Category: Criminal Profiling

It is the primary concern of the police to safeguard the protection of the community this also includes the apprehension of offenders. Law enforcement agencies are seeking the help of psychologists that specialize in human behaviour when conducting a criminal investigation in the search of a suspect. Criminal profiling often known as offender profiling which was coined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Criminal Profiling has been recognised as one of the most useful techniques in offender profiling, which is a technique that is employed to help provide the definition of the behaviour of an offender/s before they are able to commit too many crimes. An offender profile is conducted by using both geographical and typology approaches. Sammons (2020) states that both these approaches tries to identify the characteristics of the offender/s from the characteristics of the offence this information can aid the police to link crimes and to narrow down the list of possible suspects. Holmes and Holmes (2008) concludes that offender profiling should consist of three main objectives. One to provide the police with essential information of the characteristics of the offender including but not limited to age, race, employment and Marital status, to be able to identify if the offender may have taken anything from the crime scene (for example souvenirs) that would associate them with the crime and finally to suggest any interviewing strategies that the police may be able to put in place when questioning the suspect. However, Godwin 2002 suggests that profiling is wholly instinctive and epitomises a less than educated attempt to provide detailed information about an unknown individual who has committed a crime.

Investigative psychology’s main goal is to expand the understanding of criminal behaviour and the investigative process, which was created by David Canter to reflect the ever growing influences of psychology in police investigations (Taylor, Snook, Bennell and Porter n.d). Canter (2000) states that this technique is an empirical method of supporting the police investigations, by producing a scientific contribution to law enforcement practice that can deliver on two levels one is to provide evidence based advice to the ongoing investigations and secondly to help the improvement of the investigative strategies and policies (Alison Goodwill, Almond, Van den Heuvel, & Winter, 2010).

Investigative psychology as suggested by some as statistical profiling and this method encompasses geography and behaviourism when analysing crime scenes this process uses the principle that when a crime is committed this contains characteristics that are predictable to the behaviour of the offender (Ainsworth, 2001).

Geographic profiling originates from psychological expertise and is based on empirical, quantitative, statistical methods which uses environmental studies to concentre on the location of the crime scene using them to provide offender information (Young, 2006). David Canter proposed that offenders expose information about themselves through the locations of where they commit crimes. Godwin and Canter (1997) suggests that each offence allows for that location to be documented with increasing accuracy as the locations increases from a predominant location using the two furthest locations a circle can be drawn surrounding most of the offence locations and the home base. Base on this idea Sammons and Putwain, (2018) puts forward the circle theory. Using a map and placing pins in the locations of the linked crimes, then drawing a circle around these creating a geographic area of probability, that an offender resides within this themselves with this in mind he suggested that “85% of offenders lived inside the circle”.

This approach links the crime scene locations to the possible home or base of the offender with this in mind it is expected that the offender is highly likely to operate in and around areas that they are very familiar with for example home, work or their childhood home an offender is suggested to have a crime range of a two-mile radius (Rossmo, 1999). The offenders are placed into one of two categories and these are either the Marauder which is when the offender lives in close proximity to the crime scene and the other is a Commuter which the offender has to travel to the crime scene but still have a great knowledge of the area (Canter and Gregory, 1994). The choice of location in which the offender picks to commit their crime is not chosen at random in that they have some meaning to the offender and their every day life and the resources they have available to them, research suggests that the more resources the offender has to their disposal the further they are likely to travel. If the offender has chosen a certain type of victim can take the offender to locations far and wide however if the offender motives are that of emotion the are they will commit their crimes closer to home (Canter and Youngs,2009)

Canter, (2017) suggests that the journey an offender takes regularly is a basis to their comfort zone, creating a belief of confidence for an offender to act in an area they believe to be safe. Also suggesting that more than one crime by the same offender may be committed in a smaller geographic area.

Notwithstanding that the information provided by geographical data of the location of the crimes is not enough by itself there needs to be information provided on the behaviour of the offender at the scene and also of the victim also the geographical approach necessitates several scenes of crime to operative effectively, this technique however, has been proven to be successful as it was the geographical approach along with the Typology aproach used by David Canter in the capture of the Railway Rapist John Duffy (mytutor, 2019), The profile that was produced by Canter however was not used to prove that Duffy was that attacker it was used to reduce the amount of suspects so the investigation could be targeted more effectively (Sammons 2020). Geographic profiling can help by narrowing down the environment search for an offender but by solely relying on location alone can be problematic, the main problem of the approach is it relies on the idea that the majority of all offenders fit into the category of marauders (Kocsis and Irwin, 1997), this leads to the possibility of the geographical profile not take into account the idea of a drifter as they lack a permanent base.

Linking crimes that have been committed by the same offender plays an important role when there is little or no physical evidence available from the scene of the crime (Grubin, Kelly & Brunsdon 2001), which is achieved by determining if a series of crimes has been committed by a single offender (Bennell, Snook, MacDonald, House & Taylor, 2012). Linking crimes increases the effectiveness of investigations by providing all available information from multiple locations that the crimes have been committed. Linking crimes is even more effective with the use of geographic profiling (Rossmo, 1999). One of the drawbacks of using this method is that it draws from information about the crime and the offenders that commit the crimes this leads to the problem of the data can only come from crimes that have been identified this can only paint a picture of the crimes that have ben reported and investigated and does not include the crimes that have gone unreported or unsolved (Canter and Youngs, 2009). Despite the flaws in investigative psychology it has been able to establish a scientific frame work that has provided the ability to draw inferences of offenders features from their criminal activities.

Offender profiling is a tool that is used primarily by law enforcement in terms of investigating. This method helps to identify the personality, behavioural and demographic characteristics of offenders based on the findings from analysing a crime scene. This investigative tool is used to generate possible findings as well as narrowing down the list of possible suspects; this is successful due to the established links between the crime committed as well as characteristics of the offenders who commit the said crime. Even though this method has a basic concept and is straightforward, figuring out the numerous factors within the crime committed is difficult.

The most influential method (clinical) of offender profiling was developed in the 1970s by the US Federal Bureau of investigation. This method was originally formed of interviews from 36 convicted serial killers and rapists with the combination of multiple insights from different crimes that had been investigated by the FBI. The way the FBI approaches the method is categorising the offenders as organised or disorganised which is based on what they find at the crime scenes.

FBI profiling has a several step plan: the first step is data assimilation which is where investigators gather information from several sources such as crime scene photos and police reports. Secondly is the step crime scene classification which is where profilers come to the decision of whether the crime scene represents either an organised or disorganised offender. The third step in this method is crime reconstruction meaning that hypotheses are generated about the crime itself and what occurred during the event such as victim behaviour and the sequence of how the crime was committed. The fourth and final step is profile generation where profilers create a sketch of the offender that includes psychical and demographic characteristics as well as behavioural habits (Howitt, 2009).

When determining if a crime scene is organised or disorganised it is based on evidence from the offender. A disorganised crime scene suggests that the offender’s behaviour was unplanned and chaotic, meanwhile an organised crime scene suggests control and planning in advance. Known characteristics of an organised offender include that their relationship with the victim was non-existing, they have a normal to high level of intelligence, and they often have the feelings of anger and depression. For disorganised offenders it is the opposite: the known characteristics include low intelligence, being severely mentally ill and their relationship to the victim is possibly known. Once the profile is constructed, it will often go beyond the characteristics of organised and disorganised offenders and will include information that was found at the crime scene: the offenders physical characteristics, employment, sexual history, skill set, ethic group and age.

