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

Authors: Laurence Alison¹; Matthew Smith²; Oliver Eastman¹; Lee Rainbow³

Source: Psychology, Crime and Law, Volume 9, Number 2, June 2003 , pp. 173-183(11)

Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Buy & download fulltext article:

Price: $50.43 plus tax (Refund Policy)

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.

Keywords: Toulmin; Argument; Offender profiles

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000116265

Affiliations: 1: Centre for Investigative Psychology University of Liverpool Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South Liverpool UK L69 7ZA 2: Psychology Department Liverpool Hope University College 3: National Crime Faculty Bramshill Hook Hampshire

Publication date: 2003-06-01