Experts quarrels about Preferable than Disciplined Rookie at Profiling Crime - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: АRЕ ЕХРЕRТS АNY BЕТТЕR ТНАN ТRАINЕD NОVIСЕS АТ РRОFILING CRIME Are Experts any Better than Trained Novices at Profiling Crime Name Institution Date Introduction Law enforcement often employs various methods and tools in order to help unravel crimes. One process or technique that has gained significant interest in contemporary times is criminal profiling. As highlighted by Eastwood et.al (2006), the usage of criminal profiling has over the past three decades proliferated steadily despite arguments of a remarkable lack of convincing experiential evidence concerning its accuracy. As such, the issue of criminal profiling has significantly attracted the public imagination lately, with concerns about it appearing in all kinds of media. According to Snook et.al (2008) one of the major issue that stands in the way of its reception is the contention that it has very limited authoritative material regarding it, as well as no scientific evidence to back the profilers’ claims. In view of this, a great number of law enforcement agencies globally still remain sceptical of criminal profilers’ works. This particular paper therefore intends to provide a general analysis of criminal analysis as a technique aimed at unravelling crimes. In addition, it will also provide a critical analysis as regards the notion of whether experts are any better than trained novices at profiling crime. Criminal profiling can basically be defined as an investigative and behavioural process employed by investigators in order to help them accurately predict the behavioural, demographic in and personality characteristics of unidentified criminal offenders based on crime scene information. The technique (criminal profiling) has a number of significant roles in as far as criminal investigations are concerned. According to Eastwood et.al (2006), although the scope of criminal profiling training currently goes beyond the original description, predicting criminal characteristics remains the most significant objective of criminal profiling. The technique is designed to secure information on an executor of a given crime, through conducting an investigation of scene of crime. Criminal profiling is not only used to identify potential offenders, but it also assists in narrowing down a record of criminals that has already been listed by the police, as a result, aiding in apprehension efforts. Although this is argued not to be effective in most cases, this technique has enabled investigators to arrest hundreds of offenders. By evaluating the motives as well as the patterns of past criminals, criminal profiling enables profilers to accurately envisage the characteristics of the present and future criminal offenders, as a result, allowing murderers and other crime executors to be arrested before they continue on committing other crimes. As such ,this technique has played a significant role in as far as solving criminal cases is concerned. For instance, in a more recently conducted survey involving 51 policemen all over Canada, 60% of the 29 policemen who had attested to be using criminal profiling technique before confirmed that the technique indeed made a significant contribution to their investigations.74% attested that the criminal profiler came up with accurate predictions, with 69% indicating that the profiles they were given were operationally helpful. Additionally, about 94% of the 51 policemen surveyed concurred that criminal profilers indeed help in solving cases, with another 88% also concurring that the technique is an essential investigative tool. The survey also reported that approximately 84% of the policemen surveyed admit ted that criminal profilers enhances investigators’ understanding of a particular criminal case, with 52% of the policemen also admitting that the criminal profilers’ advice was crucial in as far as opening new lines of inquiry is concerned (Eastwood et.al,2009). As highlighted by Doan & Snook (2008), criminal profiling is built on (relies on) the basic principle that one’s personality and mannerisms show their daily behaviours, including their unlawful actions. When assessing the evidence gathered at the crime scene, a profiler relates the information to identified behaviours as well as personality attributes emanating from past offences of other offenders who displayed similar traits. By using these similarities, a profiler forms a profile or a description of what the investigators ought to characteristically search for in a given crime suspect. On the other hand, despite sounding a compelling principle, Snook et.al (2008), argues the technique as well as the ways in which it has been employed to trace suspects is still surrounded by controversies. Criminal profiling does not only involve one technique. There are various distinctive approaches to criminal profiling including diagnostic evaluation, investigative psychology and crime-scene analysis. As highlighted by Mokros & Alison (2002) Diagnostic evaluation approach relies majorly on clinical judgment; hence it is approached by every expert in different ways. The crime-scene approach, which is the most popular approach to criminal profiling, on the other hand, categorizes offenders into two broad groups based on the scene of crime and the crime committed. This approach is mainly applicable to cases involving serial murderers. Investigative psychology approach is more of a collection of various related hypothesis and theories than a comprehensive methodology. According to Mokros & Alison (2002), the idea behind this particular approach was to establish whether indeed psychology had anything to offer in terms of assisting the police to apprehend criminals. As highlighted by Eastwood et.al (2006), there are several steps involved in the process of criminal profiling by profilers in making their predictions. The initial step is often involves the police collecting all the relevant information regarding the crime, such as photos and other details of the offence and forwarding them to a profiler. The profiler then examines the collected data. During this particular step, the profiler often answers various pertinent questions in relation to the evidence. The questions normally range from basic to complex questions including where the crime occurred, how violent the crime was, the type of risk the offender took, the primary motive for the crime, among others. According to Eastwood et.al (2006), patterns begin to form as these particular questions are answered. Using this information, the profiler easily develops an assessment of the conducted crime. On the other hand, the third step involves the profiler providing predictions to the police regarding the type of suspect that is more likely to have carried out the crime under consideration. In addition to this, the profiler also provides interviews and investigative strategies that are to be utilized during the process of investigation. As highlighted by Eastwood et.al (2006), the criminal profiling process involves a number of professionals working together in order to help unravel crimes .Criminal profilers, for instance, work very closely with police detectives, criminal investigators, and forensic psychologists. According to Eastwood et.al (2006), a psychological and forensic expert is a psychologist who engages in forensic psychology practice. Thus, the psychological and forensic expert has definable or reliable foreknowledge as a psychological specialist on explicitly psycho-legal issues, so that he/ she may offer undeviating