Forensic Psychology
Page 46
Honts, C. R., Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (1994). Mental and physical countermeasures reduce the accuracy of polygraph tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 252–259.
Honts, C. R., & Reavy, R. (2015). The comparison question polygraph test: A contrast of methods and scoring. Physiology & Behavior, 14, 315–26.
Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. T. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426–433.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers.
Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.
Kassin, S. M. (2004). True or false: “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”. In P. A. Granhag , & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 172–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police- induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38.
Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and the “detection of the truth”. In P. A. Granhag , & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 41–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langleben, D. D., & Moriarty, J. C. (2013). Using brain imaging for lie detection: Where science, law, and policy collide. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 222–234.
Leal, S., & Vrij, A. (2008). Blinking during and after lying. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32, 187–194.
Lykken, D. T. (1959). The GSR in the detection of guilt. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 385–388.
Lykken, D. T. (1960). The validity of the guilty knowledge technique: The effects of faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 258–262.
Lykken, D .T. (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: Plenum Press.
MacLaren, V. V. (2001). A quantitative review of the Guilty Knowledge Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 674–683.
Malle, B. F., Moses, L. J., & Baldwin, D. A. (2001). Intentions and intentionality. Foundations of social cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149.
Mann, S. A., Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Robinson, M. (2008). See no lies, hear no lies: Differences in discrimination accuracy and response bias when watching or listening to police suspect interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1062–1071.
Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the Reality Monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 99–122.
Meijer, E. H., & Verschuere, B. (2015). The polygraph: Current practice and new approaches. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij , & B. Verschuere , (Eds.), (Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 59–80). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Meyer, P. (2010). Liespotting. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Miller, G. R., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Deceptive communication. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Nahari, G., & Vrij, A. (2014). Can I borrow your alibi? The applicability of the verifiability approach to the case of an alibi witness. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3, 89–94.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2012). Does the truth come out in the writing? SCAN as a lie detection tool. Law & Human Behavior, 36, 68–76.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014a). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining unverifiable details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19, 227–239.
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014b). The verifiability approach: Countermeasures facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 122–128.
National Research Council. (2003). The polygraph and lie detection. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665–675.
O’Sullivan, M., Frank, M. G., Hurley, C. M., & Tiwana, J. (2009). Police lie detection accuracy: The effect of lie scenario. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 530–538.
Palmatier, J. J., & Rovner, L. (2015). Credibility assessment: Preliminary Process Theory, the polygraph process, and construct validity. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95, 3–13.
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296–1312.
Pollina, D. A., Dollins, A. B., Senter, S. M., Krapohl, D. J., & Ryan, A. H. (2004). Comparison of polygraph data obtained from individuals involved in mock crimes and actual criminal investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1099–1105.
Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., & Wallace, B. (2012). Secrets and lies: Involuntary leakage in deceptive facial expressions as a function of emotional intensity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 23–37.
Porter, S., Woodworth, M., & Birth, A. (2000). Truth, lies and videotape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643–658.
Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal clues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443–458.
Shearer, R. A. (1999). Statement analysis: Scan or scam? Skeptical Inquirer, 23, May/June Issue.
Shipp, T., & Izdebski, K. (1981). Current evidence for the existence of laryngeal macrotremor and microtremor. Journal of Forensic Science, 26, 501–505.
Smith, N. (2001). Reading between the lines: An evaluation of the scientific content analysis technique (SCAN). London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.
Spence, S. A., Hunter, M. D., Farrow, T. F. D., Greed, R. D., Leung, D. H., & Hughes, C. J. (2004). A cognitive neurobiological account of deception: Evidence from functional neuroimaging. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 359, 1755–1762.
Sporer, S. L. (2004). Reality monitoring and detection of deception. In P. A. Granhag , & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 64–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steller, M., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-Based Content Analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217–245). New York, NJ: Springer-Verlag.
Strömwall, L. A., Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In P. A. Granhag , & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 229–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sullivan, E. (2001). The concise book of lying. New York: Picador.
