Profiling Methodologies - Term Paper Example

? Profiling Police use offender profiles, which is described as a series of behavioral and personal characteristics related with specific offenses, to make predictions regarding the type of person that may commit future crimes. Other reasons why offender profiles might be used are to identify the type of individual that might have already committed a crime for which they have identified no credible suspect or as yet not located an eye-witness to the event. Profiling methodologies differ largely because all profilers are not trained equally and they possess varying abilities. Essentially, there are two types of profiling that are performed by criminologists and criminal investigators in the U.S. Inductive Criminal Profiling is theoretically associated with the creation of a psychological pattern of symptoms and the subsequent evidence of symptoms. This method involves generalizations and deductions based on statistics. Deductive Criminal Profiling is a less common method of profiling. This method puts emphasis on the profiler’s detachment from the situation and their ability to think critically. This discussion first examines the merits regarding the Inductive and Deductive Criminal Profiling methodologies then gives a detailed account of the intrinsic worth of racial profiling. For the purpose of giving a strictly textbook legal definition of criminal profiling, it is described as “a set of behavioral indicators forming a very characteristic pattern of actions or emotions that tend to point to a particular condition” (Moenssens, Starrs, Henderson & Inbau, 1995: 146). For a more practical description, a good example can be derived from the 1994 court case of the State of Oregon v. Lawson. The defense attorney in this case attempted to convince the judge that his client’s actions were not that of those persons who matched the usual profile observed of offenders that committed a similar type of crime. Therefore, his client could not be found guilty as a result of this logic. Essentially, Inductive Criminal Profiling is logical reasoning based on statistics and generalities resulting from analyzing data. The following (fictitious) example showcases the reasoning and logic involved in this type of profiling. Compiled statistics have shown that 75 percent of serial killers who have attacked nurses do so within 200 yards of a hospital, are white men who live alone, did not attend college, are between the age of 25 and 35 and drive small red cars. A suspect has been questioned by police who they believe to be the offender in the death of a nurse but they do not yet have sufficient evidence to make an arrest. They determine by profiling if this could be a person who is more likely than the majority of the population to have committed such a crime. Though the offender does not drive a red car and the nurse was killed far away from a hospital, the offender is a white male who lives alone and did not attend college, this person still fits the profile and is thus deemed worthy of further investigation (Turvey, 1998). The advantages of the Inductive method of criminal profiling are apparent. Primarily, it is a tool that is straightforward and simple to use. Profilers do not need a formal forensic education or other specialized training in the field of criminal behavioral studies to effectively implement this method. Moreover, general offender profiles can be collected by police agencies without expending a great amount of resources, time or effort and does not require the profiler to possess specialized abilities. A typical criminal profile is usually a relatively short list illustrating unqualified offender similarities. “These generalizations can accurately predict some of the non-distinguishing elements of individual criminal behavior, but not with a great deal of consistency or reliability” (Turvey, 1998). Currently, the U.S is collaborating with Canada to integrate the many separate profiling databases via computer link-up. There are obvious disadvantages inherent when profiling offenders by use of the inductive method. In many instances, police departments are under an enormous pressure to solve cases, especially high profile cases. If they rely too heavily on the inductive profiling method, high profile mistakes can be made (Turvey, 1998). One such example was the 1996 Olympic Park bombing case in Atlanta where Richard Jewell was wrongly arrested, primarily because he ‘fit’ a profile. No evidence was directly linked to Jewell but police found pornographic material in his room and this single, 33 year-old man lived with his mother (Ostrow, 2003). He fit the profile of an inherently flawed Inductive Criminal Profiling process. Another profiling mishap involved the Colin Stagg 1996 murder case in Britain. Because police found no evidence at the crime scene, they turned to an inductive type of profiling relying solely on it and the testimony of a less than credible witness as sufficient ‘evidence’ to arrest then convict him. Stagg was a body-builder, a man of small stature, dressed shabbily, lived by himself and a member of the Wicca religion. He spent a year in prison based on the authorities’ blindly trusting the profiling results but was cleared due to DNA evidence and has since received half a million (in U.S. Dollars) as compensation from the government (Johnson, 2006). Deductive Criminal Profiling is defined as, “The process of interpreting forensic evidence, including such inputs as crime scene photographs, autopsy reports, autopsy photographs, and a thorough study of individual offender victimology, to accurately reconstruct specific offender crime scene behavior patterns, and from those specific, individual