Identifying mass murderers through profiling

Identifying mass murderers through profiling






The process of Criminal profiling in identifying mass murderers is exceedingly interesting and common than it is thought. This occurs mostly at developmental and psychological levels in identifying the criminals. There is no one that wants to think about it, but the truth is that people always walk and live with mass murderers. It is however, comforting that we have criminal profilers who work in societies to identify the criminals. The process of criminal profiling however requires vast knowledge and massive talents (Turvey, 2012). Without such educated persons, people could be living beside people such as Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy pretending to be the perfect neighbors. Criminal profilers have a lot of knowledge and training. Before the criminal profilers obtain all this knowledge, they have to go on a pure basic instinct like we all do, meaning that all of us have the ability to become criminal profilers. The only thing that should be added on this capability is fine-tuning the skills that exist. The process of criminal profiling is mostly used when there is a violent homicide, but not in all cases. The process of criminal profiling can assist in reducing the number of victims. This study looks at the techniques of criminal profiling in identifying mass murderers.


A mass murderer is a dissatisfied, angry psychopath and disordered individual who dislikes everyone in the world and picks a group to target. The target group according to mass murderers justifies their crime and they feel comfortable committing the crime. Mass murderers get a lot of media publicity (Bowers et al. 2010). A mass murderer is different from a terrorist. A terrorist works on behalf of a terrorist organization, who selects the target for political reasons. The effect of the terrorist attack on the political issue is that the terrorist is sent on an assignment to kill, and also gets a lot of media publicity for the actions. Therefore, mass murderers are different from terrorists and the labels should not be confused. Mislabeling mass murderers as terrorists promotes hostility between groups of people when the ire should only be directed towards the individual and the development of psychopaths in society. Examples of places where mass murder has occurred include Oklahoma City, Columbine Virginia Tech Fort Hood, Norway, Aurora, Colorado and Wisconsin Sikh temple.

Criminal profiling, also known as offender or psychological profiling refers to the development of presumptions regarding an offender from aspects of the offense that he or she has done. This is possible through information available from a crime and the site of the crime, which points out to a psychological picture of the unknown perpetrator, deducing such things as motivation of the offender for the crime and the production of an explanation of the kind of person possibly responsible for the crime. Identifying mass murderers through criminal profiling entails use of technique and investigative experience by the profiler who examines relevant information from a particular crime scene including crime scene photographs, photos of any maiming proof, photos of physical injuries to victims, information concerning whether the scene was altered or not, and any other information that is related to murder (crime). Other additional information used in identifying mass murderers involves ecological analysis of the offenses and the regions past the direct offense scene. This involves maps and important aspects of the inhabited settings of the victim. Based on the technique of profiling used, data is then categorized to yield prognostic data concerning the offender’s likely sex, age, race, height, weight, physical and psychological condition (Turvey, 2012). The murderer’s residential locality as well as issues such as the relationship between the murderer and the victim, whether the offender had a previous criminal record can also be established by the profiler using the data gathered. Although there are different techniques used in profiling, the main and common objective is to gather adequate personality, behavioral and physical traits about an offender suspected of murder to enable apprehension by the authorities. Criminal profiling helps the police in reducing the list of possible offenders who may have been involved in the crime (Kocsis, 2006). However, seldom will a profile be so precise to point to a particular person.

Common characteristics of mass murderers

There are certain characteristics that are exhibited by mass murderers, which can be used to identify them. Mass murderers have trouble especially when relating to the authorities such as the police. They also have trouble in managing or controlling their anger. They often write or talk about obsessively being outsiders in journals or even blogs. They have weapons or have access to weapons that they use in executing their actions. In most cases, mass murderers have had training on how to use weapons and make threats to authority people. In some cases, mass murderers have a strong history of mental diseases and appear to be alienated or withdraw in most cases. They make notes on their perceptions of being weak and feelings of powerlessness, thus, they always feel inferior, and have violent fantasies, and identify or relate to violent groups. In this case, they have delusions and tendencies of aggression towards others. They do not have the capability to handle stress and rejection.  These are some of the characteristics that are used by profilers in identifying these types of criminals (Bowers et al. 2010).

