The Investigative Psychology Approach to Offender Profiling - Literature review Example

Literature Review: Contemporary Offender Profiling and Department of affiliation Review of the Contemporary Offender Profiling Literature Criminal profiling involves the inference of the qualities of an offender following their conduct at the crime scene. This means the information concerning any crime scene and offence develops an investigation through compilation of a psychosomatic representation of the architect of crime (Canter, 2000). Canter’s main focus involves solving sets of equations that associate Actions occurring during an offence to the Characteristics of the offender including their background, history, and relationships with others. A: C equations the most common of investigative psychology integration into civil and criminal investigations. Like the multidimensional scaling and other IP profiling techniques, the A: C equation is a useful means of examining arson, rape, burglary, and terrorism criminality. The use of A: C equations, thus offers a technique that put into consideration differentiation and consistency of offenders since no two offenders have the same characteristics (Canter & Youngs, 2009). Though some human attributes that can be inferred including gender, age, or history of employment, no two offenders exhibit identical characteristics. Efforts to identify criminals involve using different forms of criminal profiling divided into Typologically-oriented techniques, and geographically-oriented techniques (Young, 2006, p. 10). The Investigative Psychology Approach to Offender Profiling The approach adopted by investigative psychology’ A: C equations operate under the principle stating that crime commission is associated with qualities that form the routine of the offender’s behaviour (Salfati & Taylor, 2006). Criminal behaviour is thus consistent; mannerisms present during criminal activity are also obvious in attendance throughout non-criminal activities. Actions caused by offenders’ consistent behaviour are dependent on the inner narratives of the individuals and their mental maps that guided the perception of external circumstances. Such inner narratives cause the offender to remain within specified boundaries self-imposed constraints that can be geographic such as geographic profile, or psychological such as controlling order and process. Blending both psychology and geography results in a novel offender profile. Some techniques like multidimensional scaling technique in profiling relies on plotting points in two or one dimension to display the organization of a given set of data (Goodwill, Stephens, & Oziel, 2013, p. 71). This is possible since MDS enables identification/analysis of persons who develop an idiographic routine that at is inconsistent with the profiles of the aggregate (Street, Sheeran, & Orbell, 2001, p. 68). Furthermore, multidimensional data analysis focuses reduction of huge amounts of data such that they are easy to visualize, therefore easing the work of attempting to find structure in a given set of distance trials. In order to create the investigative psychological profile of an offender, five wide sources of information are used (Young, 2006). First, interpersonal coherence provides relevant information about the manner in which an individual interacts with others while reflecting non-criminal personal attributes though the analysis is done with regards to the contact between the offender and the victim. One crucial attribute in interpersonal coherence is the relevance of the offender to the victims as it assists in the identification of individual criminal qualities that assist in the distinction of the potential type of offender and type of crime (Young, 2006, p. 13). However, any committed crime is affected by domestic and social qualities of the offender as moulded by their backgrounds. Furthermore, the educational and occupational history of an offender can also be obtained from the behaviour of the offender especially within the criminal career context. Finally, time and place in investigative psychology confirm the significance of geography since once evidence is gathered and coded, multi-dimensional scaling displays variables’ correlation. The resulting profile, therefore, builds on analysis of additional variables in crime scene as provided by geographic profiling. Consequently, such a profile would serve in proposing the issue of offender identification presented in commuters and marauders. Furthermore, through multi-dimensional scaling process, it is possible to focus attention on the qualities of the crime scene with a positive correlation of a particular typology. Consequently, the spatial conduct of an offender would then align with one of the presented classes. Investigative psychology is, however, characterized by utility problems given its use of statistics, yet it is informative (Young, 2006). Information is obtained from a comparison of presented cases with past cases and their information, thus an inductive approach that assumes that identical offenders caused identical crime scenes. However, upon the occurrence of a rare crime, the availability of data is restricted and attempts to make typical that which is atypical limits the qualities to be contrasted with the current investigation (Makros & Alison, 2002). The implication is that the more reliable the data that precedes a case is, the more effect it has on the ultimate outcome. Furthermore, investigative psychology is attributed to profile readability issues given its high dependence on statistical content. In cases of weak statistical background, the analysis and correlations of the profile are virtually incomprehensible as it is not possible to identify the relationship between actions and characteristics. Consequently, the use of mathematics is disregarded in such profiles as they would not be translated into information that is useful to the investigators (Makros & Alison, 2002). Therefore, investigative psychology constitutes some flaws during its application though it combines information from both the psychological and geographical divide to form more complex ideas of offenders and crime. A: C equation of information, actions and characteristics During investigative psychology, the main objective is to ensure that civil and criminal investigations are improved. This commences with the process of information collection and evaluation, where collected information offers interpretation of the crime (Alison, Goodwill, Almond, Heuvel, & Winter, 2010, p. 94). Alison, et al (2010) outlined the collected information to include photographs and other forms of information such as phone calls or paid bills. At this point, profilers gather, assess and utilize numerous information sources to account for a crime. This technique borrows heavily from the process of information distillation, summary, and visualization in behavioral sciences. Finally, decision making is followed by derivation of inferrences from the attributes of the offenders to support the investigations. It is these inferences that have attracted attention as research seeks to solve huge set of equations associating actions occurring during offence to the offender’s attributes (characteristics), or the A: C equations. The profiling equations include A which represent crime-oriented actions, while C represents the characteristics or qualities of crime perpetrators (Sturidsson, Langstrom, Sjostedt, Asgard, & Aghede, 2006). Through these equations, it is now possible to distinguish several elements of criminal conduct that are fundamental to any inferrence model, thus promoting effective investigation use. A crucial element of inference models is the restriction of variables to those known before suspect identification. The implication is that the A varibles are constrained to those previously known to the sustpect under identification, while the C varibles are constrained than those the police are to act on (Sturidsson, Langstrom, Sjostedt, Asgard, & Aghede, 2006). Furthermore, the A:C equations offers crucial information concerning where a person could be living, or their history or domestic circumstances of crime while disregarding fantasies, intelligence, and attitudes, and personality qualities. These raises numerous question that require deriving inferences, and managing differentiation and consistency issues coupled with the establishment and modification across numerous crimes that vary in their specialism degree. Through this model, investigative psychology offers a holistic approach to criminal investigation while demonstrating each element of the examination of the suspect’s psychology. Why Investigative Psychology is unique and how it differs from other offender profiling methodologies The A: C Equations used in offender profiling offer a relationship that does not qualify to be an equation within strict mathematical sense and this differs from multi-dimensional scaling that is a statistical analysis technique. However, the A: C relationship is crucial in offering a looser meaning as implied by this typical formulation. According to Canter & Youngs (2009), the A: C equations also assist with the clarification of numerous challenges and complexities that result from any efforts to empirically define any associations implied by these equations. Nevertheless, it is crucial to emphasize that the decision to define a criminal problem as a set of equations does not imply that the problem requires a pure statistical or mathematical technique to carry out profiling. Furthermore, studying what would be required to solve such equations clarifies that profilers have to utilise more conceptual, theory-oriented perspective for chances of establishing a scientific foundations such that psychology would contribute to criminal investigations (Canter, 2000). To this effect, the description of the complex structure of crime requires the use of multidimensional approach. (Goodwill, Stephens, & Oziel, 2013). Unlike investigative psychology, the typological approach to criminal profiling involves using the aspects of crime scene to classify offenders into different categories with each having distinct qualities (Padgett, 2015). The core of investigative inference equations is the establishment of an inference that is likely to exist between Actions and Characteristics of crime, while multidimensional scaling expresses the correlation between two variables using statistical analysis results. A: C mapping seldom involves a simplified one on one relationship, but an association characterized by broad range of complexities in evident