Insight Matters
Winter, 2003

The D.C. Snipers and the Perils of Profiling

James Knoll, M.D.
Director of Forensic Psychiatry
Dartmouth Medical School

It was after the snipers had taken their fourth victim when I received a call from a local news station. "Doctor, we would like you to come on the evening news and give us a 'profile' of the killer." Since beginning my career in forensic psychiatry, I have received many such calls from the media. Early on, I viewed such opportunities as a chance to teach. However, I quickly found that the media became disappointed when what I had to say was too academic, and did not provide them with the pure speculation needed to enhance the voyeuristic appeal of the case. Now, when contacted by news agencies requesting a profile, I routinely ask myself the following questions: "Am I qualified to speak about this type of case? Do I have enough information to form a relevant opinion? Will my opinion be harmful to the case?"1 Upon answering these questions, I decided to decline the invitation to "profile" the D.C. Sniper.

My own experience with profiling has taught me to be humble and acknowledge the limitations of the "art" of profiling. Having collaborated with law enforcement to profile dangerous offenders, I have learned that it is simply a tool for assisting a team of professionals. Further, the great majority of the time, it is not a very significant tool, as it is exceedingly rare for a psychological profile to "solve" the crime. In reality, crimes are most often solved by the hard work of experienced police detectives.

Whether profiling is a valid tool is still a subject of debate. To further complicate matters, there are a number of different "schools" or approaches to profiling, and none of them have any substantial empirical support.2 Psychological profiling was originally based on the premise that an offender's personality will be reflected in the behavior of his crime. The goal of profiling is to provide specific information about the unknown offender that will be helpful to a law enforcement team. The information may be used or rejected by the team as the case evolves. The profile may help law enforcement to narrow their focus by eliminating certain suspects.

Before an attempt at profiling can even be made, a profiler must have complete access to all of the crime scene and investigative information. Just as a physician would not offer a diagnosis without first conducting an examination, an experienced profiler would never put forth a profile "from afar," with data gathered from the media. The media will never have access to all of case information, and the information they do have may or may not be accurate.

Most authorities on profiling agree that it is not a suitable tool for all cases. Some crimes, such as sexual homicide, sadistic torture and pedophilia are more appropriate for profiling.3 This is why experienced profilers did not jump quickly to offer a profile of the D.C. Sniper. The crime scene behavior was unique, and like no other case seen before. As it turned out, the series of murders were an unusual combination of serial and spree killing, carried out by two individuals working together. As such, the shootings could not readily be compared to an existing database of similar offenses.

Another peril of profiling is that inaccurate profiles may have harmful results. If law enforcement is provided with inaccurate or misleading information, valuable time and effort may be wasted tracking down false leads. Worse yet, the misinformation could delay the investigation, providing offenders with additional time to commit more crimes or avoid apprehension. This could easily have become a factor in the D.C. Sniper case, as most early "profiles" suggested a lone white male. Statistically, this may have made sense. However, this type of inaccuracy runs the risk of excluding viable suspects. In contrast, profiling can be used in an unethical manner to wrongfully imply guilt during an investigation or court testimony.1

In summary, psychological profiling is more art than science at the present time. It is best used by those with sufficient training and experience. It's primary use is as an investigative tool for law enforcement, and profilers must avoid the lure of professional validation through media attention. A psychological profile cannot be performed without complete access to all of the case information. Specific crimes lend themselves to profiling, while others do not. Finally, profiling should be approached with caution, as inaccurate profiles may have harmful results.

References:

1 Turvey B: Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. San Diego, Academic Press, 1999.

2 Muller D: Criminal Profiling: Real Science or Just Wishful Thinking? In: Sex Crimes. Edited by Holmes R, Holmes S. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, Inc., 2002, pp 331-349

3 Holmes R, Holmes S: Profiling Violent Crimes: An investigative tool. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, Inc., 1996

Back to Newsletter