CMRJ531 Final Exam
Student’s Name
Institution
CMRJ531 Final Exam
Role of Objectivity in Criminal Profiling
Law enforcement agencies are constantly finding new ways and methods of tackling criminal activities in the society. They are responsible for identifying criminals before and after a crime has taken place. One of the methods applied by these agencies in the fight against crime is criminal profiling. According to Douglas and Burges (1986), criminal profiling is a technique whereby law enforcement officers identify the criminal offender by evaluating and analyzing the offender’s personality and behavioral attributes based on the data available on the crime committed. This task requires highly skilled personnel and accurate evaluations to register correct and desirable results. As an investigative aid, criminal profiling relies on the profiler’s correct methods and attitudes to register correct results. Therefore, the task’s objectivity is an essential aspect that furthers the reliability of the results generated. Objectivity means approaching the process without an underlying bias, judgment, or prejudice on the methodology and the profiler’s attitudes.
The widely accepted role of profiling is to aid investigations by constructing a comprehensive profile used to identify criminals from a pool of suspects. The process offers a compiled description of potential suspects for investigations. This means that the importance of objectivity is emphasized further due to the immense implications of the task. An objective task assures the results’ reliability and validity by eliminating incorrect results that might lead to unfair prosecution and eventual incarcerations (Kocsis & Coleman, 2000). Establishing a criminal profile involves evaluating the criminal act and a comprehensive analysis of the victim. Therefore, objectivity in profiling increases the validity of the evidence presented during the process. For instance, when a profiler approaches investigations with an open mind lacking in biases, the analysis of relevant data will be led by pragmatic approaches open to any inferences. The accuracy of profiles is enhanced when a profiler approaches an investigation without an underlying bias or prejudice against suspects’ available pool. This is because profiling is usually used to narrow down suspected criminals’ scope, hence establishing the right perpetrator from a wide array of suspects. The profiles are thus applied on various suspects, meaning the task’s objectivity will ensure results recorded are correct and do not implicate the wrong individuals.
In criminal profiling, the methods used depend on the type and nature of the crime being investigated. Therefore, the methods applied are not consistent and are not defined in a specific structure. Most of the inferences made are influenced by intuition or instinct elements mixed with scientific procedures the profiler deems applicable and relevant. In humans, intuition and instincts are psychological alignments impacted by constant cultural and social influences across a long period. Therefore, the negative influences of culture and social spheres might create biases on how instincts are generated. Clearly defined biases on race, gender, age, and social status might influence a profiler’s methods to identify a criminal (Douglas, and Burgess, 1986). At long last, the impact of wrong methodologies and instincts will be translated into generating wrong or weak profiles. In turn, this might lead to the task’s inability to gather the correct information to implicate an individual. Hence, criminals are left in the community to continue with crimes while innocent individuals face the unfair possibility of incarcerations.
Can Profilers be Objective?
In Palermo and Kocsis (2005) opinion, a profiler must possess the capacity to reason logically and objectively without being digressed or influenced by personal feelings about the case. While research shows that profilers’ objectivity is a close to impossible task as one starts in this field, experience has been tipped to be a definite determiner of objectivity. In the words of Douglas and Olshaker (1995), “no amount of education could replace the value of experience generated in active participation in criminal investigations.” Years of active criminal investigations polish the profilers’ capabilities, and objectivity is one of those. As time goes by, the profiler understands the importance of objective and applying logic in all profiling endeavors. A profiler slowly realizes that objectivity and logic enhance the validity of profiles generated, thus increasing the inferences’ accuracy. This realization initiates psychological practices directed at instilling objectivity within a profiler, thus improving the practice. This explains the possibility of profilers to be objective during criminal profiling.
While objectivity is a mental process that actively involves the conscious and sub-conscious faculties of the mind, more practice can be used to obtain it. It is a known fact that our mental alignments are impacted by the experiences we go through in society; therefore, underlying biases and prejudices become a part of life. This does not exempt the profilers who start the practice with their underlying biases and prejudices. However, a profiler’s success is dependent on his/her ability to overlook the personal feelings involved in a case and adopt a rational approach in the process (Palermo, & Kocsis, 2005). This means that the reported wide-spread successes of profilers across the globe meant that objectivity was adopted at some point. None grows up without biases derived from personal feelings about certain people or situations. Therefore, criminal profilers’ success stories are a clear example that objectivity was adopted in some instances during the practice to ensure valid and credible results. Considering objectivity is a psychological process, adopting it requires a profiler to train the mind to overlook the personal attachments and biases involved in a case during investigation. Therefore, it is an obtainable attribute that a profiler can attain to improve the validity and credibility of profiles generated from the task.