The FBI (clinical) approach to offender profiling has been enormously influential and has been used all over the world by law enforcements, many of whom, have taken the method and enhanced it to get better results. Ainsworth suggests that there is a useful link when it comes to predictions about time frames and the next attack as well as how the offences are likely to occur (Ainsworth, 2001). This attempt to organise the data on different types of offenders has played a large role in challenging the stereotypes that are held by investigators, causing them to be misled. An example of this is the findings of Clarke and Morley in which they interviewed 41 convicted rapists who were held responsible for over 800 offences. Their results shocked them as they found that regardless of the stereotype of being a loner, their results showed that they were average men who lived in a normal family circumstance and were often intelligent whilst working in skilled employment (Morley and Clark, 1993).

However, there are some issues with this approach and has had criticism from several quarters. This approach assumes that offenders are either one thing or the other. However, most offenders show both organised and disorganised behaviours whilst committing their crime as well as shifting between the traits for different crimes which limits the usefulness of this method. Canter suggests that the evidence from the crime scene on which the profiles are completed on are most times incomplete, meaning that the judgments which are based on the evidence are normally speculative (Canter, 2000). Another issue is that it is down to the profiler’s opinion: they go on their subjective thoughts meaning that the results can differ from profiler to profiler therefore getting different conclusions from the evidence which is from the same crime scene.

How successful is the practice of offender profiling in the criminal justice system? This piece of work will be reviewing the success of offender profiling in the criminal justice system. It will do so by comparing the different methods carried out in order to profile an offender and delving into the pros and cons of each method.

The first major example of offender profiling is that of ‘Jack the Ripper’ (1888) – which is widely cited as the first occasion where the method was applied in order to try and determine who the killer was (Bonn, 2014). At the time it was believed that he was a medical doctor, this was due to the precise nature of the cutting to his victims’ bodies. However, it is now widely believed that the predictions made by physicians George Phillips and Thomas Bond, who consulted by the police, were, although informed, undeveloped (Bonn, 2014). To this day there are hundreds of theories about who Jack the Ripper was.

Within the criminal justice system two of the primary types of offender profiling methods are the ‘FBI’ style and the ‘statistical’ (‘actuarial’) profiling methods: Dennis Howitt states that the FBI profiling method is “based on information gathered by the police” especially from the scene of the crime. Howitt also describes the differences between an organised and disorganised crime scene; “an organised crime suggests…a sexually competent, charming person…lives with their partner…”, whereas “the disorganised crime scene…indicative of an offender with low intelligence…unskilled occupation…lives alone”. The ‘statistical’ method of offender profiling is largely based upon the work of David V. Canter, a well- renowned psychologist, and as stated by Howitt, uses patterns at crime scenes which could be linked to the characteristics of the offender. This method of offender profiling is analysed over multiple crime scenes. There are however issues to discuss when the successfulness of offender profiling is to be analysed; as touched upon by David V. Canter, the idea of offender profiling is far more suited in fiction than it would be in a real-life investigation. The police are better suited to gathering information and direction that will allow them to question their suspects accordingly as opposed to using relationships, personality or family circumstances of an unknown criminal in order to create an idea of who they should be pursuing.

One of the more famous cases of offender profiling being used is that of the murder of Rachel Nickell. FBI agent Robert Ressler was flown in from the United States to psychologically profile the unknown criminal and he determined the perpetrator to be; “a filthy weirdo…clever but crazed…worships mother…hates all other women…”. Ultimately, Dr. Paul Britton was the lead psychologist on the case. Matthew Weaver gave a detailed account of the Nickell case; Britton created a profile that matched with Colin Stagg, this caused Stagg to become the main suspect almost immediately, despite there being limited evidence from the scene of the crime. The police trusted in Britton enough to set up a ‘honey-pot’ in order to lure Stagg into confessing to the murder. The method they used played on both the profile created by Britton and the information they had gathered on Stagg. Although he never confessed Stagg was arrested for the murder of Rachel Nickell. Another murder was committed by Robert Napper in this time. A year later the trial against Stagg fell through after the honey-pot scheme was deemed as ‘deceptive conduct of the grossest kind’. In 2008 the new suspect, Napper, admitted to the manslaughter of Nickell. Many involved in this case were condemned for their actions. Britton was faced with seven charges of misconduct in 2002 for his involvement in the 1992 case however, all charges were dropped. This case highlights one of the larger issues with the success of offender profiling; the police deemed the characteristics of Colin Stagg more important than the evidence that was collected from the crime scene, leading to the wrong man being arrested.

To conclude, although offender profiling has proven successful in the past, such as in the case of James A. Brussell and the New York Bomber, the approach is often not found to be largely effective, with cases being solved via other means of investigation. Although it could be argued that there is no harm in using the method as part of the investigation; offender profiling alone is not overly successful within the criminal justice system.

References

1. Bonn, S A., 2014. Jack the Ripper identified. [online]. Sussex: Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/jack-the-ripper-identified [Accessed 20 January 2019].
2. Howitt, D., 2002. Profile Analysis. Introduction to Forensic and Criminal Psychology, 13 (1), p.215.
3. Canter, D. V., 2012. Investigating ‘Offender Profiling’. Forensic Psychology for Dummies, 6, p.122.
4. Wilson, P. and Soothill, K., 1996. Psychological profiling: Red, Green or Amber? [online]. California: SAGE Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032258X9606900103?journalCode=pjxa [Accessed 21 Jan 2019] Weaver, M., 2008. Rachel
5. Nickell: A Case History. [online]. London: The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/dec/17/rachel-nickell-case-history [Accessed 21 Jan 2019].
6. Cohen, N., 2008. A man condemned by psychobabble. ec/21/uk-crime-law-comment-nick-cohen [Accessed 22 Jan 2019].
7. Cannell, M., 2017. Unmasking the Mad Bomber. [online]. London: The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/de].
8. Washington: Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unmasking-the-mad-bomber-180962469/ [Accessed 22 Jan 2019].

Offender profiling is the process of analysing a crime scene, victim, and any other evidence in order to provide a likely description of the offender. The top-down approach is used by the FBI in America, and is typology lead, whereas the bottom-up approach to offender profiling is what is used in the UK, and is data driven. My motivation for writing about this topic is that I have an issue with the names ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ themselves, as to me these seem entirely theoretical and provide no insight into the actual approaches to offender profiling. However, before I go into this, I will first briefly outline what these two approaches truly are and how they differ.

The top-down approach is the method of offender profiling used by the FBI. This approach is typology lead, as investigators will use detail from the crime scene to decide whether they believe the offender to be ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’, and thus characteristics they are likely to possess. These two typologies where initially decided upon in the 1980’s, through in-depth interviews with convicted murderers, and detailed information being compiled by the behavioural science units from 36sexually motivated serial killers, allowing for the pattern of either ‘organised’ or ‘disorganised’ offenders to be recognised, and the way that these different offender types were reflected in the crimes of the convicted murders that were interviewed. This allows investigators to use these typologies, in a reversed manner, to point towards the likely characteristics of an offender based on details of the crime. The organised typology refers to an offender who is likely to be intelligent, have a skilled occupation, and be socially competent, as well as many other characteristics, and an organised offender can be recognised by features of the crime such as it being planned, very self-controlled, the body and weapons being in different locations, a clean crime scene, and the victim being a stranger. This vastly differs from the disorganised typology, which applies to offenders that are likely to be socially inadequate, live alone, unskilled in work, and are also likely to know the victim. A disorganised offender can be recognised by features such as the crime being unplanned, clues being left and the weapon being left at the crime scene, and not being in control which could be evidenced by eye contact with the victim being avoided.

