Where Law and Psychology Intersect Issues in Legal Psychology

Revised First Edition

Edited by Shari Schwartz Florida International University Bassim Hamadeh, CEO and Publisher Michael Simpson, Vice President of Acquisitions Jamie Giganti, Senior Managing Editor Jess Busch, Senior Graphic Designer Zina Craft, Senior Field Acquisitions Editor Monika Dziamka, Project Editor Brian Fahey, Licensing Specialist Mandy Licata, Interior Designer

Copyright © 2016 by Cognella, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written permission of Cognella, Inc.

First published in the United States of America in 2016 by Cognella, Inc.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 978-1-5165-0001-7 (pbk) / 978-1-5165-0002-4 (br) CONTENTS

About the Author vii Acknowledgments vii

SECTION I: CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION

Chapter One Offender Profiling 3 By Shari Schwartz

Chapter Two Issues in Eyewitness Identification 11 By Shari Schwartz and Rolando N. Carol

Chapter Three Investigative Interviewing of Cooperative Witnesses 21 By Rolando N. Carol

Chapter Four Police Interrogations and Eliciting Confessions 33 By Shari Schwartz

Chapter Five Deception: A Social Lubricant and a Selfish Act 43 By Aldert Vrij

SECTION II: IN THE COURTROOM Chapter Six The History and Scientific Value of Forensic Evidence 75

Historical Development of Forensic Scientific Evidence 75 By Donald E. Shelton The Past and Future of Forensic Science and the Courts 78 By Michael J. Saks

Setting Forensic Science on a New Path 91 Anonymous

Juror Expectations about Scientific Evidence 93 By Donald E. Shelton

Chapter Seven Psychology in the Courtroom 107 By Clive R. Hollin

Chapter Eight Jury Decision Making 137

The Modern American Jury: A One Hundred Year Journey 137 By Shari Seidman Diamond and Andrea Ryken

What’s Going on in There? Jury Deliberations and Trial Outcomes 148 By Sean G. Overland

SECTION III: SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS Chapter Nine The Impact of Sentencing Policies on Corrections 163 By Jeanne B. Stinchcomb

Chapter Ten The Death Penalty: A New Focus in the United States 185 By Edith Georgi and Lauren Doyle

Chapter Eleven Restorative Justice 203 By Tim E. Newburn SECTION IV: SPECIAL TOPICS IN PSYCHOLOGY AND THE LAW Chapter Twelve Missed Opportunities for Justice 237 By Dana Hirn Mueller and Nadja Schreiber Compo

Chapter Thirteen The Psychology of Terrorism 251 By Drew Leins

Chapter Fourteen Introduction to Human Trafficking: Definitions and Prevalence 267 By Mary C. Burke

Chapter Fifteen Graduate Study and Careers in Legal Psychology 281 By Shari Schwartz ABOUT THE EDITOR

Shari Schwartz received her B.S. in psychology from the University of Central Florida, and her M.S. and Ph.D. in Legal Psychology from Florida International University. She is a lecturer of legal and forensic psychology at Florida International University and Assistant Professor of Psychology and Applied Behavioral Science at Ashford University. In addition to her academic work, Dr. Schwartz maintains an active private practice, in which she has worked on more than 100 civil and criminal cases as a trial consultant, researcher, mitigation expert, and victim outreach expert. Although she consults on many types of cases, her expertise is in death penalty and other homicide cases. She is the proud recipient of the 2011 American Civil Liberties Union Greater Miami Chapter’s C. Clyde Atkins Civil Liberties Award, and the 2011 Florida Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys Miami Chapter’s Rodney Thaxton “Against All Odds” Award for her work on a particular death penalty case. Dr. Schwartz is a frequently invited lecturer at law schools and conferences in the United States and abroad on issues regarding capital mitigation, aggravating versus mitigating circumstances, victim outreach, eyewitness memory, jury instructions, and many other forensic psychology topics. She maintains an active forensic psychology research program and continues to publish her research in scholarly journals. Dr. Schwartz resides in Miami Beach, Florida, and spends most mornings running along the beach.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There were many extraordinary people who provided support during the writing and editing process of this book and I am extremely grateful to all of them. However, none of this would ever have happened without the amazing team at Cognella Academic Publishing, starting with Acquisitions Editor, Zina Craft, who reached out to me with this incredible opportunity, and Project Editor, Monika Dziamka, who guided me through the process with patience and eloquence. These women are two of the most knowledgeable and kind professionals I have ever worked with. I cannot thank them enough for such a wonderful experience. There are several contributing authors who graciously donated their writing talent and expertise to this project. Their willingness to share their knowledge has produced a book that provides a unique, thorough, and comprehensive introduction to contemporary issues in legal psychology. They are Rolando Carol, Drew Leins, Edith Georgi and Lauren Doyle, and Dana Hirn Mueller and Nadja Schreiber Compo. Other expert contributors that had previously authored work available for inclusion in this text are Aldert Vrij, Donald Shelton, Clive Hollin, Michael Saks, Shari Seidman Diamond and Andrea Ryken, Sean Overland, Jean Stinchcomb, Tim Newburn, and Mary Burke. All of these individuals are experts in their field making it an honor and privilege to include their work in this project. CHAPTER ONE Offender Profiling

