We live in time, when designing socio-political policies in this country, often no longer corresponds to considerations of reason. The public controversy, which now surrounds the concept of Criminal Psychological Profiling, substantiates the validity of this statement. Despite the fact that application of Criminal Psychological Profiling, had long ago proven its indispensability, during the course of criminal investigations, the hawks of political correctness now refer to it as being “utterly unscientific”, “inconclusive” and “subtly racist” – thus, trying to undermine the very premise of rationality, upon which the practice of Psychological Profiling is based. In this paper, we will review three articles, which assess the value of Criminal Psychological Profiling from different perspectives, while pointing out at conceptual inconsistency of claims, contained in these articles (if necessary), as we believe that psychological profiling of criminals is not only appropriate, but also absolutely necessary, within the context of criminal investigators executing their professional duties.
1). In her article “Criminal Profiling: The FBI Uses Criminal Investigative Analysis to Solve Crimes”, Mary Ellen O’Toole provides us with the insight on Criminal Psychological Profiling as an effective instrument of forensic science: “Violent crime scenes tell a story — a story written by the offender, the victim and the unique circumstances of their interactions. Behavioral “clues” left at a crime scene can provide insights not only into the crime itself, but also into the type of person responsible for the crime, his or her motivation, lifestyle, fantasies, victim selection process, and pre- and post-offence behaviour” (O’Tooke, p.44). After having established a conceptual premise of her article, author moves on to describe technical aspects of how behavioural profiles of offenders are being constructed: “Police reports, crime scene photographs, witness statements, forensic laboratory reports and, if the case is a homicide, autopsy photographs are provided by the investigating law enforcement agency and are carefully examined for the smallest behavioural detail or nuance” (O’Tooke, p. 45). In its turn, this brings O’Tooke to conclusion, that even though the factor of intuition plays an important role, within a context of constructing criminals’ behavioural profile, this process is rational, in its essence. According to the author, the criminal behavioural characteristics include: amount of planning that went into the crime, degree of control used by the offender, escalation of emotion at the scene, risk level of both the offender and victim; and appearance of the crime scene. By analysing these characteristics, investigators can construct offender’s psychological portrait with the high degree of accuracy: “The degree of organization or disorganization can provide tremendous insights into the level of sophistication of the offender (racial affiliation), including the approach used in accessing the victim, the style of attack, the relationship of the victim to the offender” (O’Tooke, p. 46). In its turn, this significantly increases the effectiveness of the process of criminal investigation. Author concludes her article by suggesting that despite criticism directed at Criminal Psychological Profiling, this concept will continue to remain an essential element of criminology, as legal and forensic science.
2) The Lea Winerman’s article “Criminal profiling: the Reality behind the Myth”, can also be referred to as absolutely sensible, because in it, author provides readers with an extensive evidence as to the fact that the application of Criminal Psychological Profiling helps solving crimes. For example, she states that it was namely taking the advantage of this innovative criminological concept, which allowed FBI to arrest George Metesky – a notorious “unabomber” of forties: “For 16 years, “mad bomber” George Metesky eluded New York City police… In 1956, the frustrated investigators asked psychiatrist James Brussel, New York State’s assistant commissioner of mental hygiene, to study crime scene photos and notes from the bomber… The composed profile proved dead on: It led police right to Metesky, who was arrested in January 1957 and confessed immediately” (Winerman 2004). Just as O’Toole, in her article, Winerman points out to the fact that the concept of Criminal Psychological Profiling cannot be discussed outside of rationality, which proves better than anything else this concept’s legal legitimacy. By observing a crime scene, investigators gain an insight onto criminal’s existential mode, which often bestows them with clues as to his whereabouts: “The description (psychological profile) can include psychological variables such as personality traits, psychopathologies and behavior patterns, as well as demographic variables such as age, race or geographic location” (Winerman 2004). In the following parts of her article, Winerman talks about what represents challenges of Criminal Psychological Profiling. Given the fact that this criminological concept is comparatively new, there is no uniformity in how investigators come to conclusions, in regards to criminals’ psychological identity.
