Please Read -APA Formatting -Grammar Spelling

Discussion: Methods of Criminal Profiling

James Bond is the character I choice

There are different ways of approaching criminal behavior and evidence. A criminal investigative analyst may use different reasoning skills, methods, and approaches when analyzing a criminal case. The analyst may use empirically based information or group statistics to guide decisions, and conclusions may be based solely on the facts of a case. Is it professional, however, to go beyond statistics and facts and use experiences and education to guide criminal analysis in profiling?

In this Discussion, you will continue to use the character you selected in Week 1 as you analyze his or her approaches and methodology.

To prepare for this Discussion:

Review the Learning Resources concerning concepts of criminal profiling.

By Day 3

Post a response to the following:

Based on the character you selected in the Week 1 Discussion, explain how he/she approached profiling. Explain whether the character uses deductive or inductive reasoning, whether he/she uses the nomothetic or ideographic method, and whether he/she uses a clinical or actuarial approach. Provide examples to support your rationale for each.

  • Evaluate use of deductive or inductive reasoning in criminal profiling
  • Evaluate use of nomothetic or ideographic methods in criminal profiling
  • Evaluate use of clinical or actuarial approaches in criminal profiling

Some reading and Learning Resources/Reading

Bartol, C. R. & Bartol, A. M. (2010). Criminal & behavioral profiling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Chapter 2, Crime Scene Profiling” (pp. 21- 56)

Turvey, B. E. (2012). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Chapter 3, Alternative Methods of Criminal Profiling (pp. 67-100)

Carson, D. (2011). Investigative psychology and law: Towards collaboration by focusing on evidence and inferential reasoning. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8(1), 74–89. doi:10.1002/jip.133

Devery, C. (2010). Criminal profiling and criminal investigation. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 393–409. doi:10.1177/1043986210377108

Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2016). Criminal profiling as expert witness evidence: The implications of the profiler validity research. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49(Part A), 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.05.011

Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2015). Disentangling criminal profiling: Accuracy, homology, and the myth of trait-based profiling. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(3), 313–332. doi:10.1177/0306624X13513429

Writing expectations

Main Discussion Posting Content

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent 27 (54%) – 30 (60%)


27 (54%) – 30 (60%)

Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning id

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent 9 (18%) – 10 (20%)


Levels of Achievement:


9 (18%) – 10 (20%)

Student interacts frequently with peers. The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, use of scholarly, empirical resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.

Excellent 9 (18%) – 10 (20%)


9 (18%) – 10 (20%)

Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.