Crime 'crackers' no better than witch doctors, says psychologist

"Mystique": Robbie Coltrane in TV drama Cracker
12 April 2012

Real life "crackers" who attempt to penetrate the minds of serial killers were today accused of being "worthless" purveyors of bad science.

Criminal profilers, such as the Fitz character portrayed by Robbie Coltrane in the Cracker TV series, were said to be "dragging down" psychology and almost on a par with fortune tellers.

The assault came from consultant psychologist Dr Craig Jackson, co-author of a critique of the profession soon to be published in a legal journal.

He argues that criminal profiling may be surrounded by a media-driven mystique but is unscientific and potentially harmful.

"Behavioural profiling has never led to the direct apprehension of a serial killer or murderer, so it seems to have no real-world value," said Dr Jackson.

"There have been no clinical trials to show that behavioural profiling works and there have been major miscarriages of justice.

"It's given too much credibility as a scientific discipline and I think this is a serious issue."

Profiling involves building up a picture of an as-yet unidentified suspect from the offender's methods, choice of victim, and clues left at the crime scene.

Britain's best known criminal profiler is Paul Britton, who has been involved in cases such as the Fred and Rose West killings, and the murders of James Bulger, schoolgirl Naomi Smith and Rachel Nickell.

In 2002 Mr Britton was cleared of professional misconduct by the British Psychological Society after the collapse of the case against Nickell suspect Colin Stagg.

Dr Jackson will voice his criticisms this week at the British Festival of Science, which opened today at Aston University in Birmingham.

The technique of behavioural profiling was adopted by the FBI in 1972 and had been "going non-stop ever since", he said.

But although it had provided colourful material for newspapers, movies and TV programmes, Dr Jackson said there was no evidence that profiling did any good.

"As psychologists we have concerns that the science' of behavioural science is dragging us down," he said.

"This is an appeal to use better science in this field, otherwise it will go the same way as parapsychology and reading tea leaves or tarot cards."

He said that typically criminal profilers portrayed themselves more as witch doctors than scientists; people with unusual special gifts that were both a blessing and a burden.

"They bring themselves forward as if they are shamans cursed with the nightmares of dead people," said Dr Jackson. "It almost takes us back to primitivism. It isn't a good advert for science."

Behavioural profiling grew out of "spurious loose science" from the Fifties and Sixties, he said. It was based on "small data sets, limited numbers and a biased sample" - that is, interviews with killers in captivity.

"You can learn nothing from speaking to serial killers and basing your methodology on the answers they give."

He said profiling was "routinely used" in murder inquires in the UK. Practitioners had to be members of the British Psychological Society, have their names on a Home Office register and attend a Home Office-approved training course.

Dr Jackson called for the introduction of evidence-based science in the field, possibly by conducting "trials" involving sham murder cases of the kind used in police training.

"If you could bring me one serial killer apprehended as a result of a behavioural profile I would have some faith in it, but so far there has been no recorded case anywhere," he added.

Dr Carol Ireland, vice-chair of the British Psychological Society's division of forensic psychology, said: "What we need to be sure about is that whatever we do is based on sound science.

"Offender profiling does not account for a large proportion of our membership, and the people who do it are not necessarily very representative.

"What I would say is that we always try to make sure we engage in good scientific practice that is theory-driven. If it's not theory-driven, we need to question it.

"In all the work we do, there is the potential to cause damage if we don't follow appropriate practice. That's why the solid science is so important. Otherwise you can fall into the trap of plucking things out of the air."

She said forensic psychologists worked in a wide range of areas, including offender risk assessments and interventions, helping victims, and conducting research.

Criminal profilers were not necessarily forensic psychologists and may belong to other disciplines such as criminology, she pointed out.

She said the British Psychological Society's membership was broad-based and could include individuals who were not psychologists.

"The BPS doesn't regulate people," she added.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in