Deductiveprofiling this entails the profiler make assumptions based on theevidence presented in a crime and uses his experience to reach aconclusion (Walker& Wood, 2010).This means the profiler has to narrow down the presented facts toreach a decisive conclusion. In deductive profiling for instance in ahit and run case, where the profiler start by collecting the datacollected at the crime scene and use it to develop his investigationto reach a fair conclusion (Walker& Wood, 2010).
Inductiveprofiling involves reliance upon the data collected by the FBI aswell as the interviews from the offenders themselves to build anddevelop a profile(Walker & Wood, 2010).Ininductive profiling for instance, information used is general and isobtained primarily from the character of offenders being evaluatedconcerning the previously solved dissimilar cases.
Thecase of the United States v. Gordon E. Thomas III (2006) was not soseriously dependent on the evidence given by the criminal profilingexpert. The state expert SSA Clemente failed to substantiate hiscriminal profiling conclusions using the data he claimed to havederived his argument.
Onthe contrary, the defendant’s expert was able to argue convincinglyusing previous data and study to reach a verifiable conclusion, thusconvincing the court of Mr Thomas’s risk of re-offending. Thisproves that the criminal profiling did not influence much on thecourt’s decision, since most of the presented findings could not beconvincingly argued to be scientifically factual (Walker& Wood, 2010).
Thiscase provide a case of criminal profiling which proves that it is notadequate to just draw conclusions based on assumption and gutfeeling, but would be reasonable to base ones argument on thethoroughly researched findings and connecting the latter with thecurrent situation to draw an informed conclusion.
Theevident used by the FBI in criminal profiling cannot be empiricallyclaimed to be credible and reliable, considering that it is based onthe past dissimilar occurrences(Godwin, 2002).Such evidence should be compared with the behavioural pattern of thecurrent offender as was the case used by Thomas’s case defendantexpert.
Theabove scenario points out at the fact that evidence used in profilingcriminals should be based on the current offender’s behaviourpattern in relation to the past dissimilar cases to predict correctlythe possible outcome(Godwin, 2002).In most cases, the latter leads to wrong profiling and in the longrun wrong sentencing based on non-factual basis but solely on the gutfeeling and unreasonable doubts.
Thelatter is the case since, a person’s profile cannot entirely dependon the profile of other patterns not necessarily performed by theoffender thus, rendering the criminal profiling evidence conclusivelymisguided(Godwin, 2002). This type of evidence cannot be used to argue conclusively that theevidence presented is beyond reasonable doubts.
Victimologyrefers to the study through research and theory of victims, an aspectthat has gained a lot of publicity in the recent past (Dussich,2006).Having been noted that victims not only suffer physical harm butpsychological as well as create an avenue to facilitate furthertreatment of victims in a dignified manner by the criminal justicesystem.
Overthe last 20 years, the chances of victimization are on the rise owingto the much technological advancement that is exposing privateinformation to the public thus risking criminal attack (Dussich,2006).The technologically advanced communication gadget like mobile phones,laptops, I phones and tablets incorporating the internet arepromoting victimization chances greatly.
Usingthe above-mentioned media, especially on the social media, manypeople are at the risk of facing heightened chances of victimization(Dussich,2006).This is due to the free flow of their personal information on theseplatforms making the victims very prone to physical andpsychological. The kind of technology used today is adopted by bothgood and evil users who take advantage of the various platforms totarget their victims (Dussich,2006).
Twentyyears ago, sexual offences perpetrated by women were an extremelyrare scenario. In the early 1980s the prisons in the United Stateshoused less than 100 female sex offenders(Levenson, et al, 2007).According to the US Justice Department, this number has been on therise for the last 20 years, with the statistics showing that twoyears ago the number of female sex offenders had risen to over 1200in the state prisons. This is considering many other perpetrators areignored, taken lightly or given very light sentences.
Untilrecently, no serious study was carried out on female sex offenders(Levenson, et al, 2007).The rapid rise of female sex offenders has made the state to open thefirst state –sponsored facility in the Texas prison system, tofacilitate the treatment of these perpetrators (Levenson,et al, 2007).Experts observe that the female sex offenders’ cases are taken lessseriously compared to their male counter parts, though the impactleft on the victim is very serious.
AccordingtoLevenson, et al, (2007)women commit around 27% of the total sexual offences reportedannually. From the multiple review of the victimization survey data,indicates that from the cases of female sex offences reported andthose ignored, over 6% of the total are perpetrated by individualwomen, and over 40% done with the assistance of an accomplice(Levenson, et al, 2007).This rapid rise is in part influenced by the extensive use oftechnology from where the women perpetrators are selecting their malevictims, owing to the extensive exposure of profile on the internet.
Nomotheticprofiling involves using the achieved data which is analyzed todetect patterns and relationships from the many dissimilar cases asstudied in the past (Petherick&Turvey, 2008). Criminal profiling is in itself nomothetic in the sense that thetheory and the approach are based on generalization of facts based onthe evidence derived from past information to reach a conclusion(Petherick&Turvey, 2008).
Thiskind of profiling involves describing the character of an offenderbased on the analysis of other groups or group of offenders’characteristics as stored in the previous (Petherick&Turvey, 2008). It is very important in trying to solve group related issuesespecially if there is a corresponding sequence or pattern. Beingjust imaginary, they have a narrow scope of possibilities, thoughthey might be used to build up an insight on various crimes andgangs.
Inmost cases the patterns used though imaginary, do not always reoccurin each individual case irrespective of the same crime nature(Petherick&Turvey, 2008).Thus, they only present possibilities and or probabilities of a givencase in relation to another one committed priory. The main challengehere being in as much as nomothetic profiling may be used to profilemass murders, it is imperative not to make conclusive deductions fromthe latter as they may differ from case to another.
Dussich,J. P. (2006). Victimology–past, present and future. RESOURCEMATERIAL SERIES No. 70,116.
Godwin,M. (2002).Reliability, validity, and utility of criminal profilingtypologies. Journalof Police and Criminal Psychology, 17(1),1-18.
Levenson,J. S., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Publicperceptions about sex offenders and community protectionpolicies. Analysesof Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1),137-161.
Petherick,W., &Turvey, B. E. (2008).Nomothetic methods of criminalprofiling. Criminalprofiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis,75-111.
Turvey,B. E. (2011). Criminalprofiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis.Academicpress.
Walker,P., & Wood, E. (2010). ForensicScience Experiments.Infobase Publishing.