Criminal Profiling as a Psychosocial Approach - Research Paper Example

? Research Paper on Criminal Profiling Criminal Profiling Introduction In the face of increasing security concerns across in the world, concerned parties have enhanced their efforts in strengthening the criminal justice system in order to control crime and improve public safety in the society. Various strategies have been employed in controlling crime. Criminal profiling is one of the approaches that have gained prominence in recent years in controlling crime (Bartol and Bartol, 2005). Criminal profiling is defined as the act of developing an offender’s psychological profile based on the evidence and state of crime scene. This approach is used by professionals in the criminal justice system in identifying and capturing criminals. Often, criminal profiling is conducted by the forensic psychologists who provide criminal profile to the police departments to help in apprehending of the criminals (Kocsis, 2010). Statistical evidence, psychology, and crime scene analysis are combined in developing a personality type that fits well with the committed crime. Criminal profiling is in most cases used in helping investigators to apprehend serial killers and psychopaths who may otherwise go free (Canter, 2004). In addition, it helps in catching other types of offenders such as rapists and arsonists. The approach helps to label the offenders or perpetrators as disorganized, organized, or mixed. Criminal profiling is not only essential in finding potential offenders, but also in narrowing down the offenders’ list already compiled by the police (Devery, 2010). This paper will discuss criminal profiling by critiquing the foundations of criminal profiling and by comparing and contrasting inductive versus deductive profiling. 1) Critique the Foundations of Criminal Profiling Criminal profiling has proved to be an important tool in controlling of crime in recent years. Prior to the inception of criminal profiling, criminal investigators mainly relied on the physical evidence to identify and apprehend criminals (Holmes and Holmes, 2009). However, this changed after the inception of criminal profiling that provided advanced techniques in developing theories and compiling evidence based on the of patterns of criminal behavior, crime scene evidence, criminal’s socioeconomic background, motives of crime, and psychological aspects of violent crime (Alison et al, 2010). The foundations of criminal foundations since its inception aimed at detecting and classifying the major behavioral and personality characteristics of a person based on the crime analysis or the crimes that have been committed (Holmes and Holmes, 2009). The first foundation of criminal profiling is determining offender characteristics by using the process of assimilation phase where all the available information relating to crime scene, witnesses, and victim is examined. Police reports, autopsy reports, witness statements, victim profiles, and photographs of the crime scene are important aspects of this process (Kocsis, 2010). Criminal profiling is also founded on the principle of classification which involves integration of collected information into a framework that classifies the offender as organized, disorganized, or mixed. Organized offenders are those that plan their crimes, leave little forensic clues or evidence, exhibit advanced social skills, and display some element of control over the victim through the use of social skills (Canter, 2004). On the other hand, disorganized offender is the one that exhibit few social skills, has haphazard behavior, attempts to avoid detection, lack planning, impulsive, and the offenses committed are deemed opportunistic. Additionally, integration of information would classify the offender as mixed offender who exhibits some elements of organized and disorganized offenders (Alison et al, 2010). In addition to classification, criminal profiling is also founded on the notion that there is need for the reconstruction of the crime behavioral sequence. Following classification investigators should attempt to reconstruct the modus operandi of the offender. In other words, criminal investigators should reconstruct the method that the criminal used in committing crime. Along the aforementioned foundations, criminal profiling also seeks to closely examine the “signature” of the offender that can be identified from the scene of crime (Devery, 2010). Signature refers to some or all things that the offender does in order to satisfy his or her psychological needs while committing a particular crime. The final aspect that criminal profiling is founded upon is the generation of the criminal profile after further consideration of the signature of the offender at the scene of crime, inspection for the presence of possible staging of the crime, and criminal’s modus operandi (Canter, 2004). The profile generated may contain comprehensive information about the offender’s family characteristics, personality characteristics, demographic characteristics, education, and military background among other characteristics that may deemed relevant in profiling process. In addition, the profile may suggest appropriate and relevant interview techniques to be applied to particular offender (Bartol and Bartol, 2005). A closer analysis of the foundations of criminal profiling shows that they are quite detailed to help in identifying and capturing offenders. The process of determining the characteristics of the offender through assimilation provides good basis upon which investigators can be able to not only identify the offenders and capture them, but also to have a better understanding of the offenders’ psychological state of mind when they were committing their crimes (Kocsis, 2010). Classification process in criminal profiling is important in narrowing down the nature of the criminals and therefore enables investigators to devise ways of dealing with the offender. More importantly, the foundations of criminal profiling have provided the basis upon which a crime’s behavioral sequence can be reconstructed. Using this approach, criminal investigators have been able to reconstruct the modus operandi of the offenders which helps them to unravel underlying situations and factors related to a crime (Alison et al, 2010). Close examination of the offender’s “signature” has been instrumental in helping investigators understand the psychological needs that the offender sought to satisfy while committing a crime therefore assisting them to understand the trends and patterns of crime vis-a-vis offender’s characteristics. The final foundation of criminal profiling relating to generation of criminal profile has been and still is important in having a better understanding of offender’s background and characteristics, as well as recommending the appropriate interviewing techniques for the offender (Canter, 2004). However, foundations of criminal profiling have been criticized on the basis of their effectiveness in identifying and capturing offenders and in its role in controlling crime. The critics point out that these foundations do not provide classification that is empirically tested and reliable in order to assign offenders’ cases to a particular group (Devery, 2010). They argue that the classification process in criminal profiling do not meet the typology assumption because profiling does not often link crimes to a common offender type. Much of the criticism relating to the foundations of criminal profiling revolves around validity of its classification process. The organized versus disorganized dichotomy, as well as its empirical and theoretical assumptions and foundations have been commonly used to classify serial and violent offenders (Bartol and Bartol, 2005). However, the reliability of this classification has been found to be relatively low at around 52 percent especially for sexual cases. Also, the critics of these foundations argue that the organized versus disorganized dichotomy upon which criminal profiling is founded upon is flawed because it does not meet the typology criteria (Holmes and Holmes, 2009). Examination of the relationship between background characteristics and behavioral styles using a multidimensional scaling reveal that there is no evidence to support the co-occurrence of background characteristics or behavioral styles relating to the organized versus disorganized dichotomy (Canter, 2004). 