The Theory Of Profiling: Organized Vs. Disorganized Offenders

II. The Process As stated previously, Douglas and Ressler interviewed serial murderers to develop theories and categories of different types of offenders. Most notably, though, is their idea of the organized versus disorganized offender that the main theory of profiling is based on. According to Douglas and Ressler, organized crimes are committed by those who show no remorse and have carefully planned their every move, which is why little evidence is found at the crime scene. In contrast, disorganized crimes are oftentimes committed by young offenders who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and/or are mentally ill; they are not planned, which is why these types of criminals leave evidence, such as fingerprints and blood at the crime …show more content…
The constant media hype surrounding profiling has led many academics to delve deeper into the topic. One argument that continuously comes up in their writing is: Why is there no empirical evidence supporting profiling? Brent Snook and his colleagues published a 2-part meta-analysis of the published profiling literature and their review thereof. Their results suggested that profiling literature rests largely on “commonsense justifications.” Both parts of the meta-analysis indicated that “self-labeled profile/experienced-investigator groups” did not beat comparison groups in calculating offenders’ cognitive processes, physical attributes, offense behaviors, or social habits and history. While they were marginally better at predicting overall offender characteristics, this is a sizable hole in the validity of profilers’ …show more content…
Profiles’ Negative Impact on Cases If profiling was an entirely successful tool in the investigative process, one could argue that the lack of research might not be as astronomical. However, the lack of research in conjunction with the numerous examples of cases in which profiling derailed investigations and led to “miscarriages of justice,” is extremely problematic. Investigators cannot in good conscience use profiling when it has little to no documented evidence in support of it when it also is the cause of injustice. In “Criminal Profiling and Criminal Investigation,” Devery outlined an example of such “miscarriage of justice” caused by profiling. In 1984, Guy Morin was wrongly convicted of the rape and murder of his nine-year-old next-door neighbor, Christine Jessop. With Morin as their top suspect, the lead investigators called in forensic reinforcement from the BSU. The profile that Douglas determined was critical in the making of the persistent “tunnel vision” of the lead detectives. Morin was convicted in 1992 heavily due to the FBI’s profile and was forced to serve prison time only to be acquitted in 1996 after Douglas’s profiled proved to be