The bottom-up approach is the offender profiling method that is used in Britain, which starts with small details of data and then builds up to the bigger picture. Unlike the top-down approach, as this technique is data driven there are no initial assumptions made regarding the offender. This approach is focused largely on investigative psychology, such as interpersonal coherence and forensic awareness, and geographical profiling, such as whether there is a centre of gravity that the crimes are based around, and if the crimes are being committed close to this centre point, or the offender is travelling away from it. The bottom-up approach relies heavily on computer databases and a programme known as Smallest space analysis, allowing for patterns to be detected highlighting if a series of offences are connected. Canter, who created the ‘Smallest space analysis’ can be argued to be the UK’s foremost profiling expert, as through focusing on consistencies in offender behaviour during crimes, he has been able to solve many well-known cases such as John Duffy, the ‘railway rapist’. Canter identified that all 24 sexual assaults and 3 murders committed by Duffy took place near railway stations in the North of London during the 1980’s. Through analysing these geographical details Canter was able to create a very accurate profile, such as it is likely that the offender had a connection to railway stations, allowing him to identify Duffy, who did infact work at a train station.

Both of these approaches to offender profiling have their own benefits and weaknesses, such as the fact that the top-down approach is based solely on a very reductionist classification system, as when Canter looked into it in 2004, it was found that there is no real distinction between the two typologies, as many serial murder cases contain both organised and disorganised elements, and thus this approach is extremely reductionist and it is more beneficial to look at individual personalities, and the different ways serial killers exhibit disorganised aspects of their activities. In this sense, the Bottom-up approach can be seen as more reliable due to the fact that it is data driven and thus more objective than the typologies that can be seen as speculative, however the bottom-up approach can still be seen to have its limitations, as both approaches to offender profiling can only effectively be applied to crimes that reveal information about the offender, such as crimes that are completed multiple times in a very similar manner, or extreme cases such as ritualistic crimes. These approaches can also cause police to become too focused on the profile of the offender, thus causing them to be blinded to other possibilities, and therefore if the offender does infact not fit the profile this could in extreme cases lead to miscarriages of justice, such as the hunt for the killer of Rachel Nickell in 1992, in which investigator Paul Britton developed a misleading profile causing many clues pointing towards the killer, Robert Napper, to be missed, and Paul Stagg, an innocent man to be arrested based on no evidence other than that he fit the profile of the offender.

It is clear that there are therefore issues with both methods of offender profiling, as there is with all aspects of psychology as it is not possible to accurately predict all human behaviour, however it is not the effectiveness of the approaches that I want to focus on. I have spent a long time (way too much time) trying to get my head around the names ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ trying to work out what this means, and I have realised that the reason these have confused me so much is that they don’t truly mean anything, or infact add anything to the approaches themselves. The typology approach used by the FBI is known as the ‘top-down’ approach, and it is clear that this is due to the fact that in order to create the profile of the offender one begins with the typology, and then moves ‘down’ from that to the profile and likely characteristics of the offender. Yet, if we picture this diagram in our minds, with ‘organised or disorganised’ at the top, an arrow pointing downwards, and then the ‘offender profile’ below, there is absolutely no reason that this could not be flipped on its head, putting the typology type at the bottom, and this leading upwards to the profile, making it exactly the same typology lead method but called ‘bottom-up’ instead. The exact same thing can be said for the British data driven approach to offender profiling, known as the ‘bottom-up’ approach. It is called this as this approach begins with the database of all crimes, investigative psychology, and geographical details, before flowing upwards to reveal the profile of the offender. Yet, if one were to simply flip this, suddenly the data is at the top, and the arrow moves downwards to the profile, thus making this the ‘top-down’ approach, right?

I am aware that this simply sounds like wordplay that doesn’t actually mean anything, and why does it matter anyway? And I do understand that in reality it doesn’t really matter, but I think my issue is that they have purposely given the approaches a name such as ‘top-down’ to distinguish it from the British approach to the same thing, when these names are based entirely on a hypothetical model of the profiling method. The concept that for the ‘top-down’ approach the typology belongs at the top, and we move down to the profile of the offender is not actually anything to do with the approach, infact we could even view the model as the ‘left-to-right’ approach, where we move across from typology to profile. I guess you could view this of Wittgenstein’s concept of language games, where language only has meaning to those that are playing that specific game. As such, within the world of forensic psychology the top-down and bottom-up approaches to offender profiling have a clear and understandable meaning, as they are applied to the approached themselves, yet when you take a step back and view these names from outside the language game, it becomes apparent that the names ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ are infact meaningless, and are simply based upon a constructed model of how the approaches should be laid out. Thus, to conclude, I think we should just abandon these names, and stick to ‘the typology-based approach’ and ‘the investigative psychology approach’, if only to avoid confusion for people like myself who tend to over-philosophise.

Annotated Bibliography

Clay, R. A. (2016, February). Listening to killers. Monitor on Psychology, 47(2). http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/02/killers

Serial killers tend to be misunderstood as traumatized children; This has become due to where they have grown up. The overall population will in general view killers as totally underhanded people or individuals so harmed they can’t in any way, shape or form live among us. Be that as it may, most executioners are untreated damaged kids who are controlling the activities of the terrifying grown-ups they have moved toward becoming. A large portion of what’s been done in the past in these cases is either what’s known as a social history, which is a personal abstract, or clinical evaluation and conclusion. They can say, ‘This kid’s mother’s abandonment is so devastating” (Clay, 2016). At whatever point a mother abandons her child it has a long haul influence on anybody that has been abandoned, however, how they process and live with that is unique. I believe that the information presented about how serial killers are traumatized can be a good aspect in my essay. I think writing about how their mothers have left or someone special to them has left will help explain the nature versus nurture because mothers tend to be nurturers.

Snook, Brent, et al. “The Criminal Profiling Illusion: What’s Behind the Smoke and Mirrors?” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 35, no. 10, Oct. 2008, pp. 1257–1276

While it is not yet scientifically proven, criminal profiling is still used. Although it is not proven it has helped to solve many cases because, without criminal profiling, it would be hard to narrow down suspects, hard to group similar people that could be involved, and helps find killers faster. Criminal profiling can be very important to an investigation. It helps to narrow down who could be a potential suspect. Although when the criminal profiler has seen media reports on the issue it causes biases (Snook, 2008). creators contend that this conviction might be a fantasy and clarify how individuals may have been deceived into accepting that criminal profiling (CP) works in spite of no solid hypothetical establishing and no solid exact help for this plausibility. Possibly liable for this deceptive conviction is the data that individuals gain about CP, which is vigorously affected by stories, redundancy of the message that profiling works, the master profiler mark, and an unbalanced accentuation on right expectations.I believe that I would be able to use this article to research statistics about criminal profiling. I can relate it to my topic in the way that many times cops use a criminal profiler to catch a serial killer

“The Social Study of Serial Killers.” The Social Study of Serial Killers | Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/social-study-serial-killers.

While this accentuation on close-to-home life story fits truly necessary mental examination, the total impact of such records is that serial killers can seem an authentic and a-social, just as such inclinations may show themselves in indistinguishable manners independent of setting. For as long as serial killers have been someone has had a fascination with them. Back in the day before urbanization, everyone would know everyone because they were so close together. Nowadays you may not even know your neighbor a few houses down from you. I would use this in my paper to explain how serial killers came to be and how they have escalated. I will talk about how there have been many people who befriended a serial killer but when the killer was caught the individual was shocked to find their friend to be a killer.

Giannangelo, Stephen J. Real-life Monsters: A Psychological Examination of the Serial Murderer. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2012. Print.

The author looks at almost every mental issue that surrounds killers (who kill one person after another). He includes multiple different case studies on specific killers and explores all different points of views on what could be added/gave to them killing many people. He writes about what a killer is, qualities of a killer, how they choose their victims, and personality of killers. His main focus is on environmental and mental issues that surround each killer.

Brief critique: This book would be helpful with my research because it clearly stated examples of sicknesses/problems of serial killers that they have faced and have in common. This text is reliable because it gives sources to where his information came from.

Velez, Edwin. ‘Sei.’ Hudson Reporter. N.p., 17 Mar. 2013. Web. 03 Apr. 2013.

‘Does abuse cause a lifetime of crime?’ is regarding one in all the most factors that psychologists believe create a serial murderer kill, that is abuse. this text talks regarding kids UN agency get beat, smacked, starved, etc and the way they’re at the next risk of changing into a serial murderer. It doesn’t suggest they’ll be one however they’re at the next risk. The article states that nearly each serial murderer the author researched was abused as a toddler.

This article was useful with my analysis, as a result of I learned a lot of info on what most researchers of this subject notice, that nearly each serial murderer was abused as a toddler. This text is reliable, as a result of it uses AN skilled joined of it’s sources. this text isn’t biased, as a result of it is not all out locution thats the amount one reason for a serial murderer, it’s simply giving a lot of info on it issue which will contribute to the creating of a serial murderer.

This article fits in with my analysis, as a result of my main findings in virtually each supply mention abuse as a giant consider serial killers. It gave American state another supply to use for my claim that nearly each serial murderer has been abused as a toddler.

Forensic Science Take-Home Exam II

Instructions: Type out your answers (single-space; normal font, size type 11 or 12) to the following questions. Questions should be answered in paragraph form. Be sure to answer, and address all specific questions. Answers should be focused and should address the question(s) being asked. Be sure not to be too brief or short; answer questions completely.

1. Explain why in some ways Jeffery Dahmer fit the typical profile of a seral killer, and in other ways how he did not fit the typical profile of a serial killer. Use a separate paragraph to make each point. You should include specific facts in making such points.

Jeffery Dahmer was a horrible man who did horrible things. In some ways some people may say he doesn’t fit the typical profile of a serial killer. He didn’t have the background of a serial killer. Dahmer grew up in a loving and caring family. In an interview of past classmates of his, they described Dahmer as a model student, very polite, respectful, attractive per se, and very intelligent. His father had a Ph.D. in chemistry and Dahmer even attended college for a semester before dropping out. When things were looking grim for Dahmer his father persuaded him into joining the army to get him back on the right path. All significant points that people would not describe as a serial killer.

There are also ways in which Dahmer did fit the stereotypical type of a serial killer. Dahmer’s father states that he was an awkward kid and suffered with social skills, he didn’t open up to anyone and didn’t have any close friends. Even though he had loving parents, Dahmer was in the mist of his parent’s divorce due to his mother’s sufferings of anxiety. As stated, he was also a very curious adolescent often bringing back road kill animals back to his house and dissecting them. During his adolescent years, he would not only fantasize about homosexual encounters but also killing men and dismembering their bodies. So, from an early age, Dahmer was already thinking about killing and mutilating bodies. Dahmer was also a an alcoholic and a necrophiliac. He had a psychological mindset of a serial killer receiving pleasure from strangling his victims. Dahmer would dismember and keep certain body parts of his victims for pleasure or experimental purposes and he even went to the extent in indulging in cannibalism.

2. Do you feel the “insanity plea” is fair or justified? How often is it used? What is the likely outcome of someone claiming “insanity”? Do you think the laws governing “legal insanity are likely to be challenged sometime in the near future? Why might the legal definitions of insanity be questioned or challenged?

Depending on the situation and the crime committed in my opinion the insanity plea is justified. The reasoning for that would be contingent on the appropriate information being provided. Information such as a previously being formally diagnosed with any mental health disorder, valid previous information on any mental illness synonymous to insanity. The insanity plea is seldom used and rarely is it ever successful. In the U.S. the insanity plea is used in less than one percent of the cases and only successful in less than 25% of the time used. If a person is successful in pleading and the court rules them insane then they will spend their incarceration time in a mental hospital rather than a prison. I definitely think the law governing the insanity plea will be challenged. The rules and criteria for the insanity plea stay relatively the same but slightly vary in different states. The legal definitions of insanity may be questioned in categorizing which mental disorder fits or attributes to insanity. One can argue that most can contribute to insanity. One can question the background or environment in which an insane person grew up. The defense team can also question the awareness of the wrongdoing of the perpetrator. With the world evolving every year passing by, new things arise good and bad. New mental health disorders can come into play. That can maybe skew the lines between insanity and incoherent.

3. Describe (a sort of compare and contrast) the history, profiles, and modus operandi of serial killers Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, David Berkowitz, Dennis Rader, Aileen Wuornos, and the Zodiac Killer. Give a brief overview of each killer including the information listed above. Also, include whether the FBI’s criminal profiling unit was used?

Ted Bundy was a notorious serial killer. He did not look like nor act like your average serial killer on the outside. He adopted and raised by his grandparents whom raised him. His grandfather would physically beat Bundy and his grandmother several times causing him to run away. Although he didn’t have the best childhood, he did have charm, he was bright, charismatic, very attractive, smooth talker and he was intelligent. He even enrolled in law school but dropped out. Bundy admitted to killing 30 women, but people think that there was way more. He was notorious because he killed more people in more states across the country. His method of killing would be to abduct women by using his charm to get close then physically and sexually abusing them before or after he would murder them. He took pride and felt pleasure in controlling women. He was captured and incarcerated twice, both times escaping jail and killing again. The FBI’s criminal profiling unit was used to try to find him. Once found he was given the death penalty my means of electric chair.

John Wayne Gacy like Bundy was also accused and charged with double-digit murders. Gacy admitted to 27 murders but police think it could be more. Just like Bundy, Gacy was also described as a sweet, charming businessman who also grew up in an abusive household. He was known in their town as a very pollical man. His father would verbally and physically abuse and beat Gacy for being too feminine. Gacy just like Bundy had a problem with trying control people. In contrast to Bundy, Gacy had a different range of targets and methods of killing. Gacy targeted younger boys and he did so by dressing up as a clown to get close to them and physically and sexually abusing them before killing. The FBI’s criminal profiling unit was used to try to find him. Once found he was given the death penalty my means of lethal injection.

David Berkowitz had similarities to Bundy by also being adopted and targeting women. Killing six and injuring Similar to Bundy and Gacy, Berkowitz was also intelligent enrolling college and even in the army. He however was a very socially awkward person around people. He didn’t have the same charm as Bundy or Gacy, and the thing he was fascinated with was fire. Berkowitz set about 1,500 fires in NYC. He referred himself as the son of Sam. His methods of killing differed from Bundy’s or Gacys’. Berkowitz killed his victims by shooting them with a collection of firearms he had. He would send the police letters he would write giving them clues to the murders. He was also satanic, believing his old roommate’s dog’s barking was the devil telling him to kill. A massive FBI criminal profiling unit called operation omega was used to try to find him. Once found he was given life in prison.

Dennis Roder was a serial killer who killed 10 people by means of binding them, torturing them, and killing them with a knife. Roder shared similarities with Ted Bundy. They both attended college and dropped out. Roder just like Berkowitz had a nickname for himself known as the BTK killer. Roder just like Berkowitz served time in the military in the air force. His methods of killing began by stalking his prey. Roder just like Berkowitz also wrote and sent letters to the police giving them clues about who he was and the murders. He was found on a trace of a floppy disk that came back to him. The FBI’s criminal profiling unit was used to try to find him. Once found he was sentenced to 10 consecutive life sentences in prison.

