Profilers Do Not Evaluate Situational Factors
Another point of marked differentiation noted in Dern et al. (2009) are the descriptions suggested by some commentators concerning the procedures for formulating criminal profiles and those actually employed by law enforcement personnel when constructing criminal profiles.4 In this context, another tenet that seems to have emanated from homology research is a view that the “trait-based” approaches to criminal profiling do not consider the potential influence of situational factors on behaviors during the com- mission of a crime. In this regard, arguments appear to have been postulated to the effect that “trait-based” approaches to criminal profiling are reflective of out-dated models and understanding of personality theories and that, once again, the construc- tion of profiles conceived under this label is apparently a rudimentary and perfunctory process.
Dern et al. (2009) refute such propositions and as an example discuss the opera- tional practices of the German Federal Criminal Police Office in constructing criminal profiles. Although they offer some procedural information, what is also worth noting is the extant literature concerning this apparent omission of situational factors in the presumed processes of constructing criminal profiles under this “trait-based” label. It must be acknowledged that the issue of situational factors has certainly been high- lighted by research activities associated with homology and indeed appears to have become something of a cornerstone of some doctrines. However, simply because the relevance of situational factors are not at the forefront of other literature encapsulated under the imputed rubric of “trait-based,” profiling methods should not equate with there being some basis to infer that these concepts are totally alien and not considered in some capacity (Palermo, 2002).
While not adopting the same nomenclature, it seems that oblique references to situ- ational variables are arguably apparent in early material on criminal profiling and indeed often predates the promulgated literature on offender homology. For example, Hazelwood and Burgess (1995) discuss the elicitation of information from rape vic- tims via interview for the purpose of constructing criminal profiles. One key aspect of these interviews is the identification of information concerning the victim’s reactions during the assault and how, in turn, these reactions affect the offender’s behavior and thus offer some insight into profiling the offender. This particular examination of the victim’s reaction and its impact upon the offender’s behavior suggests consideration of
320 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 59(3)
a situational variable during the perpetration of a sexual assault that is relied upon in developing a criminal profile.
In addition, a number of authors have canvassed the issue commonly referred to as “staging,” whereby offenders deliberately alter facets of a crime scene so as to distort its appearance and thus deliberately attempt to misdirect investigation of the crime (e.g., Douglas & Munn, 1992). While not a purely incidental phenomenon, consider- ation of this staging behavior indicates that the interpretation of exhibited crime scenes for the purpose of constructing a criminal profile involves consideration of intermedi- ary factors beyond the initial apparent presentation and thus whether the offender engages in such behavior. This is arguably another situational factor that serves to illustrate that the process of constructing a criminal profile does not appear to be con- fined to simplistic and somewhat static cause and effect connections between behav- iors vis-a-vis characteristics, as the proposition stemming from homology appears to suggest.
Finally, in recognition of the overlap that can be observed in crimes, Ressler, Burgess, and Douglas’ (1988) original organized/disorganized dichotomy was expanded via the creation of the “mixed” category (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 2006). A vari- ety of reasons are noted for the development of the mixed classification including:
“The attack may begin as a well-ordered, planned assault, but it deteriorates as unanticipated events occur” (Douglas et al., 2006, p. 223).
The creation of an entire category partly due to the contingency of taking into account unanticipated events that can arise during the perpetration of a crime seems connota- tive of an awareness and consideration of situational factors (and thus context in which offences occur) that can potentially arise and impact upon exhibited behaviors in what is, apparently imputed to be a “trait-based” profiling method.