Understanding Criminal Behaviour: Beyond Red Dragon - University ...

The BSISSU, and the FBI’s entire approach to offender profiling developed primarily
from research conducted from the 1970s through to the early 1980s that saw FBI agents
interview and conduct detailed research on 36 imprisoned serial murderers (Ressler,
Burgess & Douglas, 1988) and build on that data through a mixture of personal
experience, intuition and educated guesswork.
The serial killer research represents the data pool from which the logical underpinnings
and statistical assumptions made about unidentified offenders (i.e. the unknown subject
of the profiles) were derived. All were male, and while 29 of the 36 were immediately
classified as serial killers, all of the offenders were suspected of having killed multiple
other victims. The nature of these offenders’ crimes was what allowed them to be typified
as a relatively homogenous group: often their murders involved elements of sexual
sadism, mutilation and often bizarre and/or ritualistic imagery or behaviour. The
relevance of these features, apart from suggesting broad psychological ‘problems’, was
unclear to investigating officers and the FBI’s unit was turned to in order to decipher
possible clues as to the ‘personality’ and ‘mental make-up’ of suspects in these types of
criminal cases.
In general, the FBI dichotomised the crime scenes of this group of offenders into two
broad categories – organised and disorganised (Ressler et al., 1988; Turvey, 1999).
Organised crime scenes reflected an overall level of control and planning, with offenders
bringing their own weapons with them and generally coming prepared. The organised
offenders carefully planned their offence, often using restraints in subduing the victim.
Again reflecting an overall level of organisation, the organised offender would take care
to transport the victim to a predetermined location both in the execution of the offence or
sometimes post-mortem to hide the location of the body. The victim of the organised
offender would be ‘personalised’, in that while the victim may have been a stranger, they
were seen to represent a vital element of the offender’s fantasy (Ressler et al., 1988).
Disorganised crime scenes on the other hand reflected polar opposites. The crimes often
appeared the result of unplanned, spontaneous ‘blitz’-style attacks, often subsequently
resulting in greater levels of exhibited violence reflecting an overall lack of planning and
forethought. The overall crime scenes were ‘chaotic’, with little effort made to conceal
either the victim, or materials used in the offence (e.g. weapons).
Both the organised and disorganised crimes were then correlated with characteristics of
the offender sample. Offenders with organised crime scene behaviour were found to
possess an average or above average intelligence level, were socially and sexually
competent, often living with a partner, were mobile (with a car), and often had a degree
of negative stress precipitating the crime itself (e.g. through personal turmoil at home, at
work, etc.). The organised offenders typically not only follow the reported progress of the
criminal investigation through the media, but would even change jobs or leave town as a
result.
Offenders who displayed disorganised crime scene behaviour, on the other hand, were
found to have below average intelligence levels, were socially, sexually and
6