Psychiatric Tests and Criminological Methodologies - Case Study Example

Abstract The intended purpose of this critiqued article was to show that, although psychological theories are useful in determining an offenders characteristics and behavior patterns in an investigation, only criminal evidence gathered at the crime scene itself is what is the most prudent when following the police offense model, or any offense model for that matter. Furthermore, the research points out that while psychiatric examinations have always proven to show the thinking of an offender, they are not wholly useful in the investigative procedures themselves as they are modeled in more of a medical fashion than a policing fashion. The conclusion that was inevitably found was that while these psychological theories, psychiatric tests, and criminological methodologies are all very interesting, and do indeed pinpoint some of the possibilities of why homicides and other violent crimes occur, it is on a much more personal level that the whole idea can be correctly understood. It is the visible crime scene actions in particular that can depict an offender’s persona during the time the crime took place. However, at the same time there is a point that psychological theories help trace an offenders patterns of behavior from the past to present criminal intents. This helps develop categories of different behaviors, which Santilla, et al (2003) details in the gathered researched article. Also, another major detail the research details is that violent crimes normally occur among individuals who have a personal contact with one another, and this helps in determining why homicide and other violent acts occur, as well as understanding the personality traits of the offender. The Theory of Crime Scene Analysis and the Occurrence of Violent Crimes Homicide, it is one of the most detestable of crimes. The occurrence of it use to be confusing and difficult to pinpoint accurately, but due to new and variant methodologies, which follow a systematic criminological approach, it has become more discernible to comprehend the behaviors of an offender by focusing on the actions found at the crime scene itself. In the article being critiqued, the main purpose behind it is to give more understanding into the legal benefits of crime scene action analysis. The article theorizes that by studying thematic crime scene actions; this theory categorizes all the characteristics of the offender into one nice little package. Again, this is the main illustration in the research article by Santilla, et al (2003). It is pointed out that there is a slight difference between this type of theory and psychological theorizations themselves, in regards to trying to understand why someone commits an atrocious criminal act against someone else. Psychological theories individualize characteristics of an offender instead of evaluating all of the individual’s behavior patterns together. For example, if one were to say a person committed a homicidal act because they recalled something from their past, connected to another individual which then provoked violence, psychologists would use the theory of “behaviorism” to try and interpret the actions of the offender appropriately (Demar 2006). To give a better source of the difference between a psychological perspective on crime and simply using the evidence of actions from the crime scene, which is depicted in the article by Santilla, et al (2003), it can be interpreted that psychology would more than likely claim that it was the direct influence of the offender’s environment, and how they had been conditioned throughout their life that caused them to commit such a crime. A good example of behaviorism and its meaning is outlined in the following quoted paragraph. The central tenet of behaviorism is that thoughts, feelings, and intentions, mental processes all, do not determine what we do. Our behavior is the product of our conditioning. We are biological machines and do not consciously act, rather we react to stimuli. (Demar 2006) However, homicide and other similar types of criminal acts can not be wholly blamed on a persons living conditions, conditioning in life, or how they were raised either. As Santilla, et al (2003) also details, a connection with the possible victim is not always what leads the offender to committing an act of homicide either. However, Santilla, et all (2003) does emphasize that the incidence of homicide does have a greater occurrence rate among people the offender is familiar with such as family and friends, especially a spouse. But again, the article stresses the point that this is not the only aspect that investigators look at when examining the evidence at a homicide crime scene. There are many other factors that are involved as well. Santilla, et al (2003) does go so far in the article to admit that psychological theory does have a good deal of compatibility in crime scene investigations, at times. However, the main difference between a psychological interpretation of a persons actions and a legal one is the fact that law enforcement states that at some point personal responsibility for one’s actions has to come into play, not simply theories for why a crime took place. Therefore, while psychological theorizations can show us many things, they can not give sufficient evidence as to exactly why violent crimes occur. This is another evidenced point made by Santilla, et al (2003). Furthermore, they can not pinpoint every explicit behavior that an offender had at the time the crime took place. There are some behaviors of an offender that simply go unrecognizable and can not be understood. This is also another part that Santilla, et al (2003) express in the article to show that even a good investigative theory can not explain every action of an offender’s behavior. However, the theorization of the portrayed actions of an offender at the crime scene, and the actual crime scene evidence, is declared to be the most beneficial and effective. Santilla’s, et al, (2003) article details that crime scene action analysis actually perpetuates the offender’s impulsiveness, how they took advantage of the opportunity to commit a crime, and the use of their cognitive functioning (Santilla et al, 2003, pg.108). This does give correlation between the use of psychological theory and this model, however. Furthermore, the exact details that the article by Santilla, et al, (2003) actually depicts is the idea that it is the actual crime an offender chooses to commit in itself that distinguishes their characteristics and behaviors. When investigators evaluate a crime scene in this manner, they can distinguish specific traits of an offender, such as if they followed an impulsive type of motivation, or opportunistic, etc. This gives insight into the offenders past because it has been found that those who commit crime are rather habitual in their actions. If they showed signs of extreme aggression in one criminal act then they are sure to follow along this same type of trait in the next occurrence. This is all deduced by the analysis of the crime scene, which has been stated, and of which Santilla, et al (2003) discusses in the researched article. The main points in Santilla’s et al (2003) research proved to be relevant and to the point, drawing upon psychological influences to explain some of an offender’s positionary characteristics, even though not focusing on psychology wholly as a way to explain why an offender commits certain crimes. Another example of how psychology was shown to have pertinence in policing investigations is evidenced when the discussed crime scene actions are broken down into five categories. It is stated that these categories follow along a traditional psychological methodology. These behaviors that were brought out in the research and of which proved to hold valid points in understanding