ABSTRACT
In this chapter, one of the most prominent approaches to constructing ‘offender profiles’ is reviewed and the social psychological reasons for its continued but, we argue, largely unwarranted popularity are explored. It is important to emphasise at the outset that this review considers the type of profiling that has been most prominent in the past decade and has attracted the most media attention. The profiling we review involves the extrapolation of lists of characteristics of offenders, based upon an evaluation of a ‘type’ of offender as derived from a profiler visiting a crime scene. Hereafter, we refer to this as the ‘traditionalist’ perspective. Other recent papers consider the many positive steps forward in behavioural investigative advice (Almond et al. 2007; Alison et al. 2004; Bennell and Canter 2002; Fritzon and Ridgway 2001; Hanfland et al. 1997) but we do not concentrate on this activity here. The interested reader will find that these and a number of other papers highlight different approaches to the provision of advice, recognising the need for systematic research, justification of the claims made and the requisite ethical standards. Indeed, ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) requirements in the UK (ACPO 2000) have resulted in significant restrictions on the way in which advice is provided to and employed by the police, thereby making traditional profiling methods more and more difficult to apply in
practice. Why then is it important to review a form of profiling that is probably in ‘recession’?
