI with the arrival of Howard Teten, who joined the bureau in 1962 and developed the concept throughout the 1960s. While working an earlier job as a police officer in California, Teten had been promoted to crime scene specialist while he was taking some criminology classes. The classes had more of a psychological than sociological bent. Teten brought that same mindset to the bureau and developed a training course in applied criminology. He and his partner, Pat Mullany, taught the concept at so-called road schools, where FBI instructors go out in the field and teach local police, and at the FBI's National Academy, an intensive training program for law enforcement officials (Rothenberg, 2004).

Criticisms and Challenges

However, profiling has had its critics. Claims of using undertrained or inadequately trained profilers, promising too much and delivering too little, relying on inadequate or dated databases, overstating the meaning of physical evidence, and engaging in racial profiling (Swanson, Chamelin & Territo, 2003). Another troubling aspect of profiling is that it unavoidably leads to innocent people being suspected of crimes simply because they fit a description (Madden, 2006). These criticisms are to be expected, however, and used to learn from. By pointing out the shortcomings of a system, the system can be improved.

Conclusion: Modern-Day Profiling

Today's profilers, who are officially known as criminal investigative analysts, work out of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime in northern Virginia. Profilers are all FBI special agents, long on experience, with strong investigative skills. They number just over 30 and get more than 1,000 profiling requests from law enforcement agencies each year (Rothenberg, 2004). Profiling has evolved significantly over the years and continues to be a crucial tool in solving complex criminal cases.

References

Holmes, R. M. (1989). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool. Sage Publications.

Madden, R. (2006). The Mad Bomber of New York: The Extraordinary True Story of the Manhunt that Paralyzed a City. Berkley Books.

Pagewise, Inc. (2000). The Mad Bomber of New York City. Retrieved from http://www.pagewise.com

Ramsland, K. (2006). Inside the Minds of Serial Killers: Why They Kill. Praeger Publishers.

Rothenberg, J. (2004). The Birth of FBI Profiling. Retrieved from http://www.trutv.com

Swanson, C. R., Chamelin, N. C., & Territo, L. (2003). Criminal Investigation (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.