Nature of criminal profiling

The process of criminal profiling in identifying mass murderers is exceedingly interesting and common than it is thought. Criminal profiling procedure requires cautious assessment of physical proof, gathered and properly organized and analyzed by a group of specialists from various regions. This is done for the purpose of systematically and logically restructuring the crime scene, developing a policy to assist in the incarceration of offenders and aiding persecution or trial thereafter. According to Turvey (2012), criminal profilers are not just psychiatrists or psychologists. These people can carry on clinical assessments for the purpose of diagnosis, cure, and courtroom sanity assessment, but only a few are competent to perform the work of a profiler. Although they are only one member of a team, they can certainly contribute to establishing criminal profile. The same case applies to police officers, investigators of crime scene, medical examiners, sociologists, criminalists, and detectives.

Profilers are part of the criminal investigation procedure. They advise the cops on how to relate certain aspects of crime to an offender. They aid in solving offense cases and making arrests. The focus in criminal profiling is capturing murder suspects and developing investigative policies and strategies that link crimes to the offenders as well as assessing risks involved. In simpler terms, it is about capturing the offenders, but not analyzing them. Techniques used in profiling range from socio-psychological to geographical profiling, which are used to set up and determine patterns of solving criminal issues. They also predict and classify the behavior traits of offenders, particularly murderers (Turvey, 2012).

History and case studies of criminal profiling

Criminal profiling technique is not a new method, but has existed for a long period of time. The only thing that has changed is the application of advanced methods in the process, which is meant to improve the effectiveness of the process. The origin and history of criminal profiling can be traced in the early 1800s (Kocsis, 2006). Contributions of significant figures such as Cesare Lombrosso, Jacob Fries, Alphonse Bertiollon, Ernest Kretschmer, and Hans Gross, are very important in discussing this issue. Their contributions are significant in the present day field. The first case of the process of criminal profiling was the analysis made by Thomas Bond on the serial murderer Jack the Ripper (Becker, 2012). This was done in the 1890s when Dr. Thomas Bond, a police surgeon performed an autopsy on the last victim of the murderer, Jack. From the findings of the autopsy, Dr. Bond inferred that the perpetrator did not have anatomical or scientific knowledge of a surgeon. Dr, Bond restructured the murder and tried to construe the behavioral trends of the offender. After much assessment, he later developed a profile for the police to investigate. The profile described the assailant as being quiet and harmless looking man, physically strong, and composed and having no real occupation. Bond deduced that all earlier crimes were committed by the same person. The technique of criminal profiling was successful, and this led to declaring of Dr. Bond as the first offender profiler.

The other major case of criminal profiling was made to analyze Adolf Hitler (German Chancellor), in 1943. Dr. Walter C. Langer was charged with the task of developing a profile of Hitler by Office of Strategic Services. Langer studied the works of Hitler, and interviewed people who knew Hitler. From these examinations, he began to put together major components of his analysis. He then developed a profile of Hitler that noted that the perpetrator was of good health, but he was weakening mentally. The profile also included the oedipal complex of Hitler, which Langer stated that the perpetrator was showing his masculinity to his mother by performing the crime actions. The report also noted that the possible outcome was that Hitler would commit suicide, which was true following the end of the Second World War. Many other experts of profiling have influenced the field. Much work has been done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with important figures such as Howard Teten (the first criminal profiler in the FBI) and others such as John Douglas and Robert Ressler (Kocsis, 2006).

Types of profiling

The process of criminal profiling in identifying mass murderers is not one definite type of practice. There are two main types involved that is crime scene analysis and investigative psychology. The two types of criminal profiling have however, developed independently although they employ the procedures that are similar in nature. Crime scene analysis (CSA) was popularized by the Behavioral Science Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in their attempts to resolve specific violent offenses such as mass murders, child molesting cases and rapes in 1970s. This is what most people reflect of when they think or talk of criminal profiling. However, for this to be effective, agencies of law enforcement had to meet certain standards for a case to be investigated. For instance, the case had to entail violent crime, the perpetrator had to be unfamiliar, and the main investigatory authorities were supposed to be exhausted.

Investigative psychology (IP) on the other hand was developed by British psychologists Dr. David Canter (Becker, 2012). This type of criminal profiling uses a practice of connecting the main themes in offenders’ crimes to trait aspects of their way of life, and offending history. Profilers that use this type of criminal profiling to identify murderers work strongly with the police to identify and establish an empirical basis for offender profiling, rather than intuitive basis. There are other two lesser techniques, also used in criminal profiling (diagnostic assessment and geographical investigation). Diagnostic evaluation relies entirely on the clinical judgment of the practitioner. For instance, it may rely on clinical assessment of a trained psychiatrist. This process has therefore, remained assorted in its arrangement of significant behavioral demonstrations and related interpretations. Early efforts of this method were based on psychoanalytic ideologies and conclusions based in on larger amounts of intuition by clinical practitioners. Geographical profiling on the other hand observes the spatial decision making procedure of criminals as related to their choice of offense victims and offense scene localities (Bowers et al. 2010). Developing geographical profiles helps in establishing hints to how murderers look for their victims and search for appropriate targets.

Crime Scene Analysis

The use of criminal character profiling in identification of mass murderers and other criminals such as bombers, rapists and hijackers has been publicized by written works of various former profilers such as Roy Hazelwood, Robert Ressler and John Douglas. These works offer knowledge on the types of data collected and examined by the profilers. However, there is very little information concerning the exact methodology or procedure that was applied. Successful profilers of identifying mass murderers are experienced in criminal research and investigations in addition to possessing intuition, common sense, and the capability to separate their approach about the offense, the offender and the casualty (Turvey, 2012). Also, profilers are able to reflect and reason like the offender who was involved in the crime. This proposes that a few things other than the systematic technique are at the root in obtaining psychosomatic profiles of offenders that could be of importance in their eventual apprehension by the authorities. In real meaning, FBI profilers do not imply that their methods are completely scientific, rather they depict analytical profiling as a policy enabling the police lower the ground of alternatives and create guesses about the offender.

Early efforts of the Behavioral Science Unit integrated techniques that were based on the methodical compilation of huge amounts of data about known mass murderers and their crimes (Becker, 2012). For instance, the study of violent murderers by the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime in Virginia (Quantico), has resulted in efforts to improve the assessment of chief crimes by the assessment of hints and crime scene indicators that are universal to each kind of offense. The crime scene analysis type of criminal profiling relies on the assumption that crime site reveals the individuality of the offender. Profilers have identified the traits of organized/structured and disorganized murders, especially murders that involve a large number or group of people (mass). In identifying mass murderers, profilers use information gathered at the site of the crime and study the nature of the offense. According to Turvey (2012), There are agents that have built psychosomatic profiles of the murderers, categorized as either organized or disorganized. An organized mass murderer is one that is regarded as being socially competent and charismatic, as well as highly intelligent. On the other hand, a disorganized mass murderer is regarded as being socially immature, of average intelligence and a loner. There also exist disparities between the two categories of murderers in the level of planning (assortment and handling of victims, means of death, and the crime scenes of both types. Organized mass murderers reveal systematic models of behavior and well structured plans, cautiously choosing strangers as victims, commanding victims to be compliant, taking much care in the actual schemes of death and often leaving little proof at the site of the crime. Disorganized mass murderers on the other hand commit their crimes more impulsively with little or no planning. In most cases, disorganized murderers know or are aware of the victims, and often kill in surprise attacks (Turvey, 2012). There crime scenes or sites often reveal a huge deal of physical proof.

