Criminal profiling as expert evidence
Article comments
Interim status: Citation only.
Petherick, W., Field, D., Lowe, A., & Fry, E. (2009). Criminal profiling as expert evidence. In W. Petherick (Ed.), Serial crime: Theoretical and practical issues in behavioral profiling (pp. 171-212). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Access the publisher's website.
1st edition: 2006 HERDC submission. FoR code: 1602
© Copyright 2009, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Abstract
Extract:
Profiling evidence has been accepted in courts in the United States in both trial and sentencing phases, but other jurisdictions have been more cautious in their acceptance. For example, courts in the United Kingdom and Australia have been reluctant to introduce profilers as experts, even though profiling has been given some exposure in courts operating at the lower end of the justice system. The reasons for this reluctance are varied but include a lack of uniformity processes and outcomes, fragmentation of methods, and conflict between profiling organizations and practitioners. In short, there are many methods of profiling, and not all practitioners agree on or accept one way as the best or most suitable.
Suggested Citation
Wayne Petherick, David Field, Andrew Lowe, and Elizabeth Fry. "Criminal profiling as expert evidence" Serial crime: Theoretical and practical issues in behavioral profiling (2nd ed). Ed. W. Petherick. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2009. 171-212.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/david_field/30
This document is currently not available here.