T whitley unit 5 project
- 1. COMPARING INDUCTIVE & DEDUCTIVE PROFILING METHODS Tammy Whitley Unit 5 Project CJ430: Psychological Profiling Professor Tamra White Kaplan University December 6, 2011
- 2. INDUCTIVE METHODassumes that if certain crimes Inductive assessment OF PROFILING committed by different people are similar, then the offenders must also share some type of common personality traits. According to Moenssens, Starrs, Henderson, and Inbau (1995), an inductive profile is “a set of behavioral indicators forming a very characteristic pattern of actions or emotions that tend to point to a particular condition”. As pointed out by Brent Turvey (1998), the term inductive is used to explain a branch of statistics, which involves “generalizations, predictions, estimations and decisions from data initially presented”.
- 3. DEDUCTIVE METHOD OF PROFILING Deductive assessment uses a thorough analysis of the physical and non-physical evidence to produce a mental picture of the offender, based on examination of the victim, as well as the scene and all of the elements involved. According to Brent Turvey (1998), a working definition includes “The process of interpreting forensic evidence, including such inputs as crime scene photographs, autopsy reports, autopsy photographs, and a thorough study of individual offender victimology, to accurately reconstruct specific offender crime scene behavior patterns, and from those specific, individual patterns of behavior, deduce offender characteristics, demographics, emotions, and motivations.
- 4. WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS OF EACH METHOD? Inductive Easy Quick Inexpensive No special knowledge required Comparison to past known crime scenes gives assessment
- 5. STRENGTHS, CONTINUED Deductive By knowing some of the tenets of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and criminology, a thorough assessment of the offender’s mind and mentality and behavior patterns can be garnered More reliable, since forensic reconstruction, crime scene analysis, and victimilogical assessment work together Works on the assumption that any crime is accompanied by a fantasy Uses known physical and non-physical evidence to arrive at assessment.
- 6. WHAT ARE THE WEAKNESSES OF EACH METHOD? Inductive Possible inability to fully understand human behavior, due to lack of education in necessary fields, namely psychology, sociology, criminology, and psychiatry Sources of information may be flawed or incomplete, leading to comparison with unlike cases Lack of pertinent details, too generalized to be of much use Assumes the offender will be similar in cultural values as past offenders, with similar environmental influences, and assumes similar motivation
- 7. WEAKNESSES, CONTINUED Deductive Takes much longer period of time to develop Can be exhausting for team members involved; physically, emotionally, and mentally Works best if victimology is known;if not, limited knowledge leads to limited suspects Is based on thorough examination of both physical and non-physical evidence, so examination of crime scene is paramount to success Cannot pinpoint an exact individual
- 8. HOW RELIABLE CAN EACH METHOD BE? Inductive At the mercy of comparing to similar cases, assuming they are similar and not based on flawed knowledge If information is coming from questionable source, such as media, or from uncooperative sources, this could cloud and misrepresent crucial information and evidence If, however, the information comes from credible sources, then a serious study can begin For best results, use in conjunction with deductive method
- 9. RELIABILITY, CONTINUED Deductive At the mercy of the crime scene detectives, since the scene itself is of utmost importance in understanding the mental issues of the offender Based on known human characteristics, a thorough examination can lend aid in determining the characteristics of an offender, which can help in narrowing suspects from a broad base to a smaller field of people Experience and knowledge of the profiler is important
- 10. WHAT COULD INTERFERE AND/OR BE PROBLEMATIC IN USING THESE 2 METHODS? Inductive The source of comparable cases needs to be impeccable and cooperative in order to determine that like cases are being compared to like cases; Starting off on the wrong foot here could be disastrous to the investigative process The profiler could be anyone from forensic psychologists to criminologists to policemen. No formal training is required, therefore anyone can quickly make a flawed assessment.
- 11. INTERFERENCE/PROBLEMS, CONTINUED Deductive Having cooperation with all crime scene personnel would be imperative; if the scene should be altered in any way, valuable evidence could be destroyed, leading to false assumptions If victimology cannot be obtained, important information pertaining to the case will be lost. Either of these could, in turn, lead to disastrous results
- 12. FINAL ANALYSIS Both inductive and deductive have good and bad aspects. Taken together they offer a profiler the best opportunity to assess all information, evidence, reports, etc…and assemble a working profile of a suspect which can be used as an aid to investigators to help in solving cases. Only by thorough and proper assessment can a correct, usable profile be assembled.
- 13. REFERENCES Holmes, R.M. & Holmes, S.T. (2009) Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool (4th ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Moenssens, A., Starrs, J., Henderson, C., & Inbau, F. (1995). Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases (pp.1146-1147), 4th Ed. New York: Foundation Press Turvey, B.E. (1998). Deductive Criminal Profiling: Comparing Applied Methodologies Between Inductive and Deductive Criminal Profiling Techniques. Knowledge Solutions Library, Electronic Publication. Retrieved December 6, 2011 from http://www.corpus- delicti.com/Profiling_law.html
Editor's Notes
- #3: I know these have a lot of information for a powerpoint presentation, but I just couldn’t shorten it and still get all of the information across! ;)
- #4: Again, a lot of information, but all of it good. By reading over this at the same time as the presentation, I could intersperse some pauses and allow/ask for any comments and/or questions, thereby lightening the heaviness of so much info at one time.
- #5: Aaaaahhhh….a break!
- #6: Again, by reading over these out loud at presentation, any comments/questions can come into play.
- #7: Each of these could be explained in more detail if needed at presentation.
- #8: Same here.
- #9: I would ask if anyone can think of other aspects which could affect reliability.
- #10: Same here.
- #11: I would ask for ways to overcome these issues and expound upon those.
- #12: Same here.
- #13: I would make sure to stress the importance of utilizing both methods, and mention drawing on outside sources if necessary, since not all departments have the resources to do this type of work.