Crime scene analysis profiling methods in murder cases involve a six-stage process. The first stage is the profiling inputs, where profilers are involved in collecting information related to the case. This includes such things as photographs and diagrams of crime scene, reports from police department, victim and forensic data. Decision process model is the second stage, and it involves examination and organization of all data and information collected. A preliminary analysis is then done at this second stage. The nature of homicide is categorized at this stage, that is whether the murder is single, mass or serial. The aim of the criminal and the nature of the casualty are also established at this stage.  The level of threat that the criminal subjected himself or herself in committing the crime is also established and analyzed in the decision process models. The location and time of crime are identified. Crime assessment is the third stage, and this is where the profiler attempts to put herself or himself in the position of the wrongdoer. That is it is the stage where the profiler tries to reason and think like the offender. In this stage, the profiler addresses things as the inspiration of the offender, the choice of the victims, and how the crime was carried out. According to Turvey (2012), the profiler also addresses the nature and types of injuries on victims, and whether aspects of the site of the crime were altered.

In the fourth stage, criminal profile, the profiler combines all the information gathered, and uses his or her experience to create a criminal profile. The account that is given at this stage describes the kind of individual who most likely was involved in the offense (murder). It includes the physical features such as gender, race and sex as well as likely occupation and location of the offender. There are also projections about the character of the criminal made at this stage. The profiler gives approaches for discovering, questioning, and apprehending the offender. Investigation is the fifth stage, and involves the giving in of the profile account to the particular authority investigating the criminal offence. The profile is regarded as successful if the offender is identified and admits to the crime (Harris et al. 2012). If new information is obtained regarding the offense, the profile is considered open. In this case therefore, a reassessment of the original profile occurs. The sixth and last stage of the crime scene investigation is apprehension of the perpetrator. The precision of the profile is evaluated, and the case data added to the existing body of knowledge to be used in future by other profilers.

Investigative Psychology (IP)

This type of profiling involves the introduction of scientific basis to formerly slanted aspects of unlawful discovery, crime scene analysis, inquiry, apprehension and trial of the criminal. Investigative psychology characterizes a compilation of hypotheses, theories and results of previous studies and models of actions as they relate to certain character traits, rather than giving a comprehensive methodology. As crime is an interpersonal characteristic between the lawbreaker and the victim, criminals’ actions reflect all sorts of transactions with other people. Investigative psychology role is to establish which aspects of criminal transactions can be connected to other phases of the murderer’s earlier and current life. It identifies the characteristics that are termed to be unique to the individual as contrasting to the societal grouping that he or she belongs.

In investigative psychology, there area five approaches that profilers can use that hopefully lead to successful apprehension. The first approach is the interpersonal coherence, which is based on the premise that criminals select victims with characteristics that are alike to important people in their lives external to their misdeed. For instance, research findings on serial murder in the US, suggest that the murderers generally choose their victims of their ethnicity.  In the same way, target groups may have other special implication for the offenders (Harris et al. 2012). A good example of this was elaborated by an African-American seaman, Mark Essex, who thought of himself unable to move through the positions in the United States Navy because of him being black. His killing binge targeted kinds of individuals, mainly whites, as they looked like those who were prejudiced against him. The second strategy that can be used by profilers to identify mass murderers is the importance of time and place. In this approach, the place and time for a mass killing has a special connotation for the executor. For instance, offenders who have an occupation that lets them to watch possible fatalities in due course in their own surroundings are a major chasing ground for the possible targets. In addition, the knowledge of an offender of the spatial patterns of a region has a specific bearing on their opinion of where it is likely to commit particular types of crimes such as mass murder. Individuals make such conclusion based on internal representations of the environments that they work in (Stefoff, 2010).

