Inferences Based on Phrasing and Behavioral Investigative Advice - Assignment Example

Inferences Based on Phrasing and Behavioral Investigative Advice Inferences Based on Phrasing and Behavioral Investigative Advice Language is an extremely important aspect of life. This is attributed to the fact that it can portray several features of the speaker’s culture and character that the speaker themselves might not be aware of. One of the other areas where the languages used determine outcomes is inference based phrasing. Here, language is used to predict outcomes. The messages conveyed are based on probability and certainty. It appears to be a fairly straightforward concept, that language should to a large extent predict outcomes, but there are several mistakes that are still made with regards to phrasing. Therefore, the proper choice of words and phrases is critical for the correct interpretation of likely occurrences in behavioral investigative advice. The more common words used are ‘likely’ and ‘possible’. These two words to the ordinary eye, seem to mean the same thing, but to the trained eye; there are tiny nuances and differences that are worth considering when making either of them a choice. This paper shall have two sections. Both of them shall seek to explore the inferences behind different arguments and either validate them or invalidate them (Villejoubert, Almond & Alison, 2011). Part1: Question 1 I settled on the second pair of statements. This is because they are more in line with what I shall also discuss later on Toulmin’s philosophy. Pair 2 are both statements that seek to predict the next course of action for an already convicted offender. Statement one ‘It is possible that the offender will kill another victim’ is moderately likely. Statement two ‘It is possible that the offender will return to the crime scene’ is moderately likely too. Question 2 There is a lot of evidence to support the kind of probabilities that I provided. The profiling of offenders comes into play here. We have two kinds of offenders under law. There are serial or multiple offenders and first time offenders. The former are more likely to kill another victim. This is because they have been psychologically programmed to do so, owing to their repeat offender status (Norris & Petherick, 2011). With regards to statement two, seasoned offenders are less likely to return to crime scenes. Usually, they are preoccupied with more pressing matters like running away from the law. Going to the scene of a crime you caused is indeed not the smartest way to run away from the law (Almond, Alison & Porter, 2011). However, the latter are less likely to do so. The psychological transformation of a person who realizes they have committed murder or caused the death of another person is huge. The psychological profile of such a person is likely to reflect an offender who is extremely disturbed. Only after killing several victims does an offender become unaffected by such a happening (Weber & Hilton, 1990).Additionally, with regard to statement two; it is likely to apply to the case of a first time offender. Going back to the scene of a crime is an attempt at gaining closure and understanding what led to the death. The only people who have a strong enough conscience to contemplate such a move are the first time offenders. Question 3 The implications of ambiguity in investigative settings are obvious. They can result in a miscarriage of justice or they can set free an offender. Therefore, the correct choice of words indeed has a bearing on whether justice is delivered or not. Investigations must seek to create direct and reasonable connections between the event and the offender (Rainbow, 2008). In a case where the connections are weak as a result of the terms used, the truth is likely to be compromised. Part 2 Investigative reports are the primary tools used to pass judgment on the likely association between an offender and a crime. Take a case where murder has occurred some distance away from where the offender is otherwise said to have been. The investigative report states that it is ‘likely’ that the offender drove there to commit the murder. This claim is much stronger. However, if the same report substitutes ‘likely’ for ‘probably’ then the whole meaning changes. It shows that the report is to some extent inconclusive (Teigen & Brun, 1995). As has been suggested above, the strength of the inferences made by BIAs is critical for the fair determination of the case. As a result, they have to be backed by strong empirical evidence. This evidence is supported by a close correlation between assumptions and actual events. In the event that the evidence is not strong enough, it can be evaluated and revised, precisely what I shall seek to do in this section. I shall depend primarily on arguments by Toulminian (Toumlin, 2003). Question 1 These are exactly the kind of scenarios that Toulminian’s philosophy and argument are meant for. His philosophy seeks to break down the evidence to its constituent parts to allow for magnification of strengths and weaknesses to see if they stand up to scrutiny. I should also mention that under this philosophy, the inferences are referred to as constituents. Toumlin’s philosophy provides us with a criterion on which to judge the strength or modality of a claim. There are two inferences