In Bangladesh, the discourse on controlling heinous crimes, particularly sexual violence and serial offences, routinely centres on legislative severity. While amending laws to incorporate the death penalty satisfied immediate public demand for retribution, it has failed to address a critical operational bottleneck in the country’s criminal justice pipeline: the absolute absence of behavioural science in the investigative architecture. To transition from reactive policing to proactive deterrence, the home ministry and police leadership must initiate a structural and budgetary pivot towards institutionalising behavioural forensics.
Currently, the country’s premier investigative agencies, such as the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Detective Branch (DB) of police, operate primarily on traditional, clue-based methodologies. Investigations focus heavily on establishing the corpus delicti (the criminal act) and mens rea (criminal intent) to secure convictions. However, modern criminology requires decoding the behavioural “signature” and psychological etiology of the offender—answering not just who committed the crime, but why and how their pathologically violent patterns evolved. Without systematic psychological profiling, our law enforcement apparatus remains blind to recidivism risks, making it virtually impossible to pre-emptively track or intercept serial offenders before they strike again.
To overcome this reactive impasse, Bangladesh must structurally realign its investigative paradigm with the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model, a foundational framework in modern forensic criminology developed by psychologists Donald Andrews and James Bonta. The RNR framework dictates that judicial and investigative resources must be allocated proportionally to an offender’s risk of reoffending, target dynamic criminogenic needs such as anti-social personality traits or sexual deviance, and deliver interventions tailored specifically to the learning style and capacity of the offender. By ignoring these principles, our current investigative system treats all capital offenders as uniform legal entities rather than distinct psychological profiles. This systemic blind spot leaves the state incapable of identifying the latent behavioural triggers that transform a first-time offender into a serial predator.
The first practical step towards implementing this theoretical shift is the formal creation of a permanent Behavioural Analysis Unit (BAU) in law enforcement. This requires a calculated administrative overhaul rather than a simple reshuffling of existing personnel. The unit must not be populated exclusively by traditional cadre officers. Instead, it requires the permanent induction of clinical psychologists, behavioural scientists, and academic criminologists into the civil service framework or through long-term, specialised expert contracts. Concurrently, the state must build sustainable institutional pipelines with the departments of psychology, sociology, and criminology at universities, thereby transforming academic research into actionable, field-level investigative intelligence.
Such a structural overhaul is validated by extensive global precedents, which demonstrate that scientific investigation yields exponential returns on judicial efficiency and national security. Empirical data indicate that when behavioural insights are structured within standard policing, the reliance on circumstantial luck drops dramatically. For instance, early landmark studies evaluating the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) profiling initiatives revealed that behavioural analysis successfully narrowed down suspect pools or provided vital investigative breakthroughs in approximately 77 percent of complex, motive-less cases. Similarly, extensive multi-agency research commissioned by the UK Home Office established that incorporating clinical and behavioural expertise expedited judicial outcomes and offered critical, actionable dimensions in up to 83 percent of specialised, high-stakes investigations.
Furthermore, behavioural forensics is not merely a tool for detection, but a proven mechanism for prevention when aligned with the responsivity principle. Comprehensive international meta-analyses have conclusively demonstrated that integrating cognitive-behavioural therapies and structured risk management frameworks within the correctional system reduces sexual offence recidivism rates by 30-40 percent.
However, this structural pivot is fundamentally impossible without a dedicated fiscal commitment. Historically, our national budget for police has disproportionately favoured logistical maintenance, tactical procurement, and personnel deployment over scientific research and development. To bridge this gap, the national budget must explicitly earmark funds for a centralised behavioural and forensic database. Much like the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), this repository must catalogue the psychological traits, behavioural triggers, childhood developmental anomalies, and post-crime signatures of violent offenders. Financing this infrastructure is not a theoretical luxury; it is a highly cost-effective strategy. By optimising state resources, a data-driven BAU drastically reduces investigative timelines, minimises misallocated judicial labour, and prevents the catastrophic societal costs of prolonged trials and wrongful convictions.
Continuing to rely solely on the deterrent myth of severe punishment while completely ignoring the criminal mind is an expensive and unsustainable administrative failure. True police modernisation must look beyond the procurement of weapons, riot gear, and patrol vehicles. Real, lasting reform lies in embedding behavioural science into the structural DNA of our investigative and forensic infrastructure. Until the state treats criminal psychology as an essential component of national security and judicial administrative reform, our criminal justice system will continue to treat the symptoms of deep social pathologies while leaving the root causes completely untouched.
Dr Imdadul Haque Talukdar is adjunct assistant professor of psychology in the Department of History and Philosophy at North South University (NSU) and a public mental health specialist.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