assistance to courts, parties involved in the legal proceedings, correctional and forensic mental health amenities, and administrative, judicial, as well as legislative groups acting in an adjudicative position. With regards to the above, therefore, Eastwood et.al (2006) highlights that the credibility of a psychological and forensic expert is demonstrated when prognostic accuracy rates surpass probability levels, and that their prognostic abilities are of high standards. On the other hand, according to Alison et.al (2001), in a large number of workplace settings, performance is greatly dependant on an operator’s cognitive skills, which often entails the capacity of an individual to acquire and construe information in order to develop an opinion as regards the nature of incidents that transpired. Differences in this kind of evaluation performance are often related to the difference in operational experience, such that expert decision-makers (highly experienced) have a tendency to exhibit a comparatively a higher level of decision making skill, which is very significant in a large number of workplaces such as violent crime investigation. A number of organizations within these fields do not always have the resources or time to enable operators to grow from novices to experts through daily operational experience. As a result of this, operators with less experience are being appointed in positions where high level of professionalism is required, a factor that some argue is leading to a potential increase in human error. In view of this, one of the controversial issues that have attracted significant debate is the issue of whether experts are any better than trained novices at profiling crime. A trained novice can be described as an individual who is new to or inexperienced within a given domain or situation (Alison et.al, 2001). The notion that experts are better than trained novices at profiling crime is not exactly true. According to Snook et.al (2007), results from a narrative review and a two-part meta-analysis of an available research literature on the effectiveness of criminal profiling indicated that criminal profiling literature is mainly consisting of commonsensical justifications for criminal profiling rather than experimental research in establishing its effectiveness. In addition, results from a meta-analysis revealed that novices and expert investigators did not outshine comparison groups in terms of predicting criminal offenders’ offense behaviours, physical attributes, perceptions, or social behaviours and history. Even so, the category of experts performed slightly better compared to the category of novices at predicting the general offender characteristics. The subsequent meta-analysis showed that novices outshone the expert group in terms of predicting the general offender characteristics, physical attributes, perceptions, and social history and behaviours, but were not very good in predicting offense behaviours when compared to the category of experts. In general, this review argues against the notion that experts are better than trained novices at profiling crime (Snook et.al, 2007).On the other hand, as argued by Alison et.al (2001), there is evidence arguing that an expert and novice performance can be differentiated in terms of their experience. Evidence to back this particular observations can obtained from a number of fields in which professionals/experts have demonstrated high capacity to rapidly recognize as well as take actions regarding various situations relating to their areas of speciality. Experience is argued to suggest relationships, retained in memory, between situational features and events. The associations are normally obtained through experience, and offer a starting point to selectively deal with those incentives that are likely to facilitate efficient and accurate analysis of a particular situation. In this case, experience is argued to represent effective management strategy that prevents the need for time consuming, deliberative information acquisition process and management (Alison et.al, 2001).Hence, in terms of experience, ехреrts can be argued to be better than trained novices at profiling crime. Alison et.al (2001) also argues against the notion that experts are better than trained novices at profiling crime. According to Alison et.al (2001), a review examining the extent by which orthodoxy and congruence mediates the influence of specialist advice on the decision-makers’ judgments, revealed that there was few significant variations in terms of effects. The discovery that advice is most influential when unorthodox as well as incongruent hints that decision-makers are liable to re-evaluating judgements whenever specialist advice contributes new information that disagree with their beliefs.Thus,This findings may clear support the notion that experts are not in any way better than trained novices at profiling crime. Conclusion From the analysis, it is evident that the usage of criminal profiling is controversial. A number of individuals do not trust profiling as they do not think it is effective since it is not an exact science. Besides in terms of its evidential importance, criminal profiling cannot evade the issues related to legal relevance if it is prove that, on the grounds of a profile produced from a scene of crime, it is most likely that a given defendant committed the crime. Few profilers could argue, on the grounds of experience that they can pursue the real perpetrators of a particular crime. Nevertheless, what cannot be ignored is the fact criminal profile can significantly provide an indication of the type of individual who most likely committed the crime. On the other hand, and based on the analysis, it is difficult to determine whether experts are better than trained novices at profiling crime. Therefore until inferential processes are reliably validated, such assertions ought to be treated with significant caution during investigations and ought to be barred entirely for considerations in courts.Nevertheless,in my opinion, experts can be argued to be better than trained novices at profiling crime based on grounds of experience. 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, Journal of Behavioural Science Law, 30(6):729-48. Alison, L, Bennell, C, Mokros, A & Ormerod. (2001).The Personality Paradox In offender profiling: A Theoretical Review of the Processes involved in Deriving Background Characteristics from Crime Scene Actions, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,Vol.8,No1,Pp115-135 Doan, B & Snook, B. (2008).A Failure to Find Empirical Support for the Homology: Assumption in Criminal Profile, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol.23, Iss.2, Pp 61-67 Eastwood, J, Cullen, R.M, Kavanagh, J.M, Snook, B. (2006). A Review of the Validity of Criminal Profiling, A Review of the Validity of Criminal Profiling,Vol.4,Iss.2/3 Memorial University of Newfoundland. Mokros, A & Alison, L.J. (2002).Is offender profiling possible? Testing the Predicted Homology of Crime Scene Actions and Background Characteristics in a Sample of Rapists, Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol.7, Iss.1, Pp.25–43 Snook,B,Cullen,R.M,Bennell,C,Taylor,P.J & Gendreau,P.(2008).The Criminal Profiling Illusion: What’s Behind the Smoke and Mirrors? Journal of Criminal Justice and Behaviour Vol. 35, No.10, Pp. 1257-1276 Snook, B, Eastwood, J, Gendreau, P, Goggin, C & Cullen, R.M. (2007). Taking stock Criminal Profiling: A Narrative Review and Meta-analysis: An International Journal on Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Vol.34, Iss.4, 437-453 Read More

