Profiling is like that. It depends that types of people do certain things a certain way. Those who plan poorly, have limited intelligence and foresight, and low education will commit a murder in a different manner than someone who plans well, has high intellignce and foresight, and a better education.

This has nothing to do with class or race, each strata of society exhibits all traits that humans can posess. A collage professor can be sloppy and disorganized, and an electrician often is very detail oriented (hey, you better be around something that can kill you).

So what a profiler does is observe the scene, the evidence, and deduces the kind of person who may have committed the crime. The true credit as many profiliers have said goes to the police who actually break the case through hard work. Profiling is simply one tool among many.

What profiling is not is evidence against a person. Just because a certain person fits a profile does not mean he/she did the deed. This has never been so obvious as in the case of Richard Jewel and the 1996 Olympic bombing. While he needed to be investigated as anybody who was on the scene should be, there was no evidence for the allegations which the FBI leveled against him. Unfortunately he fit the profile of a misfit. Unmarried and in his 30's, overweight and in a somewhat menial job, he fitted a great profile for someone who would plant a bomb so he could be a hero. But the profilers forgot to look at the evidence and the big picture.

The Olympics are an international event, broadcast throughout the world. Terroristic attacks have happened before and will happen again. Literally every nut in the world who had something to demonstrate for a wide audience could come there for a price of a plane ticket. But the FBI and the newpeople ignored this because of the recent incidents of people who stage crimes and lie about them. Susan Smith comes to mind. I think this influenced the profilers on the case. They fixated on Richard Jewel because he fit a profile, not because the evidence showed that his type planted the bomb.

However this does not mean that profiling is useless as some claimed afterwards. Just that profiling has its limits like other investigative tools. Just because fingerprints cannot be lifted from all surfaces does not mean that they are useless as evidence. Profiling is most useful when circumstances remove the profiler from the crime. If they have no stake in the outcome of the case and no knowledge of suspects then they can retain the objectivity needed for such a subjective venture. The FBI were investigating the Atlanta bombing case and the profilers were too close to be objective.

That's the Achille's heel in profiling, and it's greatest strength, the need for objectivity. Profilers need to practice their art (yes, that's what it is) in an analytic way. Often they are confronted with the most bizarre and gruesome cases or ones where publicity bears down on them. They must detach themselves from the sheer horror of it but pay close attention to details, they must work within the limits of their art when the public expects miracles like in the movies.

In conclusion, criminal profiling has many things going for it. However it will never be a substitute for good police work.

If you liked this java, I found it at The Omega Factor