Book Review: Criminal Minds: The Science and Psychology of Profiling

• Published date: 01 June 2006
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016806291171
• Date: 01 June 2006
• Author: Catherine Boal
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Review

Volume 31 Number 2

June 2006 170-184

© 2006 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

http://cjr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

170

Book Reviews

Criminal Minds: The Science and Psychology of Profiling,

by David Owen. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2004. 192 pp.

DOI: 10.1177/0734016806291171

In the relatively brief period since the foundation of the first police forces and other

crime-fighting agencies, the application of science to the identification of individual crim-

inals has become a powerful and sophisticated weapon for the maintenance of law and

order.

Profiling has helped solve many crimes that otherwise might have been unsolved or

might have left potential victims vulnerable. The relationship between profilers and law

enforcement is symbiotic; profilers design or construct a probable profile, and law enforce-

ment uses the profile to identify and apprehend offenders.

Profilers are brought into cases to narrow the search for a specific criminal. The FBI pio-

neered profiling, lending to the establishment of the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI

Academy at Quantico, Virginia.

Profiling makes it possible for investigators to prioritize investigations, reducing wasted

time spent looking for the wrong person. Profiling is most effective in cases where police

have limited suspect information. It identifies the “changing patterns of violence.” Profiling

is both an art and a science, inductive and deductive. The Arthur Shawcross case study

shows how profiles can be misleading.

Profiles can be constructed by using techniques in the FBI’s Crime Scene Analysis,

which consists of six progressive steps or by using investigative psychology, which consists

of five steps matching databases of known criminal groups to criminal characteristics.

Examples include David Carpenter, the “trailside killer,” and John Duffy, the “railway

rapist.” In both cases, a profile was established, and as more information was added, their

identities became known.

Profilers perceive crime scenes differently than investigating officers. Once a detective

clears the scene, the profiler enters to look for the psychological structure of the offender:

How organized was the offender, did the victim and the offender know one another, was the

crime scene staged to disguise the offender’s motus operandi? The Sam Sheppard case is a

“classic ‘staged’ murder” resulting in Colin Pitchfork spending time in prison for a crime

he did not commit.

Offenders may be organized or disorganized. Jeffery Dahmer was considered a “careful

killer” because he was highly self-confident and planned every killing. He rehearsed every

detail of what he was going to say and in doing so performed mock kidnappings. Robert

Napper, the green chain rapist, is one example of a disorganized criminal, whereas Robert

Hansen, the ice-cold killer, is an example of an organized killer.

Criminals tend to operate close to home because they know the area well but not too

close for fear of being caught, recognized, or involved in house-to-house questioning.

Professor Canter distinguished the criminal who strikes out in various directions surround-

ing his base as a marauder and a criminal who travels as a commuter to reach his targets.

The victim’s routine activities also contribute to a profile, including education, lifestyle,

recreation, work, and location. Nathaniel Code is an example of a marauder, whereas Ted

Bundy is a prime example of a commuter killer.