Investigative Psychology: A Comparison of Old and New Techniques


Introduction


            The investigation of a crime scene is an important process of identifying the offenders. Considering the number of possible suspects, the investigation becomes even more difficult if there are no leads as to who can likely commit such criminal acts. This makes investigative psychology an important aspect of a crime investigation. This science is actually founded on the common investigative practice known as profiling.  (2002) noted that the use of criminal profiling dates back during the end of the 19th century. This investigative process was said to be initiated by , an infamous killer in England. The interest on profiling increased further as Allied Forces during the Second World War wanted to develop  profile; the Allies intended to use this profile during the interrogation process once he was arrested or surrendered. The early uses of criminal profiling then made this process a part of criminal investigations (1999).


 


According to  (1999), criminal profiling is a procedure wherein highly trained profilers are able to analyze the psychological and behavioral background of the offender, also collectively referred to as the offenders’ psychopathology. The product of criminal profiling is the behavioral blueprint of the offender and the crime. By means of this blueprint, a profiler would be able to recreate the events that occurred in the crime scene.


            A profile has many uses in the crime investigation. In particular, this tool can provide a variety of helpful information that could limit the number of possible suspects for a certain crime. Personal characteristics that could be identified through criminal profiling include the offender’s gender, race, age, lifestyle, educational background, occupation and marital status. More specific information about the offender such as his or her ability to communicate with other people, the possibility of committing the same crime, the feeling of guilt or remorse towards the victim or the crime, signs of mental instability as well as sexual problems.


 


            The process of interpreting the data gathered from the crime scene is the most challenging of all stages involved in investigative psychology or criminal profiling since it is not based on any psychic presumptions. Years of experience and research on similar offender characteristics and criminal acts are important keys to more efficient profiling. However, certain investigative techniques are also used to facilitate the analysis of the crime. With these techniques, investigative psychologists are able to perform a faster and more organized process of interpreting the crime scenes and their doers. In this discussion, focus will be on the discussion of what investigative psychology is and the different techniques used for its conduction. Specifically, old and new techniques used by investigative psychologists will be identified and compared.


 


Investigative Psychology


            Investigative Psychology (IP) is an inductive investigative approach that has been developed by . In 1985, Canter was challenged to determine the possibility of incorporating psychological concepts into crime investigation techniques. For this purpose, Canter then tried to address this challenge by combining criminal investigation with that of environmental psychology. The resulting approach was a process wherein the development of criminal profiles became focused on the use and adaptation of appropriate psychological principles (1998). This process was then developed further by Canter and was even taught in the University of Surrey as a profiling approach.


 


            Later,  expanded the IP process by integrating the circle theory. This theory focuses on environmental factors and utilizes a dichotomous typology. In  process, the circle theory was incorporated by classifying offenders as a commuter or marauder. Commuter-types of criminals are those who tend to travel before committing a crime; on the contrary, marauders typically operate near their home base ( 1995).


 


            IP depends significantly on statistics from the offender database and is largely based on the framework known as the five-factor model. This model is made up of five factors; one of which is interpersonal coherence. This factor pertains to the feature wherein the manner on how the offender deals with his or her victims has certain similarities on how he or she interacts with other people. This factor also indicates that the choice of the offenders’ victims may have some association to significant people of their lives (1989). This factor can be relevant to cases of male offenders who kill women as they portray some similar characteristics of their mothers or previous girlfriends.


 


            Significance of time and place is the second factor of  five factor model. The place where the crime is committed may speak of how the offenders view his or her surroundings; moreover, the preference of the offenders’ crime sites may also provide clues of their mobility as well as their residential location. The time when the crime occurs is also a significant factor to consider as this may give clues of the offenders’ work schedule, leisure period and lifestyle. The third factor of the model is known as criminal characteristics, which allows investigative psychologist to limit possible suspects based on offender categories or classifications.


 


Criminal career, the fourth factor, on the other hand refers to the evaluation whether the offender may have committed previous similar criminal activities. Finally, the development of a criminal profile is also facilitated by the forensic awareness factor; this pertains to the suspects’ level of knowledge regarding police and crime investigation techniques. For instance, if a criminal always see to it that he or she leaves no fingerprints by wearing gloves, this may suggest the level of educational background, occupation and mental capacity of the offender; hence, limiting the number of possible suspects.


 


Old Techniques


            A number of techniques in the past are being used in investigative psychology even up to the present time. For the old techniques, the FBI model and the Behavioral Evidence Analysis (BEA) are explained.