Although this is argued not to be effective in most cases, this technique has enabled investigators to arrest hundreds of offenders. By evaluating the motives as well as the patterns of past criminals, criminal profiling enables profilers to accurately envisage the characteristics of the present and future criminal offenders, as a result, allowing murderers and other crime executors to be arrested before they continue on committing other crimes. As such ,this technique has played a significant role in as far as solving criminal cases is concerned.

For instance, in a more recently conducted survey involving 51 policemen all over Canada, 60% of the 29 policemen who had attested to be using criminal profiling technique before confirmed that the technique indeed made a significant contribution to their investigations.74% attested that the criminal profiler came up with accurate predictions, with 69% indicating that the profiles they were given were operationally helpful. Additionally, about 94% of the 51 policemen surveyed concurred that criminal profilers indeed help in solving cases, with another 88% also concurring that the technique is an essential investigative tool.

The survey also reported that approximately 84% of the policemen surveyed admit ted that criminal profilers enhances investigators’ understanding of a particular criminal case, with 52% of the policemen also admitting that the criminal profilers’ advice was crucial in as far as opening new lines of inquiry is concerned (Eastwood et.al,2009). As highlighted by Doan & Snook (2008), criminal profiling is built on (relies on) the basic principle that one’s personality and mannerisms show their daily behaviours, including their unlawful actions.

When assessing the evidence gathered at the crime scene, a profiler relates the information to identified behaviours as well as personality attributes emanating from past offences of other offenders who displayed similar traits. By using these similarities, a profiler forms a profile or a description of what the investigators ought to characteristically search for in a given crime suspect. On the other hand, despite sounding a compelling principle, Snook et.al (2008), argues the technique as well as the ways in which it has been employed to trace suspects is still surrounded by controversies.

Criminal profiling does not only involve one technique. There are various distinctive approaches to criminal profiling including diagnostic evaluation, investigative psychology and crime-scene analysis. As highlighted by Mokros & Alison (2002) Diagnostic evaluation approach relies majorly on clinical judgment; hence it is approached by every expert in different ways. The crime-scene approach, which is the most popular approach to criminal profiling, on the other hand, categorizes offenders into two broad groups based on the scene of crime and the crime committed.

This approach is mainly applicable to cases involving serial murderers. Investigative psychology approach is more of a collection of various related hypothesis and theories than a comprehensive methodology. According to Mokros & Alison (2002), the idea behind this particular approach was to establish whether indeed psychology had anything to offer in terms of assisting the police to apprehend criminals. As highlighted by Eastwood et.al (2006), there are several steps involved in the process of criminal profiling by profilers in making their predictions.

The initial step is often involves the police collecting all the relevant information regarding the crime, such as photos and other details of the offence and forwarding them to a profiler. The profiler then examines the collected data. During this particular step, the profiler often answers various pertinent questions in relation to the evidence. The questions normally range from basic to complex questions including where the crime occurred, how violent the crime was, the type of risk the offender took, the primary motive for the crime, among others.

Read More