Grip of the Heterodox Opinion at Profiling - Essay Example

Essay Are experts any better than trained novices at profiling? NAME: UNIVERSITY: COURSE: INSTRUCTOR: DATE: © 2013 INTRODUCTION The term criminal profiling is variously known by other names such as offender profiling, psychological profiling or criminal investigative analysis (Bennell et al, 2010). It is a term that generally refers to the process of identifying specific aspects of an individual who committed a particular crime in an effort to form a clear picture of the culprit. It involves a systematic observation and analysis of the crime scene, the victim, any forensic evidence available and all the known particulars of the crime (Taylor et al, 2008). Proponents contend that profiling is a critical tool used by law enforcers in their investigative work to solve current crimes as well as forestall future violent actions by criminals (Bennell et al, 2007). According to the informed views of Snook et al (2004), criminal profiling is important in addressing aggressive cases involving “homicide, sexual assault, child molestation, abduction, bombings, and arson committed by serial offenders (Alison et al, 2013). Criminal profiling is therefore a task best conducted by well trained, experienced and seasoned profilers to avoid any room for mistakes. In view of this brief overview of the concept of criminal profiling, it is the aim of this essay to explore the concept’s importance in criminal investigations as well as the factors considered by profilers when undertaking their mandate. The essay also attempts to compare forensic experts and trained novices while at the same time identifying the effects of profilers’ malpractice in their profession. The essay finally looks at the stages of criminal profiling as well as a few successful cases where profiling was used, all in an effort to determine the future of criminal profiling. The essay concludes by answering the question: “Are experts any better than trained novices at profiling?” THE IMPORTANCE OF CRIMINAL PROFILING IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS Although criminal profiling is not as ‘individual specific’ as the DNA or the finger prints, study findings have established that it has a pivotal position in criminal investigations (Snook et al, 2004). It must be noted that criminal profiling cannot be entirely used on its own to prove the guiltiness or innocence of a suspected offender but can help police and criminal investigators in a number of ways. Firstly, Bennell et al (2010) argue that apart from locating potential offenders, criminal profiling helps police to work on a leaner list of suspects down from the voluminous databank of suspected offenders. This in one way or the other helps the police channel their efforts in fighting crime more effectively and efficiently as noted by Bennell et al (2007). On the whole therefore, criminal profiling save a lot time and also helps to forestall future crimes by predicting what the profiled offenders might be thinking to do next. Although profiling has not always recorded a one hundred percent success rate in all the cases they are used, Taylor et al (2008) underscore its contribution in helping investigators apprehend hardcore criminal such as “arsonists, rapists, psychopaths and serial killers” who in one way or the other would be otherwise running free. This argument is clearly supported by the ‘Canter case’ where John Duffy was apprehended and subsequently convicted on the basis of a very accurate profile (cited by Alison et al, 2013). Although the profile was not used to prove that John Duffy was the perpetrator, it helped the police narrow down their investigations to the right culprit. The ‘Canter case’ was a high profile case, which incidentally are best and effectively solved using well crafted profiles; which according to Taylor and colleagues (2008) are good in pinpointing the criminals’ behavioural patterns as well as their abodes. WHAT DO CRIMINAL PROFILERS RELY ON? Profilers have been known to differ from one another in a number of ways, basically on the basis of their “individual training, experience, creativity and flexibility” (Bennell et al, 2007). But one thing is clear about them in that they all strive to accrue enough information about the character of the suspected perpetrator in order to formulate a doubtless portrait for easy apprehension and conviction. According to observations forwarded by Van Den Heuvel et al (2012), most profilers depend on the data accumulated from the criminal’s observable behavioural characteristics that had been pieced together from various sources such as “crime scene evidence, Modus Operandi and victim characteristics”. The application of this information into usefulness therefore depends on ones training and expertise gained from long years of experience as advocated by Bennell and partners (2010). Amongst the said factors aiding a profiler to complete his work, I find crime scene characteristics being the most fundamental than any other. In addition to the foregoing factors, Bennell and associates (2007) contend that geographical location and behaviourial patterns are now taking center-stage in prioritising suspects. Thus “the closer the offenders are to their geographical location, the more likely they are to commit crimes” (Bennell et al, 2007). EXPERT VERSUS NOVICE IN CRIMINAL PROFILING An expert on the one hand is an individual who has mastery of the subject matter