that are presented about different kinds of unknown offenders. The first offender is a rapist, while the second is one who abducts children and then murders them. The second inference is undoubtedly stronger. This is because the first inference has a huge flaw. What if the offender committed sexual offences of an oral kind before? Therefore, no semen was left and therefore no conviction (Toumlin, 2003).The second inference is stronger because it is supported by research which shows that in 50% of cases of abduction, disposal of remains happens within a hundred yards of the crime scene. There is also a clear statement that this area is not going to be the sole focus of investigation, but rather initial investigations. Question 2 Toumlin explores several angles to this issue that can help investigators strengthen their inferences. One of the most striking statements is that ‘in over 80 % of cases where claims are made, they are not backed by any grounds or warrant’. There should be a focus to improve the inferences. One of the solutions that Toumlin suggests in this case is that there should be more focus on facts rather than ‘personal opinions, based on experience, intuition or tacit knowledge’. This is important because every case has its own merits and strong points and no two cases can be completely similar. He suggests that such information must be criticallyanalyzed, and not merely swallowed hook, line and sinker (Toumlin, 2003). On the whole, Toumlin seeks to reinforce the idea that the most important thing in the profiling of offenders is evaluation. This is the distinction between workable and unworkable intelligence (Norris & Petherick, 2011). Evaluation also helps to define the boundaries within which probabilities and likelihoods can be considered as well thought out and credible. Otherwise, the process would be open to speculation and unaccountability. These are the same benefits that the Tulmiulian framework brings to the investigative process (Toumlin, 2003). Question 3 My justification for the above claims is based on evidence that is contained in both research and common sense. One of the most important parts of solving a crime is the profiling of offenders. This is important both at the level of individual cases and in crime busting as a whole. This process needs to be credible. This is exactly what Toumlin seeks to enhance through his framework. In essence, he tries to cover any gaps both in the evidence and in the process that might compromise the final result (Toumlin, 2003). Evaluation of evidence is a critical component of the Toulmilian framework. Only a thorough evaluation can result in a case that is as watertight as possible. Evaluation of the evidence is also important so as to diffuse some myths that tend to build around the facts when there are gaps in the evidence collected. This hurts the case and might in some cases lead to the miscarriage of justice, exactly the opposite of what is expected from the investigative process (Toumlin, 2003). Another angle that is yet to be covered has to do with the interpretation of the findings.This is another process that is open to bias from the witnesses and authorities. The main problem here is that there is an effort, sometimes unconscious, to organize the facts so as to suit certain suspects. This means first time offenders can easily evade the trap because they are not put under the microscope, nobody expects them to be involved in a crime until overwhelming evidence is provided (Teigen & Brun, 1995). Therefore, interpretation of the witness accounts is important so as to ensure that the information received tallies well with facts, exactly what Toumlin emphasizes. References Toumlin, B. (2003).Toumlin’s Philosophy of Argument and its Relevance to Offender Profiling. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 173- 183. Villejoubert, G., Almond, L., & Alison, L. (2011). Interpreting claims in offender profiles: The roles of probability phrases, base-rates and perceived dangerousness. In L. Alison & L. Rainbow (Eds.), Professionalizing offender profiling: Forensic and investigative psychology in practice (pp. 206–227). London, England: Routledge. Almond, L., Alison, L., & Porter, L. (2011). An evaluation and comparison of claims made in behavioural investigative advice reports compiled by the National Policing Improvement Agency in the United Kingdom. In L. Alison & L. Rainbow (Eds.), Professionalizing offender profiling: Forensic and investigative psychology in practice (pp. 250–263). London, England: Routledge. Alison, L., Smith, M. D., Eastman, O., & Rainbow, L. (2003). Toulmin’s philosophy of argument and its relevance to offender profiling. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9(2), 173–183 Teigen, K., & Brun, W. (1995). Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica, 88(3), 233–258. Weber, E., & Hilton, D. (1990). Contextual effects in the interpretation of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 781–789. Norris, G. & Petherick, W.A (2011). Criminal profiling in the courtrooms: Behavioral investigative advice or bad character evidence? Cambrian Law Review, 41, 39- 54. Rainbow, L. (2008). Taming the beast: the U.K approach to the management of behavioral investigative advice. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 23, 90- 97. Read More