The 'war on terror' has dominated not only the political landscape but also has left an indelible imprint within the legal framework globally and domestically. A recurrent theme on the international and domestic stage has been how best to protect the people and institutions of a liberal democracy against those willing to pursue by violent means their opposition to the founding norms of such a state.  It has been argued by many academics including Elliott, that a particularly important strand within the debate concerns the extent to which it is acceptable to compromise liberal democratic values in order to protect them.  The key theme for academics has been to identify the point at which the protection of liberal democratic values becomes paradoxical. As emergent counter-terrorism frameworks are designed to protect liberal democratic principles, they become undermined and flawed from a human rights perspective when they impact upon the human rights and fundamental freedoms they are designed to protect.
Get your grade
or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!
The primary responses to terrorism adopted by Western governments throughout the past five decades has been focused on creating a separate and distinct counter-terrorism framework to administer justice for terrorist offences or those suspected of terrorism. Counter-terrorism frameworks have represented a fusion of national security and criminal justice policies in an attempt to move towards pre-emptive strategies of 'prevention and control' of terrorism threats.  The strategies of 'prevention and control' have resulted in a shift towards anticipatory risk which aims to allow law enforcement agents to identify, interrupt and prosecute those suspected of terrorism offences before their commission. Although the UK has a particular history in managing terrorism with the Northern Ireland conflict, the current threat presents a unique dynamic being formed on a religious radicalisation of Islam emanating from the Middle East.
The thesis will argue that the responses adopted by Western governments since September 11th form at least two patterns. Firstly an initial response provoked by the September 11th attacks which focused attention on foreign nationals at borders and controlling immigration of those suspected of terrorism. The attackers involved in the September 11th and the 2004 Madrid bombings all originated from the Middle East which allowed governments to focus attention on developing laws for the identification of 'suspected' terrorists from foreign regions. The threat could be identified as being foreign and alien originating from outside the Western borders which could be controlled by employing strategies to identify those 'suspected' of being a terrorist. Secondly, the London bombings on July 7th 2005 presented a further dynamic to the current threat, in direct contrast to the previous attacks, the terrorists were all British nationals. This change represented a radicalisation within ethnic minority communities which prompted a change in direction in counter-terrorism policy. Due to a growth in 'home grown' terrorists a need emerged to identify and intervene early in the process by which an individual comes to sympathise with, support or actively engage with terrorist groups and activities.
The process by which the identification of terrorists occurs is through a 'profiling' lens in which governments enable the assimilation of information to form the basis of a profile. Profiles can be constructed from a vast array of sources but in the current terrorism threat the primary indicator of terrorism has been race and ethnicity.  Law enforcement efforts to identify proximate factors contributing to radicalisation have led to a form of profiling identified as 'ethnic profiling' in which the nature of religious practice becomes the primary criterion in determining suspicion.  Ethnic profiling uses generalisations grounded in race, ethnicity, national origins and religion rather than objective evidence or individual behaviour, as the basis for making law enforcement and/or investigative decisions about who has been involved in criminal activity.  The vehicle through which ethnic profiling has occurred in Europe has been through a mixture of police operation and tactic including 'stop and search', identity checks and the exercise of police investigative powers used to detect or prevent crime. 
Always on Time
Marked to Standard
The primary focus of this paper will be on the development of ethnic profiling as a pre-emptive tool of investigation for identifying terrorists within our borders. The primary question the paper will ask is whether profiling is amenable to creating psychological portraits of terrorists and to consider the legal implications of ethnic profiling from a human rights perspective. In order to evaluate ethnic profiling it is necessary to consider the use of profiling within criminal justice. By analysing the development of profiling within criminal justice it will allow a cross comparison to made with its uses within the discrete area of terrorism. The paper will be divided into three parts.
Firstly, it will begin by examining the preliminary issues of profiling in the modern context of criminal law. As there have been a variety of approaches employed within profiling there are a number of methodological issues raised by the way in which profiles have been constructed. The paper will present a distinction between scientific and non-scientific models of profiling with analysis on distinguishing the core aspects of each model of profiling. This section will also focus on developing a critical analysis of profiling within criminal investigations by analysing how the scientific and non-scientific models contribute to identifying offenders. This will enable a thorough investigation of how criminal law uses profiling in criminal investigations. The second part of the paper will be on the development of profiling within the terrorism domain. By applying the analysis of criminal profiling, it will be possible to cross compare the two domains within which profiling have been developed so as to answer the question whether profiling within counter-terrorism can create psychological portraits of potential terrorists. The third section of the paper will deal with human rights perspectives on profiling and will form an evaluative tool of analysis on the development of ethnic profiling.
PART ONE: Profiling in the Modern Context:
Before embarking upon an analysis of profiling, it is important to establish a number of preliminary issues connected with the way in which profiling has developed in criminal investigations. There are a number of ways in which the development of profiling can be analysed including thematically, chronologically or by classification. This paper proposes to examine profiling by the classification of scientific models and non-scientific models as this will allow a thorough analysis of the core elements of each type of profiling in identifying unknown offenders, which will be relevant when cross comparing core aspects of profiling in the criminal context to ethnic profiling in the terrorism context.
Profiling in general has developed along two lines which: non-scientific models and scientific models. Both lines of profiling draw upon various methods including behavioural analysis, psychology analysis, crime scene analysis, police officer investigative experience and on empirical studies conducted with convicted offenders. The non-scientific model draws upon a vast array of methods to construct a profile of offender's probable characteristics which generally do not use any scientific methods to validate a profile's construction for reliability. The methods used rely heavily upon intuition, interviews with previously convicted offenders and police officer's experience in investigating crimes. Scientific models tend to take an alternative approach in constructing profiles by using a scientific core to develop profiles of offending characteristics. Many scientific models begin by developing a theory of criminal offending linking it with criminal behaviour in constructing profiles.
Alongside the issue of a methodological approach in profiling is the discretionary nature in which profiles are constructed. Due to the discretionary nature of the profiler in constructing the profile there is an element of subjectivity in the profiler's selections. Each profiler will bring an element of prejudice from their unique perspective on life and on their experience of the offence under investigation. The process by which informal influences direct the profiler in constructing the profile can be considered an element of informal profiling.
One further consideration under preliminary issues is the way in which the official definition of profiling has developed. It is argued by Dowden et al that although many different definitions have been proposed for suspect profiling over the last three decades, there still remains no official consensus on the actual definition of suspect profiling.  Rather it becomes intertwined with the terms: offender profiling, criminal profiling, criminal personality profiling and psychological profiling as a label for the technique in identifying the major personality and behavioural characteristics of an individual based upon an analysis of not only the crime but the crime scene, the location and the victim.  The lack of a definition is core to understanding profiling, in that almost any technique to distil offender characteristics can be considered some form of profiling. The definition of a profile is assumed to involve a construction of a behavioural composite based on a social and psychological assessment by the profiler.  A 'proper' interpretation of the crime scene, the location of the crime and the victim can indicate the 'personality characteristics' of the type of individual who committed the offence, which supposedly can assist the field police officer in the detection of the offender or potential offenders.  It has become an investigative tool for prioritising suspects and developing new lines of inquiry in criminal investigations. 
This Essay is
a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Examples of our work
The Roots of Modern Profiling:
The roots of contemporary profiling are not found within scientific, academic or criminology literature but rather many of the central ideas of profiling are found within early fictional literature. Three fictional writers spanning back to the nineteenth century composed novels where central characters had an understanding of human nature in investigating crimes.  Dupin, Poe and Collins developed characters that were composed of a hybrid detective and a hybrid psychologist which investigated crimes by gathering as much information about the crime which could assist in the identity of the offender.  Much of the fictional literature goes through a change from an amateur perspective on crime solving to a science based approach with the arrival of 'Sherlock Homes' in the twentieth century, whom had a greater understanding of forensic medicine. The first real display of profiling within criminal law was conducted in 1888 by Thomas Bond who was a forensic scientist. Bond was a pathologists and performed autopsies on victims, he was able to identify common traits of his killers by the methods used in the murders. Bond's predictions were used by the police in an attempt to identify offenders for crimes already committed. Although Bond's early work may be more related to the development of forensic science as opposed to offender profiling, this early work shows place for the construction of profiles of offenders within criminal investigations.
