Criminal profiling as expert evidence

Wayne Petherick, David Field, Andrew Lowe, Elizabeth Fry

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This chapter addresses criminal profiling as expert evidence. Some of the issues involving profiling as expert evidence are explored, including the induction-centric nature of the literature, the attitude of courts toward profiling evidence, and some common areas of profiling testimony. A detailed overview of the Frye and Daubert rules of evidence in the United States is provided, followed by a thorough examination of the rules of evidence in Australia. The greater weight of literature on expert evidence covers inductive profiling, and this suggests a lack of awareness that not all profiling methods are equal. The aim of the profiles is to present evidence that the character of the accused is remarkably consistent to the typical profile of certain abuser types. The presentation of this type of evidence is more akin to psychological testimony, and is not generally consistent with the overall goal of criminal profiling. The most beneficial evidence that profiling offers to criminal proceedings is the interpretation of the offender's state of mind before, during, and after the commission of a crime. It is found that in Australia, there are essentially five rules of expert evidence that dictate the recognition of expert witnesses and define the scope and limits of their testimony. The rules include the expertise rule, area of expertise rule, factual basis rule, common knowledge rule, and ultimate issue rule.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationSerial Crime
PublisherElsevier
Pages171-212
Number of pages42
Edition2nd
ISBN (Print)9780123749987
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Expert Testimony
Crime
Psychology
Weights and Measures

Cite this

Petherick, W., Field, D., Lowe, A., & Fry, E. (2009). Criminal profiling as expert evidence. In Serial Crime (2nd ed., pp. 171-212). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374998-7.00008-3
Petherick, Wayne ; Field, David ; Lowe, Andrew ; Fry, Elizabeth. / Criminal profiling as expert evidence. Serial Crime. 2nd. ed. Elsevier, 2009. pp. 171-212
@inbook{122e839062cb44e5a845d6b9bd8ac4cf,
title = "Criminal profiling as expert evidence",
abstract = "This chapter addresses criminal profiling as expert evidence. Some of the issues involving profiling as expert evidence are explored, including the induction-centric nature of the literature, the attitude of courts toward profiling evidence, and some common areas of profiling testimony. A detailed overview of the Frye and Daubert rules of evidence in the United States is provided, followed by a thorough examination of the rules of evidence in Australia. The greater weight of literature on expert evidence covers inductive profiling, and this suggests a lack of awareness that not all profiling methods are equal. The aim of the profiles is to present evidence that the character of the accused is remarkably consistent to the typical profile of certain abuser types. The presentation of this type of evidence is more akin to psychological testimony, and is not generally consistent with the overall goal of criminal profiling. The most beneficial evidence that profiling offers to criminal proceedings is the interpretation of the offender's state of mind before, during, and after the commission of a crime. It is found that in Australia, there are essentially five rules of expert evidence that dictate the recognition of expert witnesses and define the scope and limits of their testimony. The rules include the expertise rule, area of expertise rule, factual basis rule, common knowledge rule, and ultimate issue rule.",
author = "Wayne Petherick and David Field and Andrew Lowe and Elizabeth Fry",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1016/B978-0-12-374998-7.00008-3",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780123749987",
pages = "171--212",
booktitle = "Serial Crime",
publisher = "Elsevier",
address = "Netherlands",
edition = "2nd",

}

Petherick, W, Field, D, Lowe, A & Fry, E 2009, Criminal profiling as expert evidence. in Serial Crime. 2nd edn, Elsevier, pp. 171-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374998-7.00008-3

Criminal profiling as expert evidence. / Petherick, Wayne; Field, David; Lowe, Andrew; Fry, Elizabeth.

Serial Crime. 2nd. ed. Elsevier, 2009. p. 171-212.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Criminal profiling as expert evidence

AU - Petherick, Wayne

AU - Field, David

AU - Lowe, Andrew

AU - Fry, Elizabeth

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - This chapter addresses criminal profiling as expert evidence. Some of the issues involving profiling as expert evidence are explored, including the induction-centric nature of the literature, the attitude of courts toward profiling evidence, and some common areas of profiling testimony. A detailed overview of the Frye and Daubert rules of evidence in the United States is provided, followed by a thorough examination of the rules of evidence in Australia. The greater weight of literature on expert evidence covers inductive profiling, and this suggests a lack of awareness that not all profiling methods are equal. The aim of the profiles is to present evidence that the character of the accused is remarkably consistent to the typical profile of certain abuser types. The presentation of this type of evidence is more akin to psychological testimony, and is not generally consistent with the overall goal of criminal profiling. The most beneficial evidence that profiling offers to criminal proceedings is the interpretation of the offender's state of mind before, during, and after the commission of a crime. It is found that in Australia, there are essentially five rules of expert evidence that dictate the recognition of expert witnesses and define the scope and limits of their testimony. The rules include the expertise rule, area of expertise rule, factual basis rule, common knowledge rule, and ultimate issue rule.

AB - This chapter addresses criminal profiling as expert evidence. Some of the issues involving profiling as expert evidence are explored, including the induction-centric nature of the literature, the attitude of courts toward profiling evidence, and some common areas of profiling testimony. A detailed overview of the Frye and Daubert rules of evidence in the United States is provided, followed by a thorough examination of the rules of evidence in Australia. The greater weight of literature on expert evidence covers inductive profiling, and this suggests a lack of awareness that not all profiling methods are equal. The aim of the profiles is to present evidence that the character of the accused is remarkably consistent to the typical profile of certain abuser types. The presentation of this type of evidence is more akin to psychological testimony, and is not generally consistent with the overall goal of criminal profiling. The most beneficial evidence that profiling offers to criminal proceedings is the interpretation of the offender's state of mind before, during, and after the commission of a crime. It is found that in Australia, there are essentially five rules of expert evidence that dictate the recognition of expert witnesses and define the scope and limits of their testimony. The rules include the expertise rule, area of expertise rule, factual basis rule, common knowledge rule, and ultimate issue rule.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84882892332&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/B978-0-12-374998-7.00008-3

DO - 10.1016/B978-0-12-374998-7.00008-3

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780123749987

SP - 171

EP - 212

BT - Serial Crime

PB - Elsevier

ER -

Petherick W, Field D, Lowe A, Fry E. Criminal profiling as expert evidence. In Serial Crime. 2nd ed. Elsevier. 2009. p. 171-212 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374998-7.00008-3