2) Compare and Contrast Inductive Versus Deductive Profiling Developing a criminal profile involves two different postures- inductive and deductive approach. While these two approaches look to be mutually exclusive, they share some commonalities (Holmes and Holmes, 2009). Inductive profiling is a criminal profiling approach that is empirical and its conclusions are derived from scientific analysis. The inductive profiling is founded on the premise that if particular crimes commitment by different individuals is the same, then the offenders should also share some type of personality traits that are common. The information collected for inductive profiling comes from the past known offenders, past crimes, and other information sources including the media (Alison et al, 2010). This type of profiling is considered advantageous in the sense that it is inexpensive, quick, and does not necessary need to blend with academic disciplines such as psychiatry, psychology, sociology, and criminology. Therefore, the criminal investigator does not necessarily need any special knowledge or skill in the human behavior field. Inductive profiling tends to ignore human behavior field because its assessment of a crime is offered from similar scenes (Kocsis, 2010). On the other hand, deductive criminal profiling is where the criminal investigator assumes one or more facts as crime’s self-evident, and therefore following work experience arrives at conclusions. The profiler constructs a mental picture about the unknown offender from a thorough analysis of the crime scene together with the evidence left on the scene of crime (Canter, 2004). Deductive profiling is founded on a vital element of crime analysis known as victimology which holds that the more one knows about a victim, the more one will be able to know about the offender. From the deductive profiling perspective the profile is drawn from the nonphysical and physical evidence. This approach is slow as much care is taken in victimology and examination of forensic reports, and also because the profiling report will take a relatively longer period of time to develop (Bartol and Bartol, 2005). Inductive and deductive profiling shares some commonalities. Both approaches can be used in developing a psychological and criminal profile. In addition, both approaches are used to provide the criminal justice system with a psychological and social assessment of the offender. They help in providing sound and basic information regarding the psychological and social core variables of the personality of the offender (Alison et al, 2010). While they use different methods in arriving at this goal, they both focus on the investigation with the aim to provide the criminal justice system with offender’s psychological and social assessment. Moreover, they both provide the criminal justice system with a psychological evaluation of things found in the offender’s possession (Holmes and Holmes, 2009). This is particularly important in helping investigators to investigate prime suspect. Inductive and deductive profiling may help to provide psychological profile that may suggest items that the offenders possessed such pornography, photos, and souvenirs. Besides, they both help in providing interviewing strategies and suggestions that can be instrumental in identifying and capturing the offenders (Devery, 2010). However, inductive profiling differs from deductive profiling in a number of ways. Firstly, while deductive process starts with assumptions regarding behavior, inductive profiling relies on data collected from police reports, victimology reports, psychological evaluations, examiners’ reports, and crime scenes (Alison et al, 2010). Inductive profiling approach formalizes operational definitions which make it more robust than deductive profiling as investigators are able to investigate through observable patterns which can lead to new theories. Unlike inductive profiling, deductive profiling forms conclusions on the basis of theories that investigator forms the first time that he arrives for interviews or on the scene of crime. Deductive profiling processes available information by applying personal experiences. In contrast, inductive profiling processes available information based on all available crime instances (Kocsis, 2010). For effective criminal profiling both inductive profiling and deductive profiling should be used. As has been noted, both of them can be used to develop psychological profile that can help investigators identify and capture criminal offenders (Devery, 2010). Using both approaches can be very beneficial to criminal profiling process. This is because inductive profiling may be quicker to develop than deductive profiling, a benefit that deductive providing cannot provide (Canter, 2004). Apart from benefitting from the speed of inductive profiling, investigation process can benefit from deductive profiling which takes longer time and can help evaluate the unknown offender from a different perspective particularly if he or she has committed similar crimes. Certain items can be brought to assessment from both the inductive and deductive approach (Bartol and Bartol, 2005). For example, with deductive approach one of the assumptions is that a crime is always accompanied by a fantasy. As such, a profiler using this approach can interpret the scene of crime and conduct an examination of the fantasy present in the particular crime scene. References Alison, L et al. (2010). Pragmatic solutions to offender profiling and behavioral investigative advice. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 115-132. Bartol, D. & Bartol, A. (2005). Criminal profiling a psychosocial approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall Canter, D. (2004). Offender Profiling and Investigative Psychology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1: 1–15. Devery, C. (2010). Criminal Profiling and Criminal Investigation. Journal Of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 393-409. Holmes, R., & Holmes, S. (2009). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kocsis, R. N. (2010). Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees. Journal Of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(3), 224-237. Read More