VICAP thus allowed for a nationwide cross-checking of cases and matching of similar unsolved cases on the basis of MO and signature analysis. Refer back to our discussion in assessment for a more detailed analysis of the profiling principles involved in the linking of like cases. Thus, once implemented, VICAP represents a strategy to limit the linkage blindness which is common in the investigation of crimes involving serious, habitual offenders by allowing a local law enforcement agency to compare its cases with hundreds of others (Ibid.). Jeffers notes that by the end of 1989 VICAP contained data on approximately 3,700 cases from the United States, Canada, and several other cases. Recent efforts by Interpol have examined the possibilities of implementing similar international databases, particularly in the areas of organized crime and drug trafficking.
Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have followed the FBI's lead through the implementation of its own computerized database. Their first effort, the Major Case File (MCF) proved unsuccessful in linking crimes across the country. By 1990, MCF had approximately 800 cases entered into its database, but no "hits" had been made. The RCMP's second attempt came in the form of the Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System (VICLAS) which now details all aspects of an incident including MO, victim, forensics, and behavioral information. Like its predecessor in VICAP, even the tiniest details can easily be retrieved and sorted by the computer database, helping "an investigator [to] close gaps he or she might otherwise miss in the early stages of an investigation", in addition to linking the current case to other previous crimes (Leblanc, 1996).
However, computer databases of this nature are only as good as the information inputted into them, and both VICAP and VICLAS have faced the issue of getting local and state/provincial law enforcement agencies to report their unsolved cases to the federal agencies. One possible solution to this dillema is to mandate information-sharing of this sort as is the case with the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR). This issue became salient to Canadians with the investigation of Paul Bernado, and the subsequent realization that he was both Toronto's Scarborough Rapist and the St.Catherine's area's Schoolgirl Murderer (see 'Supercops' needed to catch the next Bernardo).
Several states have developed their own crime scene tracking systems, such as Washington State's Homicide Incident Tracking System (HITS). The HITS system contains information from six sources which is then stored into seven data files: murder, sexual assault, preliminary information, Department of Corrections, gang-related crimes, VICAP, and timeline (Keppel). These sources are then aggregated so that all data bases can be searched at the same time (Ibid).
A new development in criminal profiling has also resulted throught the implementation of computer databases. Vancouver Police Department's Kim Rossmo used aerial photographs, land use records, topographical information and other geographical data to profile the area where an offender likely lives (see Ramsay, 1997). Geographic profiling is based on the principle that offenders commit crimes in their 'comfort zone', which is usually near where they live. The Orion computer technology which provides investigators with this type of analysis is compatible with the RCMP's VICLAS system, allowing it to draw on its resources. (For a more in depth coverage of geographical mapping applications, see my colleague, Kathy Creek's policy analysis discussion). Other recent advances in investigation technology have included automated case management systems, such as the NTI Case Management System, which allows an entire investigation to be kept on a single laptop computer with searchable fields to speed analysis and reporting.
The importance of the implementation of these various computer databases extends far beyond ongoing criminal investigations. In addition to tracking offenders and linking crime scenes, they provide future researchers with extremely detailed datafiles containing victim, crime scene, and offender information. Thus, their importance in evaluating the validity of profiling principles such as the organized/disorganized typology and MO/signature distinction is unprecedented. As noted above, such evaluation issues will be covered in the next section.
The FBI has pioneered the advancement of violent crime investigation in many ways beyond its work in profiling and the implementation of VICAP and the NCAVC. It offers cooperative law enforcement services across the full spectrum of investigative activities which have helped to bridge the cross-jurisdictional territoriality which is known to plague law enforcement. Organizations such as the Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction also facilitate national cross-fertilization amongst homicide investigators.
The FBI's Behavioral Science Unit model is also being implemented locally by several states. The first such effort was implemented in 1987 by the Pennyslvania State Police. Utilizing an FBI fellowship grant, a Pennyslvania trooper was assigned to the FBI Academy to be trained in profiling and other crime analysis techniques. Upon returning to Pennsylvania, he and 25 officers (which has since been expanded) established the Criminal Investigative Assessment Unit (CIA) which plans case strategies and assists with major case analysis, behavior-based interviewing techniques, and search warrant preparation. Similarly, Detective Pay Pierce heads a profiling unit in the New York City Police Department (NYPD).
Specific to the empirical study of profiling, two institutes have been implemented in England which conduct profiling and related research. The Institute of Police and Criminological Studies at the University of Portsmouth has a staff of sociologists, criminologists, psychologists, and other social science who conduct research on various aspects of the criminal justice system, of which profiling is one example.
The most notable contributions to the empirical study of profiling have resulted from the establishment of the Center for Investigative Psychology at the University of Liverpool. The main objectives of this center are focused on areas that directly pertain to the development of the field of profiling, or investigative psychology as they have defined. For the distinctions between investigative psychology and the FBI's version of profiling, return to the discussion in the assessment. The following section will highlight one area of research being conducted at the Centre for Investigative Psychology which builds on profiling applications.
Go To:
Emergence of the ProblemAssessment of the ProblemDecision-makingEvaluationReferences