criminal intent are, Instrumental Aggression which exemplified sexual aggression against a victim in an offender’s behavior, and Instrumental Resources, though not much was discussed in this particular category. The other three themes that gave some credence to psychological theory fell in an Expressive category. They were of a more detailed and expressive nature. Some of these showed a tendency by the offender to want to cause more bodily harm to the victim, or outright kill them. This was emphasized in the idea of removing body parts from a victim, or trying to conceal the body. Other’s showed an indifference to the victim and a sort of separation by the offender from the actions committed onto the victim. In other words, the offender did not want to accept his or her actions and was urgent in getting rid of the body in order to separate him or herself from the whole scene of the crime. So, Santilla, et al (2003) does imply that psychological theory can come in handy in specific types of investigations, especially in profiling an offender’s specific characteristics into certain group traits. The use of psychology in crime scene investigations is given relevance in the research, though there are areas where it is not necessarily as pertinent, and in fact might place interference in the way of the investigation. Methodology and Evaluation Section The methodology that Santilla, et al (2003) used to try and prove their points seem to be more than one type of method. They did a random study with offenders, 84 to be exact. This was taken out of an approximate amount of 626 Finnish homicides that occurred between the dates of 1980 and 1994. Also, Santilla, et al (2003) utilized a specific legal form known as a 142 item structured form, to place specific characteristics of an offender that they uncovered. This method of proving their data was more focused on a single offender type of methodology. The sample that they used were 90% male offenders, within the age ranges of 33- 42 years of age. This fit the normal profile of an offender who committed a crime such as homicide. It gave evidence of how homicides can and do occur in relation to immediate contact with victims. Previous research that was carried out showed that spontaneous and impulsive homicides were directly connected to a prior relationship to individuals. This proved the points made in the body of the research itself. The data analysis also confirmed that psychological theorization brought a more concise, and in-depth comprehension to enable police investigators to prioritize suspects according to their past and present behavior patterns. Without question, the methodology clarified that psychological processes gained police investigators an upper-hand in deciphering the underlying causes of homicidal incidents, and the occurrences of them. However, it was also found that a certain percentage of psychological themes were found to be unsubstantial because there were only two behavior patterns and themes that offenders seemed to fall into the most. These were those found to have an emotional tie with the victim (expressive theme) or that were simply an impulsive attack without pre-meditation or planning at all (impulsive theme). Santilla, et al (2003) emphasized that this was how the idea of a connection to someone could create the ripe environment for a homicide to take place. It also brought in the relativity of psychological theories and it is where the idea of expressive aggression and opportunistic characteristics of an offender came into being. This gave a detailed hypotheses on how past behaviors of an offender helped investigators pinpoint a correlation between criminal acts from an offenders past to what their actions where at a subsequent violent crime. Although it could not give total relativity between past traits like sexual aggression, and other violent acts, it did help with gaining a firmer grasp in the behavior of an opportunistic theme. It showed that those who had engaged in opportunistic types of homicide had in the past been involved with similar behavior patterns in relation to crime. Some similarities that were uncovered involved factual data that detailed these types of offenders had either been involved in crimes involving properties, or public order offenses, from their pasts. Furthermore, a multi-dimensional scaling analysis technique categorized offenders into a pie diagram, according to their behaviors. This gave details of the different behaviors of offenders and how they fit into the described psychological themes. For example, offenders who were found to follow a theme of Instrumental Resources often took items from the victim after the crime occurred. Such as, clothing could be missing, and specific pieces of personal property would be gone which showed a correlation between past behaviors of arson by the offender. If an offender was detailed to be in an expressive theme then the diagram illustrated how they showed behavior patterns of how they killed the victim, such as the use of drowning (so the body would disappear), covering the body after the crime, suffocation to silence the victim, etc. From this type of chart, the methodology of understanding offender behavior, characteristics, and traits could move on to more bold and concise definitions. Along with this type of analysis, the research methodology also followed along the traditional approach as well of establishing a conventional, technical analysis of the gathered and researched data. Santilla, et al (2003) emphasized all of the above mentioned points throughout his research. His methodology proves that following along a joint path of psychological theories and crime scene actions; they eventually lead to a thorough understanding of the offender and a concrete example of personal traits. Investigators gained the ability of being able to determine points such as, if the offender was a male, if there was alcohol abuse, familiarity with the victim or area where the crime took place, whether the offender was unemployed, divorced, or even homeless. There were a profound number of characteristic traits emphasized through the gathering of the data and the methodology process. In concluding this critique on the article by Santilla, et al (2003), it is perceived that the research carried out the thesis quite naturally throughout the body of the research. Clear and concise points were made to prove what the author was implying. The author gave avid examples of how psychological theories and actions at a crime scene intertwined together to provide an in depth analysis of specific characteristics of an offender. The methodology was accurate and up to date and utilized the proper procedures to go about proving the points made in the body of the research. This article would be beneficial to many forensic investigators of homicides as it would help them to understand what the psychological emphasis is in homicidal crimes. The article was proven to strengthen the idea that psychology is a key part in the investigation of homicide cases. Understanding an offender’s characteristics and past behavior patterns can be the logical way of solving a homicide, which Santilla, et al (2003) has proven in his research. In finality, offender profiling needs a psychological approach to produce concise offender characteristics in a crime. This is the most precise and accurate way to develop an efficient hypothesis of offender behavior during the time of the crime, and beforehand. References Demar, Gary. (2006). Behaviorism. Retrieved April 24, 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0497_DeMar_-_Behaviorism.html Santilla, Pekka & Hakkanen, Helina &, Canter, David & ElfGreen, Thomas. (2003). Classifying Homicide Offenders and Predicting Their Characteristics from Crime Scene Behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Volume 44, 107-118. Read More