By Shari Schwartz

he mention of the phrase “offender profiling,” or “criminal profiling,” as it is commonly referred to, often conjures images portrayed on popular television shows such as Criminal Minds. In the show, T the lead characters catch criminals by developing psychological profiles of them. The techniques and types of profiles that are developed and used in real life differ a bit from those illustrated on television crime dramas. For example, when you think of criminal profiling, you probably think of serial killers, because this type of crime is highly publicized and glamorized in American culture. However, it is important to note that in addition to psychological profiling, offender profiling takes on other forms in real criminal investigations, such as geographic profiling and racial profiling. In this chapter, all three major forms of offender profiling are discussed.

HISTORY OF CRIMINAL PROFILING

Offender profiling refers to analyzing the type and nature of a crime, the crime scene, and how the crime was committed for the purpose of identifying perpetrators of crime. In the 1800s, an Italian criminologist named Cesare Lombroso postulated that criminal behavior was genetic. Lombroso asserted that “born criminals” could be identified by physical characteristics, specifically what he classified as “abnormal” measurements of the cranium and other parts of the body. These physical characteristics included larger-than-normal ears, a sloping forehead, and longer-than-average arms, to name just a few. Lombroso thought that psychological traits of criminals could be identified, including vanity, impulsiveness, and an absence of remorse. As you might imagine, Lombroso’s use of cranial measurements and other physical features to infer a predilection toward criminality was never validated scientifically. In fact, some scientists have classified Lombroso’s assertions as “scientific racism” (Gould, 1981). Lombroso and others of his time were thought to be brilliant scientists but, in retrospect, were clearly influenced by the racial, class, and social biases of their era.

3 4 | WHERE LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY INTERSECT: ISSUES IN LAW PSYCHOLOGY

NOTABLE PROFILE: JACK THE RIPPER

Perhaps physical characteristics were not very predictive of helping police catch criminals, but the idea that criminals possessed certain personality characteristics that could help link them to a specific crime gained popularity in the 1800s. When a serial killer terrorized prostitutes of England in the 1880s, police investigators turned to a prominent surgeon, Dr. Thomas Bond, to develop a profile of the killer based on the mutilation of the victims. Specifically, the police wanted to know whether the killer had the surgical skill of a doctor or whether that could be ruled out. Dr. Bond, based on the sexual nature of the crimes, determined that Jack the Ripper was likely a middle-aged White man, eccentric, a loner, quiet and unassuming, and a misogynist. Although Dr. Bond’s classification of the killer may sound fascinating, a careful analysis of the profile reveals that none of the adjectives used is particularly descriptive such that it could lead to identifying precisely who committed the murders. As a result of a lack of hard evidence, Jack the Ripper was never apprehended. In this case, it appears that the criminal profile was unsuccessful as an investigative tool (Canter, 2004).

