Les hypothèses sous-tendant la pratique policière du Profiling criminel en France

Abstract

ObjectivesPractice Criminal Profile (behavioral analysis, criminal profiling, psychological investigation) is rooted in four theoretical assumptions: i) the scene reflects the personality of the author, in that ii) his modus operandi, iii) his signature and iv) his personality does not change during the crime series. At the light of these four assumptions, we studied the various facets of the Criminal Profile: definitions, approaches, utilities, government reports, general thoughts. The aim of this investigation is to ascertain the Criminal Profile's scope, both theoretically and empirically, according to its value and its potential inherent biases. Materials and methodsIn the light of the literature of different, but no less complementary approaches and disciplines – e.g. psychology, sociology, philosophy, clinical, actuarial science, statistics – and in which criminology is rooted, we provided a sketch of modern criminal profile. Then, this theoretical work is compared to the practice field, in the manner of a qualitative semi-structured interview with the head of the psycho-criminological behavioral analyst of the Central Directorate of the Judicial Police, and the links between theoretical and practices were assessed. ResultsProfiling does not seem to be unitary. There are many practices that have long been divided into two categories: The deductive approach and the inductive approach. These two concepts are limited if used separately. We underlined that the inductive analyzes cannot move from individualized assessment of the case worked, so the deductive approach. Limits raised against two currents lose their relevance to the current practice of approaches mentioned. The second criticism concerns the limits related to personality, which is based on all practices of behavior analysis. To the Criminal Profile is closer to the personality described, it is necessary to multiply behavioral variables. The tools used by the expert analysts behavioral (TAAC, PRACTIS) go in this direction: asking specifically crime, cuting it in different temporal sequences and phases, classifying identified behavioral elements during the investigation and operationalizing them according to their nature. ConclusionThus, Profiling wins to be unified and transversal. Assumptions and practice Criminal Profile have obvious biases, we observe that the above assumptions are so intertwined in the other they are both difficult to work individually and insubstantial. Despite these various observations, we recognize the usefulness of these assumptions, if they are fallible, to allow a practice, recognizing its own limitations, is based more on theoretical and methodological sound science. Profiling is perfected and experts are aware of the inherent various biases of the process, both in its substance – theoretical conceptions – that in its form – implementation process – tend to improve its application and optimize its effectiveness.