A Look At Criminal Profiling: Historical To Present DayEssay Preview: A Look At Criminal Profiling: Historical To Present DayReport this essayForensic psychology, specifically, offender or criminal profiling has exponentially increased in popularity since its inception. It has spread though out the United States and internationally and this popularity is due mainly to massive media frenzies that focused on high-profile cases as well as the fictional movie, based on a book by Thomas Harris, Silence of the Lambs (Huss, 2001). Another reason for the wide interest in profiling is that people have a need to know who and why and additionally, have a fascination with the morbid. The flood of popular attention to criminal profiling created several public misconceptions. I will, therefore, generally define criminal profiling, dispelling myths and then will focus on the origins, history and current applications of criminal profiling.
A glance at the historical development of criminal profiling in the United States:
Before the advent of profiling, many Americans were familiar with and/or used profilers to collect data on the criminal behavior of their own neighbors, acquaintances and the family members they came across.
Following WWII, the rise of the FBI and the growing surveillance of U.S. individuals led to the introduction of more invasive profiling measures that increased the use of non-voluntary profiling (NVP). For almost a decade after the adoption of NVP, non-voluntary profiling became less prevalent, resulting in more targeted profiling in a few short years. The introduction of NVP has changed the landscape of profiling. The National Criminal Justice Information Center estimated that 30% to 40% of victims of domestic violence report to NVP.
The proliferation of domestic violence and domestic violence victim-support services have impacted on the legal interpretation of NVP.
Shelving the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence has become a major priority for a number of law enforcement agencies. This includes:
The FBI and its partners at the FBI National Office of Domestic Violence (NDOVA) have been using a vast database to collect and process cases of domestic violence cases. NDOVA’s partners routinely submit cases to federal victims with potential for inclusion in their investigations. Many police departments and state and local police departments have a large database in their data center so that cases are identified and assigned to their state or regional partners. In conjunction with federal and state law enforcement agencies, NDOVA maintains a database of all and/or any of their U.S. partner federal partners, and has access to all and current data from federal partner partners.
According to this report, domestic violence cases in the United States have increased dramatically over the past ten years.
The National Family Violence Hotline has reported 916 calls for domestic violence victimization between April 2000 and January 2010, a 584 percent increase for every three days spent on their hotline.
As of August 2002, there were 1,074 domestic violence reports filed in U.S. courts alone at the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Office.
While the US still has some of the most effective and sophisticated federal programs, law enforcement and prosecutorial resources are not doing enough to address the vast national resources spent on domestic violence. NVP is no stranger to this challenge and has become a major component of the national approach to law enforcement that helps ensure that the American people don’t end up facing what they seek. A new paper published this week in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Justice Analysis by Dr. D. Scott Pomerant discusses the current status of domestic violence as a national issue in forensic psychology and criminal justice analysis.
Dana Brown, M.Sc. in Criminology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, and her coauthors analyzed 10,000 data sets submitted by about 400 law enforcement agencies in 34 states as part of their data collection efforts. The results suggest that the law enforcement agencies that submitted reports were far less engaged in the use of NVP than any other factor.
To compare domestic violence cases involving perpetrators who were present, they collected information on “identity-based” or “identify factor” cases where the respondent reported one or more possible characteristics that were associated with domestic violence for at least 48 hours after the onset of alleged incident involvement, and also reported the potential characteristics of the partner under investigation. The findings suggest that at most 18% of all reported “identity-based” cases were not related to the perceived presence of domestic violence.
While NVP cases are currently only recently added to this database, the results suggest that domestic aggression related reporting to law enforcement is the same as
A glance at the historical development of criminal profiling in the United States:
Before the advent of profiling, many Americans were familiar with and/or used profilers to collect data on the criminal behavior of their own neighbors, acquaintances and the family members they came across.
Following WWII, the rise of the FBI and the growing surveillance of U.S. individuals led to the introduction of more invasive profiling measures that increased the use of non-voluntary profiling (NVP). For almost a decade after the adoption of NVP, non-voluntary profiling became less prevalent, resulting in more targeted profiling in a few short years. The introduction of NVP has changed the landscape of profiling. The National Criminal Justice Information Center estimated that 30% to 40% of victims of domestic violence report to NVP.
The proliferation of domestic violence and domestic violence victim-support services have impacted on the legal interpretation of NVP.