The third strategy is referred to as criminal characteristics, which involves systematically examining typology of offenses and criminals as well as developing classification schemes that are based on behavioral, psychological and other kinds of variables. Many recent classifications of mass murderers rely greatly on psychological clinical type of categorization. Criminal career is the fourth approach used by profilers. This approach looks at the longitudinal series of crimes committed by an offender overtime in an attempt to observe a variety of aspects of the murder. For example, it looks at the selection of the target, technique of committing the crime, location and consistency over time. According to Turvey (2012), it has been noted that an afterward offense may vary depending on what occurred to the murderer in the action of earlier offenses. The succession of criminal careers enables profilers to extrapolate back to previous crimes, and to examine proof, which can be used in solving present offenses. The fifth approach, forensic awareness on the other hand, reflects the fact that murderers who have committed previous offences, and have immediate contact with the techniques of investigation may be very smart leaving no forensic proof at a crime site (Stefoff, 2010).

Geographical profiling

A current addition to the history of profiling has been geographical profiling. While it could be argued that offense mapping has a wide history, possibly dating back to the birth of criminology in the first place modern-day profilers draw upon environmental criminology, and its emergence up through behavioral topography, hot scene analysis, close neighbor investigation, and the criminology of place. It is a fallacy that Kim Rossmo invented geographic profiling (Bowers et al. 2010). As Maurice Godwin states, it was the late Dr. Milton Newton, a geographer in Baton Rouge region who firstly developed geographical profiling in 1985.
The most essential theory in geography and geographic profiling is closeness which has the equivalent concept of nearness. The principle holds that a person bearing in mind all the possibilities for action will probably select the course of action which involves the least outlay of attempt. When distance or space is involved, one also has to account for psychological and subjective perceptions of distance, which differs by knowledge of the terrain, among other things.

Human beings tend to move through ecological regions using cognitive plan, commonly referred to as mental maps which, in the individual’s mind, have imagery of pathway, landmarks and borders among other things. Habitual areas are called in geographical profiling are known as activity spaces and in those spaces are anchor points, and offenders, like anyone else, who operate within the limits of those spaces and points, no matter how steady or wandering they are. It is important to note that nomadic offenders have lesser anchor points than stable offenders. A number of sophisticated arithmetical or statistical techniques can then be applied to standard offense maps and used to forecast criminal residence locality. Proximity data include the spatial mean, standard distance, closest neighbor, mean interpoint, and furthest neighbor. Linking nearest neighbor analysis to a Poisson probability distribution allows for an examination of variation from uncertainty, so at the very least, non-random patterns can be uncovered, theoretically, from any random pattern (Bowers et al. 2010). This method is beneficial as it is commercialized into computer applications, therefore providing accurate data. Despite the type of profiling applied in identifying mass murderers, the objective is common to all types. The objective of profiling is the capture of offenders and their persecution as well.

Examples of mass murders

Mass murder is the slaying of people at the same time within similar event. There is a clear difference between mass murderers and serial killers. Serial killers execute a number of people over a period of time (extended), which may be months or years. Mass murderers are also different from spree killers, who kill people in a short period of time in a connected and separate series of incidents. In most cases, mass murderers die in police hands or commit suicide after committing the crime of murder. At times, mass murder is driven by racial, religious and ethnic conflicts. An example of mass murder took place in 1915-1917 (Turkish genocide o Armenians. This was the mass murder of Jews by Germans, and their partners in the Second World War. In 1970s, there also occurred mass murder of intellectuals by the Khmer Rouge communist regime of Cambodia. The current mass murder occurred in Sudan between the government and militias in Darfur. These types of murders are however classified as organized mass murders, and are driven by ideological and political motives (Charles, 2012).

The mass-murdering individual and their motives

Most of the individuals involved in mass murders often commit suicide after committing the acts. This therefore becomes a challenge especially when data involving their motives is of great concern. Several motivations that have been identified as causing individuals to commit mass murder include revenge, perverted love, sexual homicides, politically motivated hate and psychosis. According to Harris et al. (2012), individuals involved in mass murder use firearms and their victims are deliberately chosen. There is always a precipitating event before the mass murderer performs the act. Others commit murder due to reasons such as financial difficulties and mental illness or perceived persecution by one’s society. The motives of mass murderers are sometimes outlined in diaries journals or videos. Mass murderers feel great pain, rejection or loss, and this is why they feel the desire to express it in a public manner. They chose to gain attention by executing their acts publicly, since they lack the positive attention that they crave for privately. These offenders are usually predatory and calculating, and in most cases are aware that they will not get away with their actions. A firearm in their hands gives them power and control, thus, they have a way to execute their plans (Charles, 2012).

