Inductive and Deductive Profiling
Inductive profiling goes by the assumption that known and unknown criminals of a categorical offending host certain similar features in spite of different crime scenes. As such, the law enforcement agencies apply the traits of known offenders and past crimes to the identify suspects, who are the unknown subjects. Although this form of profiling is ideal for rapid generation of leads to potential culprits, it may be challenging given that different individuals may engage in similar behavior for different reasons (Yonge, & Jacquin, 2013). Hence, inductive profiling relies on group data in the identification of suspects.
The classification systems of serial killers and rapist typologies are empirically validated inductive systems. The systems have a comprehensive mastery of crime patterns in the respective offenses to inform the investigation mechanism. On the other end, deductive profiling heavily depends on the evidence the offender left at the crime scene. The evidence also includes behavioral evidence. Deductive analysis perceives a crime scene as a surface for painting in which the criminal is the painter (Yonge, & Jacquin, 2013). The scene reflects the offender’s action thus hinting his/her internal needs characteristics and fantasies.
However, deductive profiling is more challenging than inductive analysis. Deductive analysis requires a profound understanding of criminal motives, criminal thinking, and human behavior. The person doing the profiling must possess high-end skills of evaluating the crime scene. Although the examination is more accurate, it generates fewer leads. Unlike inductive profiling, it can lead to the identification of the criminal’s age and race, which is among the urgently needed data to secure concrete investigation. It can also give information about the offender’s lifestyle, strength, physical fitness and work. An example of this analysis is when making a profile use the geography of the crime scene to understand the criminal background.
United States V. Gordon E. Thomas
Criminal profiling in this case proved to be very significant in the pursuit of justice. Gordon was charged with child sexual exploitation following a large possession of child pornographic materials. The court had to make a decision about whether to release or detain Gordon pending trial by weighing the danger he posed to the community safety, particularly for children (Miller, 2009). The court heavily relied on the testimonial expertise of Dr. Blumberg, a psychiatrist, and Clemete, a special agent in the investigation of crime scene against children.
Although the profiling of the two was antagonistic, they helped the court in making a reasonable decision. While Blumberg opined that Gordon would not pose a threat if he is under the custody of his parents and limited to Internet access, proximity to children, Clemete concluded that Thomas had a high-risk of re-offending. From the two profiles, the court garnered a lot of information that prompted the formulation of judgment. Some of the essential information includes that Gordon was a preferential sex offender as evidence shown that he was only interested in girl children between the age of 6 and 13 (Miller, 2009). Again, he had no history of molesting children. Hence, the experienced psychiatrist termed his behavior as just an obsession.
Profound investigations also showed that Thomas did not stalk particular children in his area of domicile. The one time he recorded the genitals of his friend’s daughter was just a situational occurrence given that it was during an occasion (Miller, 2009). In fact, the girl was asleep, and he did not defile her. Judging from the profiling, the decision to release Thomas under the proposed conditions provided by Blumberg was in line with the Bail Act. The profiling helped in the creation of these conditions which offered a reasonable assurance of community safety. Although the government rooted for the detention of Gordon, profiling showcased the capacity of promoting rational decisions regardless of opposition by powerful players in the case.
Reliability of Profiling Methods
Profiling methods sharply polarized scholars in different fields. Although some of the methods prove reliable since they significantly boost legislative and judicial processes, many have been cited ineffective. Among the major problem in today’s profiling is that people making profiles focus more on intuition rather than empirical academic revelations. Again, detailed information on potential suspects is also lacking (Kocsis & Palermo, 2016). The law enforcement agencies are provided with extensive information, mostly in the form of autobiographical books, thus questioning the accuracy and scientific views.
The appropriate line between crime scene behavior and psychodynamic processes is lost. New findings in profiling are partly an aspect of the cultural burden that has existed over the years. Consequently, most profiling approaches do not reflect true behaviors, but assumptions about an individual's internal attribute. The prediction of future crimes by a serial criminal is also under attack. Studies have recorded that interviews with the captured serial offenders are comprised of unstructured questions thus compromising future projections.
The person making a profile usually has a premeditated explanation when conducting investigations. It is like they only want to hear or find what they think it is the problem. For example, serial offenses are mostly connected to mental illness and disorder. In other words, the people making the profile behave like novelists. They strive at establishing the most suitable theory that will fit in the situation at hand. They indicate psychological processes and empirically related information that can make sense in the offense in question (Kocsis & Palermo, 2016). Therefore, the major problem with the methods is the inherent flaw following poor operational definitions and plenty of inferred assumptions about an offender.
Victimology and Technological Development
Victimology is the study of the people that suffer loss, injury or any other form of hardships because of another person’s illegal act. The study incorporates the handling of these people, in this case crime victims, in terms of their mental, physical and economic conditions(Majidi, Moghadam & Esmaili, 2014). Moreover, specialists in victimology ensure that the victims are efficiently assisted in coping with the incurred harms until a point of full or solid recovery.
However, technological evolution is commanding a heightened attention towards victimology. Despite the evolution improving the criminal justice system in line with database management, software, computers, automobile among others, it is also increasing victimization. Over the last two decades, communications and transportation technologies have tremendously increased. Particularly in the platform of social networking, cyberbullying has been on the rise. Cyber victimization is successfully taking shape, especially due to the high numbers of people owning computers, smart phones and the likes. People, especially teens, may end up being victims of sexual harassment or even date rape courtesy of social network (Korchmaros, Mitchell & Ybarra, 2014). In some cases, victimization has been a form of amusement, for example, through sex chatting.
Today, cyber-attacks are high and anyone, including the innocent, can fall prey to the detrimental effects of hacking. With an individual’s information on various online or social networking avenues, perpetrators can leverage his/her data to perpetuate crime. Furthermore, the technology-oriented changes have occurred in almost every facet of life meaning that the rate of victimization is multiplying. Therefore, with the increasingly technological advancements, the world is becoming a global village in which criminals can boost their offensive or abusive ways. Victimology is also taking an advanced form endearing to minimize the cases of victimization and secure top-notch care provisions in an environment that is immensely technology driven.
References
Korchmaros, J. D., Mitchell, K. J., & Ybarra, M. L. (2014). Technology-based interpersonal victimization: predictors of patterns of victimization over time. Journal Of Interpersonal Violence, (7), 1297.
Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2016). Criminal profiling as expert witness evidence: The implications of the profiler validity research. International Journal Of Law And Psychiatry, doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.05.011
Majidi, S. M., Moghadam, M. R., & Esmaili, M. (2014). 'Victimology approaches and victimization analysis process in the judicial system of Iran'. Advances In Environmental Biology, 396.
Miller, K. P. (2009). Direct democracy and the courts. Cambridge [U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Yonge, K. C., & Jacquin, K. M. (2010). Criminal Profile Accuracy Following Training in Inductive and Deductive Approaches. American Journal Of Forensic Psychology, 28(3), 5.
