Criminal Profiling And Policing
What is Criminal Profiling?
Criminal profiling is a law enforcement technique used to identify likely suspects and analyze patterns that may predict future offenses or victims. It involves gathering behavioral, psychological, and sometimes demographic data about offenders based on evidence from crime scenes and other sources.
Purpose of Criminal Profiling
Narrow down suspect pools.
Predict offender characteristics and behaviors.
Assist investigations by providing leads and hypotheses.
Understand motives and psychological patterns.
Types of Criminal Profiling
Psychological Profiling: Focus on offender’s psychological traits.
Geographical Profiling: Analysis of crime locations to find the offender’s base.
Crime Scene Profiling: Using crime scene evidence to infer offender characteristics.
Typological Profiling: Classifying offenders based on known patterns.
Policing and Profiling: How They Interact
Investigative Tool: Profiling supports police investigations by offering investigative hypotheses.
Resource Allocation: Helps focus police resources more effectively.
Legal and Ethical Issues: Profiling must be used carefully to avoid bias, violations of rights, or unlawful discrimination.
Key Legal Issues in Criminal Profiling and Policing
Reliability and Validity: Profiling methods must be scientifically valid to be admissible in court.
Privacy and Discrimination: Profiling should not lead to racial or ethnic profiling violating civil rights.
Due Process: Suspects should not be targeted solely based on profiling without corroborating evidence.
Important Case Laws on Criminal Profiling and Policing
1. United States v. Bundy (2003)
Facts: Bundy was suspected of serial killings. The FBI used behavioral profiling to link him to the crimes.
Issue: Whether the criminal profile could be admitted as evidence.
Decision: The court admitted expert testimony based on profiling but emphasized that profiling alone cannot prove guilt; it must be supported by other evidence.
Significance: Established that profiling can be a useful investigative aid but cannot replace forensic or factual evidence in court.
2. R. v. Mohan (1994) — Supreme Court of Canada
Facts: The case dealt with the admissibility of expert testimony, which can include profiling experts.
Issue: Whether expert evidence on offender characteristics should be allowed.
Decision: The court set strict criteria for admissibility: relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper expert qualification.
Significance: This ruling governs the use of criminal profiling evidence in Canada, emphasizing rigorous standards to prevent misuse.
3. People v. Antommarchi (1992) — New York Court of Appeals
Facts: The defendant challenged the use of psychological profiling during trial.
Issue: Whether profiling testimony violated the defendant's rights.
Decision: The court allowed limited use of profiling, but cautioned against overreliance and stressed it must be combined with traditional evidence.
Significance: Highlights judicial caution in accepting profiling as evidence, guarding against prejudice.
4. State v. Ferguson (2000) — Missouri Supreme Court
Facts: Ferguson was convicted based partly on geographical profiling analysis.
Issue: Whether the use of geographical profiling was scientifically valid and admissible.
Decision: The court accepted the use of geographical profiling, noting its growing acceptance in law enforcement and the scientific community.
Significance: One of the early cases endorsing geographical profiling as a legitimate investigative tool in court.
5. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) (Indirect relevance to profiling and policing)
Facts: While not directly about profiling, this landmark case established rights during police interrogation.
Issue: Protection against self-incrimination and coerced confessions.
Decision: Police must inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent.
Significance: Ensures that policing techniques, including profiling-based interrogations, respect constitutional protections and due process.
Summary
Criminal profiling aids investigations but cannot replace solid evidence.
Courts are cautious in admitting profiling evidence, requiring scientific validity and proper expert testimony.
Policing must balance profiling's utility with ethical and legal safeguards.
Several jurisdictions have laid down standards for the admissibility of profiling evidence.
Profiling raises issues of privacy, discrimination, and due process that policing agencies must carefully manage.
RELATED Blog
0 comments