Trankell, A. (1963). Vittnespsykologins arbetsmetoder. Stockholm: Liber.
Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der Glaubhaftigkeit von Aussagen. In U. Undeitsch (Ed.), Handbuch der Psychologie Vol. 11: Forensische Psychologie (pp. 26–181). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Verschuere, B., & Meijer, E. H. (2014). What’s on your mind? Recent advances in memory detection using the Concealed Information Test. European Psychologist, 19, 162–171.
Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail to catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 159–181.
Vrij, A. (2005a). Criteria-based content analysis: The first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 11, 3–41.
Vrij, A. (2005b). Cooperation of liars and truth tellers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 39–50.
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester UK: Wiley.
Vrij, A. (2015a). Verbal lie detection tools: Statement validity ana
lysis, reality monitoring and scientific content analysis. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij , & B. Verschuere (Eds). Deception detection: New challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 3–35). Wiley Blackwell.
Vrij, A. (2015b). A cognitive approach to lie detection. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij , & B. Verschuere , (Eds.), (Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 205–229). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2017). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta-analysis. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 1–21.
Vrij, A., Fisher, R., Mann, S., & Leal, S. (2006). Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 141–142.
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 110–117.
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). Eliciting information and detecting lies in intelligence interviewing: An overview of recent research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 936–944.
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Hillman, J., et al. (2009). Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 159–166.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 253–265.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law & Human Behavior, 31, 499–518.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Leal, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2010). "Look into my eyes": Can an instruction to maintain eye contact facilitate lie detection? Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 327–348.
Vrij, A., & Semin, G. R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 65–80.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York: Academic Press.
10 Offender Profiling and Crime Linkage
JESSICA WOODHAMS AND MATTHEW TONKIN1
CHAPTER OUTLINE
10.1 INTRODUCTION
10.2 CRIME LINKAGE 10.2.1 Evidence-based Practice
10.2.2 Empirical Evidence
10.2.3 Limitations of the Research on Crime Linkage
10.2.4 Conclusions on Crime Linkage
10.3 OFFENDER PROFILING 10.3.1 Schools of Thought in Offender Profiling
10.3.2 The Assumptions of Offender Profiling
10.3.3 Evaluations of Offender Profiles
10.3.4 Evaluations of the Effectiveness of Offender Profiling
10.3.5 Current Provision of Behavioural Investigative Advice (BIA) in the UK
10.4 SUMMARY
LEARNING OUTCOMES
BY THE END OF THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
Understand the theories underpinning crime linkage and offender profiling
Appreciate the variation in methods that come under the umbrella term of offender profiling
Appreciate the limitations of the research into crime linkage and offender profiling.
10.1 INTRODUCTION
It is a truism in criminology that a minority of offenders commit the majority of crime (Bennett & Davis, 2004, Farrington & West, 1993; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). These so-called serial offenders are, therefore, a priority for law enforcement agencies around the world due to the considerable costs they impose on our society, both in human and financial terms. For example, a sample of just 2,093 serial offenders in London cost the taxpayer more than £163 million in a three-year period from 2012 to 2015 (Snelling, 2015). Another reason for focusing investigative efforts on serial offenders is that this offers a potentially cost-effective means of reducing crime because a large number of offences can be cleared up by apprehending just a few of the most prolific offenders in a local area (Karn, 2013). In times of austerity and police budget cuts, a move towards more cost-effective, intelligence-led policing would seem logical.
While physical trace evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints, is one of the most objective ways of identifying serial offenders, such trace evidence is not always left at a crime scene (Davies, 1991) and, even if it is, the time it takes to process such information and the associated financial burden can be significant (Santtila, Junkkila, & Sandnabba, 2005). This raises the following question: in the absence of physical trace evidence, what other evidence from the crime scene exists that could be used to assist in detecting the offender and determining the extent of his/her offending? Offender profiling and crime linkage, the subjects of this chapter, are two psychological procedures that have the potential to assist in this regard.
