Predictability and profiling In the rational choice perspectives we see a congruence in approaches between the economists and the forensic psychologists in terrorism research. We both believe in predictability that can be demonstrated through empirical analysis. There are still some who question the rational actor model on the grounds that it cannot predict idiosyncratic responses. However, it certainly has to be the case that prediction based on probabilities is better than no prediction at all. Just like detectives benefiting from the prioritisation of suspects based on the most likely offender profiles for a crime (e.g. Canter 1994), those managing a terrorist hostage-taking incident can benefit from knowing the most likely outcomes of this type of incident in the past (Wilson 2000). In the early days of forensic psychology, models identifying types of offender behaviour were developed as a precursor to offender profiling (see for example Canter 1994). These analyses would typically identify groups of co-occurring behaviours that showed stability over large samples of data. A particularly stable finding from stranger rape serves as an example. Three broad behavioural styles exist in stranger rape, identifiable not as types of offender, but features of the offence. The drive for practical input to criminal investigation meant that the main focus of this finding would be whether there was a statistical relationship between the type of behaviour displayed and features of the offenders background, allowing prediction of who might be responsible. Forensic psychology then set about a (still ongoing) debate over whether statistical analysis or clinical experience had the most value in contributing to offender profiling. Ideas of profiling also emerged in early terrorism research and a number of profiling style papers were published claiming to identify common factors in the backgrounds of various groups of terrorists. For example, Hubbard (1971) constructed a list of common features of skyjackers based on interviews with captured offenders that included items such as being protective of a younger sister and having a first sexual experience with an older woman. These types of studies have been extensively criticised on methodological and even moral grounds, but purely on a practical basis, profiling terrorists has been widely dismissed (at least by academics) and as Victoroff (2006) states, to focus on capturing and killing terrorists is unlikely to eliminate the problem and, in many political circumstances, quite likely to be counter-productive. If a population supports terrorism, an inexhaustible supply of new terrorists will emerge (Victoroff 2006: 8). There is, however, agreement that terrorist actors are likely to be young and male, although such base line characteristics are of little use to either the security services or the police in terms of profiling: all those involved in crime and violent offences are more likely to be male. In parallel to the forensic psychological literature, because

of this base line, terrorism researchers have focused disproportionate interest on female activists. In forensic psychology, the rationale is that certain female offenders, such as sex offenders, have different treatment needs to male offenders. In terrorism research it is claimed that, in many cultures, women (e.g. as potential suicide bombers) can move about more freely and attract less attention from the security services. However, it seems likely that the attention given to female offenders in both arenas derives from the theory of double deviance (Lloyd 1995). Although the numbers of women receiving custodial sentences are increasing, it is indisputable that there are more male offenders in prison than females. Female offenders are considered unusual. Not only have they acted illegally, and as offenders have become deviants, but females are also perceived to have transgressed inherent gender roles, and have therefore become doubly deviant. Double deviance theorists claim that this dual transgression of societal codes places female offenders at greater risk of public disapproval. Comparably, in the terrorism literature, female terrorists are frequently perceived differently from their male counterparts. Female terrorists are often seen as subordinates acting under the influence of commanding males. Many women get involved in terrorism as a product of their relationships with particular men, but it is important to remember that male terrorists become involved through their relationships with other men as well. Alternatively, female terrorists are sometimes portrayed as suffering from a psychological syndrome, or mental instability in much the same way that early terrorism researchers perceived male terrorists (see, for example, Pearlstein 1991; de Cataldo Neuberger and Valentini 1996). There are therefore obvious parallels between the perception of the female terrorist in terrorism research and the female offender in traditional forensic psychology.