Birth of Law Enforcement Profiling:
Hicks and Sales identifies the birth place of modern law enforcement profiling in the works of James Brussel, who was a psychiatrist that worked on the 'mad bomber' case in New York in 1956.  Brussel studied the patters of a bomber who left bombs around New York City over a period of 17 years, additionally he studied the crime scenes of the bombings and the bomber's letters of demands to predict the likely characteristics of identity of the bomber.  After a careful study of all the available evidence collected over the 17 years, Brussel produced a profile of the unidentified bomber which allowed the police to focus the direction of their investigation.  Part of the predictions made by Brussel was based upon an actuarial or statistical prediction about the likely characteristics of an offender yet unknown in identity. Brussel used previous works of Ernst Kretschmer which allowed him to apply the facts of the 'mad bomber' to existing works on personality traits.  The police utilised the profile produced by Brussel by publishing it in the New York Times. The unknown bomber responded with letters and demands which Brussel used to redefine his profile in more specific terms and allowed the police to identify the mad bomber who subsequently was successfully prosecuted for the bombings. The profile produced by Brussel and the actual identity of the arrested bomber matched with impeccable accuracy.  Although there is no way of actually validating Brussel's early work to determine whether it was a lucky guess or whether it was systematic approach for identifying the unknown bomber. Kessler argues that Brussel was the father figure of the modern profiling within the FBI.  Following Brussel's success other psychologists began formally to study the impact of the relationship between crime scene evidence and the perpetrators of those crimes.  Profilers who sought to build upon Brussel's work primarily became involved with developing a profiling unit within the FBI for solving crimes. It is argued academically that the FBI's profiling unit was the first serious attempt at formally categorising a use for profiling in aiding police investigations of solving crime.  The success of Brussel's early work initiated a gradual shift within policing in America to formally seek out alternatives to traditional policing techniques of investigation which police officers could use to aid their investigation of serious crime.
Introduction to Modern Profiling:
Profiling in criminal justice occupies three phases within the criminal justice process: firstly criminal investigation, secondly apprehension and thirdly prosecution.  The focus of the thesis will be firstly on how theoretically and practicably profiling occurs within criminal investigation and secondly how law enforcement officers use the constructed profiles to identify and apprehend unknown offenders. By focusing specifically on how profiles are constructed and then how they are used in the criminal process, it will allow for greater comparisons on how ethnic and terrorist profiling is constructed and used in later chapters. The essential elements of analysis for this section will be on how profilers construct the profiles and then how they are applied in aiding the identification of unknown offenders. For the purposes of analysis this section will start with examining the methods used to profile unknown offenders by dividing the works into non-scientific models and scientific models so to analyse and examine how each attempt at profiling can be used by police in identifying unknown offenders.
Non-Scientific Models of Profiling:
The focus of this section will align various models that developed specifically for criminal investigation and offender apprehension of unknown offenders. Although many textbooks  exist alongside much more professional literature  , this section will divide out profiling by examining five models which can be classified as non-scientific models:
(1) Doughlas, Ressler, Burgess and Hartman Model.
(2) Holmes and Holmes Model.
(3) Keppel and Walter Model.
(4) Turco Model.
(5) Turvey Model.
This section will firstly set out how each model profiles an unknown offender and then at the end will draw together each model in analysis of the non-scientific models.
(1) Doughlas, Ressler, Burgess and Hartman Model. 
The most detailed model of profiling procedures is found within the Doughlas et al model for profiling unknown offender's characteristics. The model seeks to categorise the procedures into six stages: Profiling Inputs, Decision-Process Models, Crime Assessment, Criminal Profile, Investigation and Apprehension.  The first stage of 'Profiling Inputs' focuses on five elements of the crime: the crime scene, the victim, the forensic information available, the preliminary police reports and any photographs of the scene and the area in which the crime has taken place. The goal of this stage for the profiler is to collect information and evidence that may assist at a later stage in the construction of the profile of the unknown offender. It becomes a key list of information and evidence relevant to the construction of a predictive profile of the offender's characteristics. The second stage of 'Decision-Process Models' builds upon the first stage by classifying the evidence and information into various classified categorises. The first focus of this stage will be to classify the homicide type, whether the murder falls part of a series of murders or a single murder. The second focus is on establishing the primary intent of the offender by examining what motivated the offender into committing the crime. There will also be an examination on the victim type, the degree of risk the offender took in committing the crime, whether the crime was committed by a first time offender and finally the length of time taken by the offender to kill the victim. At this stage the profiler will have an analysis of the criminal act, the victim and the offender so as to build a picture of how the criminal act was committed.
The third stage in constructing the profile is focused upon a 'Crime Assessment' which uses the information categorised from the previous two stages to redefine the profile into a crime classification based upon a reconstruction of the criminal act. The fourth stage involves a construction of an actual 'Criminal Profile' which uses all the information, evidence and classifications identified in the previous three stages. Each profile will contain information on the demographic, the physical characteristics, the likely beliefs and values of the offender and the pre and post offender behaviour of the unknown offender. The fifth stage allows the law enforcement officer to go out and use the profile in their investigation and then to come back to the profiler with any evidence on the success of the profile. This will allow the profiler to filter in any new evidence which the investigation may yield which then may lead to the sixth stage of the actual apprehension of the unknown offender.
(2) Holmes and Holmes Model. 
The model presented by Holmes and Holmes follows a similar pattern of intuitive analysis of the crime scene similar to that of the previous Doughlas et al model discussed above.  Holmes and Holmes take the Doughlas et al model further by matching the evidence and information to various criminal typologies and further examine the geography of the area in which the crime was committed. The significant difference between the Doughlas et al model for profiling and Holmes and Holmes is that, the latter model seeks to rely more on other academic works which is filtered into the construction of the profile. Holmes and Holmes construct profiles for four different types of crimes; murder, arson, rape and paedophilia based upon information and studies conducted by previous researchers in the field. The model suggests five criminal typologies which are derived from Doughlas et al  and their own research:
(a) Disorganised Asocial versus Organised Non-social Offenders:
Evidence and information that can be collected form the crime scene which suggests that the offender was disorganised can be used to draw comparisons to the offender's everyday life.  A disorganised offender will almost certainly be disorganised in everyday life and be classifiable as being disconnected from society in general.  In direct contrast an organised offender will almost certainly have an organised lifestyle, home and appearance which will be reflective in his personality traits.  Holmes and Holmes believe that classifying an unknown offender by organised and unorganised can be useful dimension in constructing the profile as it gives an important focus on who may have committed the crime. 
(b) Serial Murders:
Holmes and Holmes present five different types of serial murders that can be used to aid the identification of offenders from evidence and information of the crime scene.
(i) Spatial Mobility:  Holmes and Holmes argue that there is an important characteristic to be identified from those murders who murder within their own community and those that travel to other communities to commit their crime.
(ii) The Visionary Serial Killer:  This is the type of killer that murders on the basis of visions and voices from within telling them to commit the murder. Typically, Holmes and Holmes suggest that these types of killers are psychotic and their victims will be random strangers. 
(iv) The Hedonistic Serial Killer: This type of murderer derives either some sexual pleasure or some personal gain from the act of killing. The act of killing forms part of a 'comfort-oriented' murder for the offender. 
(v) The Power/Control Serial Killer: This type of killer derives a sexual pleasure from exerting control, power and domination over the victim and will often kill the victim by strangling them. 
Holmes and Holmes cited the works of Kolko and Kazdin  and Sakheim et al  as a basis which could be used to identify behaviour of arsonists in criminal offending. The Holmes and Holmes model also draws inspiration from the works of Rider  which they used to profile four distinct types of arsonists. Firstly there was the jealously motivated adult male, the second 'would be hero', thirdly the thrill seeker fire-setter and fourthly the arsonist who sets fire to property on impulse.
Holmes and Holmes rely upon the works of Groth et al  to present a profile based on the elements of power, anger and sexuality in identifying an offender who committed rape.  By bringing together the works of Groth et al and the works of Knight and Prentky,  Holmes and Holmes constructed four profiles for rapists: power assurance, anger retaliation, exploitive and sadistic.
Holmes and Holmes draw upon the research established by Burgess et al  to construct profiles of offenders with characteristics of paedophilia. The profiles presented by the Holmes and Holmes model suggest two offender types of paedophiles:
(i) Situational Child Molesters who are not necessary draw to children but abuse them when they are under pressure and release that stress by victimising children or vulnerable adults. 