Before going further it is necessary to consider what we mean by “crime linkage” and “offender profiling”. Crime linkage is “a form of behavioural analysis used to identify crimes committed by the same offender, through their behavioural similarity” (Woodhams, Hollin, & Bull, 2007, p. 233) and sometimes their geographical or temporal proximity. It is also called case linkage, linkage analysis, and comparative case analysis.
Offender profiling is also known by many names, including psychological profiling, criminal profiling, behavioural investigative advice (BIA), investigative profiling, crime scene analysis and criminal investigative advice. Definitions of offender profiling also vary from the relatively narrow definition of deducing an offender’s characteristics from his/her crime scene behaviour (Ainsworth, 2000) to a much broader conception including estimating an offender’s future level of threat, providing the police with advice regarding how to interview a suspect, media advice, veracity assessment, search advice and crime linkage (Alison & Rainbow, 2011). For the sake of clarity, in this chapter the term “offender profiling” refers to the practice of inferring an offender’s characteristics from crime scene behaviour.
10.2 CRIME LINKAGE
Although rarely mentioned in popular dramatisations of forensic psychology, crime linkage is conducted in many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa and New Zealand. It is practiced by police employees, such as crime analysts, behavioural investigative advisors and police officers, as well as by consultants, such as academic psychologists. It aims to identify crimes that have been committed by the same offender, using similarity in offender crime scene behaviour as the basis for this decision. For this to work, offenders must behave in a relatively similar way each time they commit a crime of that type, which is referred to as the offender consistency hypothesis (Canter, 1995). However, it is important to note here that offenders do not have to commit their crimes in a perfectly consistent manner for their crimes to be linked using crime scene behaviour (Bennell, Jones, & Melnyk, 2009). In fact, as long as two crimes committed by the same offender are more consistent than two crimes committed by different offenders, there is support for the underlying assumptions of crime linkage. Thus, it is relative behavioural consistency rather than absolute behavioural consistency that is necessary for crime linkage to work.
As well as needing offenders to be relatively consistent in the way they commit their crimes, it is also necessary that offenders have a degree of distinctiveness in their offending behaviour. For example, if burglars committed their burglaries in exactly the same way, it would not be possible to tell one burglary series from another. This requirement of crime linkage is referred to as behavioural distinctiveness (Woodhams, Hollin et al., 2007) or discrimination (Bennell & Canter, 2002), which assumes that intra-individual behavioural variation will be less than inter-individual behavioural variation (Alison, Bennell, Mokros, & Ormerod, 2002).
Identifying crimes that have been committed by the same serial offender has several advantages, including the efficient deployment of limited police resources and the pooling of witness d
escriptions and physical evidence from different crime scenes (Grubin, Kelly, & Brunsdon, 2001). Some crime types, such as sex offences, are notoriously difficult to prosecute and victim credibility can be pivotal in the successful prosecution of a case (Ellison, 2005). With such cases, crime linkage can help to increase victim credibility because it allows an offender to be charged with multiple offences, thereby meaning there are several victims and each victim can gain credibility from the others (Davies, 1992). While typically used in an investigative context, crime linkage analysis has been presented in legal proceedings in the United States, Australia, the UK, South Africa and New Zealand (e.g. see Case Studies 10.1 and 10.2).
CASE STUDY 10.1 THE NEWCASTLE MURDER SERIES (LABUSCHAGNE, 2006)
From February 2004 to January 2005 in the town of Newcastle in the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa, two young heterosexual couples were attacked by a lone male offender in the same park whereby the female victims were raped and the male victims murdered. During the same time period, the bodies of two males were also recovered from the same area. There was no DNA evidence linking the four rapes and murders; however, the surviving rape victims from the first two crimes identified the accused during identity parades and the accused confessed his involvement in the murders to a witness, which led to the arrest of Themba Anton Sukude. Evidence of behavioural similarity was used to support charging the accused for the third and fourth murders. Some of the similar and dissimilar behaviours identified by Brigadier Labuschagne in his linkage analysis can be seen in Table 10.1. Labuschagne’s linkage analysis report was used as evidence during the trial and the accused was found guilty of all charges.