patterns of behavior, deduce offender characteristics, demographics, emotions, and motivations” (Turvey, 1998). This method of profiling emphasizes a knowledgeable reconstruction of forensic evidence and excludes data regarding offenders of similar characteristics and motivations or those that have committed similar crimes. Deductive Criminal Profiling deduces its conclusions from carefully examining individual behavior and forensic data in addition to reconstructing the crime scene of a singular offender and offense. Following the reconstruction of a particular offender’s behavior, the characteristics of the crime scene is thoroughly examined as are the characteristics of the victim. From a combination of these characteristics, a profile is deduced that involves the offender’s characteristics in the context of that specific type of offense, the particular victim’s characteristics and the circumstances existing at the particular crime scene. The process is a controlled behavioral and forensic process. “The process of deductive profiling is most appropriately termed Behavior Evidence Analysis, and depends on the analyst’s abilities to recognize patterns of behavior within a single offender to deduce meaning” (Turvey, 1998). The motivations and emotions of the criminal during the commission of the offense, the individual’s pattern of behavior and the particular offender’s unique personality is deduced and profile constructed from the specific behavior of the offender and victim. Though the deductive method of profiling offers law enforcement obvious advantages in their efforts to solve crimes, there are a three disadvantages that are worth mention. This method is not a panacea for law enforcement agencies in their effort to solve crimes nor does it eliminate all concerns regarding gathering reliable profiling information. Deductive profiling entails much effort and requires all members of an investigative unit to master many areas of knowledge and skills in the field of forensic criminology. This method involves a very rigorous and detailed process which is often tremendously physically and emotionally arduous. Profilers that utilize this method should be psychologically and emotionally sound individuals who are not hesitant to confer with their peers and others about emotionally charged subjects. Lastly, the deductive method of criminal profiling does not have the ability to identify a certain offender and confidently reveal if that individual is likely culpable for a particular crime except if a criminal’s distinctive signature has been established. The term criminal profiling progresses to racial profiling when the defining characteristics comprises ethnicity, religion or race. The horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 left an ineradicable mental image in the minds of people worldwide and changed many aspects of life in America not the least of which is the moral, ethical and legal debate regarding the concept of profiling based on a person’s race or country of origin. The government and various agencies such as the transportation industry, as a response to possible future terrorist attacks, has led an anti-terrorism campaign focused on identifying people of Arab descent extending even to people of the Muslin faith and those who appear to be of Middle Eastern origin. The popularly stated position is that racial profiling is necessary because without using this tool of law enforcement would compromise the effort against terrorism thus sacrificing national security. This argument is fundamentally flawed because it erroneously presupposes that racial profiling an essential element of this emotion-evoking endeavor. However, the reverse is accurate. Profiling, as a tactic employed by law enforcement redirects important assets, estranges and enrages prospective allies and, most importantly, is contradictory with the uniquely American concept of equality and freedom. Undoubtedly, if profiling in the name of terrorism has not been proved effective, the profiling of black citizens in the name of ‘getting tough on crime’ is not effective as well and causes more harm, ultimately, than whatever good may come of it. “Racial profiling in any manifestation is a flawed law enforcement tactic that is in direct conflict with constitutional values” (MacDonald, 2001). There is no conclusive evidence that proves either way if the profiling of suspected terrorists which includes the factor of ethnicity or race is effective in safeguarding U.S. citizens. What is known is that the majority of U.S. residents, legal or not, of every racial group are not involved in terrorist activities and were alarmed by the September 11 attacks. Consequently, harassing, detaining or intruding on the liberty and privacy of individuals who are of a certain ethnic group will undoubtedly cause a certain amount of personal detriment to countless numbers of people who haven’t caused any reason to justify such an intrusion. The reality of the situation will not totally convince those persons who argue that profiling is effective and helps keep the public safe. Unlike illegal drug trafficking which involves large numbers of U.S. citizens of all ethnicities, there is every reason to assume that very few people in the U.S. are not engaged in terrorist activities or are planning attacks. Hence, “any criteria police use to identify or ‘profile’ terrorists, whether or not those criteria rely on suspect classifications such as race, ethnicity, or national origin, will yield many more false positives than they will disclose true conspiring murderers” (Colb, 2001). Decisions regarding what person to hire, which people will be admitted and who will be detained by airport security as