How Geographic Profiling can benefit Policing and what are its Limitations

This essay will explore the benefits and limitations of geographic profiling within police investigations. First, a brief overview of this investigative methodology with regards to its purpose, development and application will be provided. The aim of this paper is to analyse the advantages and possibilities that geographic profiling offers considering its restrictions and to carve out the ideal offense types, where geographic profiling can be applied most effectively. It will also elaborate on its limitations and common misconceptions, based on its requirements for further research and development.

What is Geographic Profiling?



Geographic profiling is an investigative technique that intends to determine the most likely area of residence of an offender, by analysing the geographical positions of a connected series of crimes (Snook, Taylor & Bennell, 2004).

The procedure assists police investigators to prioritize information by integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods and understanding spatial and behavioural patterns of an offender (Snook, Taylor & Bennell, 2004). Additionally, analysing the offender’s geographic movements and modus operandi provides other useful information, such as whether the crime was planned or unplanned, or the degree of knowledge about the crime location (Rossmo et al., 2005). Therefore, geographic profiling allows to draw a certain degree of assumptions on his or her personal life, based on the offender’s behaviour (Rossmo, Laverty & Moore, 2005).

Criminal offenders are more likely to commit a crime within their familiar environment (Snook, Taylor & Bennell, 2004; Kent, Leitner & Curtis, 2006). Thus, a distance-decay function can be drawn by which the offender is less likely to engage in a criminal activity, the further away his or her area of residence is (Kent, Leitner & Curtis, 2006). On the other hand, criminal offenders usually refrain from committing crimes too close to their own homes in order to not get identified by a person they might know (Butkovic et al., 2019). This phenomenon is referred to as „the buffer zone“ (Butkovic et al., 2019). While there have been numerous previous attempts with mixed results to analyse spatial patterns, the formalised principles of geographic profiling can be traced back to research findings conducted at the Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada in 1989 (Hicks & Sales, 2006). Since then it has spread to numerous other Canadian, U.S., European and British law enforcement organisations and research institutions (Hicks & Sales, 2006). While it was originally intended for mostly violent crime investigations, it is used increasingly for the investigation of different property crimes as well (Rossmo, 2012; Tonkin et al., 2010). While certain geographic profiling methodologies have been implemented within police investigations to a degree, the vast majority of investigators to not receive any assistance of a distinguished geographic profiler in the UK at present (Knabe-Nicol & Alison, 2024).

How Geographic Profiling Benefits Police Investigations

It is a common misconception that (geographic) profiling leads to the exact name and address of the offender. While there have been particular cases in the past where the application of geographic profiling tools lead to surprisingly precise results (Canter, 2005), it is merely a tool to prioritise probabilities that will instigate further narrowed investigational measures (Canter & Youngs, 2017). It may provide cues about the offender’s characteristics based on crime distances and crime types (Goodwill, van der Kemp & Winter, 2013; Laukkanen, 2007; Rossmo, 1999). Some research has found evidence for correlations between gender (Wiles & Costello, 2000), race (Canter & Gregory, 1994) intelligence (Pettiway, 1982). Other offender characteristics such as age or previous offenses have shown inconsistent findings (Dern et al., 2005; Goodwill et al. 2013). Another beneficial factor is that geographical profiling does not need to be highly precise in order to be of value, as some areas of interest contain a low density of possible suspects that fit the criteria (Canter & Youngs, 2017; Canter, 2004).

The newest profiling software systems, such as iOPS (Interactive Offender Profiling System) further amplify this phenomenon as they indicate an order of priority areas for further investigation, also referred to as „gravitational centres“, even with just few known crime locations (Canter & Youngs, 2017; Snook, Canter & Bennell, 2002; Snook, Taylor & Bennell, 2004). These software systems are becoming increasingly advanced, as some of them are able to include information from police records of suspects simultaneously, which allows to filter priorities more precisely and time-efficiently (Canter, Youngs & Newman, 2008; Canter & Youngs, 2017).

The likelihood of different areas being of significance leads to a number of priorities that can be further investigated in different ways. This might lead to the finding of a suspect or new evidence. The particular tactic is in relation to the type and approach of crime, but certain beneficial tactics can be deducted on which police investigators can draw on (Canter & Youngs, 2017; Snook, Taylor & Bennell, 2004).

One of these tactics can be increased surveillance in high priority areas, whether through surveillance cameras or increased patrols looking for possible offenders going to, committing or returning from a crime (Canter & Youngs, 2017, Rossmo, 1999).

Additionally, further information could be brought in by seeking out possible witnesses or informants in the area of focus, which is also referred to as „covert development“ (Canter & Youngs, 2017).

