This paper examines the role criminal profiling plays in the identification and apprehension of serial killers. Beginning with a definition of criminal profiling and its distinction from traditional investigative techniques, the paper traces the history of the practice from psychiatrist James Brussel's 1950s work through John Douglas's development of the FBI's modern profiling methodology. The paper evaluates professional and scientific opinion on profiling's validity, reviews empirical studies on its effectiveness, and analyzes notable cases where profiling both aided and hindered investigations. The paper concludes that criminal profiling, while not a standalone solution, serves as a valuable investigative tool when combined with standard police procedure.
The paper demonstrates qualified argumentation: rather than making an absolute claim, it carefully defines the conditions under which criminal profiling is useful ("when used as a tool in a criminal investigation, rather than a sole means of criminal investigation"). This nuanced thesis construction is characteristic of strong undergraduate research writing and allows the author to engage critically with opposing viewpoints without abandoning the central claim.
The paper opens with a contextualizing introduction that challenges popular media portrayals, then moves into a definitional section before building historical and biographical context. A section on professional and scientific skepticism precedes an evidence-based evaluation of profiling's effectiveness, including both success stories and notable failures. The conclusion synthesizes these threads into a measured, conditional endorsement of profiling as one component of a broader investigative toolkit.
Popular media loves to emphasize the role of the criminal profiler in apprehending serial killers. It has been a central theme in books, television shows, and movies for the past two decades, and the concept of the feisty criminal profiler interviewing wily and brilliant convicted serial killers in an effort to gain insight into active serial killers has become so iconic that, while it was once cutting edge, it is almost a cliché at this point. However, many people would suggest that this image is a highly romanticized one and that serial killers are not generally captured through criminal profiling, but through more traditional forms of crime scene investigation and routine police procedure. In fact, some critics of profiling would actually suggest that the process can be harmful because of the possible misidentification of suspects.
This paper investigates the actual role that criminal profiling plays in the apprehension of serial killers. Does criminal profiling lead to a meaningful reduction in the list of potential suspects and therefore help investigators find the perpetrators of serial murder, or does profiling allow investigators to make educated guesses about the identity of serial perpetrators that, without the input derived from standard police procedure, would be essentially useless? The literature certainly suggests that criminal profiling for serial killers can aid in the apprehension of a suspect and help eliminate people from the suspect pool, but criminal profiling on its own cannot identify a single suspect. Instead, the optimal combination is criminal profiling and standard police procedure, which can identify a group of suspects and then narrow down a list of people for observation and further investigation. When used as a tool in a criminal investigation rather than as a sole means of investigation, criminal profiling does have a place in the modern investigation of serial criminals, particularly killers.
In order to understand whether criminal profiling is a valid investigative technique, it is critical to understand what criminal profiling is and what it is not. Criminal profiling is not the identification of a single suspect from a crime scene. Instead, a criminal profile refers to the creation of a psychological, behavioral, and demographic description of the type of person likely to have committed a certain crime. Theoretically, criminal profiling could be used to help identify suspects in a wide variety of crimes, but it is generally used for serial offenders who commit violent crimes. There are two practical reasons for this: isolated offenses generally do not present the danger to public safety that would justify the resources required for criminal profiling, and serial offenders commit multiple crimes, leading to multiple crime scenes, which assists in identifying the factors necessary for developing a profile.
"Criminal profiling is the process of using available information about a crime and crime scene to compose a psychological portrait of the unknown perpetrator of the crime" (Muller, 2000). A criminal profiler uses all available information to help determine characteristics of the perpetrator. "The information that the criminal profiler uses is often taken from the scene of the crime, and takes into account factors such as the state of the crime scene, what weapons (if any) were used in the crime, and what was done and said to the victim. Other information used in criminal profiling can include the geographic pattern of the crimes, how the offender got to and from the crime scene, and where the offender lives" (Muller, 2000). Combining all of these various factors allows profilers to help narrow down the pool of potential suspects.
Criminal profiling is a relatively new crime investigation technique. The first documented case of criminal profiling occurred in the 1950s. A bomber had targeted Manhattan with more than three dozen explosions, and the perpetrator had sent a barrage of angry letters to area newspapers, politicians, and Consolidated Edison, a local utility company. "In 1956, psychiatrist James A. Brussel — also a skilled handwriting analyst — was asked for an analysis to help catch the perpetrator" (Ramsland, 2012). The investigators involved gave Brussel access to all of the information they had on the crime.
Brussel developed a detailed profile of the perpetrator. He believed the perpetrator would be a former ConEd employee with a grudge: male, European, Roman Catholic, an immigrant in his 40s or 50s, living with an older female relative, and residing in an ethnic community close to the city (Ramsland, 2012). Brussel also predicted that the perpetrator would be quiet, polite, and helpful but prone to anger management problems, and that he would be miserly. Brussel famously predicted that the perpetrator would be wearing a double-breasted suit when apprehended. Though the suspect was actually in pajamas when arrested, he did change into a double-breasted suit (Ramsland, 2012). Brussel's profile was accurate in many ways, but it also contained inaccuracies. What made it useful in apprehending the perpetrator was Brussel's suggestion that investigators publish the profile to help flush out the suspect (Ramsland, 2012).
Criminal profiling is not the romantic process described in popular media. Criminal profilers are not psychics who are able to almost magically predict who is committing a crime. Instead, they are highly trained law enforcement professionals who use the details and evidence found at crime scenes to help identify certain demographic and behavioral features of the suspects who committed those crimes. That does not mean that criminal profiling cannot play an important role in the investigation and apprehension of serial killers. The evidence supports the conclusion that highly trained FBI profilers are better at identifying and recalling important elements of crime scenes that can provide clues about criminal characteristics. Furthermore, using these clues can help lead to the identification of suspects, and profiling may be responsible for suspect identification in close to 20% of solved serial murder cases.
You’re 34% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.