Evaluate the Two approaches (FBI and David Canter) to the profiling of offenders Essay Example

two types of offenders.

One was organized who committed acts that show clear signs of planning and organization. In the contrary, disorganized offender would be likely to select any available target as a victim, use whatever he found at the scene as a weapon, and make little attempt to conceal any forensic evidence.Further work allowed them to distinguish offender into another distinction. . e.

Selfish and pseudo-unselfish rapists. (Hazelwood, 1987) Those rapists were further divided into four sub-group. i. e.

power-reassurance, power-assertive, angry-retaliatory and anger-excitement. Such classification granted police force to search for their perpetrator precisely. For instance, the police had three possible suspects for a series of rapes, an examination of the nature of the attacks might lead profilers to be able to suggest which of the three was the mostly likely to have committed the offences.In the UK, Professor David Canter who's background is in environmental psychology has dominated offender profiling.

It was while at Surrey that the Metropolitan police approached him to see if psychology could tell them anything about a series of rapes, that later turned into a hunt for a serial killer. David Canter was able to give an incredibly accurate profile of the killer John Duffy who was subsequently arrested and charged with 2 murders and five rapes in 1988. Canter's approach to profiling owes more to psychology than that of the FBI.He (Canter) describes the FBI type of profiling as "..

. more of an art than a science... " (Canter 1995). Canter further suggests that criminals, like all people act in a consistent way.

And, that all actions are linked no matter the setting, and therefore an analysis

of their behaviour can offer clues as to their lifestyle during a non-offending period, thus aiding possible detection. It is argued that people live in a social context and therefore there would be an implicit relationship between offender and victim, which could also help to offer clues to the offender's life.Examination of any surviving witnesses' testimony and statements can reveal clues in such things as speech patterns, interests, obsessions and ways of behaving which may carry into their normal, non-offending life. For example a rapist might treat his victim with some care and may be apologetic after the offence, this might be how he treats other women who he has regular contact with, in his social environment. Canter's methods are different from those seen in such films as Silence of the lambs, and he suggests that interviews with this type of manipulative killer is not likely to be helpful.Canter believes the way he can help police in investigations is by using sets of data to look at correlation's between things like time and location of offence, choice of victim, and analysis of speech.

Through this Canter believes he can develop trends and patterns. Canter claims this method is more valid than sensational interviews whose validity is suspect. Hollin (1992) suggested that the British model of profiling is based on the principle of "bottom up" type processing, looking at cognitive behavioural models.The profile depends on analysis of existing evidence to identify specific similarities between offence and offender characteristics. In contrast the American model draws on "top down" processing, and is reliant on subjective conclusions that come from investigative experience of crimes and criminal interviews.

Unlike David

Canter's approach that adopting a scientific methodology and statistical profiling, FBI make little attempt to validate their theories and beliefs. It appears that FBI used criteria that were subjective rather than objective.Also, it did not perform any kind of statistical test in order to establish whether their conclusions were justified. Moreover, the use of sampling method ( use only 36 convicted case ) was too unrepresentative. Although statistical approaches such as those of David Canter may have their weaknesses, they are at least transparent and allow other researchers to replicate studies and to test other, possibly competing, hypotheses. Nevertheless, FBI approaches has no doubted that made a valuable contribution to our understanding of certain types of crime, and in identifying the sort of person most likely to commit these offences.

The aim of both the FBI and Canter's processes is to identify areas that will help in the investigation leading to arrest of the offender. Police can target their resources better and concentrate on those suspects who match the profile. Besides, offender profiling can give lower priority to other suspects who do not match the profile. Furthermore, it can ascertain whether a series of offences is likely to have been carried out by the same individual. Offender profiling is also extremely important when there's little idea where they should start looking for an offender.

However, many of police officers still misunderstand profiling is what fictional profiler can do as in the movies. Actually, profiling cannot state whether one particular person did or did not commit the crime under investigation. Most courts do not currently accept 'expert' evidence from profilers( Gudjonsson and Haward, 1998: 173). If profiling is

to become accurate enough and an accepted 'science' it will be necessary for those working in the field to use an approach that mirrors those used in the natural and the social sciences. Then, offender profiling would be the most important part in investigating crime case.