Geographic profiling techniques can be applied to identify other potentially similar offenses that might have been committed by the same offender and are ‘Taken into Consideration’ (TIC) (Canter & Youngs, 2017; Rossmo, Laverty & Moore, 2005). Therefore, serial crimes or unsolved crimes could be identified and linked based on their proximity to the offender’s residence or location of the initial offense (Taylor & Marsden, 2022). If geographical or other profiling analyses suggest hints of who is likely to be involved, possible suspects could be interviewed in terms of further investigations (Canter & Youngs, 2017).

Besides these investigative tactics, geographic profiling can also serve as an approach for crime prevention (Canter & Youngs, 2017; Rossmo, 2012). It highlights areas most at risk to be targets of crimes in the future, which could be drawn on for a variety of measures for crime reduction and disruption (Rossmo, 2012). This is referred to as „predictive crime mapping“ and it observes location and time of certain crimes and implements those into a statistical model (Fitterer, Nelson & Nathoo, 2015).

The results of geographic profiling investigations can also be presented in court, as the information either displays an offender´s lack of familiarity or a close association to the area of the crime, which could be used in favor or against the defendant (Canter & Youngs, 2017; Bosco, Zappalà & Santtila, 2010). Yet, it is important to note that the information gathered through geographic profiling can not be used as hard evidence and is usually testified through an expert’s opinion to get a bigger picture on the case (Bosco, Zappalà & Santtila, 2010).

Limitations of Geographic Profiling

While the understanding of geographic behavioural pattern and application of said knowledge within police investigations has come a long way, there is still a lack of understanding which will require more research and software improvement and innovation.

While the geographic mapping of crimes is becoming increasingly advanced, experts are worried that investigators will solely rely on geographic patterns rather than the possible underlying psychological or social processes (Canter & Youngs, 2017). The increased focus on the dots on a map draws the perception away from understanding the characteristics of the location and other possible factors that might have played a role during the location choice (Canter & Youngs, 2017). For example, if a target is particularly lucrative, the residential location of the offender is less significant during the decision-making process (Willmott, Hunt & Mojtahedi, 2021).

Additionally, geographic profiling may fail to distinguish between multiple offenders with similar offenses and approach within one area and is overall not much applicable yet for single, individual crimes (Petherick, 2003).

Current geographic profiling tools tend to view each crime location as a distinct variable, randomly distributed across a map, even though some offenders may commit multiple criminal acts in certain subsections of areas (Canter & Youngs, 2017). Certain other attributes of targets, accessibility or other circumstances might have to be taken into account (Canter & Youngs, 2017; Emeno et al., 2016).

Besides these factors, temporal aspects should be regarded too, wether it is by observing the time, day and length of an offense or the timing at which the offender has committed the crime during his criminal career (Canter & Youngs). Seasonal aspects, like daytime hours or climate, may be influential es well (Ceccato, 2005). When measuring distances between crimes and possible residential areas, the consideration of different travel modes, traffic patterns and road routes adds to the complexity of the matter, as software systems might not have access to these types of information yet (Canter & Youngs, 2017).

Most geographic profiling methodologies deal with the spatial activity of offenders as if they are lone, rational and objective individuals (Canter & Youngs, 2017). Subjective motivational factors within the offender, like an urgent need for drugs, are not taken into account (Laukkanen, 2007). The possibility of offenders operating in pairs or groups have not been subjected to research yet and are rarely considered (Canter & Youngs, 2017). It is still unknown how the relationship between offense location and group offenders is affected or how offenders within one social circle might operate together or influence each other in their geographical decision-making (Canter & Alison, 2003; Canter & Youngs, 2017).

Besides the locational, temporal, situational, social and motivational factors, other aspects like emotional characteristics should be distinguished as they constitute different types of crimes (Canter & Youngs, 2017). For example, property crimes usually have a high instrumental motivation compared to crimes against another person or animals. Property crimes seem to promise a high financial benefit, while crimes against another person or an animal are likely to be more personally motivated (Canter & Youngs, 2017). Additionally, young and inexperienced offenders tend to rely rather on familiarity within an area than experienced and skillful offenders (Goodwill et al., 2013).

Different behavioural patterns can be interpreted in different ways and so far, geographic profiling fails to considerate the broad and complex variety of all circumstantial indications available to criminals (Canter & Youngs, 2017).

Criminal careers and behaviour of offenders need to be viewed as dynamic, ever-changing processes subjected to life-changes, mental health and environmental circumstances (Canter & Youngs, 2017). Geographic profiling softwares have not been able to grasp these complex frameworks yet and fail to calculate them into their geographic maps (Canter & Youngs, 2017).

