Psychological criminal profiling.

[paulpablo]

I'm a big fan of serial killer documentaries and this is obviously pretty common because there's so many serial killer documentaries out there to supply the demand people have for them.

I have to say, just as a casual observation that I've never seen any of these criminal profilers who "get inside the mind of the killer" say anything that wasn't already very very obvious. 

I'd love to put it down to me being naturally gifted with psychological profiling but I think it's more likely that these profilers ARE saying things that are very very obvious and their job is kind of pointless to an extent.

You can watch a show about a serial killer who's had their mother killed and raped in front of them by their cross dressing alcoholic father, the show will tell you this happened then in the next shot they get a profiler who's probably paid thousands to repeat the facts you already heard. They had their mother killed and raped in front of them by a cross dressing alcoholic father, this may have contributed to their mindset later in life.

I'm starting this thread because I was just watching something about the Columbine killers and they've brought out the woman who is the leading criminal profiler who "gets inside the minds of killers".

The first thing she said is "I think there was a turning point, I don't think he was always a violent child." and "I don't think he just snapped, I think there was something leading up to this."

So straight away you know they're getting their moneys worth for what they paid this woman to go on the show.  No average Joe could have come up with those observations.

Other gems of wisdom from her are that you can't carry out a mass shooting without guns, and teens having too much privacy may be a problem or something along those lines.

That's the mini rant over with anyway, feel free to post opinions.

[Edwardo Piet]

You can only get inside the mind of a killer once you have evidence they've actually killed anybody

[brewer]

You should become a psych religious terrorist profiler.

"I think there was a turning point, I don't think he was always a violent religious child." and "I don't think he just snapped, I think there was something leading up to this."

[ignoramus]

You should become a psych religious terrorist profiler.

"I think there was a turning point, I don't think he was always a violent religious child." and "I don't think he just snapped, I think there was something leading up to this."

Bloody good idea MH!

"I think there was a turning point (when he read the Qu'ran and his mind turned to mush), I don't think he was always a violent religious child." (No, not until he was old enough to understand what the qu'ran was teaching him) "I don't think he just snapped, (of course not silly, it takes lots of planning to run over as many innocent people as possible). I think there was something leading up to this." (Yes, there was. He was a product of his parents ignorant upbringing forcing their own indoctrinated ideologies and teaching him to not think for himself!)


Recommend to lock him up for life and whip his parents.

[Foxaèr]

I'm a big fan of serial killer documentaries

Immediately, I thought of these two:

[Mister Agenda]

Psychological profiling is a useful tool, but no one can read minds. It's probabilistic, and shouldn't be considered evidence in itself, IMHO. Where it comes in handy is when you've got a crime and you're trying to narrow down the list of potential perpetrators, but it should be used to find evidence for a conviction. I don't think it should even be brought up in court except as part of an explanation of how the police came to look into that particular suspect.

[paulpablo]

Psychological profiling is a useful tool, but no one can read minds. It's probabilistic, and shouldn't be considered evidence in itself, IMHO. Where it comes in handy is when you've got a crime and you're trying to narrow down the list of potential perpetrators, but it should be used to find evidence for a conviction. I don't think it should even be brought up in court except as part of an explanation of how the police came to look into that particular suspect.

Do you think racial profiling could be a probabilistic useful tool?

This really isn't related to the rant but thought it would be interesting to ask.

[Mister Agenda]

The racial aspect of profiling has lots of problems, the type police are often accused of using isn't based on science, for one. If sufficiently developed, it could be of some use in a probabilistic sense, but even then there are issues with using probabilistic data. Female and African American serial killers are very rare, for instance, so they shouldn't be among the 'usual suspects' on a serial carrier case, but you could miss the rare exceptions if you only look for white males on a case like that.

[Shell B]

Sadly, I do think racial profiling can be helpful in some cases. I don't think we should do it because it's a damn ugly can of worms, but, as Agenda mentioned, most serial killers are white males. If there is a Munchausen or poisoning aspect to the crime, women are better suspects. That said, there was an Australian murderer who hacked up her victim and tried to feed him to his kids, which isn't a typical woman move, so there are no rules. Even having studied serial killers both as a hobby and as part of my job (I'm sometimes asked to do true crime stories), I can't think of a single black serial killer. I know they exist, but the closest I can come up with off the top of my head is the Latin American Monster of the Andes. I think there was speculation that the Servant Girl Annihilator was black, but that might have just been racism.

[Edwardo Piet]

Wikipedia has a large list of serial killers of all races and genders.