acquired through the process of formal training, experience and natural aptitude. A trained novice on the other hand is a ‘raw professional’ who has only undergone through formal training to acquire mastery of subject matter but lacks experience and expertise. The same is best explained by Alison and friends (2012) who maintain that “an expert differs from a novice on three dimensions namely: knowledge, perception, and reasoning”. In this instance therefore, an expert is more knowledgeable in his or her area of specialisation. For this reason therefore, an expert is bound to work with speed and precision given a task to undertake. The expert is thus capable of manipulating his or her work environment more easily and effectively because problems and challenges have become too familiar over time. A novice on the other hand is raw and has limited knowledge with no experience whatsoever in the certain area of specialisation. This limited knowledge is usually in disarray and may not be utilised effectively (Alison et al, 2012). For this reason, a novice works slowly, clumsily and only considers the ‘face value cues’ in solving problems. When considered from the perspective of criminology for instance, Alison et al (2012) maintain that forensic experts see important cues in the environment faster and more efficiently than trained novices. In an experimental simulation of a crime scene using forensic experts and trained novices for instance, Alison and associates (2013) demonstrated that expert profilers were able to piece together evidences found on the crime scene in more detail and more frequently than their counterpart trained novices. The experts also selected the most important facts in scene faster than did the trained novices and their explanations were more detailed and coherent (Alison et al, 2013). In the end, it emerged that expert profilers were more organised in their profiling process as compared to the trained novices. This was in line with extant literature as reported by Alison and colleagues (2012). HOW THE PROFILER CAN AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE PROFILING PROCESS? According to the observations noted by Taylor et al (2008), certain guiding principles and ethics exist that put criminal profilers in check. These principles and ethics are contained in the Academy of Behavioural Profiling (Alison et al, 2013) and direct all criminal profilers on how to operate. Research has variously indicated that the real world of the criminal profiler is not as entertaining and fascinating as it is in fiction world (Bennell et al, 2007) and as such many a profilers tend deviate in their professional ethics. In such an eventuality, Turvey, 1999 quoted in Snook et al (2004) list some of the effects that may ensue. A delay in the arrest of the real culprit due to misleading information Total failure in catching the right criminal because of concentrating on false suspects Time wasting in following false leads Abusing the rights of an innocent citizen by way of acting on an erroneous profile In view of the foregoing therefore, it is noted that improper criminal profiling can be detrimental in the process of law enforcement and a compromise to the efforts of combating crime in the society. But when professionally carried out, criminal profiling is lauded as the key to solving most difficult, challenging and intricate cases ever experienced (Snook et al, 2004). COMPARISON BETWEEN TECHNIQUES AND METHODS INVOLVED There are two main approaches that have been forwarded to explain how criminal profiling has been conducted in criminal investigations. There is the FBI model, also known as the Crime Scene Analysis (CSA) and works on the basis of identifying certain characteristics found on the scene of the crime. These characteristics are listed by Van Den Heuvel et al (2012) as “the personality and behavioural characteristics of the offender, the weapons used, and some aspects of the victim’s body”. The second approach is the UK model variously known as the Investigative Psychology and depends heavily on the application of known psychological theories and thus becomes scientific in nature as opposed to the former (Taylor et al, 2008). This approach seriously attempts to avoid impulsive decision making, but strives to believe that criminals act consistently and will always repeat their actions no matter the settings (Snook et al, 2004). While the two techniques differ significantly, the methodologies used in both situations are more or less the same. THE STAGES OF PROFILING The profiling process has been indicated to generally undergo through six stages which must be progressive. The first stage is where all presumably significant evidence is collected from the crime scene in the form of “physical items, photographs, notes and witness submissions (Snook et al, 2004). The decision processing stage involves “organising, studying and analysing” the collected evidence to identify any evidences necessary to produce a tangible profile. The crime assessment stage on the other hand purposes to create a picture of both the victim and the offender before and after the crime in line with findings by Alison et al (2013). In the fourth stage, the profiler now assembles all the data at hand from the three phases in an effort to create a portrait of the offender putting into consideration such details of the suspect as ‘sex, age, race, occupational skills, Intelligent Quotient, social interests, mental health