Also, the conclusions drawn trough geographic profiling are heavily influenced by the subjective interpretations of the practicing investigator(s) (Canter and Youngs, 2017; Gatto et al., 2010). The presence of past experiences, trauma and emotions may have a restrictive influence on the investigator´s personal and professional live (Huddleston, Paton & Stephens, 2006). Confirmation biases and prejudices can subconsciously distort the decision-making process and judgment (Canter and Youngs, 2017). Therefore, investigators must receive appropriate education or awareness training on how to recognise and avoid those bias.

With which types of crime can geographic profiling be applied most effectively?

Despite the fact that geographic profiling has been originally developed for the investigation of serial murder, it has been subsequently applied to a variety of other serial crime types like burglary, robbery, theft, arson, rape, kidnapping and (terroristic) bombings (Rossmo, 2012). Nevertheless, research findings imply that the accuracy of geographic profiling methods may vary depending on the crime type (Emeno et al., 2016).

A study conducted by Paulsen suggests that the crime type influences the accuracy of geographic profiling software systems (2006). Especially crime types like street robbery, auto theft and residential burglary seem to gather more accurate findings than other crime types like bank robberies or theft (Paulsen, 2006). Other research findings indicate that geographic profiling techniques have a higher probability of accuracy when applied to interpersonal crime types than property crimes (Canter & Larkin, 1993; Kocsis & Irwin, 1997; Santtila, Laukkanen & Zappalà, 2007).

Besides that, geographic profiling is only practicable when certain conditions are fulfilled (Rossmo 1999; 2005). The same offender must not commute to the location of criminal activity and or move the area of residence during the crime series and distributes targets similarly (Rossmo 1999; 2005).

Conclusion

In conclusion, a number of geographic profiling methodologies seem to find frequent and fairly successful application in a broad variety of crime cases, even when the conditions under which it should be practiced are violated. While not all factors influencing the offender’s geographical decision-making have been fully explored yet, computerised geographic profiling systems seem to achieve the most accurate results, especially in regard to geographical-mathematical aspects. Current findings suggest that despite flaws, geographic profiling knowledge is applied regularly within policing investigations but has not reached a distinguished status yet. This may be due to the further research that is still needed, especially in terms of temporal, situational, social, motivational and psychological characteristics of offending approaches. Another future challenge will be the implementation of this broad variety of influencing factors into software frameworks. The possibility of artificial intelligence (AI) contributing to this process might be an interesting outlook.

Canter and Youngs (2017) predict that behavioural profiling and geographical profiling will eventually merge into one discipline in the future, that fully integrates all aspects of human and environmental characteristics of crime.

Overall, geographic profiling can be a useful tool in order to prioritize information and drawing conclusions based on the geographical patterns of the offender. It allows to conclude valuable interpretations of the offender’s modus operandi and degree of planning and familiarity with the location of crime. Based on these conclusions, further investigative approaches can be deducted, which might lead to a possible suspect or more evidence.

It is crucial to keep the limitations of this investigative method in mind, when applying it. It fails to considerate a multitude of other influential factors, such as the accessibility of targets, traffic, daytime hours, time and length of the offense or unknown underlying psychological processes or motivators. Its applicability is also restricted to a single operating offender with multiple offenses and does not consider gangs and group dynamics. It does not initially lead to the offender and is still a flawed method that demands further research and development. It is most helpful when a certain variety of conditions are met, yet it remains challenging to determine if all of these conditions have been met.

Ultimately, it can be concluded that geographic profiling is an investigative tool with potential if applied with precautions. Further research would favor the progress of this investigational technique, in order for it to achieve a broader applicability.

References

Bosco, D., Zappalà, A., & Santtila, P. (2010). The admissibility of offender profiling in courtroom: A review of legal issues and court opinions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(3), 184-191.

Butkovic, A., Mrdovic, S., Uludag, S., & Tanovic, A. (2019). Geographic profiling for serial cybercrime investigation. Digital investigation, 28, 176-182.

Canter, D. (2004). Geographical profiling of criminals. Medico-legal Journal, 72, 53–66.

Canter, D. (2005). Confusing operational predicaments and cognitive explorations: comments on Rossmo and Snook et al. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 19(5), 663-668.

Canter, D. & Alison, L. J. (2003). Converting evidence into data: The use of law enforcement archives as unobtrusive measurement. The Qualitative Report, 8(2), 151-176.

Canter, D. & Gregory, A. (1994). Identifying the residential location of rapists. Journal of 
the Forensic Science Society, 34, 169-175.