(ii) Preferential Child Molesters who are draw to children as objects of sexual interest and gratification. 
(3) Keppel and Walter Model: 
The Keppel and Walter model attempts to compensate for the shortcomings identifiable from the Holmes and Holmes model discussed above. This model critiques the Holmes and Holmes model as being too wide ranging and consequently being of little investigative use as it is largely unsupported by empirical data.  The authors focus specifically on the rape profiles constructed by Holmes and Holmes and identify a number of flaws in the typologies used in the profile construction. Although Keppel and Walter use previous studies to construct profiles, they use Hazelwood and Burgess's  categories of rape to construct a rape-murder typology which attempt to compensate for the shortcomings of the Holmes and Holmes profile of rapists. Keppel and Walter constructed four types of rape-murder typology profiles:
(i) Power-assertive Rape-Murder.
(ii) Power-Reassurance Rape-Murder.
(iii) Anger-Retaliatory Rape-Murder.
(iv) Anger-Excitation Rape-Murder.
Keppel and Walter also attempted to validate their profiles based upon research conducted in Michigan state prisons, where they interviewed 2476 inmates. The results showed that 38% were power assertive, 34% were anger retaliatory, 21% were power reassurance and 7% were anger excitation.  Although the statistics are only true of the prisons visited by the authors of the model but they provide support for the use of rape-murder typologies and profiles in the identification of rapist-murders in criminal investigations.
(4) Turco Model: 
The Turco model sets out a psychological theory approach to profiling which utilises the work of Liebert, a psychiatrist who uses his discipline in the context of serial murders in order to identify common traits in murderers.  Turco establishes his model of profiling by creating a framework within which violent behaviour is conceptualised as a process whereby offenders attempt to deal with internal frustrations related to their childhood relationships.  There are five dimensions to constructing the profile under the Turco model: 
(i) Crime Scene Evidence: a thorough examination of all the information and evidence collected form the crime scene can greatly impact the accuracy of profile construct.
(ii) Integration of Neurology Behaviour: Turco estimated that between 20% - 90% of violent offender suffer from some form of neurological impairment or abnormality, which may be relevant to predatory behaviours and characteristics of the offender. 
(iii) Psychological Theory: Turco advocated a connection between human development and an appreciation of the interactions in criminal behaviour which was relevant in appreciating the unknown offender's level of psychiatric sophistication. 
(iv) Demographic Characteristics of the Crime: the final aspect of Turco's profile is focused upon understanding the demographic factors inherent in a crime which can be gleaned from a thorough crime scene analysis.
By bringing analysing a criminal act from these perspectives Turco would construct a profile in order to identify an unknown offender's characteristics.
(5) Turvey Model. 
Turvey articulates a deductive model of profiling which emphasises reliance on physical and behavioural evidence in making inferences about likely offender characteristics.  Turvey draws a key distinction between inductive and deductive profiling where he identifies that inductive profiling provides a comparative co-relational and/or statistical process that is reliant upon a subjective expertise of an individual profiler.  Inductive profiling is premised upon broad generalisations and statistical reasoning which are generally accepted as being true in offender characteristics.  Alternatively deductive profiling is dependent upon conclusions draw from the investigation which logically flows from the patterns of a particular offence.  Turvey identifies four components to successful deductive profiling:
(i) Forensic and behavioural evidence collected from the crime and from the victim.
(ii) Victimology, a study of the victim and the characteristics relevant to constructing a profile.
(iii) Crime scene characteristics.
(iv) A deduction of offender characteristics from the first three components. 
Turvey argues that a good profile is constructed from 'asking the right questions of the offender's behaviour'.  The model is further assisted by a composition of a 'Behavioural-Motivational Typology' which he draws and adapts from Groth et al's  previous works in understanding power relationships within rape cases, citing power reassurance, power assertive, anger retaliatory, anger excitation and profit as a motivational typology for offenders in committing crimes. Turvey argues that by using Groth et al's understanding of power and control within rape, it can provide a psychological snapshot of a rapist during a single instance from which some reliable inferences about a motive can be made. 