status and family background’ (Alison et al, 2013). After this, the portrait is presented for investigation upon which new useful leads may necessitate revision and updating of the profile (Van Den Heuvel et al, 2012). Finally is the apprehension stage where the ‘portrayed suspect’ is “identified and then investigated” (Taylor et al, 2008) and upon positive identity, arrest and trial ensues. STATISTICS OF PREVIOUSLY SOLVED CASES USING PROFILING Criminal profiling has been indicated as the subject of success conclusion of some high profile cases in the world. Snook et al (2004) identify some landmark criminal investigations that were concluded through profiling. i. The Delaware v. Pennel, 1989 case in which non-behavioural fantasy evidence was admitted in a missionary killer case, ii. The California v. Prince, 1992 case where the FBI’s VICAP approach was upheld in court, iii. The Louisiana v. Code, 1993 case in which similarities and dissimilarities in serial killer modus operandi were found admissible in court, iv. The Washington v. Russel, 1994 case where profiling evidence was ruled as NOT being “junk science” but was admitted as evidence in court, v. The California v. Bogard, 1996 case had evidence that was admitted to indicate that the same person was responsible for a series of six rapes, vi. The South Dakota v. Anderson, 1998 case – signature analysis was admitted to join two murder cases together for prosecution, vii. The New Jersey v. Fortini, 2000 case where evidence was admitted that similarities existed across a series of offenses, and finally, THE FUTURE OF CRIMINAL PROFILING The future of criminal profiling as it is today looks very gloomy and uncertain. This is because of the minimal number of successful cases, about 2.7% that have been concluded using profiling. Also, the dismal failure of criminal profiling in the “Rachel Nickell murder case” reported by Snook et al (2004) further dims the prospects. The retrogressive policies within police departments that forbid ‘sharing of crime scene data’ are not very attractive. Further still there is the lack of admissibility of criminal profiling evidence in courts that helps to stifle the growth of profiling as agreed upon by Van Den Heuvel et al (2012). Worse still is the fact that some quarters are suggesting that criminal profiling need to be replaced by “neurological profiling” now that a lot of advances have been done in neuroscience (Alison et al, 2013). In spite of these discouraging indications, there is some hope that criminal profiling may survive. For one, the FBI is constantly staffing its Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) with profilers who are on a rigorous training programme in key areas of criminology (Taylor et al, 2008). Moreover, a lot of improvements are being made in police cooperation to share crime scene data with other like minded agencies. CONCLUSIONS The concept of criminal profiling has not yet being fully embraced as it is still not very well understood. But in instances where properly crafted profiles are used, substantial success rate have been witnessed. This has effectively changed every one’s mind into believing that profilers can accurately and consistently predict a criminal’s characteristics based on crime scene evidence. But this need to be initiated by experts rather than trained novices because experts are more meticulous in what they do and usually leave nothing to chance. This makes their opinion better than that of novices. REFERENCES Alison, L., Almond, L., Christiansen, P., Waring, S., Power, N., & Villejoubert, G. (2012). When do We Believe Experts? The Power of the Unorthodox View. Behavioral Sciences and the Law Alison, L., Doran, B., Long, M., Power, N., & Long, A. (2013). Experience, Educative and Reproductive Ability and Time Perception as Protective Factors in Minimizing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied Bennell, C., Bloomfield, S., Snook, B., Taylor, P. J., & Barnes, C. (2010). Linkage analysis in cases of serial burglary: Comparing the performance of university students, police professionals, and a logistic regression model. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 16, 507-524. Bennell, C., Emeno, K., Snook, B., Taylor, P. J., & Goodwill, A. M. (2010). The precision, accuracy, and efficiency of geographic profiling predictions: A simple heuristic versus mathematical algorithms. Crime mapping. A journal of research and practice, 1, 65-84. Bennell, C., Snook, B., Taylor, P. J., Corey, S., & Keyton, J. (2007). It’s no riddle, choose the middle: The effect of number of crimes and topographical detail on police officer predictions of serial burglars’ home locations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 119-132. Bennell, C., Taylor, P. J., & Snook, B. (2007). Clinical versus actuarial geographic profiling approaches: A review of the research. Police Practice and Research, 8, 335-345. Snook, B., Taylor, P. J., & Bennell, C. (2004). Geographic profiling: the fast, frugal, and accurate way. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 105-121. Taylor, P. J., Bennell, C., & Snook, B. (2008). The bounds of cognitive heuristic performance on the geographic profiling task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 410 -430. Van Den Heuvel, C., Alison, L., & Power, N. (2012). Coping with Uncertainty: Police Strategies for Resilient Decision Making and Action Implementation. Cognitive Technology and Work Read More