Canter, D. & Larkin, P. (2008). The environmental range of serial rapists. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Canter, D., Youngs, D., & Newman, F. (2008). iOPS: an interactive offender profiling system. Crime Mapping Case Studies.

Canter, D., & Youngs, D. (2017). Geographical offender profiling: applications and opportunities. In Applications of geographical offender profiling (pp. 12-28). Routledge.

Ceccato, V. (2005) Homicide in Sao Paulo, Brazil: Assessing spatial-temporal and weather variations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 3, 307–321.

Dern, H., Frönd, R., Straub, U., Vick, J., & Witt, R. (2005). Geographical behaviour of stranger offenders in violent sexual crimes. Wiesbaden: BKA.
 

Emeno, K., Bennell, C., Snook, B., & Taylor, P. J. (2016). Geographic profiling survey: A preliminary examination of geographic profilers’ views and experiences. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 18(1), 3-12.

Fitterer, J., Nelson, T. A., & Nathoo, F. (2015). Predictive crime mapping. Police Practice and Research, 16(2), 121-135.

Gatto, J., Dambrun, M., Kerbrat, C., & De Oliveira, P. (2010). Prejudice in the police: On the processes underlying the effects of selection and group socialisation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 252-269.

Goodwill, A. M., van der Kemp, J. J., & Winter, J. M. (2013). Applied geographical profiling. Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice, 86-99.

Hicks, S. J., & Sales, B. D. (2006). Criminal profiling: Developing an effective science and practice. American Psychological Association.

Huddleston, L. M., Paton, D., & Stephens, C. (2006). Conceptualizing traumatic stress in police officers: Preemployment, critical incident, and organizational influences. Traumatology, 12(3), 170-177.

Kent, J., Leitner, M., & Curtis, A. (2006). Evaluating the usefulness of functional distance measures when calibrating journey-to-crime distance decay functions. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30(2), 181-200.

Knabe-Nicol, S., & Alison, L. (2024). Existing understanding of geographic profiling principles within UK policing. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), 2313275.

Kocsis, R. N., & Irwin, H. J. (1997). An analysis of spatial patterns in serial rape, arson, and burglary: the utility of the circle theory of environmental range for psychological profiling. Psychiatry, psychology and law, 4(2), 195-206.

Laukkanen, M. (2007). Geographic profiling: Using home to crime distances and crime features to predict offender home location. Turku, Finland: Åbo akademi University.

Paulsen, D. J. (2006). Connecting the dots: assessing the accuracy of geographic profiling software. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 29(2), 306-334.

Petherick, W. (2003). What's in a Name-Comparing Applied Profiling Methodologies. JL & Soc. Challenges, 5, 173.

Pettiway, L. E. (1982). Mobility of burglary offenders: Ghetto and non-ghetto spaces. Journal of Urban Affairs Quarterly, 18, 255-270.

Rossmo, D. K. (1999). Geographic profiling. CRC press.

Rossmo, D. K. (2005). Geographic heuristics or shortcuts to failure?: response to Snook et al. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 19(5), 651-654.

Rossmo, D. K. (2012). Recent developments in geographic profiling. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 6(2), 144-150.

Rossmo, D. K., Laverty, I., & Moore, B. (2005). Geographic profiling for serial crime investigation. In Geographic information systems and crime analysis (pp. 102-117). IGI Global.

Santtila, P., Laukkanen, M., & Zappalà, A. (2007). Crime behaviours and distance travelled in homicides and rapes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4(1), 1-15.

Snook, B., Canter, D., & Bennell, C. (2002). Predicting the home location of serial offenders: A preliminary comparison of the accuracy of human judges with a geographic profiling system. Behavioral sciences & the law, 20(1‐2), 109-118.

Snook, B., Taylor, P. J., & Bennell, C. (2004). Geographic profiling: The fast, frugal, and accurate way. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 18(1), 105-121.

Taylor, M., & Marsden, A. (2022). Integration of geographic profiling with forensic intelligence to target serial crime. In The Crime Analyst's Companion (pp. 141-161). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Tonkin, M., Woodhams, J., Bond, J. W., & Loe, T. (2010). A theoretical and practical test of geographical profiling with serial vehicle theft in a UK context. Behavioral sciences & the law, 28(3), 442-460.

Wiles, P., & Costello, A. (2000). The 'road to nowhere': The evidence for travelling criminals. (No. 207). London: Home Office.

Willmott, D., Hunt, D., & Mojtahedi, D. (2021). Criminal geography and geographical profiling within police investigations–a brief introduction. Internet Journal of Criminology.