Analysis of Non-Scientific Approaches to Profiling:
The models identified in the previous section although form together a gradual progression towards the construction of profiles based upon studies and evidence of practice of specific crimes, notably murder, rape, arson and paedophilia. From the perspective of the thesis, it is important to analyse how each of these models profile information to construct unknown offender characteristics and secondly how they might be used by the police in assisting criminal investigations. Although many of approaches taken by the various authors of the models take a consistently logical approach to firstly assimilating the information and secondly constructing the profiles, they all have seven inherent limitations:
(a) Lack of Standardised Goals and Approaches:
It is identifiable that all of the models do not have a clear goal and standard for profiling but rather each depart upon different routes to construct a profile of offender characteristics. Across the models it is possible to identify a minimum of ten different goals for profiling from a non-scientific perspective. Turvey's model  is the clearest example of providing a separate chapter which addresses the goals for a profiler to adopt.  Holmes and Holmes  also include a specific section on their major goals for profiling which can be identified as a social and psychological assessment of offenders, psychological evaluations of belongings found in the possession of suspected offenders and strategies for interviewing suspected offenders when they have been apprehended. It is interesting to note that Turco does not include any specific goals for profiling and his model remains silent on profiler specific goals. 
(b) Unclear Terms and Definitions.
(c) Reliance on Intuition and Professional Knowledge.
(d) Lack of Procedures.
(e) Lack of Evidence of Investigative Value.
Conclusion on the non-scientific model as having inherent cracks which demonstrate a lack of creditability despite number attempts to improve the model.
Scientific Models of Profiling:
*The Canter Model
(1) Canter's criminal theory - discussion and evaluation of Canter's presentation of a criminal theory of offending and how he links his theory to characteristics of offending.
(2) Examination of Canter's testing of his hypothesis of profiling.
(3) Analysis of Canter's model:
a) Theoretical Framework
b) Lack of Conceptual Clarity
c) Hypothesis Generalisation
d) Research Methods for Profiling
e) Empirical Evaluation
The Relationship of Science within Profiling:
* Discussion here about the difference between the models with science and those with no science at all. Some of the models discussed in non-scientific use elements of a scientific approach but some have no science at all. This section will discuss the impact of science within profiling and what core conceptual differences are existent between non-scientific and scientific models.
Evaluation of the Information used in Profiles:
In order to full evaluate criminal profiling, I would propose to examine three core issues with regard to whether profiling can determine unknown offender characteristics. This is going to involve examining the information available from which profiles are constructed. This will include: Crime Scene Analysis, Motives, Personalities and Behaviour.
By examining the literature on the 'raw materials' used in criminal profiling it will allow a fuller understanding as to which types of crime may be amenable to profiling more than others.
Evaluation and Analysis of Criminal Profiling:
This section will cover the full analysis of how profiling can contribute to identifying unknown offenders. Additionally it will identify the relationship between both non-scientific and scientific models in identifying unknown offenders.
Part-Two: Ethnic Profiling in the Context of Terrorism:
How profiling is understood in the context of terrorism
Formal profiling - unknown.
Informal profiling - evidenced through police discretion.
How police are influenced in exercising that element of discretion in executing their duty:
(1) Organisational and Legal Factors.
(2) Individual and Environmental Factors.
(3) Police Suspicion and Decision Making.
(4) Theoretical and Legal Basis of Suspicion.
Ethnic Profiling in Ordinary Policing:
Examination here of previous attempts at using racial factors as a key indicator of criminality. Specifically, this section will deal with the 'driving whilst black' theory and how police have used ethnicity prior to terrorism as a basis for assuming criminality.
(a) Ethnic Profiling in Europe.
(b) Stop and Searches (outside terrorism).
(c) Police Raids Targeting Ethnic Minorities.
(d) Immigration Enforcement.
Ethnic Profiling in Counter-terrorism since 9/11:
Examination here of the effect of 9/11 and
(a) Ethnic Profiling in Mass Controls and Stop-and-Search Practices.
(b) Data Mining.
(c) Raids on Muslim Institutions and Business.
(d) Arrest and Imprisonment.
(e) Monitoring and Intelligence Gathering.
* I think at this point a full comparison to criminal profiling and ethnic profiling would need to be conducted here to outline what are the similarities if any between the approaches.