CCJ 5616 FSU Profiling Criminal Behavior Discussion Response – Description
You must respond to two discussions:
1.
Profiling, also known as offender profiling or criminal profiling, is a technique used in criminal investigations to create a behavioral and psychological profile of an unknown offender based on evidence from the crime scene and other relevant information. While the use of profiling in court is subject to examination and its admissibility may differ from one jurisdiction to another, there are still a number of different contexts in which profiling may be utilized in legal proceedings. Additionally, profiling can offer several sorts of evidence that can assist in legal proceedings (Petherick, 2014). The following are some of the areas where profiling may be used in court:
Expert testimony. Profiling experts may be called to provide expert testimony in court. Their testimony can help educate the judge and jury about the psychological and behavioral aspects of the case, providing insights into the offender’s likely motives, patterns, or decision-making processes. All valid diagnostic data should be supported by factual evidence (Petherick, 2014).
Investigative tool. Profiling can be employed as an investigative tool to guide law enforcement agencies in narrowing down potential suspects or identifying patterns in a series of crimes. It can provide insights into the offender’s modus operandi, motivations, and possible characteristics (Petherick, 2014). According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, the method used to create a criminal personality profile is similar to that used by doctors to establish diagnoses and devise treatments (Douglas & Burgess, 1986).
Suspect prioritization. Profiling can aid investigators in prioritizing suspects by helping them understand the offender’s likely traits, such as age, gender, occupation, or geographical location (Petherick, 2014).
Witness and suspect interviewing. By offering insight into the offender’s expected communication style, behavioral qualities, or weaknesses, profiling may aid in the formulation of interview methods. Investigators may benefit from this information by conducting more precise and trustworthy interviews and interrogations (Petherick, 2014).
On the other hand, some types of evidence that profiling offers in criminal proceedings are: According to Petherick (2014), crime scene analysis can provide valuable evidence to establish links between different crimes and help create a profile of the offender. In addition, the offender characteristics that aim to identify age, gender, or occupation. This data assists in providing potential leads for further investigation. Also, behavioral patterns that examine the offender’s behavior and patterns across multiple crimes. This analysis can reveal consistencies, variations, or signatures that can be used as evidence to connect different crimes to a single offender. Additionally, the modus operandi focuses on understanding the offender’s methods, techniques, and rituals employed during the commission of a crime (Petherick, 2014).
It must be noted that admissibility and acceptance of profiling evidence in court may vary across jurisdictions. The scientific validity, reliability, and empirical basis of profiling techniques are often subject to debate and critics. Therefore, when deciding whether or not to allow profiling testimony or reports from experts, courts often look at the specifics of the case, the credentials, the skills of the profiling expert, and the relevancy and credibility of the evidence (Petherick, 2014).
2.
Criminal profiling in courts
Judges are dealt with a large task of allowing criminal profiling in court cases. They are faced with ensuring expert evidence collected against particular profiles is admissible because it has a lot of weight determining the outcome of the case. The use of profiling identifies distinguished characteristics about an offender which helps investigators build a strong case with expert evidence to the courts. As a caveat, “even well-qualified experts are not infallible, and their proposed evidence will sometimes reflect the fact that their field of expertise is fraught with considerable flaws” (Kocsis, 2010, Chapter 10).
As far as the areas in which profiling may be used in courts, judges would likely be more in favor of allowing cases such as sexual offense rather than homicides. “This is because we have a more extensive research base on sexual offending than we do on homicide “(Petherick, 2014, p. 215). Also, the evidence of similar facts plays a role as to linking existing cases based on behavioral information from the crime scene. “Because of its prejudicial nature, similar fact evidence is normally inadmissible unless it is deemed to be directly relevant to the issue before the jury. For similar fact evidence to be allowed, there must be a striking similarity between cases” (Petherick, 2014, p. 214). With comparing a sexual offense case to another, similar fact evidence would be if restraints were tied exactly the same way as in a separate case.
Various types of evidence
The first case in which the rule of expert evidence was used in courts was in 1923 with Frye v United States. The case involved the use of a lie detector used as evidence. James Frye argued that the lie detector results would reveal that his claim of innocence were true. However, the lower court did not allow testimonial evidence relating to the results of the deception test. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a test (such as a systolic blood pressure deception test) has not gained scientific recognition from psychological and physiological authorities, expert testimony regarding the results of such a test is inadmissible (Giannelli, 1980).
Since the Frye test, many courts have excluded scientific evidence based on the requirements of scientists that know and approve of the theory. Although, some states have relaxed the standards on admission of scientific evidence. Some examples of utilizing scientific evidence in court cases that may be admissible include blood splatter analysis, blood tests, DNA, autopsy reports, gunshot residue, etc. If the evidence is admissible in court, lawyers are also faced with scrutiny while defining the characteristics of the profile basing it on the scientific evidence. Lawyers, whether be prosecutor or defense, should educate themselves on scientific knowledge in order to successfully present the case.
3.
In Pamela Wilcox’s book Communities and Crime, she illustrates that communities and neighborhood can be looked at and defined differently for each person and how it pertains to studying crimes. In terms of community, people make a choice on where they want to live based on financials, quality of life, and access (Wilcox et al., 2017). Community can also mean that you are from a group of people or in a group, this could be illustrated as a member of a book club or a member within your ethnic group. Community could mean multiple things at the same time when discussing crime.
As defined in this weeks article, community can lead to connection that have similar beliefs, situations, priorities, relationships (Chaskin, 1997). They are what bind people together through groups that can rooted too in a specific location, but not always. Location communities are more place based, they are multiple connections is a small area that are social, functional, cultural, or circumstantial connections (Chaskin, 1997). In terms of defining community both definitions help to bring a group of people together. But which type of location would be the most helpful/ constructive to studying crime?
When studying crime I believe that locations communities are more relevant regarding crime. Local communities would be more conducive to studying time because they are more place space. It allows departments and researchers to keep a better tracking system in place where they are able to gain more information on a general note rather than who they are on a more personal note. Local communities also provides a more concentrated where many connections can be intertwined.
The post CCJ 5616 FSU Profiling Criminal Behavior Discussion Response first appeared on .
