Conclusion: Disentangling Accuracy and Homology
This article should not be viewed as uncritically advocating the merits of criminal profiling or as a vehicle for devaluing research into offender homology. As outlined at the outset, its objective is to attempt a broader examination of the extant literature that
Kocsis and Palermo 325
may lead to some integration and explanation of the apparent disjunction between two seemingly contradictory bodies of research and their implications concerning the premises underpinning criminal profiling. This article endeavors to show that the functional realities of constructing criminal profiles are not as simplistic in conceptu- alization and process, as seems to be conveyed in some literature typically associated with studies investigating offender homology. In this context, it should be recognized that the label and notion of “trait-based” profiling appears to be an imprecise and thus unrepresentative characterization of profiling methodologies that has been conceived by some proponents of one school of thought to criminal profiling and imputed to describe the activities of others (Kocsis, 2006a, 2007b, 2010, 2013; Palermo & Kocsis, 2005).
It has been suggested that the apparent incompatibility between research into pro- filer accuracy and offender homology may be accounted for by an inapplicability of the homology research findings to the real world practice of profiling offenders of aberrant violent crimes. Presented with the issues canvassed in this manuscript, read- ers will need to make their own determination surrounding the diversity of human beings and generalizations that can validly be made from studies derived from poten- tially heterogeneous populations when treated collectively under a legal/criminologi- cal label and in turn analyzed as a test of their homology.
It should be borne in mind, however, that the basic premise of offender homology and its relevance to criminal profiling is, to some extent, not unreasonable. Consequently, if the contentions of this manuscript are accepted, then it is equally relevant to consider what meaningful implications arise from the homology studies that contribute to our understanding of criminal profiling when considered alongside the research into profiler accuracy. The difficulties in finding evidence of offender homology in the studies undertaken thus far appear to have been interpreted as a basis to argue that some approaches to criminal profiling are not viable. The confounding obstacle of this rationale, as previously explained, has been research into profiler accu- racy (Kocsis, 2013; Kocsis et al., 2008).
An alternative interpretation is hypothesized in this manuscript to the effect that the failure to find evidence of offender homology in the studies undertaken thus far may be an indication that the concept of offender homology may not be distinctly manifest in the diverse spectrum of crimes commonly perpetrated. This, in turn, may also sug- gest that the optimal application and utility of criminal profiling (as traditionally con- ceived) may, in fact, be quite limited and not as broad in application as perhaps popularly considered in more contemporary research literature and investigative prac- tices. This manuscript has endeavored to highlight that the difficulties in previous studies to find evidence of offender homology may be due to the inherent heterogene- ity of sampled human beings who are commonly classified under the same conceptual- ized but in reality differing label. Profiler accuracy research suggests that the technique of criminal profiling is, to some extent, viable. The pertinent issue therefore is to con- template in what context or circumstance human beings may exhibit some common degree of homology in their perpetration of crimes that might also account for the results concerning profiler accuracy. Although speculative, a tentative clue in
326 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 59(3)
answering this mystery may emanate from the original, albeit comparatively modest, applications of criminal profiling from the early publications of the FBI’s Behavioral Sciences Unit that described the intended parameters of the technique in the following terms:
It is most important that this investigative technique be confined chiefly to crimes against the person where the motive is lacking and where there is sufficient data to recognize the presence of psychopathology at the crime scene . . . This technique is usually confined to homicides, rapes etc., in which available evidence indicates possible mental deficiency or aberration on the part of the perpetrator. (Ault & Reese, 1980, p. 25)
This early description signposts the original scope of criminal profiling as appli- cable and focused upon crimes related to the presence of psychopathology within an offender which, in some capacity, motivates the exhibited behaviors. In this regard, perhaps serial sadistic sexual murderers, for example, who may exhibit some common constellation of sadism, fantasy mechanisms, compulsions, paraphilias, and/or other psychopathologies (e.g., Arrigo & Purcell, 2001; Bennett, 1993; Briken, Habermann, Berner, & Hill, 2005; Brittain, 1970; Gee & Belofastov, 2007; Hazelwood et al., 1992; Hickey, 2012; Hill, Habermann, Berner, & Briken, 2007; Langevin & Curnoe, 2013; MacCulloch, Snowden, Wood, & Mills, 1983; Martens & Palermo, 2005; McClellan, 2008; Myers, Recoppa, Burton, & McElroy, 1993; Palermo, 2002, 2004, 2008; Prentky et al., 1989; Schlesinger, 2004; Shipley & Arrigo, 2008; Warren, Hazelwood, & Dietz, 1996) may, in turn, demonstrate some degree of homogeneity. This is in contrast to the bulk of crimes typically observed in societies and criminological data that are not driven, and thus characterized, by some type of aberrant psychological/psychiatric mechanism (Kocsis, 2009). When extrapolated into a broader context, perhaps tenta- tive suggestions of homology in human beings are already available via the creation of the diagnostic nosologies found in the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) or the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioral Disorders (World Health Organization, 1992). In addition, socio-psychological factors and/or psychometric instruments (e.g., Hare, 1991; Scott & Resnick, 2009) variously conceived to serve as mechanisms for evaluat- ing recidivism, and in particular, sexual interpersonal violence may arguably also relate to presumed underlying conceptions of homology observable in the offenders of certain modes of crime.
The answers to these propositions will require further intensive research into the issue of offender homology involving highly focused clinically oriented psychologi- cal/psychiatric assessments of each sampled individual and their criminal activities before being grouped together and, in turn, collectively studied under a less sophisti- cated legal/criminological label. Returning to the wisdom of Aristotle, the answer to the underlying premises and applications of criminal profiling, as traditionally con- ceived, is unlikely to be sourced exclusively in the findings of the offender homology or profiler accuracy studies. However, from each of these bodies of research it is hoped that some combined greater understanding can be achieved toward disentangling criminal profiling.
Kocsis and Palermo 327
Dedication
This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of Leonard I. Morganbesser, PhD, a rare scholar who held a genuine care for the community, the principles of justice, integrity, and compassion for all. The world is diminished by his absence but nonetheless strengthened by the contribu- tions he has left behind for us to remember.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Professor Bruce Arrigo and Professor Louis Schlesinger for having read and commented on an earlier version of this article.