Approaches to Criminal Profiling
Despite being a strange and unclear phenomenon in the investigation field, criminal profiling has undergone numerous developments, such as categorizing the approach used. This was a reaction to the numerous crises that criminal profiling was full of inconsistencies and unspecified approaches. For instance, different crimes were perceived to use the same approach in creating a criminal profile, hence creating doubts about the data’s reliability retrieved from the process. Therefore, approaches to criminal profiling have been categorized into three broad methodologies. These are; the criminal investigative approach, the clinical practitioner approach, and the scientific statistical (empirical) approach.
The Criminal Investigative Approach
Law enforcement agencies, specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), through its Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), have been the primary user of the criminal investigative approach. The approach is one of the earliest methods used in criminal profiling. Unlike the other two approaches, this approach focuses on the offender during the commissioning of the crime. Analysis of the crime and the criminal is done through the perspective of the crime scene. Data observed is used to translate the type of interaction the criminal might have had with the victim and establish a probable relationship (Kappel, 2020). For this approach, the crime scene is the ultimate source of information, and every aspect of observable is analyzed deeply to establish possible psychological and physical attributes of the criminal. This is contrary to the other approaches that value other aspects of the crime to draw inferences.
The criminal investigative approach is a theory-based technique that tends to conclude analyzed crime scene data. This method is also known to demand little to none investigation-related experience. For instance, any law enforcement officer may be sent to a crime scene to analyze and draw conclusions. This is because the main requirement is observation, which in most cases, anyone would have the capacity to do (Winerman, 2004). This method has been at fault for its overreliance on the crime scene to develop profiles. Criminals are nowadays aware of the importance of tampering with the crime scene. When a scene undergoes tampering, the criminal investigative approach’s methods become inadequate, and thus, criminals can escape.
The Clinical Practitioner Approach
Compared to the criminal investigative approach, the clinical practitioner approach is more valued and dependable in criminal profiling. Unlike its predecessor, this approach treats every case with a new and unique attitude, acknowledging the differences among criminals and their methods. Various assumptions are used in analyzing every individual case to determine the right and relevant postulation that could be used for the specific case (Palermo, & Kocsis, 2005). Furthermore, the numerous assumptions applied in each individual case have been attributed to increased objectivity in criminal profiling. This is because the approach eliminates possible stereotypes that have been propagated by previous similarities in cases. Therefore, the approach defers with criminal investigative one due to its insistence on adopting different case tackled methodologies.
Moreover, the clinical practitioner approach relies heavily on the profiler experience and ability to conclude crime scene data. This approach has a little difference to the criminal investigative one because profiler involvement is only needed at the data analysis level. Extensive investigative experience is also mandatory for a profiler to be well equipped in applying this technique to criminal profiling. A broad similarity between the criminal investigative and the clinical practitioner approach is observed in their emphasis on crime scene information. Both approaches are dependent on the data retrieved from the crime scene to establish a criminal profile and draw inferences (Winerman, 2004). Furthermore, the first two approaches are categorized into experiential-based methods, which differentiates them from the third approach, called the scientific, statistical approach.
The Scientific Statistical (Empirical) Approach
While the other two methods rely on crime scene data to conduct a theoretical analysis of the criminal and the crime, the scientific, statistical approach adheres to statistical data and methodologies to detect a common factor between the crime being studied and past crimes. This method applies a scientific approach to establishing a similarity between crime acts of the past and the current ones. A global analysis of data from different regions is used to determine behavioral similarities of information at the crime scene to conclude the offenders’ characteristics (Kappel, 2020). While the two experiential-based approaches apply common sense and deductive reasoning in their inference drawing, the scientific/ empirical approach establishes inferences after analysis based on evidence-based empirical data. This has given it an edge over other approaches due to the scientific methodologies applied.
Comparing the current data on criminals with the past criminals is only made when the past referencing data registered a success. This means the comparisons are made with information from criminals that were caught after a successful profiling process. This enhances its reliability, and thus, inferences drawn can be used in pursuing a criminal. The major advantage of this method is that it enhances the objectivity of criminal profiling. Everything done is empirical-based; thus, personal feelings are greatly limited when dealing with a particular case. Enhanced objectivity impacts the results of a criminal profiling process, thus increasing the chances of registering correct and desirable results.
References
Douglas, J.E., and Burgess, M. (1986). Criminal Profiling – A Viable Investigative Tool against Violent Crime. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 55(12), pp. 9-13 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/103722-103724NCJRS.pdf
Kappel, C. (2020). What is criminal profiling anno 2020? A short communication. Social Behavior Research and Practice. 5 (1): 19-22. Doi: 10.17140/SBRPOJ-5-123
Kocsis, R.N. & Coleman, S. (2000). The unexplored ethics of criminal psychological profiling. In M.G. Godwin (Ed.), Criminal Psychology and Forensic Technology: A Collaborative Approach to Effective Profiling (pp. 323–338). New York: CRC Press.
Palermo, G.B. & Kocsis, R.N. (2005). Offender profiling: An introduction to the Socio-psychological analysis of violent crime. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Winerman, L. (2004). Criminal profiling: the reality behind the myth. American Psychological Association, 35(7). https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal