Critique of the article Offender Profiling and Investigative Psychology DAVID CANTER

Critique of the article Offender Profiling and Investigative Psychology DAVID CANTER

Offender profiling is a topic that has been well researched. And it is also well known to the general public because of how it is represented and portrayed in movies, media, the news, and TV shows. However, the reality regarding offender profiling is far beyond the general conception, and that is why it is often misunderstood and misinterpreted (Ainsworth 28). Even though the topic of offender profiling has been well researched and developed in some cases, profiling has its distinct limits (Petherick et al. 46). Offender profiling has often been under strong critics due to its lack of accuracy and evidence, as well as a lack of empirical research. Since there is so much to say regarding the topic, this paper critique and compare two articles. The Offender Profiling and Investigative Psychology DAVID CANTER and Criminal Psychological Profiling: Validities and Abilities by Richard N. Kocsis. The purpose of this text is to take a deeper and closer look at profiling, as presented in the two articles.

Critique of the article Offender Profiling and Investigative Psychology DAVID CANTER

The individual who investigates crimes have always attempted to conceptualize some ideas of the traits of unknown offenders as an aid to convicting or finding them. As David Canter discusses in his article, the practice date back to 1888. When Jack Ripper stalked London streets, and some efforts were made to attempt to provide a description of the criminal who committed the still unresolved crimes (Canter 2). As Blau (16) make it clear by 1970 throughout the USA, the police referred to the process of speculating about the traits of the criminals who were being searched as offender profiling. The utility of such activities was also recognized by special forces such as the FBI. Through such analysis, David Canter attempts to depict the original definition of offender profiling. In his article, the author provides important insight showing how offender profiling came to the awareness of the public through media. According to David Cantre, there have been many consequences, most of which are generalized derived. Such as the typical high IQ of serial killers and the probability of serial killers being always white. All these have been proven invalid with time.

Regarding topologies by 1980, a psychological perspective pervaded considerable area of the FBI agents, and the approach was systemized into a group of topologies. And the one that is cited most are those that suggest that serial killers are either disorganized or organized (Canter et al. 293). And that such aspect of a lifestyle regarding an offender can be reflected in a scene of a crime. That is either disorganized or organized, as demonstrated by Canter and Wentink (492). Further, according to Holmes, the topology of a serial killer is an embellishment of the FBI’s original dichotomy. According to studies conducted in regards to Holmes typology, such classification schemes regarding serial killers have no relation with close empirical examination.

Much of the work on the David Canter article is based on environmental and social psychology. In his Criminal article shadows, he made it clear that the core question regarding offender profiling is to found the basis of making conclusions from criminal activity to characterize the offender (Canter 22). According to Canter, this is then successfully thought of solving what he refers to as AC equations. That depicts the formal framework that represents the relationships between a set of traits of the offender (the CS). And a set of actions in a scene of crime (the AS). When perceived from statistical sense, Young (37) demonstrate that these equations are canonical — implying that there is a possibility of a diverse set of variables that can typify the actions. That relates in different ways to a blend of the offenders’ traits. It is not explicit that a one to one relationship exists between any given characteristics and ab action. Consequently, Youngs (42) posits that A C equation cannot be resolved by empirical ways due to the presence of numerous possibilities as circumstances differ. Therefore, it implies that a theoretical framework is required to guide the search of probable correlation between characteristics and actions.

Offender profiling is clinical and requires other professional experience to make a judgment regarding the psychodynamics of the likely crime suspects being investigated. From the scientific psychology point of view, such a process is faulty as it depends on clinical judgment as opposed to actuarial valuation. Such faults have been highlighted in extensive studies as reviewed by (Lindsay et al. 230). Besides, theories that have been clinically derived that much of offender profiling has depended upon are equally issues of concern for research psychologists. Canter (24) has demonstrated that the range of scientific questions inherent in offender profiling is a subset of comprehensive psychology issues relevant to investigations conducted by police (Ronczkowski 25). This then put offender profiling in a somewhat general filed the investigation psychology. Remarkably investigation psychology is a relatively more academically grounded method as it opens up to possible application of psychology science as opposed to disregarding operational concerns.

Regarding the recommendation for future studies, it is imperative to consider the organizational or social context in which an offender operates. This will lead to consistency between other forms of criminal endeavor and social role. This would align with the general thematic framework that emerge in the study of actual action within a crime.

The conclusion made by detectives during an investigation pertaining to the probable characteristics will then be valid if and only if they are founded on good ideas regarding the processes through which crime scene actions are connected to the characteristics. Drawing from psychological and social theory, there are numerous possible processes. Such include personality theories and psychodynamic theories (Boon 45). Such theories can provide a valid ground for investigation conclusions only when the differences in individuals match criminal behavior variations (Bonta, and Donald 63). It is true that offenders show some consistency in the nature crime and characteristics they showed in a different situation.

Critique of the article Criminal Psychological Profiling: Validities and Abilities by Richard N. Kocsis

In this article, Kocsis reviews criminal profiling research in his research. He examines how profile accuracy correlates with the skills of the individual developing the profile (Eastvold et al. 300). After his research, Kocsis makes the conclusions that are essential regarding profiling. The following text reviews the contribution of his research and critique their conceptual and methodological foundation. From his research, he makes the following four conclusions. According to Kocsis, the data used for the research shows that profilers “surpassed all of the compared groups in the total number of correct [profiling] predictions” (Kocsis 134). Secondly, Kocsis posits that police personnel poor performance fail[s] to support the asserted importance of investigative experience as the key skill necessary for proficient profiling” (Kocsis 135). Besides, his third conclusion suggest that logical reasoning capacity is key to success in profiling. Because his subjects’ sample “actually surpassed the sampled psychologists, making them arguably the most proficient group after the profilers” (Kocsis 137). And lastly, he opposes, “The combined data suggest little support for the use of psychics [and the intuition they supposedly represent] in accurately generating the characteristics of an unknown offender” (Kocsis 138). His research with colleagues is valuable as it provides important insight regarding profiling. However, before accepting the research conclusion, there are a few issues that need to be addressed.

To examine the profiling abilities of the research subjects. The researchers employed a paradigm different from the one used by Canter David. The paradigm used in this research involved the collection of profiling data form participants who were believed to possess either of the skill perceived integral to the vocation of professional profiles. To determine the participants type of skill, group performances were compared. Each participant was required to review material from a solved crime series to get profiling data. In the study, profile accuracy was assessed by means of comparing the profile as a structure by different participants to the correct file structure. When the two-profile corresponded, the accuracy was rated high and otherwise. The researcher also divided the accuracy measures into other subcomponents to represent cogitative process, social dynamics, physical features. The researcher also computed two omnibus accuracy scores.

There are several issues regarding how the researchers compared and measured profile accuracy and hence, the conclusion of the research analysis. This implies that if the researcher’s assessment of profile accuracy has some issues, it follows that the argument made from the analysis can be criticized as well (Kocsis, and George 326). This text does not claim that the researcher’s approach to assessing the profile accuracy is faulty; however, there are some concerns about the measure. The concern expressed in this analysis is the level to which some items of the multiple questioners are open to diverse interpretations by both investigators and participants. And hence, the extent to which disparity between the investigator profile and participant profile shows genuine inaccuracies and versus differences in interpretation. This means that the answers to some items are dependent on the respondent’s interpretation. The issue is somewhat salient when responding to question about the physical attribute of the offender, such as height, skin color, among others. The answers to such questions depend on the perspective of the respondent. The researchers in this study left out important information as they don’t clarify how the investigator who took part in the research answered the questions. However, according to some researchers such as Canter (130), it is sometimes impossible or rather difficult to uncover answers to such kinds of questions with any accuracy or confidence. This implies that personal interpretation of the question results in varying answers, and hence, such answers bias the measure of accuracy in Kocsis’s study.