NOTABLE PROFILE: THE MAD BOMBER

In the 16-year period between 1940 and 1956, the Mad Bomber, George Metesky, terrorized New Yorkers by planting explosive devices in many public places, the first of which was Consolidated Edison, the New York power company. Other locations included Radio City Music Hall, Grand Central Station, the New York Public Library, and the subway. Metesky planted approximately 33 bombs, but only 22 actually detonated. No one was killed in the bombings; it seemed that the bombs were intentionally built to be duds so that no one was harmed. However, police grew frustrated and concerned that the Mad Bomber would eventually build bigger explosives that would lead to injury or death of innocent bystanders. The police consulted psychiatrist Dr. James Brussel to assist in developing a profile of the Mad Bomber. Dr. Brussel, like Dr. Bond, analyzed the details of the bombings to devise a psychological profile of the bomber. Dr. Brussel concluded that the Mad Bomber was most likely a middle-aged, disgruntled employee of Consolidated Edison, an immigrant to the United States who lived alone or possibly with a family member such as his mother, because Dr. Brussel asserted that the bomber likely had an unnatural obsession with his mother and hatred toward his father. Incredibly, when the Mad Bomber was finally apprehended some 16 years after his first bombing, police noted that Dr. Brussel’s profile was incredibly accurate. Therefore, Dr. Brussel’s profile was credited, in large part, for the successful apprehension of George Metesky, the Mad Bomber. Whether Dr. Brussel’s profile of Metesky was a successful investigative tool is debatable. A careful analysis of the profile reveals that the adjectives used to describe the perpetrator were quite general and appeared to be based on stereotypes. A major criticism is that if the profile was successful in leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator, it should not have taken 16 years to catch him. It was not until after Metesky was arrested and confessed that police were able to confirm that the profile was mostly accurate. Nevertheless, Dr. Brussel continued to work with police to develop psychological profiles of other criminals for many years. His record of “successful” profiles is unknown. However, it seems clear that New York City police relied heavily on Dr. Brussel’s profiles to help them solve crimes for many years after the case of the Mad Bomber. Chapter ONE | 5

NOTABLE PROFILE: THE CENTENNIAL PARK BOMBER

On July 27, 1996, Richard Jewell was performing his duties as a security guard at the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia. Jewell, a security guard by trade, was excited to be a part of the security detail for such a large and prestigious event. He took his job seriously, and on that day while he was perusing Centennial Olympic Park, there were more than 1,000 people filing in for the Olympic Games. As Jewell conducted his inspection of the area, he noticed an unattended bag and discovered that it had an explosive device in it. Jewell sprang into action and used his security guard training to safely but immediately clear the area of Olympic spectators. Sadly, the device detonated before Jewell was able to completely clear the area. Two people died, and more than 100 others were injured, but if Jewell had not discovered the bomb and acted so quickly and efficiently, it could have been a disaster of epic proportions. He was immediately lauded by the media as a hero, but that did not last long. There was intense pressure on the FBI to identify and apprehend the Olympic bomber. The FBI called in their top criminal profilers, who devised a psychological profile of the bomber. The local newspaper reported that the FBI considered Jewell as a suspect based on a criminal profile. The profile suggested that the bomber was likely a single, middle-aged White male who had an obsession with being a police officer, who possibly still lived at home with his mother, and who had likely planted the bomb himself so that he could be a hero and save everyone. The problem was that the FBI could find no evidence linking Jewell to this horrible crime, even after two exhaustive searches of his home and many hours of interrogation. After three months of intense investigative scrutiny and Jewell’s passing a polygraph, the FBI formally and publicly acknowledged that Jewell was cleared of all suspicion. Unfortunately, Jewell’s reputation had been destroyed. The public, who once considered him a hero had turned against him in light of the negative media coverage that suggested that Jewell was a deeply troubled man who was so desperate to be a hero that he had actually killed and injured injured people. The erroneous profile and exhaustive investigation of Richard Jewell delayed the FBI from identifying and apprehending the true suspect, Eric Rudolph. During the time that investigators were still searching for a suspect who fit their profile, Eric Rudolph went on to bomb two more places before finally being apprehended by authorities in 2005. It should be noted that Mr. Rudolph did not fit the FBI profile developed immediately after the bombing. Rudolph was a religious zealot who identified himself as a member of the Christian Identity movement. He told police that his bombings were religiously motivated, such that he targeted abortion clinics in addition to Centennial Park. In this case, it appears that the profile was not only a failure that distracted investigators from identifying the true perpetrator; it also impugned an innocent man who was, in fact, a true American hero on that fateful day in 1996. Had Richard Jewell not acted so quickly, thousands of people would have been killed in the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. Sadly, Richard Jewell passed away in 2007 at just 44 years old.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CRIMINAL PROFILES: THE RESEARCH

Although the fictional FBI profilers in the television show Criminal Minds successfully profile the criminal and solve the crime at the end of each episode, the reality of the accuracy of criminal profiles is quite a bit different. A number of researchers have taken on the task of determining the reliability and validity of criminal profiles (see Bennell, Jones, Taylor, & Snook, 2006; Kocsis, 2004; Kocsis, 2005; Kocsis, Harvey, Hayes, & Nunn, 2000; Pinizotto & Finkel, 1990). It appears that research results show that profiles rely 6 | WHERE LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY INTERSECT: ISSUES IN LAW PSYCHOLOGY on stereotypes, assumptions, and inferences. Results also reveal that even when actual criminal profilers participated in the studies and completed profiles, their performance was not much better than that of college students or other groups. Moreover, profilers developed accurate profiles only about half of the time. That means that there is no more than a 50-50 chance as to whether a criminal profile will be accurate. However, there are other types of offender profiling that may or may not yield more accuracy.