their suitcase is ransacked while they are trying to catch a plane is based upon characteristic generalities that are either observable or perceived. However, even when generalizations are statistically legitimate, they can be very erroneous in particular cases. For example, many black students are more prepared, scholastically speaking, to enter a university than many white students. Racial profiling is, by anyone’s definition, a rational method of discrimination. While most would have agreed prior to September 11 that racial discrimination is morally wrong and cannot be justified for any reason, those following the tragic events which killed more than 3000 Americans and the continued threat of terrorism has made this practice more palatable and even desirable. Had the terrorists that committed these acts not been of Arab descent, then the profiling of airplane passengers and the widespread fear of this particular ethnic group would not be a matter of discussion. Profiling Arabs is an easy sell to a country made up principally of non-Arabs. Following the Oklahoma City federal building bombing in 1995, there was no public outcry to profile white men. Virtually all persons of Arab descent who are detained at airports, kicked-off airplanes, have their bags searched or are looked at with suspicion almost everywhere they go are not terrorists. Discrimination, no matter how it can be rationalized, causes the victimization of certain minority groups. It leads to malicious stereotyping and generalizations regarding race, religion, gender, etc. which civil liberty loving Americans have decided is morally reprehensible. It does not matter if these generalizations are well-founded or if by not acting upon them results in a public safety concern. “The U.S. Code states clearly, ‘An air carrier or foreign air carrier may not subject a person in air transportation to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex or ancestry,’ said Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, himself a victim of Japanese internment during World War II” (Leadership Conference, 2002: 204). If a person is physically beaten because they appear Arabic, that is termed racism but when that same person is detained by security officers at the airport, it is called a necessary security measure but it doesn’t make it right. In fairness, however, security officials at the airport can rationalize the profiling of passengers. Statistically speaking, a male boarding a plane that appears to be of Arab descent has, however infinitesimally, a higher probability of being a terrorist. Airport security is based on very minute statistical probabilities. Since the objective of airport security is to prevent terrorists from boarding planes, it is understandable that, at least since 9/11, they have a greater interest in persons who appear of Arab descent than those of other ethnic groups. It’s not considered racism but still is not morally or legally justifiable. It can be argued that the generalization of persons based on stereotypical characteristics is sometimes necessary and can be rationalized based on statistics. For example, if an explosive device has been reported being carried by a person on a plane full of passengers, when security officials board the plane looking for this person, they do not have time to consider the morality implications of stereotyping and generalizations. However, during less critical times, such as at the ticket counter or at check-in, the need to utilize profiling techniques simply is not as understandable. The question is when is it considered morally right to use discriminatory methods such as racial profiling? Whatever the people of the U.S. decide on the question of racial profiling even during these fearful times of uncertainty and terror, generations that are yet to come may judge what we do now as reprehensible mimicking what those of us now think of past generations of Americans that thought it proper to imprison innocent Japanese-Americans in internment camps during the Second World War (Colb, 2001). Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, ‘those that sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.’ Perhaps Americans of all ethnicities should endeavor to exercise the moral responsibility that paves the way for the rights and freedoms we enjoy. Civil rights should be extended equally to all and not merely to certain groups at certain times. References Burgess A. G., Burgess A. W., Douglas J. & Ressler, R. (1992). Crime Classification Manual. (Reprint Ed.). New York: Lexington Books. Colb, Sherry F. (October 10, 2001). “The New Face of Racial Profiling: How Terrorism Affects the Debate.” Find Law. Available online April 23, 2011 from Johnson, Boris M.P. (June 22, 2006). “Justice for Colin Stagg.” Available online April 23, 2011 from Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. (2002). Wrong Then, Wrong Now: Racial Profiling Before & After September 11, 2001. Available online April 23, 2011 from MacDonald, Heather. (December 31, 2001). “The War on the Police … and How it Harms the War on Terrorism.” Supra. Vol. 7, I. 16. Available online April 23, 2011 from Moenssens A., Starrs J., Henderson C. & Inbau F. (1995). Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases. (4th Ed.). New York: Foundation Press. Ostrow, Ron. (February 15, 2003). “Case Study: Richard Jewell and the Olympic Bombing.” Committee of Concerned Journalists. Electronic publication accessed April 23, 2011 from Turvey, B. (January 1998). “Deductive Criminal Profiling: Comparing Applied Methodologies Between Inductive and Deductive Criminal Profiling Techniques.” Knowledge Solutions Library. Electronic publication accessed April 23, 2011 from Read More