Aileen Wuornos is different from everyone because she is a female serial killer convided of killing seven men. She has a similar background to Bundy, Berkowitz and Gacy being adopted and raised by an adoptive father who didn’t like her. She was kicked out of her house when she was young y her adopted father due to her sexual activity and problems. She became sexually active from a very young age and resorted to prostitution and hitchhiking to make her way across the us and to sustain her. She had similarities to Berkowitz being a loner herself. Her methods of killing were to seduce men into participating in sexual activities with her and then robbing, shooting, and killing them. Stealing their cars and dumping their bodies. She was caught and identified through a pawn store receipt of stolen items. The FBI’s criminal profiling unit was used to try to find her. Once found he was given the death penalty my means of lethal injection.

The Zodiac killer is an unknown person. He was never caught and there are only suspicions of who could have been the zodiac killer. This unknown person shared similarities with Roder and Berkowitz referring to themselves as nicknames. This person referred to himself as the zodiac killer. The zodiac killer killed 37 people by shooting them and synonymous to Roder and Berkowitz the zodiac killer also sent letters to the police. The letters sent to the police were sent in means of code. For some letters the police had to decipher the letter written in code. There are only suspects that could be named but there is no confirmation of who the killer actually was. The FBI’s criminal profiling unit was used to try to find him. They used anything DNA matching of saliva found to fingerprint matching, handwriting matching, rough outline sketches, and eyewitness lines ups. None of the suspected suspects weren’t condemned due to the fact that not a single suspect matched up with all the clues. All of the suspects had a little bit of information that matched the finding of the case but not a single suspect matched all the information.

4. Several experts testified during Jeffery Dahmer’s trial, including both psychologists and psychiatrists. Explain briefly the testimonies given in court and the court’s final decision regarding the “sanity” of Jeffery Dahmer. You do not necessarily need to mention all testimony given in court concerning the sanity of Jeffery Dahmer, just a basic overview- highlighting the main, or major statements. Include specific statements from those testifying on such matters and feel free to quote the actual statements given.

Jeffrey Dahmer pleaded guilty but insane. Dahmer was trialed in Wisconsin where there is no death penalty. Dahmer had two choices, if the jury were to find him sane, he would spend the rest of his life in prison and if they were to find him insane, he would be imprisoned in a mental facility. Many testimonies were giving at the trial characterizing Dahmer’s sanity. Gerald Boyle was Dahmer’s attorney stated that Dahmer believed his mindset over his criminal actions were at par to the devil. George Palermo a psychiatrist who testified in the Dahmer case said, “Jeffrey Dahmer could best be described as an organized, non-social, lust murderer.” Palermo provided a key testimony in the trial when he highlighted Dahmer “very sick person″ but ″is not legally insane.” The reason why he thought Dahmer was sane and not insane was because of the actions Dahmer took in the killings. Palermo believed Dahmer mutilated the bodies of the victims after they were already dead not when they were still alive. Dahmer’s defense team argued that the necrophiliac compulsions and the urges to kill to satisfy his obsession caused an uncontrollable urge. Judith Becker a psychologist from Arizona on Dahmer’s defense team pleaded he ″has a mental disease and that’s what drives his crime”. Becker also led the belief that Dahmer was sane and did have control of his actions. She brought up the fact that Dahmer released two victims because Dahmer “was not as attracted … as he thought he would be.” and “ He also freed a young man because he had to go to work.” Showing how only a sane person who has control of their actions and their minds could think so clearly. These are actions of a sane person knowing and filtering out his killings. A psychiatrist from Chicago Dr. Carl Wahlstrom characterized Dahmer as “cunning” and his stories were a manipulative bunch of lies.” Displaying how Dahmer was very intelligent and knew how to avoid and get the law off his back. The court’s final decision declared Dahmer as sane and guilty of 15 murders. Dahmer was sentenced to 15 life terms in prison.

• https://www.apnews.com/d4104129f81d0b7dd65e862633693b92

5. Using an online search to find some relevant information, describe neuroimaging and how it’s being used in forensics, especially as it relates to the courtroom. Include any specific examples that you might find. Please include your sources/papers/articles!

Neuroimaging isn’t a new technology that recently just got discovered. It’s technology that has been around for a while now but now it is starting to get incorporated into law. In relation to the law, forensic psychologists, lawyers, and judges are just some of the people who are bringing neuroimaging to the courtroom. The use of neuroscience in the courtroom is referred to as neurolaw. The use of neuroimaging is a helpful tool used to help either condemn or defend the prosecutor. Neuroimaging comes into play as a source of evidence on the psychology aspect. Neuroimaging is used in law to show any unnatural or abnormal activity in the brain that may have been the cause of the actions of the crime. Some neuroimaging techniques used in the courtroom consist of the following: FMRI, CT scan, MRI, and Brain Electrical Oscillations Signature (BEOS). Unlike the lie detector test, which is inadmissible in court, the use of an FMRI can be used to tell if a person is lying due to the brain activity seen in the prefrontal cortex. An example of a famous trial that neuroimaging played a role in the courtroom was the 1981 trial of John Hinckley, Jr over the assassination of our 40th president, Ronald Regan. In the courtroom, a CT scan of the perpetrator’s brain was taken in defense to show how he had brain deterioration in certain regions of his brain leading to crime committed. Although neuroimaging is useful in supplying valuable stronghold evidence neuro-ethics also comes into play. The solo use of neuroimaging can’t be used to seal the deal and condemn criminals in court because of the relatively new techniques. Regarding neuro-ethics, it is difficult to determine human understanding without the use of other variables that could correlate with the actions of the crime. So, while neuroimaging is helpful in the courtroom, it alone is not the sole reason to condemn without the understanding of additional evidence. In conclusion, in relation to forensics, the use of neuroimaging is used in a variety of ways in the courtroom such as; mental health status, ability to take the stand, brain deteriorating, intent, and decision making.

• https://www.neuroethicssociety.org/what-is-neuroethics
• https://www.brainfacts.org/archives/2008/neurolaw-neuroscience-in-the-courtroom
• http://jaapl.org/content/37/2/239

1. Research Topic:

Assessment of the Integrity of the Burglaries’/Housebreakings’ MO (Modus Operandi) Data-Ecosystem and Criminal Profiling using MOs Relevant Features; A Blockchain Technology and Machine Learning Approach.

2. Introduction:

Modus Operandi records are very important in criminal profiling. When investigators perform criminal profiling, they are principally finding a way to demonstrate that, the same offender has committed two or more crimes via comparison of the criminal’s modes of operation. This task is of importance in the absence of a confession, eyewitness testimonies or other forensic evidence such as fibers, fingerprints or DNA19. In these cases, normally the police officers rely on behavioral information to link crimes with an assumption in mind that there will typically be a high degree of similarity between what an offender does in one crime and he or she does in another, though studies have unveiled that linking decisions are often based on limited, subjective impressions of the investigating officers, that the profiling results might often differ from one officer to another, based on their experience and memorization of the crimes history.

2.1. Background to the study.

As long as economic hardship & unemployment exist and poverty seems to be dominant among the citizens while the gap between the rich and poor is becoming wider, then people with deviant behaviors must prevail and thus crimes are inevitable in a human society. For the case of crimes related to residential burglary and house breaking, “there are three ways of detecting the perpetrator of a crime: first, his recognition by an eye-witness; second, in case of theft, the tracing to him of stolen property; and third, the traces which he leaves behind .i.e. Mode of Operation also known as Modus Operandi can lead to catch the perpetrator.”, According to Fosdick11. Having all those three approaches for uncovering the perpetrator of a crime; in most cases people (eye-witnesses) become reluctant to cooperate with the police force in avoidance of disturbances during the investigation process, hence that leaves the investigators with an option of making use of the Modus Operandi (MO) of the criminals to conduct investigations.