GEOGRAPHIC PROFILING

Geographic profiling is a type of offender profiling that focuses on the location where a series of crimes has occurred more than it focuses on the individual personality or psychological aspects of a perpetrator. It is based on environmental criminological theory, such that research shows that the perpetrators of crime often stay in a geographical “comfort zone.” This is probably an area that the offender is familiar with, such as where he or she lives or works. Geographical profiling relies on a combination of quantitative and qualitative statistical methods to uncover patterns of movement referred to as “spatial behavior.” It is a promising technique that is gaining popularity, but its success depends on how many crimes the perpetrator commits. That is, prolific serial criminals such as murderers, rapists, and even serial robbers will produce more accurate spatial profiles than will someone who commits fewer crimes. This is because the more crimes committed by a single perpetrator, the more data the geographical profilers have to work with in ascertaining the identity of the criminal. Consider the case of Rafael Resendez-Ramirez, a serial rapist and killer who was dubbed the Railroad Killer. He earned this name because his crimes took place near railroads in three separate states in the 1990s. Because of the similarity of the manner in which the approximately 15 victims were murdered, along with the way the bodies were found, often covered, police agencies shared the results of physical evidence from the scenes, such as fingerprints. Geographic profiling showed the investigators the movement patterns of the killer, leading them to conclude that it must be a drifter, given his travel by train to various states. This aided investigators, such that they were able to limit the search area to railroads, and, eventually, they apprehended Resendez. Upon matching his fingerprints to those at the scenes of the various murders, Resendez confessed and was sentenced to death in Texas. He was executed in 2006. Geographic profiling has also been useful in robbery cases. In Canada, police used geographic profiling in a case in which there were 32 robberies that had similar circumstances and occurred in a given geographic locale. Police, led by geographic profiling creator Dr. Kim Rossmo, conducted a thorough analysis of the case from a geographical perspective that was much more thorough than simply looking at a map. They considered the following investigative questions proposed by Dr. Rossmo in his geographic profiling technique:

• Location: Police not only mapped the various locations of the robberies; they also researched the distance between the locations as well as the travel time between locations. • Time: This was an important consideration, such that investigators determined how much time elapsed between the crimes; the time of day, month, and year when the crimes happened; and what the weather conditions were. • Targets/Victims: Determining any similarities between the crime victims’ locations and manner of living was also a crucial part of the geographic profiling method used in these cases. For example, were they high-socioeconomic status individuals, or were they of low socioeconomic status? • Transportation: Investigators considered how the perpetrator was likely to have arrived at the crimes. For example, is the area one in which the perpetrator could have walked, or would it be more likely that he or she drove or took public transportation? Chapter ONE | 7

• Site Selection: In evaluating where the crimes occurred, investigators examined how the perpetrator was likely to have chosen the scenes of the crimes. To do this, police considered any easy escape routes and what other sites were in the vicinity (such as other residences, businesses, etc.), and they tried to identify how the offender may have known about the sites. For example, was it likely that the offender lived there or worked there?

Investigators solved the robbery cases via the use of geographic profiling. Once they considered all of the above and mapped it, they narrowed the suspect pool to a concentrated area. The suspect, who was apprehended and convicted, lived in the precise area where most of the robberies had occurred. Although geographic profiling is not foolproof given that its success relies on serial crimes/criminals, it appears to be a sound investigative tool.

RACIAL PROFILING

Perhaps the most controversial of all offender profiling techniques is that of racial profiling. Racial profiling occurs when law enforcement personnel use an individual’s racial and/or ethnic background as a key factor in deciding whether to investigate that person in connection with a crime. This is often associated with traffic stops, for which statistics are readily available on what proportion of individuals from a given race are stopped. In many jurisdictions, these data often show that minorities are subject to traffic stops at a much greater rate than are Whites. However, traffic stops are not the only places where racial and ethnic minorities may be targeted by police. Since September 11, 2001, Muslims and Middle Easterners are often considered suspicious and are targeted in airports and other public locations. Police deny that they engage in racial profiling, and it is illegal in many jurisdictions. Nevertheless, there appears to be compelling evidence that racial profiling does occur.

MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC STOPS

Ferguson, Missouri, is a town with a population of approximately 16,000 residents, according to a 2013 report compiled by the Ferguson Police Department. Demographic makeup of the town is approximately 64% African American, 34% White, 1% Latino, and 1% other. The Ferguson Police Department’s report was specifically related to racial profiling statistics and listed how many traffic stops there were in 2013, along with how many of those stops resulted in searches and/or arrests. The traffic stop data showed that out of more than 5,300 traffic stops for the year, approximately 4,600 (86%) of the stops were for African Americans. Whites comprised only approximately 680 (13%) of the total motor vehicle traffic stops. You may think to yourself that this is okay given that the town’s population consists of significantly more African Americans than it does Whites. However, the proportion of the population must be considered when determining whether African Americans were being targeted by police. That is, Ferguson is 64% African American, yet police stopped African Americans 86% of the time. The town is 34% White, yet Whites were stopped only 13% of the time. In terms of the 521 traffic related arrests, Whites were arrested in only 7% (n = 36) of the cases, while African Americans were arrested in 93% (n = 483) of the cases. It is important to keep in mind that these data are not solid proof of racial profiling, but they are quite compelling in the absence of any other explanation as to why African Americans were stopped, searched, 8 | WHERE LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY INTERSECT: ISSUES IN LAW PSYCHOLOGY and arrested at a much higher rate than were Whites. Data from other jurisdictions also suggest that there are great racial disparities in the proportion of racial minorities that are subject to motor vehicle traffic stops, searches, and arrests. However, police deny that they target individuals based on race and/or ethnicity. Although at least one police commander from New Jersey acknowledged that race is one factor considered when profiling criminals, he asserted that police actually engage in “crime-driven profiling” rather than racial profiling (Bergner, 2014). Journalist Bergner accompanied two Newark, New Jersey, police officers from the Crime Suppression Unit on their shifts and found that of all the individuals questioned under the city’s “stop-and-frisk” initiative were racial minorities. Once again, although this appears to be a clear case of targeting individuals based on race, police deny that this is case (Bergner, 2014).

STOP-AND-FRISK

Stop-and-frisk is an initiative that allows police to stop, question, and pat down individuals who, under reasonable suspicion, may have committed a crime or are about to commit a crime. Typically the law requires that police must have probable cause to detain someone, which is different from reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is based on facts or circumstances that a crime has been committed by an individual, whereas reasonable suspicion is based on inference or a guess that the individual may be involved in criminal activity. For example, in a traffic stop situation, police must have probable cause to stop someone, such that the individual has broken the law by speeding or committing some other moving violation. In stop-and-frisk, the individual need not have committed any crime; the police can detain the individual merely because of their suspicion, based on appearance, that the individual may be involved in criminal activity. Stop-and-frisk gained a lot of attention in the past decade because of its being implemented and put to use in big cities such as New York. However, it is not a new practice but rather one that was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio (1968). John Terry, a Black male, and his friend were hanging out in Cleveland, Ohio, on Halloween in 1963, when a police officer in the area determined that the pair looked “suspicious.” The officer and his colleagues observed the pair for a while and determined that it appeared that Terry and his friend were “casing” local businesses. That is, the police believed that the pair was looking for a place to commit a robbery. Terry was committing no actual crime; the police had simply determined that he looked suspicious. The police approached the pair, asked their names, and began to pat them down, at which time they found that the men had guns concealed in their jackets. Police confiscated the guns and arrested the men for carrying concealed weapons, and the men were convicted. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and ruled that police could rely on reasonable suspicion when individuals on the street appeared to be engaged in or about to engage in criminal activity. This may sound completely unfair—if you think so, you are not alone. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) investigates, advocates, and litigates in certain racial profiling cases. The ACLU has taken on legal arguments against New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices. In 2013, a judge declared the practice unconstitutional and ordered New York City police to end the practice immediately. Although temporarily halted, the city appealed the judge’s decision, and legal wrangling continues. It is difficult to predict how the case will end because while it appears that there is great opposition to such a clearly racially motivated practice, there is actually a fair amount of support for racial profiling and stop-and-frisk. It appears that support for these practices depends largely on who it is that is subjected to profiling and where the searches take place. Chapter ONE | 9

