Term
| Brief History of Profiling (Chronological list) |
|
Definition
European Witch Hunts
Lombroso Classification (all based on appearance)
Jack the Ripper and Dr. Thomas Bond
Hans Gross, Criminal Psychology book, 1911
The Mad Bomber and James A Brussel (double breasted suit)
Howard Teton - FBI Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) (First real profiling) |
|
|
Term
| 3 IP Fundamental Principles of IP Approach to Classifications |
|
Definition
Individual Differentiation
A-> Equation
Behavioral Consistency |
|
|
Term
| Individual Differentiation |
|
Definition
| offenders will engage in different types of crime scene behaviors and these different styles of behaving will reflect different psychological meanings to offenders |
|
|
Term
A -> C Equation
(Definition and what A and C stand for) |
|
Definition
Each type of crime scene can be related to corresponding types of offenders.
A = all actions that occur in and relation to a crime
C = Characteristics of the Offender |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| understanding development of criminal career and individual consistency across series. |
|
|
Term
| Toulmin's Philosophy of Argument Diagram |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
Toulmin's Philosophy of Argument
(List main components, explanations, where practiced) |
|
Definition
Backing -> Warrant v
Grounds, -> Modality ->Claim
Rebuttal^
Put into practice in the UK by the Metropolitan Police Commission
When profiler makes a claim, they need to qualify that with a modality or the extent to which they believe that claim is true. Some grounds or basis for claim and modality. Backing for warrant should cite specific research study or claim and should be some sort of rebuttal or claim of when this wouldn't be true
Framework supported claims about offenders’ & behavioral patterns with research concerning offense characteristics, theory regarding victim/offender typologies, and probabilities associated with the claims accuracy |
|
|
Term
| Toulmin's Philosophy of Argument: Advantages of Structure |
|
Definition
Weak claims could be identified allowing investigators to separate subjective statements from those that had clear empirical backing.
Probabilities associated with claims provided police with a justification for their decision to either follow or disregard the advice of profilers.
Provided a unified framework that incorporated both academic’s concern with broad trends in crime and criminal behavior and practitioner’s focus on individual cases |
|
|
Term
| Kcosis 2003 Purpose, Group and Results |
|
Definition
Purpose: identify how profilers differ from others in their assessments and predictions of perpetrators.
Type of information contained in profiles
Method: Compared five different groups
Psychics, graduate psychology students, biology college students, police officers, profilers
Results:
Profilers: longer and more detailed reports; more information about non-physical aspects of offender. More knowledge of research/classifications used for profiling
Psychologists and profilers provided the most information about behavioral aspects of crime
Skills of psychologists and profilers are similar |
|
|
Term
| Kcosis 2000 Purpose, Group, Results and Conclusion |
|
Definition
Purpose: Test the FBI’s assumption of what makes a good profiler.
Group: Psychologists, police officers, science and econ students, psychics, and profilers
Results: No differences between the groups in overall accuracy. Collapsing non-profiler groups together- profilers are more accurate than non-profilers.
Psychologists were better than police.
Conclusion:
Profilers more accurate than non-profilers.
Psychological knowledge is more pertinent to profiling than investigative experience or intuition |
|
|
Term
| Kocsis 2000 vs Kocsis 2003 |
|
Definition
K2000 purpose was to test the FBI assumptions about what makes a good profiler, '03 was to find out how profilers differ from others in assessments
2003: Profilers better than non-profilers. Psychologists did well.
2000: Skills of psych and profilers similar. Psych knowledge is more pertinent to profiling than experience or intuition
|
|
|
