Kocsis (2003) describes criminal profiling (CP) as the process of investigating patterns of behavior with the aim of establishing a profile of the potential perpetrator. This method of investigation uses evidence from the crime scene as well as any information about the crime to generate a portrait of the potential offender (Muller, 2000). Douglas et al. (1986) state that the purpose of PC is not to determine the identity of the offender but to create a profile that aids the investigation by allowing investigators to narrow down their list of suspects by trying to understand the different personality traits of the offender. the attacker. Profiling is more commonly used in crimes where the suspect exhibits some form of psychopathy, such as homicides, sexual assaults, etc. Hazelwood (1983) believed that the offender's behavior would reflect his personality and that analyzing his attitude could allow investigators to clarify their behavior. list of suspects. In order to develop a profile, researchers should evaluate different aspects of the investigation such as: the crime, the crime scene, police statements and autopsy reports. An interview with the victim should also take place and this would be the most important step in developing the profile. Profilers believe that a profile is most useful at the beginning of a criminal case because it allows them to determine which direction the investigation should go. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay As mentioned earlier, a profile is created with the aim of helping the police and pointing them in the right direction (Douglas and al., 1986). To be useful, a criminal profile must provide more information than just a description of the offender's actions. It should also be as specific as possible by separating the potential perpetrator from the rest of the population and allowing investigators to act accordingly. A study by Copson (1995) shows that police officers would seek the help of profilers again if necessary during other investigations, as it allows them to have a second opinion on the case. Of 184 participants, 78.3% said that the CP did not help solve the case, but 53.8% agreed that it allowed them to learn more about the perpetrator and the crime. -even. Additionally, 82.6% of participants also stated that profiling has proven useful in practice (Copson, 1995). Despite these results, a study by Bartol (1996) showed us the opposite. It was found that 70% of participants, all police psychologists, seemed to question the usefulness and validity of profiling. Torres et al. (2006) believe that the results obtained were negative due to the fact that the participants did not participate in the development of the profiles. Even though CP has proven useful in different criminal cases, people still question its validity. This is due to the lack of studies to validate it (Cook & Hinman, 1999). Pinizzotto and Finzel (1990) conducted a study to try to better understand the reliability and validity of profiling. Of the 28 participants, 4 were profiling experts, 6 were police detectives, 6 were detectives, 6 were clinical psychologists, and 6 were undergraduate students. Each group was asked to produce a profile for a homicide and sexual assault case. These profiles were then given to a group of detectives not involved in the study, and they were asked to rate the profiles, based on their usefulness and usefulness. The detectives placed police detectives first, followed by profiling experts, detectives, clinical psychologists and finally]. 37(1). 51 – 58.