1/20
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai | Chat |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
Profiling of Criminal Suspects
Behavioral scientists and police use criminal profiling to narrow criminal investigations to suspects who possess certain behavioral and personality features that were revealed by the way the crime was committed.
One survey (Torres, Boccacini, & Miller, 2006) found that only 10% of the psychologists and psychiatrists surveyed reported any profiling experience, and 25% considered themselves knowledgeable about profiling.
A major source of research and development on criminal profiling has been the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (the BSU), which worked on criminal profiles between the 1970s and 2014.
Classifying Homicide Offenders
Mass - 4 or more, one day, single location. The typical assailant is killed at the location of the crime, commits suicide, or surrenders to police.
Spree - Killing of 3 or more persons over time, NO cooling-off period between murders.
Serial - The killing of three or more people over more than one event, with a significant period of time between each murder. Usually with cooling-off period between murders.
Classifying Homicide Offenders
It is estimated that about two mass murders were committed every month in the United States in the 1990s, resulting in the deaths of 100 victims annually
Although most mass murderers are not severely mentally ill, they do tend to harbor strong feelings of resentment and are often motivated by revenge against their victims.
Characteristics of Serial Killers
Mostly white males in their early 30s
Typically employed at the time of the offense
Approximately one-third were married
The average offender had an 11th-grade education.
Victims of these offenders were most often white females in their early to mid-30s who were strangers to their killers.
More than half of the murders were sexually motivated.
Motivations for Serial Murders (Fox and Levin, 2007)
power
revenge
loyalty
profit
terror
Motivations for Murders
Turning Places into a “War Zone” to be in control
Killing people who wronged/betrayed them (bullying, fired from job, ect.)
Family killing to save from poverty
Killing witnesses to a crime (ex. bank robbery)
Blowing things up, destroying political targets
Steps Involving Criminal Profiling
Profiling inputs - The first stage involves collecting all information available about the crime.
Decision process models - The profiler organizes the input.
Crime assessment - On the basis of the findings in step 2, the profiler attempts to reconstruct the behavior of the offender and the victim.
Steps Involved in Criminal Profiling
Criminal profile The profiler formulates an initial description of the most likely suspects.
Investigation - A written report is given to investigators, who concentrate on suspects matching the profile.
Apprehension - Arrest of a suspect allows the profiler to evaluate the validity of their predictions.
The Validity of Criminal Profiles
In a review of criminal profiling, Homant and Kennedy (1998) concluded that different kinds of crime scenes can be classified with reasonable reliability and that differences in these crimes do correlate with certain offender characteristics, such as offenders’ prior relationships and interactions with victims (Salfati & Canter, 1999); organized versus disorganized approaches; and serial versus single offenders (e.g., Kraemer et al., 2004). This reaser suggests several reasons for caustion:
− (1) Inaccurate profiles are quite common.
− (2) Many of the studies have been conducted using FBI data describing a
fairly small number of offenders.
− (3) The concepts and approaches actually used by profilers have often not
been objectively and systematically defined.
− A majority of the psychologists and psychiatrists responding to one survey
(Torres et al., 2006) did not view criminal profiling as scientifically reliable or
valid—but nonetheless endorsed it as a potentially useful tool in criminal
investigation
Detecting Deception
People tell lies fairly often—on average, between once and twice a day, according to self-report studies (Hartwig, 2011). They do so for a variety of reasons: so that others will perceive them favorably, to avoid tension and conflict in social situations, and to minimize hurt feelings (Vrij et al., 2010). People also lie to conceal their wrongdoings, and successfully detecting these individuals can have profound societal benefits
Simple Observation
Truth Bias - The systematic tendency to classify others' messages as truthful, regardless of whether they actually are.
Lie Bias -The systematic tendency to classify others' messages as deceptive or false, regardless of actual intent.
Arousal-Based Methods of Detecting Deception.
Behavior analysis interview
Polygraph
Control Question Test
Concealed Information Test
Behavior Analysis Interview
A technique used in assessing a person's behavior and nonverbal cues during interviews to identify potential deception. It involves analyzing verbal and nonverbal signals, such as inconsistencies in stories and physiological responses.
Polygraph
A device used to measure physiological responses like heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration, which can indicate levels of arousal believed to be associated with deception.
Control Question Test
A method used in polygraph testing that compares responses to emotionally charged questions with responses to irrelevant questions to assess deception.
Concealed Information Test
A psychological assessment technique used to determine whether a person possesses knowledge of specific details related to a crime, often used in conjunction with a polygraph.
Brain-Based Lie Detection
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) - use scanners fitted with powerful electromagnets to measure blood flow and oxygen utilization in selected parts of the brain. Increases in oxygen consumption and blood flow in a particular part of the brain indicate that that region of the brain is involved when a subject undertakes a certain task
Interrogating Suspects
When investigators have a hunch that a person is acting deceptively— due to a “failed” polygraph, neuroscientific test results, artificial intelligence, or simply through observation and interview—they may target that person for more formal interrogation, with the hope of extracting a confession. Throughout history, confessions have been accorded enormous importance.
Munchausen By-Proxy Syndrome
A psychological disorder where a caregiver, usually a parent, deliberately fabricates or induces illness in another person, often their child, to gain attention or sympathy. This condition can lead to severe consequences for the victim's health and well-being.
Until the mid-twentieth century, many “confessions” came only after intense questioning by the police—questioning that involved promises, threats, harassment, and even brutality.
Until 1966, the traditional test for admissibility of a confession in court was voluntariness. A voluntary confession is given without overt inducements, threats, promises, or physical harm.
The trustworthiness of a confession was believed to be lost when it was obtained through one or more of those means (Hopt v. Utah, 1884).
Miranda v Arizona, 1966
A landmark Supreme Court case establishing that detained individuals must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination before police questioning, thereby reinforcing the protection against involuntary confessions. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, for kidnapping and rape. Police interrogated him without telling him he had the right to remain silent or to have a lawyer present, and he confessed. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn his conviction, holding that the Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination during police custody. This case caused the creation of the Miranda rights
Miranda Rights
The rights of individuals taken into police custody to be informed of their right to remain silent and to have legal counsel, ensuring protection against self-incrimination.