Although profiling has not always recorded a one hundred percent success rate in all the cases they are used, Taylor et al (2008) underscore its contribution in helping investigators apprehend hardcore criminal such as “arsonists, rapists, psychopaths and serial killers” who in one way or the other would be otherwise running free. This argument is clearly supported by the ‘Canter case’ where John Duffy was apprehended and subsequently convicted on the basis of a very accurate profile (cited by Alison et al, 2013).

Although the profile was not used to prove that John Duffy was the perpetrator, it helped the police narrow down their investigations to the right culprit. The ‘Canter case’ was a high profile case, which incidentally are best and effectively solved using well crafted profiles; which according to Taylor and colleagues (2008) are good in pinpointing the criminals’ behavioural patterns as well as their abodes. WHAT DO CRIMINAL PROFILERS RELY ON? Profilers have been known to differ from one another in a number of ways, basically on the basis of their “individual training, experience, creativity and flexibility” (Bennell et al, 2007).

But one thing is clear about them in that they all strive to accrue enough information about the character of the suspected perpetrator in order to formulate a doubtless portrait for easy apprehension and conviction. According to observations forwarded by Van Den Heuvel et al (2012), most profilers depend on the data accumulated from the criminal’s observable behavioural characteristics that had been pieced together from various sources such as “crime scene evidence, Modus Operandi and victim characteristics”.

The application of this information into usefulness therefore depends on ones training and expertise gained from long years of experience as advocated by Bennell and partners (2010). Amongst the said factors aiding a profiler to complete his work, I find crime scene characteristics being the most fundamental than any other. In addition to the foregoing factors, Bennell and associates (2007) contend that geographical location and behaviourial patterns are now taking center-stage in prioritising suspects.

Thus “the closer the offenders are to their geographical location, the more likely they are to commit crimes” (Bennell et al, 2007). EXPERT VERSUS NOVICE IN CRIMINAL PROFILING An expert on the one hand is an individual who has mastery of the subject matter acquired through the process of formal training, experience and natural aptitude. A trained novice on the other hand is a ‘raw professional’ who has only undergone through formal training to acquire mastery of subject matter but lacks experience and expertise.

The same is best explained by Alison and friends (2012) who maintain that “an expert differs from a novice on three dimensions namely: knowledge, perception, and reasoning”. In this instance therefore, an expert is more knowledgeable in his or her area of specialisation. For this reason therefore, an expert is bound to work with speed and precision given a task to undertake. The expert is thus capable of manipulating his or her work environment more easily and effectively because problems and challenges have become too familiar over time.

A novice on the other hand is raw and has limited knowledge with no experience whatsoever in the certain area of specialisation. This limited knowledge is usually in disarray and may not be utilised effectively (Alison et al, 2012). For this reason, a novice works slowly, clumsily and only considers the ‘face value cues’ in solving problems. When considered from the perspective of criminology for instance, Alison et al (2012) maintain that forensic experts see important cues in the environment faster and more efficiently than trained novices.

In an experimental simulation of a crime scene using forensic experts and trained novices for instance, Alison and associates (2013) demonstrated that expert profilers were able to piece together evidences found on the crime scene in more detail and more frequently than their counterpart trained novices.

Read More