Though good as an fact-finding assistance. usage of geographic profiling is normally limited when the wrongdoer is runing from another ground tackle point that is off from their country of abode. This is because geographic profiling assumes that when an wrongdoer is off from place. they are less likely to prosecute in offense and that there is normally an interaction between the wrongdoer and the victim in footings of infinite and clip which normally consequences from the offender’s modus operandi ( Kocsis. 2007 ) . An illustration is when an wrongdoer commits offenses when sing relations.

Its effectivity is besides limited in instances where an wrongdoer operates from several ground tackle points as its purpose is normally to turn up the most likely location of the wrongdoer. For illustration with wrongdoers who move from one hotel to another and have no peculiar topographic point of abode. When it comes to sensing and apprehensiveness of commuter felons. geographic profiling is normally uneffective. The ground being. geographic profiling relies on research grounds that has shown that many wrongdoers commit offenses near to their place country and this forms one of the premises of geographic profiling ( Kocsis. 2007 ) .

While probes based on this premise have yielded first-class consequences. some wrongdoers do demo features that differ from this and so if an wrongdoer travels a long distance from their place to perpetrate offenses so goes back place. computerized geographic profiling will be less effectual in designation of the most likely location of the wrongdoer as it will be concentrating on the country around offenses ( Kocsis. 2007 ) . Reference Kocsis. R. N. ( 2007 ) . Condemnable profiling: International theory research and pattern. New Jersey: Humana Press.