SUPPORT FOR RACIAL PROFILING

In a telephone survey of 1,000 Americans randomly selected by researchers at Pulse Opinion Research, LLC, results showed that approximately 60% of those surveyed believed that racial profiling is necessary at airports. Only 27% indicated that they opposed the practice, while 13% indicated that they were uncertain about their opinion (Rasmussen Reports, 2011b). You may have noticed that the context of the questions was such that it focused on racial profiling at airports, which are sites associated with terrorist attacks. Therefore, it appears, based on the poll results, that Americans favor profiling individuals who, by nature of their racial, ethnic, or religious appearance, are perceived to be sympathetic to or involved in terrorist activity. The poll results show that Americans feel that this is an appropriate measure for ensuring our national security. In fact, in a different poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC, just 17% of Americans felt that Muslims in the United States were being treated unfairly by authorities and other Americans (Rasmussen Reports, 2011a). Perhaps the moderate acceptance of racially profiling Muslim Americans supports the thesis of social psychology, such that situational factors are incredibly powerful in predicting human behavior. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which originated at American airports, it is likely that this is largely attributable for Americans’ support of profiling at airport security. However, Americans appear to be much less likely to support racial profiling of African Americans in light of a heightened sensitivity to the historically inherent racial bias against African Americans in the United States. To be fair, the ACLU advocates against all types of racial profiling, regardless of the target group, as do many Americans. However, it appears that Muslims and Middle Easterners do not receive as much sympathy in this regard as do African Americans. For example, from 2003 up until April 2014, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) had a unit called the NYPD Demographics Unit devoted to placing undercover detectives in predominantly Muslim neighborhoods to spy on residents. The NYPD eavesdropped on conversations and recorded Muslim residents’ patterns of movement, such as where they ate, shopped, and worshipped. The Demographics Unit focused on individuals who looked and dressed in a certain way as a means of permissible spying that would surely be considered outrageous if this practice were carried out in predominantly White neighborhoods. However, because it was initiated just two years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the target population consisted of individuals who appeared to look and worship similarly to those who carried out the terrorist attacks, the practice was quietly supported. It was not until the Associated Press reported that, in 11 years, the unit never generated any meaningful information that led to even a single arrest that the unit was finally dismantled (Apuzzo, 2014).

SUMMARY

There are three major types of offender profiling covered in this chapter. They are criminal (psychological) profiling, geographic profiling, and racial profiling. Although racial profiling is, perhaps, the most controversial of the three, each type relies on characteristics of the offender to aid police in identifying and locating suspects. Criminal profiling relies on pseudoscientific methods and psychological stereotypes to identify suspects, but research shows that it is not particularly accurate or helpful in catching criminals. Racial profiling relies on racial, ethnic, and religious stereotypes to identify suspects. Research shows that there is conditional support for racial profiling but that it does not lead to a reduction in crime rates. In some cases, it does not lead to information that is useful in solving crimes. Geographic profiling is the least controversial 10 | WHERE LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY INTERSECT: ISSUES IN LAW PSYCHOLOGY and most promising of the three types of offender profiling because it relies on spatial behavior, or patterns of movement, of the suspect. However, it is not without limitations. The success of geographic profiling depends on a single suspect’s committing multiple crimes.

REFERENCES

Apuzzo, M. (2014, April 17). New York drops unit that spied on Muslims. The New York Times. Bennell, C., Jones, N., Taylor, P. J., & Snook, B. (2006). Validities and abilities in criminal profiling: A critique of the studies conducted by Richard Kocsis and his colleagues. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 344–360. Bergner, D. (2014, April). Is stop-and-frisk worth it? The Atlantic.Retrieved August 30, 2014, from http://www. theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/is-stop-and-frisk-worth-it/358644/ Canter, D. (2004). Offender profiling and investigative psychology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, ,1 1–15. Gould, S. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Kocsis, R. N. (2004). Psychological profiling of serial arson offenses: An assessment of skills and accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 341–361. Kocsis, R. N. (2005). An empirical assessment of content in criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, ,47 38–47. Kocsis, R. N., Harvey, H. J., Hayes, A. E., & Nunn, R. (2000). Investigative experience and accuracy in psychological profiling of a violent crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 311–322. Pinizotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 215–233. Rasmussen Reports (2011a, March 11). Just 17% believe American Muslims are treated unfairly. Retrieved from http:// www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2011/just_17_believe_american_ muslims_are_treated_unfairly Rasmussen Reports (2011b, April 4). 60% say profiling necessary in today’s society. Retrieved from http://www.rasmussenreports. com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestye/november_2011/60_say_profiling_necessary_in_today_s_society Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).