And to make things worse, the practitioners of psychological profiling, in the field of criminology, now often find themselves facing the accusations of “racism”, which reduces the effectiveness of them utilizing this concept in practice. Nevertheless, Winerman ends her article on a positive note – apparently, because she believes that criminology will continue to remain a rationalistic science. However, the realities of “multicultural” living in America, point out to the fact that it actually might not be the case in the future. The article, which we are going to analyze next, helps to substantiate our claim, in this respect.
3) In her article “Stealth Racism Abounds, Research Finds”, Karen Franklin adopts an entirely opposite outlook on the practice of Criminal Psychological Profiling, as compared to the ones of O’Tooke and Winerman, while suggesting that this criminological concept is innately “racist”: “Individuals who practice this subtle racism (psychological profiling) may not even know it. They may believe in fair and equal treatment for all, yet unconsciously harbor negative feelings toward other races… The implications extend into the forensic realm. Studies of police and probation officers show that they often use racial cues to assign blame” (Franklin 2007). Just like any typical neo-Liberal, Franklin appears to experience an unhealthy emotional excitement, every time word “race” is being pronounced. For her, “racism” is like the skin rush – the more it is being scratched, the more it itches: “The unconscious nature of these (criminological) biases helps to explain divergent rates of arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment despite a lack of conscious racist intent on the part of criminal justice professionals” (Franklin 2007). Then, the self-appointed “expert on racial tolerance”, who works as forensic psychologist in her spare time, comes up with absolutely ridiculous suggestion that: “An African American who commits a crime is likely to be seen as inherently bad or criminal, while a white person who commits a similar crime is more likely to be excused based on external factors” (Franklin 2007). If anyone, it is namely Blacks who are often being allowed to walk away from the scene of crime by police officers who fear facing the charges of “racial profiling”. During the course of L.A. racial riots in 1992, police officers were told not to intervene, while White people were being dragged out of their cars and killed on the spot by angry Black mob, before their very eyes, in order not to disturb “interracial harmony”. Therefore, we cannot seriously consider even a single author’s argument, just as we cannot think of Franklin’s degree in forensic psychology as the proof of her high intelligence, but rather an indication of the fact that, at some point in her life, Franklin was quick enough to take an advantage of “affirmative action” policy in academia.
To conclude this paper, we need to state that it is simply impossible to adjust the operational principles of Criminal Psychological Profiling to the concept of “multiculturalism”, which is now being forcibly imposed upon Americans by crazed advocates of political correctness, such as Franklin. The reason for this is simple – whereas the concept of race plays a crucial role, within a context of investigators composing criminals’ psychological profiles, politicians in charge of designing social policies in America, deny the very possibility that people’s racial affiliation can have any effects on particularities of their behavior. Therefore, by composing offenders’ psychological profiles, criminal investigators commit crime against the “spirit of tolerance” – thus, risking the chance of being fired, over accusations of “racism”. This is the reason why America’s law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI, while being aware of an utter effectiveness of Criminal Psychological Profiling, strive not to make a point of utilizing it, during the course of criminal investigations. Therefore, it is very doubtful that the compromise, between those who support this criminological concept and those who oppose it, can ever be reached. Criminal Psychological Profiling will continue to be surrounded by public controversy, for as long as citizens continue to be instilled with the idea that “celebrating diversity” constitutes their foremost social duty.
Bibliography
Franklin, K. 2007. Stealth Racism Abounds, Research Finds. American Chronicle. Web.
O’Tooke, E. 1999. Criminal Profiling: the FBI Uses Criminal Investigative Analysis to Solve Crimes. Corrections Today. 61(1): 44-6.
Winerman, L. 2004. Criminal Profiling: the Reality behind the Myth. APA Online. Web.