Toulmin's philosophy of argument and its relevance to offender profiling

Abstract

This study sought to identify the extent to which claims about the probable characteristics of offenders in 'offender profiles' were based on substantive arguments. Because Toulmin's (1958) philosophy of argument has been demonstrated as a useful way of breaking down arguments into their constituent parts (Burleson, 1979) we examined the extent to which profiles contained grounds, warrants, backing and rebuttals to support or refute various claims about offenders. Twenty-one profiles, representing a range of 'profiling styles', were obtained from a variety of sources. All of these had been used in major criminal investigations either in the UK or internationally. Of the nearly 4,000 claims made, nearly 80% were unsubstantiated. That is, they contained no grounds, warrant, backing or rebuttal. Moreover, less than 31% of the claims were falsifiable. We argue that (a) this demonstrates the need for a careful, systematic evaluation of profiling advice (b) Toulmin's structure is one useful method for evaluating such material and for providing a possible framework for such advice.

Internet Facilitated Rape: A Multivariate Model of Offense Behavior

“…To ensure the advice they formulate holds sufficient strength, Toulmin's philosophy of argument is adopted, where appropriate backing is needed to satisfy the 'conclusion' of an argument (Alison, Smith, Eastman & Rainbow, 2001). In this context, backing consists of empirical research into criminal behavior.…”

The False Recognition Effect in Criminal Profiling

“…As a case in point, in most countries there are no established procedures for how profiles should be delivered to the police, nor are there any accepted guidelines for how to evaluate profiling advice (Alison et al 2003a). One consequence of this state of affairs is that profiles are not always formally documented (i.e., written down) and, on occasion, it appears that they are not documented at all (Alison and Canter 2005;Alison and Canter 1999;Rainbow 2008;Snook et al 2007).…”

Taming the Beast: The UK Approach to the Management of Behavioral Investigative Advice

“…Such an approach allows for individual differences in specific approach and background expertise, but provides a consistent framework within which to encourage the professionalism and minimum standards expected and required. For a greater understanding and critical review of this approach the reader is directed towards Alison et al (2003a) and Almond et al (2007).…”

“…As the debate concerning both the overall usefulness of profiling and the specific approaches employed by profilers continues unabated within the published domain (e.g., Ainsworth 2001;Alison et al 2002Alison et al , 2003aAlison et al , b, 2004Badcock 1997;Boon 1997;Canter et al 2004;Hazelwood 1995;Mokros and Alison 2002;Pinizzotto and Finkel 1990) the business of profiling continues. Whilst efforts, such as those highlighted above, demonstrate an increasing understanding by the UK Police Service that such innovative investigative techniques must be properly underpinned through thorough research programmes, the operational demands of the Senior Investigating Officer are far removed from such idealistic goals and protracted timescales.…”