2.2. Problem statement.

In Tanzania, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) office is responsible for carrying out criminal profiling by using the MO records. Having no automated electronic information system to keep records, linking a crime to a particular offender is not a trivial task, especially when the investigators are relying on the crime records that are stored in piles of papers.

The lack of efficiency in looking through past crime records and improper means of processing those data (MO records) are major causes which can be attributed to resulting in a low success rate of identifying the culprits in most of the forensic investigations conducted.

This exposes a need for improvement in this process. In addition, there are other several drawbacks of the current record keeping system. This includes;

1. Risks and anarchy of handling paper-based records, that hinders security and accessibility of the records when dealing with a huge mass of data, thus lowers throughput of the investigating team.
2. Incomplete record filling at local police station. In most cases, police officers tend to catch some criminal records in a very concise manner and that leads to the ambiguity of the Modus Operandi or sometimes keeping less informative records.
3. Growing size list of Modus Operandi for classification. Knowing that crimes are part and parcel of the human society, the Modus Operandi is not static, it is dynamically growing over time. Hence, we need some new techniques for processing these records.
4. Lack of efficiency in scanning through archives manually. As investigators deal with a huge pile of paper records, it becomes cumbersome to scrutinize the records efficiently so as to come up with a helpful pattern from the data.
5. Dependability of cognitive capacity (memory) of the investigator to keep the past history in mind.

2.3. Purpose of the study.

To propound a design for MO data ecosystem that resides on the Blockchain platform.

At the end of this research I am looking forward to come up with a suggested architecture on how we can effectively use blockchain systems to assure integrity and availability of the Modus Operandi that will lower efforts when investigators profiling the criminals.

2.4. Specific objectives.

• To explore information flow mechanisms between peers in blockchain systems.
• To observe the perceived level of integrity with a current method and explore on how we can facilitate the integrity of Modus Operandi data ecosystem in the blockchain systems.
• To explore on how Machine Learning can improve the criminal profiling task.
• To examine challenges encountered by investigators during profiling.
• To structure a template form for capturing some pertinent and informative features of the criminal’s Modus Operandi.

2.5. Research questions.

• How can data flow from one peer to another without the need for an intermediary?
• What is the perceived level of integrity with the current manual system of collecting and archiving MO records and what should be done to ensure the integrity of the whole data ecosystem?
• What is the significance of employing Machine Learning in analyzing the cumulative MO records for offender profiling?
• What are the challenges that hinder effective criminal profiling?
• What are the substantial features to be included in the MO-form for it be informative?

2.6. Scope of the study.

The study will specifically focus on the Modus Operandi (MO) records related to residential burglaries and housebreaking which are predominant in the metropolis areas. Moreover, I will also explore around the Public and Private blockchains as well as some algorithms in Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning models for effective classification of the criminals based on the MO features.

3. Literature review.

According to Fosdick R. [12], “there are three ways of detecting an offender of a crime: first, his recognition by an eye-witness (using portrait parle techniques); second, in case of theft, the tracing to him of stolen property; and third, the traces which he leaves behind .i.e. Mode of Operation also known as Modus Operandi can lead to catch the perpetrator.” A criminal’s MO behavior is functional in nature and it generally serves the purposes for the offender either to protect identity, to ensure success or to facilitate escape [19]. L.W. Atcherley, Chief Constable of the West Riding of Yorkshire Constabulary, developed what became known as Modus Operandi system around the late 19th century [10]. He had introduced ten headings namely; Class of the person or property attacked Means, Object, Time, Style, Tale, Pal, Trademark, and Transport. These MO attributes were introduced for the use of investigating officers, each relating to a phase of the method employed by the criminal in the perpetration of his crime. Similar to this August Vollmer introduced another set of MO attribute which he pointed could be used to define a criminals MO. According to his findings he proposed ten MO prime divisions namely; Crime, Person or property attacked, how attacked, with what attacked or means attacked, Time of attack, Object of attack, by whom attacked, Nationality of attackers, Number of attackers and Individual characteristics of attack or trademark [10]. These primary divisions are found divided into as many points as necessary until those specific methods of operation are accurately described. These sub points were given numbers and the combinations of primary division with any of these points were represented using a coding mechanism. In another research done by Oatley, Zeleznikow and Ewart [20] they have identified the MO features in a much more detailed manner where they have given a number of groups as MO features and sub variables relevant to them. According to the literature found [10] [20],extracting MO features can be either done in a generalized manner without considering a particular crime type where certain key points are given to be investigated and noted at the crime scene or criminal record, or on the other hand extraction of MO features can be done according to crime type using an MO system where MO primary divisions are divided into as many points as necessary until those specific methods of operation are accurately described.

3.1. Research gap.

It is a fact that our Police forces in our region are still handling the Modus Operandi records manually, this impedes their effectiveness in performing investigations; therefore, I consider the status quo as a knowledge gap to be acutely researched by employing the current technologies for improvement of the situation.

Blockchain technology being one of the new technologies; since its inception in 2009, it has obtained much success in its use-cases including the ones of electronic currencies and researchers in the area are foreseeing its potential of disrupting other industries and therefore I feel that it is one of a very good and apt areas to research in the dawn of industrialization 4.0.

However, knowing that the MO records are replicating exponentially and we don’t yet have an ICT based system on hand to handle these data and we need to analyze on how we can make use of all these populating data. Therefore, we need some data analytics and learning skills to extract some useful features from the MO records and process them so that we can get some vital insights for criminal profiling.

Having all these novel technologies in a study, I am excited to research on how we can leverage them in the forensics investigations.

4. Definition of key terms.

1. Modus Operandi Modus Operandi, or method of operation, is really a term that refers to the habits, techniques and peculiarities of behavior of a criminal. All criminals have a modus operandi, and enough of them have distinctive methods of operation to justify the classification of crimes by like characteristics. The modus operandi of a criminal is his ‘signature “. Hazelwood and Warren (2004) emphasized that “the term modus operandi is used to encapsulate all of the behaviors that are requisite to a particular offender successfully perpetrating a crime.” It encompasses all behaviors initiated by the offender to procure a victim and complete the criminal acts without being identified or apprehended.
2. Criminal Profiling Criminal profiling, also known as Offender profiling, is an investigative strategy used by law enforcement agencies to identify likely suspects and has been used by investigators to link cases that may have been committed by the same perpetrator.
3. Machine Learning Arthur Samuel (1959, p. 210) defined ML as: “The field of study that gives computers the ability to learn without being explicitly programmed.” Later on, Tom Mitchell (1997, p. 2) provided a more formal definition: “A computer program is said to learn from experience E with respect to some task T and some performance measure P, if its performance on T, as measured by P, improves with experience E.”
4. Blockchain Simply put, a blockchain as a distributed ledger that provides a way for information to be recorded and shared by a community. In this community, each member maintains his or her own copy of the information and all members must validate any updates collectively. The information could represent transactions, contracts, assets, identities, or practically anything else that can be described in digital form. Entries are permanent, transparent, and searchable, which makes it possible for community members to view transaction histories in their entirety. Each update is a new “block” added to the end of a “chain.” A protocol manages how new edits or entries are initiated, validated, recorded, and distributed. With blockchain, cryptology replaces third-party intermediaries as the keeper of trust, with all blockchain participants running complex algorithms to certify the integrity of the whole.