in the ways that As relate to Cs (Canter & Youngs, 2009). For instance, the age of an offender cannot be used in its entirety to define the lack of clues at the crime scene or the use of a specified weapon to commit a crime. However, the resolution of complexities in the A: C equations use canonical equations that offer the relationships between the two variables. These relationships indicate the existence of a combination of criminal actions that are linked to a combination of other criminal actions or characteristics. The implication of the canonical equations is to demonstrate that any slight alterations in a variable can affect the overall results, and the studying of such change in numerous crimes, victim ages, and crime duration provide varying predictions particularly on criminal history (Canter & Youngs, 2009). Conversely, MDS uses a correlation coefficient to communicate the results between variables in the form of a diagram shaped as large squares known as map in the statistical parlance area (Goodwill, Stephens, & Oziel, 2013). On the contrary, typological offender profiling technique is founded primarily on qualitative experience and data and not quantitative statistical techniques of investigative psychology such as MDS. According to Padgett (2015), the typologies of offenders are useful in allowing the association and facilitation of predictions regarding the next time attacks will befall, and the sequence of crimes likely to progress. This method is one of FBI’s most preferred, who depended on law enforcement expertise to create it. According to Padgett (2015), the FBI classify typological offender profiling process in for stages that are assimilation of data; categorization of crime scene; reconstruction of crime; and establishment of profile and this differs from the association of actions to offender qualities. The Strengths and Weaknesses of Such an Approach Despite its usefulness in criminal profiling, investigative psychology experiences numerous challenges. For instance, in rape and robbery cases, identical attributes can be inferred from various actions. In addition, high levels of violence can be engaged in a robbery where the offender is either extremely experienced or inexperienced (Salfati & Taylor, 2006). On the contrary, robbers and rapists have a higher tendency of demonstrating conviction histories with burglary. Furthermore, identical actions may indicate varying contexts or different positions in the criminal progression of an offender. Additionally, alterations in a predictor variable can destabilize the link between a predator and with any set of criterion variables (Salfati & Taylor, 2006). Another weakness is any inclusion of superfluous variables or exclusion of pertinent ones would cause a distortion in the relationships between variable’s A and C. The impact advances where the inclusion of variables in set A drastically alters the weightings in C established. A major benefit of criminal profiling using investigative approach arises from the variable’s information regarding crime, and the offender qualities that could be crucial in representing arising behaviour. Here, the canonical equations representing offender actions offer a useful tool in facilitating enquiry by the police (Canter, 2000). Consequently, such equations assist investigations while brining to light the aspect of criminal behaviour. Bibliography Alison, L., Goodwill, A., Almond, L., Heuvel, C., & Winter, J. (2010). Pragmatic solutions to offender profiling and behavioural investigative advice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 115-132. Canter, D. (2000). Offender Profiling and Criminal Differentiation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 23-46. Canter, D., & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative psychology : offender profiling and the analysis of criminal action. Hoboken, NJ: John Willey and Sons. Devery, C. (2010). Crimimal Profiling and Criminal Investigation. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 393-409. Goodwill, A., Stephens, S., & Oziel, S. (2013). Advancement of Criminal Profiling Methods in Faceted Multidimensional Analysis. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profilling, 10(1), 71-95. Makros, A., & Alison, L. (2002). Is offender profiling possible? Testing the predicted Holology of Crime Scene Actions and Background Characteristics in a Sample of Rapist. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, 25-43. Padgett, S. (2015). Profiling the fraudster : removing the mask to prevent and detect fraud. Hoboken: Wiley. Salfati, C., & Taylor, P. (2006). Differentiating sexual violence: A comparison of sexual homicide and rape. Crime and Law, 12, 107-125. Street, H., Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (2001). Exploring the relationship between different psychosocial determinants of depression: a multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 64, 53-67. Sturidsson, K., Langstrom, N., Sjostedt, G., Asgard, U., & Aghede, E. (2006). Using multidimensional scaling for the analysis of sexual offence Behavior: A Replication and Some Cautionary Notes. Psychology, Crimeand Law, 12, 221-230. Young, T. (2006, May 1). Profilling Pros and Cons: An evaluation of Contemporary Criminal Profiling Methodologies. IRis, pp. 1-38. Read More