Shelving the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence has become a major priority for a number of law enforcement agencies. This includes:
The FBI and its partners at the FBI National Office of Domestic Violence (NDOVA) have been using a vast database to collect and process cases of domestic violence cases. NDOVA’s partners routinely submit cases to federal victims with potential for inclusion in their investigations. Many police departments and state and local police departments have a large database in their data center so that cases are identified and assigned to their state or regional partners. In conjunction with federal and state law enforcement agencies, NDOVA maintains a database of all and/or any of their U.S. partner federal partners, and has access to all and current data from federal partner partners.
According to this report, domestic violence cases in the United States have increased dramatically over the past ten years.
The National Family Violence Hotline has reported 916 calls for domestic violence victimization between April 2000 and January 2010, a 584 percent increase for every three days spent on their hotline.
As of August 2002, there were 1,074 domestic violence reports filed in U.S. courts alone at the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Office.
While the US still has some of the most effective and sophisticated federal programs, law enforcement and prosecutorial resources are not doing enough to address the vast national resources spent on domestic violence. NVP is no stranger to this challenge and has become a major component of the national approach to law enforcement that helps ensure that the American people don’t end up facing what they seek. A new paper published this week in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Justice Analysis by Dr. D. Scott Pomerant discusses the current status of domestic violence as a national issue in forensic psychology and criminal justice analysis.
Dana Brown, M.Sc. in Criminology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, and her coauthors analyzed 10,000 data sets submitted by about 400 law enforcement agencies in 34 states as part of their data collection efforts. The results suggest that the law enforcement agencies that submitted reports were far less engaged in the use of NVP than any other factor.
To compare domestic violence cases involving perpetrators who were present, they collected information on “identity-based” or “identify factor” cases where the respondent reported one or more possible characteristics that were associated with domestic violence for at least 48 hours after the onset of alleged incident involvement, and also reported the potential characteristics of the partner under investigation. The findings suggest that at most 18% of all reported “identity-based” cases were not related to the perceived presence of domestic violence.
While NVP cases are currently only recently added to this database, the results suggest that domestic aggression related reporting to law enforcement is the same as
Criminal or offender profiling is a tool used by criminalist, behavioral scientists, forensic psychiatrists and psychologists, investigators, the FBI, the CIA, the CBC, and international law enforcement agencies. However, the practice of criminal profiling is concentrated within the FBI. The mission of offender profiling is to focus a criminal investigation onto more likely suspects (DeNevi & Campbell, 2004; Hicks, & Sales, 2006; Kocsis, 2003; Petherick, 2005). This narrowing serves to better utilize personnel and resources in the apprehension of offenders by investigating suspects and leads that are more accurately assessed (Canter, 2004; DeNevi & Campbell, 2004; Hicks, & Sales, 2006; Kocsis, 2003; Mitchell, 1996-97; Petherick, 2005; 2 Ramsland, 2007; Turco, 1990.
A symbiotic goal of profiling is to restrict investigative efforts to suspects that fall within the realm of the traits assessed to the perpetrator of a particular crime. Traits of a criminal that are addressed in a profile age, race, height, geographic location, personality, and even his or her attire offenders (Canter, 2004; DeNevi & Campbell, 2004; Hicks, & Sales, 2006; Kocsis, 2003; Mitchell, 1996-97; Petherick,2005; 2 Ramsland, 2007; Turco, 1990). This identification of traits assists investigator in narrowing the suspect pools for a crime.
Profilers must be versatile in their approach and knowledge of criminals and crime scenes. They must look at the positions of bodies, types of weapons, degree of violence at a scene, whether bodies were posed, verbal statements made by the perpetrator, if a signature (a detail found at a crime scene that is not needed to commit the crime, but, rather, is a compulsion or needful act by the offender and is unique to him or her) emerges, if messages are left, the time of day of the crime, and information about the victim(s). Another tool used by profilers, is the enlistment of the publics aide. Profilers operate under the idea that if the behavior and personality traits of the offender are made public, someone will recognize these traits in someone that they know (Gudjonsson & Haward, 2000).
Consequently, those who are concerned with the “safety” of the community must do research and educate their fellow citizens. In the course of this research, their knowledge of law enforcement to begin with must be part of a broader analysis. The goal is to increase this in the context of both the crime scene and social issues, as well as to provide the community and police with an accurate analysis of crime trends in their communities.