5. Methodology.

5.1. Research Approach.

This study will apply pragmatism paradigm which include the application of mixed approach of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Pragmatism approach is the most practical and flexible approach which involves using more than one method or technique to solve a problem at hand (Grover, 2015). The chosen approach will be very apposite for it provides a researcher the freedom to select satisfactory techniques to accomplish the goal.

5.2. Research Design.

Research design essentially indicate various approaches to be used in solving research problem and help to perform the chosen task easily and in systematic way (Rajasekar et al., 2013). A case study design will be employed to obtain comprehensive results for this study. Grover (2015) explains that case study provides an in-depth study of a particular research problem because it covers the holistic and meaningful features of events. In this study the case study design will help the researcher to reveal the unknown phenomena of the problem being investigated.

5.3. Study Area.

This study will be carried out in some selected police stations in the metropolitan areas, specifically in Dar es Salaam (Kinondoni, Temeke & Ilala), Kagera, Pwani and in Morogoro Municipal, where burglary case reports are predominant. The police stations in these areas take care of Modus Operandi records concerning house breaking from different suburbs of the city and hence guarantee the study to obtain the prime and pertinent information.

5.4. Population of the Study

This study intends to reach a number of respondents in the police force particularly in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) office, including the in-charge police officers who are responsible for recording and archiving criminal records in the police stations. Also, the records management staffs will be involved since they are the key workers in handling records of all reported crimes. Similarly, the records beneficiaries (investigators) will be involved in the study for they are main consumers of the filed criminal records.

5.5. Sampling Design.

1. Sampling Technique. In this study, I am going to employ the purposive sampling technique. Purposive sampling is a sampling technique in which the items of the sample are selected deliberately by the researcher (Etikan et al., 2016). I have resolved to avail this method for it gives the researcher a freedom to decide on the choice of best participants who will provide accurate and reliable data.
2. Sample Size. The determination of sample size is vital in research because it determine the time and funding to accomplish the study (Amugube, 2014). The sample size for this study will be drawn from various police stations in six different Municipal Councils to find out on how they handle the MO records. Kothari and Garg (2014), comments that the adequate representative sample should be at least 10%, thus this study will use 10% of the police stations in each Municipal Council. The distribution of respondents is summarized in the below table:

Population Type

Sample Size

Chosen

Respondent size 10%

• Sampling Technique
• Data Collection Instrument
• Investigators
• Purposive Sampling

Interview

• Police Officers (in duty)
• Purposive Sampling

Interview

• Records Managers
• Purposive Sampling

5.6. Data Collection.

Data Collection Methods

This study will employ the combination of primary and secondary data to serve the purpose of research study. In this study the primary data will be collected through key informant interviews, direct observation and questionnaires. For the case of secondary data, the study will rely on data already gathered and analyzed in various literatures such as books, journals and reports available in libraries, information centers, archival repositories and online resources.

Data collection instruments

1. Interview guide. Interview guide is a valuable method for exploring the phenomena and eliciting the narrative data from respondents (Alshenqeeti, 2014). This method will be used in my study for it gives a room for the informants to provide detailed view about the problem under investigation. Interview guide (face to face conversation) in this study will involve all respondents who will be selected from the sample population. The feedback from these respondents will be helpful in providing a clear illustration and understanding of the fundamental issues to be covered in the study.
2. Observation guide. It is a systematic description of events or phenomena in a social setting (Kawulich, 2012). Observation will be used in assessing the relevancy information about how police officers collect and archive records and finally surveil how investigators retrieve the stored MO records for criminal profiling until they get a list of the possible perpetrators. This method will help the researcher to obtain firsthand information for the study.
3. Questionnaires guide. This method is designed to collect data from the large diverse population (Mohsin, 2016). This instrument will be employed in this study for will help the researcher to simplify and quantify respondent’s behavior and attitudes. Additionally, the method will give the respondents the opportunity to express their views and will help the researcher to collect enough data within a short period of time.

5.7. Data Analysis.

1. The descriptive data analysis. Descriptive data analysis will be applied to quantitative data that will be acquired through questionnaires. These data will be analyzed by SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solutions) version 25.0 and Microsoft word excels programs to run cross tabulation, frequencies, percentages and averages from the coded data. The method will be employed because of its appropriateness in providing a thoroughly summary of the data for the purpose of describing phenomena in the study sample or population. Tables, graphs and figures will be used to present the study findings.
2. Content analysis.Content analysis is a systematic research technique used in data analysis that involves making inferences of information acquired through text, interview, focused group and open-ended survey questions (Philipp, 2014). This method will be employed to analyze qualitative data that will be acquired through key informant through interview and field direct observation. The content analysis will be employed to this study as it helps the researcher to analyze and make inferences and relationships among words and concepts.

6. References.

1. Nick Furneaux (2018). “Investigating Cryptocurrencies.”. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. Andreas M. Antonopoulos (2010). “Mastering Bitcoin”. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
3. Ángela Marqués Márquez (2014). “A Machine Learning Approach for Studying Linked Residential Burglaries”.
4. Malith M. & et al. (2015). “Machine Learning Based Criminal Shortlisting Using Modus Operandi Features”.M
5. Mauro V. Corvasce, Joseph R. Paglino (2001). “Modus Operandi: A writer’s Guide to How Criminals Work”. Writer’s Digest Books.
6. Robert D. Keppel, William J. Birnes (2008). “Serial Violence: Analysis of Modus Operandi and Signature Characteristics of Killers”.
7. Tong Wang & et al. (2013). “Learning to Detect Patterns of Crime”.
8. Giulia Margagliotti & Timothy Bolle (2019). “Machine Learning and Forensic Science.”
9. Siraj Raval (2016). “Decentralized Applications; Harnessing Bitcoin’s Blockchain Technology”. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
10. Vincent Alcazar (2017). “Data You Can Trust; Blockchain Technology”.
11. R. Kocsis, (2009). “Applied Criminal Psychology: a guide to forensic behavioral science,” 1st ed, Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
12. R. Fosdick, “The Modus Operandi System in the Detection of Criminals,” in Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 560, 1915.
13. Christidis, Konstantinos & Devetsikiotis, Michael. (2016). “Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things”.
14. Tanzania Police Force (2017). “Crime and Traffic incidents statistics report, January to December 2016”.
15. Hazelwood and Burgess (2001) “Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation”.
16. Sebastian Raschka & Vahid Mirjalil (2015). “Python Machine Learning; Machine Learning and Deep Learning with Python, scikit-learn, and TensorFlow.”. Packt Publishing Ltd.
17. Chris Albon (2018). “Machine Learning with Python Cookbook Practical Solutions from Preprocessing to Deep Learning”. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
18. Bennell C and Canter DV. (2002).” Linking burglaries by modus operandi.”

In 2017, there was more than 403,000 violent crimes reported to the police/ 1,098 violent crime for every 100,000 people in Canada (Allen, 2018). This number does not account for any other type of crime nor the crimes that were not reported/ noticed by the police themselves. It also does not account for any other country in the world. Crime can be defined as any deed that violates the criminal code and is punishable by the law. Not only can one commit a crime by acting, but they can also commit a crime by not doing anything to help or stop a situation. Due to the huge number of people in Canada’s population, it can be very difficult to find the person responsible for a given crime. This is where a criminal profiler steps in. A criminal profiler is one who infers the traits of offender(s) who commit crimes (Turvey, 2012). Criminal profiling is a tool used by law enforcement to help identify/ narrow down potential suspects (Turvey, 2012). Although criminal profiling sounds like the perfect way to help law enforcement in catching criminals, it is not exempt from debates. There is a debate surrounding this profession, regarding what is the most important background for a criminal profiler to have: education or experience.