Regarding how professional profilers compare to the other groups, this text holds that there are difficulties in how the researchers interoperated the analyzed data. For example, it is plausible to dispute that the researcher’s data support the conclusion that all the other groups were outperformed by professional profilers. And that the next proficient group after profilers are the students. Based on the result presented by the research Kocsis (204), it appears erroneous to infer that professional profilers outperformed other groups. For instance, in a research Kocsis (237), the results were not founded on statistic figures. Since there were no statistically significant disparities between the mean accuracy score of the other groups and the score of the profilers (Kocsis, and George 63). To be precise the there were significant differences psychologists outperformed that police on matters about the offender’s behavior and physical features. According to Kocsis (135), “In spite of their training, knowledge, and experience, profilers did no better than anyone else in the correct identification of features of the offender or offense.”

Regarding the skill argument, the primary objective of the research was not the superiority of participant groups regarding profiling accuracy. However, the research should also elucidate why a certain group is superior. The approach adopted by the researchers to generate such an explanation was to collect data related to profiling from the groups that purportedly have different skills. It is perceived that group performance depicts the importance of the group-specific skill to profile successfully. I this regard, the text registers several concerns about the approach adopted by the researchers. According to the researchers, the participants’ groups involved in the study have the respective skill; for instance, in the case of the psychologist, they have the skill of appreciation of criminal behavior. But in the research, the researchers examined the participants’ groups only on one occasion to determine if they truly possess the said skills. Kocsis et al. (2000) assessed the student to determine their logical reasoning capacity. However, the result should not be generalized to be applied in other subsequent research.

In addition to accuracy and skill argument, the other concerns are about the validity of the research findings. As such, the text below question the level of validity of the result presented by Kocsis (203) the first issues address the number of professional profilers were they enough to constitute a research sample size? Even though the researcher recognizes the concern “the current sample of 11 individual professional profilers does . . . Represent the largest empirical sample currently available” (Kocsis 134). The use of a small sample size is enough to conclude that the result obtained cannot be generalized to represent a broad profiler community. Based on the critique presented above regarding Kocsis research, there are several recommendations that can direct future results to produce a conclusion and results that are meaningful and generalizable. One way of addressing to limit open interpretation by respondents is by increasing the level of objectivity linked with questioners. Besides, it is imperative not to include an aggregate comparison of group performance; instead, meta-analytical procedures would be appropriate. Regarding skills, it is essential to conduct a group assessment.

Comparison of the two articles

The work of Canter majorly focuses on understanding offender profiling from the perspective of certain behaviors. The author highlights the main objective of the profiling that includes the provision of a social justice system with psychological and social assessment of the offender. While reducing the range of culprits under investigation by associating characteristics of the crime scene to the behavior of a criminal. Moreover, to provide criminal justice with an evaluation mechanism characteristic of crime and things found in possession of the offender and finally to provide interviewing strategies and suggestions. Canter’s article concentrates more on the offender profiling providing research related to the origin of the practice the theories related to the practices as well as topologies and approaches. More importantly, Canter deals with the dilemma of investigative psychology showing the challenges associated with offender profiling (Canter and Youngs 37).

On the other hand, Kocsis research centers around the profilers. The focus of the article is on the accuracy measures and skills in criminal profiling. The author examines the accuracy and skills of the profilers who analyze behavior patterns of a series of crimes or a crime to develop a descriptive template of probable offender. The article assumes a different methodology of collecting and analyzing data that is more statistical as compared to the Canter approach that is more theoretical. The findings of the article by Kocsis are based on statistical analysis, while those of Canter are based on theoretical justification. Even though all the articles have been critiqued from a different perspective, they have some similarities. One of the similarities of the articles is that they all strive to uncover empirical evidence to support the validity of the practice. And the absence of any evidence through exposition of the techniques and skills involved (Chifflet 243).

Conclusion

The issue of offender profiling influences several aspects of criminal justice and law enforcement, psychology, as well as social science (Alison et al. 87). Though this text critique the two articles, the strategies and the methods evoked in these two articles are insightful and helpful for the experts in these fields. Despite the fact that it is difficult to attain 100% accuracy in offender profiling (Summers et al. 259). The critique presented here helps to shape future studies to narrow down to procedures and techniques that can result in meaningful findings.