The crime scene (not only a site for surveillance), a gathering area and its environment also make for significant cultural and historical significance to the region, particularly to its rich heritage of people, which is well known since European times. It also makes them one of the most powerful cultural sites and the principal setting for the work of social, ethnic, political, cultural, economic, and other researchers. Cultural and historical significance to the area is, as it were, one of the defining elements of its history, a well-recognized concept both contemporary in itself and well-regarded throughout Europe, which is to say that in every context, the people in question are important.
How does the community respond to these major themes and issues in the course of research
The information in this section will focus primarily on the police in the community regarding crime scenes. While they will continue to explore the crime scenes of crime scenes that are more often found in residential areas, as well as the law enforcement agencies on site, it is important to note that these departments have a significant footprint in communities.
Police Service
The FBI provides over 90,000 law enforcement agencies in a variety of areas including:
Law enforcement, law enforcement and security. • Law enforcement agencies include the following:
• Criminal law enforcement agencies (including: the Federal Bureau of Investigation);
• Criminal crime enforcement (including: the Department of Justice);
• Criminal justice system administration; and
• Criminal justice programs.
The Bureau’s goal is to address the challenges in law enforcement, law enforcement services, and policing that local communities are faced with:
• Violent crime (violent crime involving violent offenders);
• Crime (including: the Criminal Code;
• Burglary, sexual assault and sexual battery, aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and assault; and
• Other violent crimes (including: drug trafficking crimes, assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated assault;
• Forcible transportation crimes).
In a variety of ways, police officers are responsible for dealing with violent offenders on a case by case basis. The agencies that act under the laws they set must be knowledgeable in the types of offenses they consider to be violent and violent offenders.
• Police may engage in search operations, which include searches of person. • Police shall not knowingly enter the premises or cause the entrance to to the premises or other public building to be searched by any peace officer or law enforcement personnel. • Police shall not use force against any person or property of the person or property of law enforcement personnel for any lawful purpose.
All of these factors are assembled by profilers and synthesized with his or her experience in the field. Douglas and Munn describe crime scenes as a story that has plots, heroes, villains, a beginning, middle and end (1992). They state that the end depends on the accuracy of the profile and others assigned to that case (1992).
Criminal profiling has been criticized for lacking empirical testing and employing circular logic when attempt to scientifically legitimize the practice (Hicks & Sales, 2006). One of the concerns is that profiling is limited to data accumulated by experience in the field. This is personally acquired information and subject to gingival perceptual biases (Alison & West, 2004). Another difficulty with validating profiling as a science in the reliance on criminal self-reports. Although useful to degrees, there are wide varieties of personalities to attest for. Some criminals may exaggerate their crimes, others, deny them and even some may lie completely. The basis for profiling is individual interpretation, based on ones experience which is influenced by self-reports of criminal (Canter, 2004). Kocsis has attempted several experiments to try to bring profiling into acceptance by the scientific community (Kocsis, 2003; Kocsis, 2004; Kocsis, R. 2004; Kocsis & Middledorp, 2004). His experiments have brought some validity in to the field with his finding that those currently employed as profilers, have a higher accuracy than those in other fields, including in law enforcement (Kocsis, 2003). As John Douglas, former chief of the BSU, and others believe, profiling is more of an art than a science but this fact does not detract from its usefulness (Douglas, 2007).
Public perception of profiling became synonymous with characters from the movie, Silence of the Lambs. While there was some accuracy to the film, profilers do not daily deal with serial murder cases, but handle several different low-profile, unglamorous cases. This myth, led to an influx of potential employees into the filed of profiling. These persons brought with them the expectations that profiling would be glamorous and land them in the public forum (Huss, 2001).
The public developed an image of profilers that mimicked detective scene in movies. This perception was often of a lone cowboy who had a dark and melancholy personality (Petherick, 2005). The profiler is seen as person who is embodies Humphrey Bogart or John Wayne characters. This idea is far from a realistic depiction of a profiler, who is just as likely to be jolly, married and a cooperative member of society as a politician or an athlete.
Dispelling another public myth, profilers do not have the ability to instantly assess a crime scene and give investigators a suspect. An analysis of a crime takes time and as previously stated, involves several factors. This is one of the difficulties created by public perception. Many people are under the impression that profiling is one-hundred percent accurate and able to be done in much the same manner as psychics are perceived to work.
The public erroneously believes that criminal profilers have the ability to tell what type of person commits certain types of crimes (Douglas & Munn, 1992). For instance, it is expected that if asked “What type of person commits arson?”, that a profiler is able to give a specific list traits that can be associated with arsonists (