Discovering mass murder in the US

There was an increase in the rate with which mass murders have occurred, since the mid-1960s. Since that time, the focus has been on the high rates of mass killings that have been occurring in the society. Before the massacres in 1966 involving Speck and Whiteman, there were very few mass murders in the United States (Turvey, 2012). Research however, shows that mass murders have gradually declined since 1991. This is shown by statistics of FBI. There is however an estimated 18,000 lives claimed by homicides each year. The United States has relatively high rates of homicide when compared to other nations with similar levels of economy. After the incidences of shootings at Virginia Tech, Columbine High and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ political event at Tucson, the United States has tried to come up with ways to stop and identify the perpetrators of the crimes. Some researchers hold that establishing criminal profiles is the way out, and may prove elusive. This has been due to the limited knowledge that exists, calling for additional information regarding the issue of mass murder (Bowers et al. 2010).

Current trends in criminal profiling

Computerized profiling

            There has been contemporary application of computerized profiling techniques especially in homeland security. This takes place especially as a form of passenger profiling, to prevent any attacks of murder on other passengers. Computerized profiling employs the use of programs such as CAAPS, which is an automated system that tries to identify or detect people that may pose a threat to the mass. Mass murderers can be people travelling from other regions, but have their targets in other areas, requiring them to board means of transport (Becker, 2012). The system records the profile of each passenger in identifying those that may pose a threat to others, and taking the immediate action. Apart from identifying people that might be killers, the system also has a network referred to as Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) that monitors drug mentions in hospitals and police records. The use of computerized profiling is popularized in New York with the HALT (Homicide Assessment and Lead Tracking Network) system. In Michigan the system applied is known as Homicide Investigative Tracking System (HITS). The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) system Violent Criminal Apprehension Program cannot be left behind in this, due to the role that it plays in the fight against crime in the United States. These programs have been available since the 1980s, but have continued to advance due to improvement in science and technology. The FBI’s alerts are even posted in this program, so as to enable people have a wider and broader understanding of the issue of crime.

This has also been helpful for the criminal justice system in the United States, since it enables the actors involved in strengthening their activities in dealing with crime. This in turn has led to the strengthening the criminal justice system, which has bee weakening in its effectiveness. Computerized profiling is reliable as compared to human profiling, due to the high accuracy and effectiveness involved. According to Stefoff (2010), there have been empirical and scientific studies concerning the effectiveness of computerized profiling. It is of great significance to note the fact that computers are just tools, but not human intelligence substitutes. Their competence in handling (organizing and analyzing) data cannot be overlooked. Computerized profiling is very interesting for researchers. The introduction of computers in identifying offenders such as serial and mass murderers is efficient as well as effective.

DNA profiling

Recently, there has been emergence of trends in criminal profiling due to improvement in science and technology. The emergence of DNA profiling in identification of suspects of mass murders has been helpful especially for the authorities. This is a technique where a sample of DNA is run in a laboratory test to generate data about it. It looks particularly for DNA that could identify the source of the sample to be used to compare to another sample. This technique can utilize the DNA of a known or unknown person, and it can be used in various ways from genealogy to law enforcement. This technique however, relies on the presence of short tandem repeats (STRs) which are in the genetic code of every organism. According to Harris et al. (2012), the repetitive strings can provide information about an individual, as they tend to be unique. Various methods can be used to extort the DNA and look at the areas of interest. DNA profiling technique relies on a reference sample. For instance, DNA from a person who is missing or even DNA from a crime site, with a contrast test being taken from a person of concern to obtain a match. The process of profiling is done by a technician who has maximum training and knowledge on a variety of tests. The process of DNA profiling is effective as it is based on biology (Charles, 2012). In other cases however, samples can be difficult to work with, and may take a longer time than expected leading to contamination of the samples.

Examples of regions that have used DNA profiling

Sri Lanka is one of the regions where DNA profiling has been use to identify suspects of mass murders. This has been due to the fact that the rate of crimes in the region is high, and has upset the peaceful way of life and development of the country. The authorities in concern with handling crime are burdened, and it is often questionable whether the existing methods are effective in handling crime. Eyewitness evidence is not sufficient in conducting investigations, as the memory can be unreliable. This has called the need for other advanced methods in identifying mass murderers such as forensic DNA profiling. This technique is changing all aspects of the criminal justice system of the regions that apply it. This has been due to the fact of its accuracy and extreme sensitivity. The first application of this technique took place in 1986 in the United Kingdom. During the same time, the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) in the US as well as the laboratories in the US began using this technique. DNA profiling was used in Sri Lanka to identify suspects of mass murder in Hokandara. This technique is popular in Sri Lanka (Charles, 2012).

In September, 2001 the eleventh, the technique has been applied to identify suspects of terrorist attacks in New York, on the World Trade Center. This has been the most difficult investigation because of total tissue destruction of the bodies of victims. The technique of DNA profiling is effective if suspects of mass murders are identified and convicted or even executed. It is of great significance to note the other roles that the technique performs. Apart from identification and conviction of offenders, DNA profiling is also used in identifying missing persons, establishing paternity, identifying military personnel as well as victims of mass murders and other violent crimes (Charles, 2012).


If one believes that somebody he or she know fits the profile of someone who could carry out severe violence, whether it be fellow friend or partner, a family member, or someone off the street who walks into your place of occupation, one should notify someone in the authority, like the police, a mental health agency. Bringing it to one’s attention could be the first step in avoiding a tragedy. Due to the improvement in science and technology, there is need to embrace new and effective methods of profiling in identifying mass murderers. These include computerized as well as DNA profiling. According to Harris et al. (2012), DNA profiling and creating databases for all citizens would be the perfect and fairer policy than profiling only certain individuals, but the cost factor, ethical and legal hurdles might arise. However, strong leaders must guarantee the citizens that these databases will be used only for criminal investigations and the rights of all citizens will be respected.

Over the next decade, it will be increasingly significant for all of us to comprehend the works of these technologies and this will result to a peaceful society, free from mass murders and other crimes. In order to protect society and individuals from potential abuses, all nations should request their government to pay attention towards using DNA based proof. Scientists and technicians must be given suitable training before their enrollment. Indirectly, this will open up a new opportunity of employment in all nations. Police, lawyers, judges and the public must be informed of the potential and drawbacks of forensic DNA profiling so as to assess it and question it astutely. In addition, adequate financial support must be billed by the government to guarantee that all suspects have full and impartial access to this powerful new technology and that everyone is constitutionally protected. This way, the issue of mass murders and other violent crimes will become history in many States (Harris et al. 2012).



Turvey, B. E. (2012). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Bowers, T. G., Holmes, E. S., & Rhom, A. (2010). “The Nature of Mass Murder and Autogenic Massacre. Journal of police and criminal psychology , 25(1), 59-66.

Harris, J., John, M., & Robin, B. (2012). “Rampage Violence Requires a New Type of Research”. American Journal of Public Health, 102(6), 1054-1057.

Charles, C. (2012). Hegemonic Masculinity and Mass Murderers in the United States. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 8(2), 542-590.

Kocsis, R. N. (2006). Criminal profiling: Principles and practice. Totowa, N.J: Humana Press.

, R. (2010). Criminal profiling. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.

Becker, R. F., & Dutelle, A. W. (2012). Criminal investigation. Burlington, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Stefoff, R. (2010). Criminal profiling. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.


Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.