Offender
Profiling Series: Vol 2
Profiling
in Policy and Practice
Edited by David Canter & Laurence Alison (1999)
back to Profiling
in Policy and Practice
Profiling in Policy and Practice
David Ormerod
Criminal Profiling: Trial by Judge and Jury,
not Criminal Psychologist
This chapter examines the numerous difficulties facing
any party seeking to adduce an offender profile in a criminal trial
in England. An offender profile is likely to conflict with some of the
most fundamental rules of the law of evidence such as the rules of legal
relevance, opinion, hearsay, and the rules guarding against prejudicial
evidence. This chapter explains these rules and how they would affect
the admissibility of the profile, whether adduced by the prosecution
or the defence. It identifies the dangers in criminal psychologists
being treated as expert witnesses and the legal hurdle profiles would
face if they sought to rely on earlier research to support a particular
profile. By providing an explanation of the relevant rules of the law
of evidence and how they impinge on the admissibility of the profile,
the aim is for psychologists to be better equipped to address requests
from the investigating authorities for profiles.
David Ormerod read
law at Essex University and lectured there before being appointed to
a lectureship at the University of Nottingham in 1990. He was promoted
to senior lecturer in 1998. His main research interests are Criminal
law and the law of Evidence. He has written a number of articles on
topics within these fields including items on expert evidence, the use
of documentary evidence, computer evidence, psychological profiling,
and psychiatric harm in the criminal law. In addition to his work in
the Law School at Nottingham, David Ormerod has presented Criminal Bar
Association. He writes monthly case commentaries for the Criminal Law
Review and is a member of the Editorial Board of the International Journal
of Evidence and Proof.
