Comment

Despite the many problems involved in the study of sexual murders and despite their relative rarity, the tragedy they cause and the potential for repetition make them too important to ignore. Although we might not be at a level of understanding where advanced statistical analysis can be employed, case studies, as well as descriptive statistics and qualitative research designs, are credible and heuristic (Camie, Rhodes, and Yardley, 2003). Gradually, by comparing and grouping cases, identifying commonalities, and discovering unique qualities, we are increasing our understanding of this form of criminal behavior.

Not only can our findings help us further understand sexual homicide (as well as various forms of sexually motivated antisocial behavior), but there is a practical application for this knowledge base. Psychologists and psychiatrists have customarily been used as forensic specialists in matters such as criminal responsibility, competency, sentencing, risk assessment, and parole. In addition to these traditional areas, new areas of forensic practice are emerging that require extensive knowledge of criminal psychopathology such as consultation to nonforensic mental health professionals and law enforcement, government, and industry. Although, admittedly, we often lack statistical validation studies, it is simply incorrect to conclude that we know too little about sexual murder, for example, to be of help to other professionals and the criminal justice system.

In the past 30 years, the explosion of knowledge in the mental health field has been phenomenal. No longer can one be in general practice; instead, specialization in one or several areas is required if one is to practice ethically at an acceptable level of competence. Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists with knowledge of criminal psychopathology may be a great resource to nonforensic mental health professionals seeking consultation on a treatment case. For example, a nonforensic general psychiatrist or clinical psychologist may encounter a patient whose behavior (e.g., hatred for cats or obsessive interest in detective magazines) raises issues of (forensic) concern (Schlesinger, 2001b). Forensic professionals (with expertise not only in law and legal standards but also in the psychopathology and psychodynamics of crime) can be of great practical help, providing information on a patient population that is often foreign to the general clinical practitioner.

The practice of psychological (criminal or investigative) analysis, used mostly by law enforcement officers today (but also by industry in terms of threat assessment of troubled employees), actually had its beginnings with mental health professionals. By the late 1950s, most states had initiated specialized programs to evaluate and treat repetitive sex offenders or sexual psychopaths (Friedmann, 1948; Vuocolo, 1969). When law enforcement officers became stymied in an investigation—as it often occurs with sexual crimes, including sexual murder—they would typically call staffers at their local sex offender program for assistance. Primarily, they would request a “profile” of the unidentified offender, based on the staff member’s experience with such cases. The profile was frequently very general, filled with psychological jargon, and usually unhelpful.

In 1957, psychiatrist James Brussell consulted with New York law enforcement on the notorious “Mad Bomber” case. Here, an individual planted bombs throughout New York City, remaining undetected for over 16 years. With Brussell’s uncannily accurate profile— including the offender’s style of dress, religion, and living arrangements—the range of suspects the police were considering narrowed, and an arrest was made. Brussel (1968), in explaining his profiling technique, said that he had simply reversed the process routinely used by mental health professionals. The psychiatrist, for example, evaluates a person and then makes predictions about how this individual might behave. The psychiatrist might predict, for instance, that the person would get depressed, make suicide attempts, or have problems with authority. In drawing a profile of an unidentified offender, Brussell explained, he already knows what the offender did as he can examine crime scene information; then he attempts to deduce what type of person would have committed the crime in this particular manner.

In the 1970s and 1980s, members of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit developed and refined the technique of criminal profiling (Pinizzotto, 1984; Pinizzotto and Finkel, 1990), discussed further in Chapter 7. They attempted to describe unidentified offenders by analyzing the behavioral significance of these offenders’ conduct at the crime scene. Psychiatrists and psychologists who have extensive backgrounds in behavioral science and criminal psychopathology should surely be able to make a contribution to law enforcement in this regard (McGrath, 2000). Psychological profiling (or behavioral analysis) has been used in cases of sexual murder, other types of sexual offenses, hostage taking, arson, and anonymous letter writing (Douglas et al., 1986). Although profiling techniques have not, for the most part, been statistically validated (Pallone and Hennessey, 1994), recent research has come a long way in demonstrating moderate to strong accuracy rates with the method (Fox and Farrington, 2018). Behavioral analysis has also been considered helpful not only as an investigative tool (Ressler, Burgess, Douglas, and Depue, 1991) but as an aid in threat assessment for patients and disturbed employees (Davis, 2001), as well.