Is behavioural profiling a viable alternative to more traditional approaches to profiling, viewed from the perspectives of underlying theoretical assumptions and measures of effectiveness? In this article we describe behaviour profiling in relation to other types of profiling, we review relevant psychological mechanisms that underpin behaviour profiling, and discuss effectiveness of this type of profiling as well as methodological aspects of measuring effectiveness. Behaviour profiling is a method largely used to select potential offenders before the offence is committed by observing and giving meaning to behaviours preceding incidents. Deviant behaviours exhibited by suspects can be either part of a modus operandi related to the offence, the consequence of increased stress, or an atypical response to prodding actions by security officers. Relevant psychological mechanisms to explain ways behaviour profiling works include direct characteristics of deception as well as indirect indicators of deception, such as a criminal being more self-focused and more cognitively engaged. Effectiveness of behaviour profiling is increased by training, including learning more about modi operandi and related behaviours, awareness of biases in general, specific relevant biases, and techniques to correct for these biases.

This article aims to explore the driving factors behind the process of crimmigration, the merger of crime control and migration control. By analysing the legal and policy framework governing the so-called ‘Mobile Security Monitor’ – the discretionary immigration checks carried out by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee in the borderlands with Belgium and Germany, the research explores the extent to which the framework might leave room for crimmigration-based decisions on the street level. As the article shows, the dual nature of the Mobile Security Monitor as both an instrument for immigration control and crime control combined with an important name-change and the ongoing securitization of migration in Europe seem to create a favourable environment for crimmigration.

The concept of positive security appears more and more often in academic and public discussions. It presents a normative agenda for a non-repressive approach of security. In the article, it is claimed that the concept and its implications lack fundamental clarity. First of all, it is illustrated that the meaning of positive security primarily develops on the renouncement of negative security. Second, a historical comparison between the discipline of international relations and criminology discloses that different meanings have been assigned to positive security that seem at times at odds with each other. These frictions substantiate the view that it is problematic to accept positive security as an unequivocal recipe for change. Finally, the consequences of the disseminated structure of meaning are discussed in relation to the ambition of reform that positive security represents. For example, advocates of positive security do not seem eager to commit themselves to very clear normative views. This makes it difficult to really pin down what the suggested changes underlying positive security, are truly implying. Moreover, positive security invites us to extend the horizon of security politics to include various kinds of positive needs and values. But doesn’t this take us back to the initial criticism that the reach of the security concept has extended too much, covering virtually every aspect of life?