For the purpose of this paper and through an analysis of previous research studies as well as anecdotal support, I will be comparing and contrasting education and experience as a background for criminal profilers. Furthermore, I will be attempting to determine why it appears that education is favoured over experience, and what value, if any, does experience hold in criminal profiling research. Ultimately I will be addressing three distinct hypotheses. My first hypothesis is that the reason experience is so undervalued in criminal profiling research is because it is a hard concept to objectively measure. I also hypothesize that criminal profiling research does not give enough credit to experience as there is a pre-existing bias towards education as a background. Finally, I hypothesize that this issue of underestimating experience is not exclusive to criminal profiling research. Respectively, my three null hypotheses are as follows: experience is not a hard concept to measure, there is not any pre-existing bias towards education, and finally, the issue of undervaluing experience is exclusive to criminal profiling research.

Education Versus Experience as Criminal Profiling Backgrounds

It is evident that the police organizations value experience as one has to work their way up the ladder by putting in time and obtaining experience in their field. Contrastingly, academic research does not support this view, the research holds that education is the most valuable background. The question then is, why? Why is it that the police organization holds that experience is important but academic research demonstrates differently? Part of this problem may be the lack of definitions given for education and experience, due to how easily understandable both of these constructs appear. For the purpose of this paper, education can be defined as “information about or training in a particular subject” (N/A, 2019). Contrastingly, experience can be defined as the course of acquiring and building to one’s understanding or skill(s) through working in a given field.

For this section of my paper, I will continue comparing and contrasting the different views regarding education and experience. I will use direct quotes from both Kate Lines and Brent Turvey, two opposing views to further demonstrate each side of the debate. I will then briefly discuss the previously conducted studying that compare education and experience in criminal profiling to give the background information on the difference between education and experience in the studies.

Methodology of Previous Studies

For this part of my paper, I will conduct a thorough analysis of the methodology used in the previously conducted studies. Throughout this analysis, I will point out that there is very little, if any definitions of education and experience, how the studies only account for one aspect of experience rather than experience as a whole construct, and finally, determine whether or not these studies give experience a fair chance of holding any value as a background for criminal profilers. Furthermore, I will address the findings of the previous research and incorporate the major components of experience to highlight why/ how the methodologies and measures (if any) used do not equally weigh education and experience.

Limitations and Suggestions

As with every study that has been conducted, the studies revolving around experience and education in criminal profiling have significant limitations, especially revolving around the neglect that they demonstrate for experience. In this part of my paper, I will highlight and discuss the various limitations of each of the criminal profiling study. Additionally, I will make several suggestions for future research regarding how studies could be done to allow experience to have a fair shot of being valuable in the eyes of academic research. Along with my suggestions, I will also give a few different but possible ways that these researchers could measure experience as an entire construct.

Exclusivity of Criminal Profiling Research

After comparing and contrasting the roles of education and experience in criminal profiling research as well as analyzing the methodologies used and limitations of these studies, I will attempt to determine if my third hypothesis is either supported or not supported. My third hypothesis is that the issue experience being undervalued in academic research is not exclusive to only criminal profiling research. Through an analysis of literature from unrelated domains and drawing parallels back to criminal profiling research, I will demonstrate how the research in criminal profiling does not negate experience any more or less than other domains such as medical, law, and psychology.

Summary / Conclusion

Finally, in this section, I will reiterate my hypotheses/ null hypotheses, quickly summarize the methodologies used in the previous studies, briefly recount the results and limitations found in the criminal profiling studies, and finally, reach my final conclusion(s) and determine if any of my hypotheses are supported or not supported.

In this case, the suspect was predicted to have an above-average intelligence due to the nature of how the crimes were being executed (Epstein, 2017). When Williams was arrested and interrogated, he was seen to have matched the profile because his personality reflected a methodical and organized individual who sought power through their killings (Epstein, 2017).

The FBI profile also stated that since the victims in the case are black, then most likely the suspect will be black as well, given that serial killers typically look for victims who share similar phenotypical characteristics as them (Pozzulo, Benneth, & Forth, 2018). This trait was proven accurate in the profile given that Wayne Williams was an African-American male. In the profile, it was also stated that the suspect would have extensive knowledge about the crime scene locations due to them previously residing in those areas.

After Williams was arrested, it was revealed that Williams had previously done freelance work for a television station in 1978, where he shot assignments on locations where two bodies were later discovered during the Atlanta child murder case (Epstein, 2017). This type of profiling is known as geographic profiling, which refers to making a prediction about where an offender resides, and it is based on the assumption offenders live close to their crime sites (Pozzulo, Benneth, & Forth, 2018). The profile for the Atlanta child murdered also stated that the suspect would impersonate law enforcement in order to establish a sense of trust with potential victims. This profile characteristic was proven to be accurate, given that Williams had been arrested in 1976 on the charge of false impersonation of a police officer (Moncrieff, 2017).

Part 2: Inaccuracies in the Suspect Profile in the Atlanta Child Murders Case

There were several inaccuracies that arose in the suspect profile that have led to conflictions as to whether or not Wayne Williams was the real killer. According to Barcella (2018), it was believed at the time that the suspect may have been a white supremacist. This due to the fact that the majority of the victims were African-American and the location of the crimes took place in Georgia, a state that has a deeply entrenched history of racial segregation and violence toward African-Americans. Barcella (2018) notes that it was believed that 30-year-old Charles Sanders, a drug dealer and a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was recorded telling his friends and family about plotting to kill black children. In fact, one of the children he had threatened specifically ended up being a murder victim (Barcella, 2018). It is believed that Williams was not the Atlanta child murderer, but took the fall for all the crimes in order to protect the real suspects who were white supremacists.

According to Devery (2010), authorities may have pressured to construct a profile based on ambiguous evidence due to the public pressure in trying to locate a serial child murderer. In addition, recent forensic tests have revealed that Williams may have been wrongfully convicted. Rowson (2015) notes that in a study administered by the United States Department of Justice, members of the FBI, the Innocence Project, and the National Association, it was found that approximately 96% of cases involving a FBI hair analysis resulting in a conviction prior to 1999 were deemed faulty. In fact, one of those cases in which the evidence revealed to be faulty was the Wayne Williams case.

Conclusion

Criminal profiling is fairly recent investigative tool that is utilized to identify the characteristics of a suspect in order to create a profile. The major research findings I discussed in the paper was that profiling should be tested using statistical modelling in order to establish validity, and profiling should be constructed using forensic or physical evidence in order to develop a more concrete prediction about the suspect in question. The major controversies I discussed in the paper were that profilers often rely on the notion that offenders possess an inherent uniformity which may not always be proven to be true, and there is insufficient research to suggest that profiling has made a significant impact within the field of serial crimes. In the second portion of the paper, I examined criminal profiling using the example of the Atlanta child murders, a case involving a series of killings targeting African-American children during the early 1980s.

In the paper, I discussed how law enforcement was accurate in identifying key characteristics in order to construct the profile, such as his age, race, and geographic location. I also discussed how the profile of Wayne Williams had some inaccuracies, where it was believed that the true suspect may have been a white supremacist, but Williams was quickly convicted due to the pressure placed on law enforcement by the public to arrest a serial killer targeting children. While criminal profiling does not seem to be a technique that law enforcement should solely rely on when trying to identify a suspect, it does seem to act as a viable predicting method in determining the characteristics of a suspect that can be used in order to prevent future crimes from occurring.