  • FBI Model


            The FBI Model, also known as Holmes typology, was developed by the agents from the Behavioral Sciences Unit (BSU). These agents conducted a study from 1979 to 1983 where they visited correctional facilities to interview offenders. The aim of this study was to identify common features of certain offenders based on their victims, personal background and the crime scenes. Police reports, criminal record, court transcripts as well as psychiatric records were also obtained to support the profiling method they intend to develop ( 1988). The result of the study led to the development of the six-step crime scene analysis for the FBI (1986).


 


            The first step of the FBI model is called profiling inputs. In this stage, major activities include the gathering and evaluation of the evidences and other resources that are relevant to the case. These inputs may include pictures taken from the crime scene, autopsy protocols, background of the victim and other forensic findings that may be helpful for the investigative psychologist to construct the events before, during and after the crime. This initial step is critical as any irrelevant or insufficient inputs may affect the investigative and analytical processes. Once all the necessary inputs had been gathered, the decision process models or the second step is performed. At this level, the aim is to determine the connection of all the crime materials obtained to the victim and the offender. Moreover, this analytical process also aims to identify the relation of the crime to other victims ( 2002).


 


            The third step is called the crime assessment where investigators would attempt to recreate the sequence of events and determine how the victim and offender behaved during the event. By doing this step, the investigator would be able to establish the role of the main actors in the crime and subsequently develop the criminal’s profile. The development of the profile serves as the fourth step of the FBI model. Here, the investigator provides a list of behavioral, physical and other important characteristics of the offender. It is imperative in this stage that the investigators refer to support agencies that could provide specific means on how to properly interrogate and capture the suspects. This is also the fifth step of the FBI method known as the investigation step. Finally, the apprehension stage involves the assessment of the developed profile against the identified characteristics of the offender once he or she has already been arrested. This step however, is often left out in cases where the perpetrator is never found or arrested (2002). As a technique for investigative psychology, the concept of the FBI model is based on two major offender dichotomies. These dichotomies categorize offenders as organized or disorganized (See Table 1). In the crime scene, the investigator gathers evidences to identify any significant clues that may speak of the offenders’ signature behaviors. These signature behaviors are acts that are not necessary in the actual performance of the crime; offenders typically have distinct signature behaviors ( 1999), thus, their identification will make it possible for the investigators to limit the offender pool and relate other crimes to the one being investigated. The use of dichotomies in the FBI model is based on the investigative psychology principle that offenders tend to share similar features or characteristics.         


Organized Offender


Disorganized Offender


Average to above average intelligence


Below average intelligence


Socially competent


Socially inadequate


Skilled work preferred


Unskilled work


Sexually competent


Sexually incompetent


High birth order status


Low birth order status


Father’s work stable


Father’s work unstable


Inconsistent childhood discipline


Harsh discipline as a child


Controlled mood during crime


Anxious mood during crime


Use of alcohol with crime


Minimal use of alcohol


Precipitating situational stress


Minimal situational stress


Living with partner


Living alone


Mobility with car in good condition


Lives/works near the crime scene


Follows crime in news media


Minimal interest in news media


May change jobs or leave town


Significant behavior change (e.g. drug or alcohol use)


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Table 1: Characteristics of an Organized and a Disorganized Offender based on the FBI IP model (1996)


 



  • Behavioral Evidence Analysis (BEA)


            Another old technique for investigative psychology is the Behavioral Evidence Analysis (BEA). This technique was developed by criminal profiler and forensic scientist .  then wanted to understand the distinct characteristic of criminals, particularly sex offenders, so as to address the limitations of past profiling techniques. Thus, he conducted an interview with , a serial killer to obtain necessary data. Before conducting the interview,  scanned over the available information about the offender’s behavior, criminal records and other reports that are related to his crimes. concluded that most of the answers from the interview were in direct conflict of the facts gathered, suggesting that the offender had almost always lied during the interview. This finding led  to believe that developing the offender behavior is necessary in criminal profiling.


 


Unlike the FBI model, BEA is based on the deductive principle. This means that this technique does not depend on statistical analysis using the offender databases. With the outcome of his study,  believed that the mere interview of the convicted offenders is flawed as most of them will just give unreliable and deceptive statements. Thus, he suggested that it is more appropriate look into the forensic evidence and criminal events to reconstruct the offender’s behavior. Similar to the FBI model, BEA is made up of stages that guide the entire investigation process. A procedure known as the equivocal forensic analysis is the initial step for BEA. Basically, this involves the acquisition of all available physical evidences in the scene (1999). Sources of these evidences may be in the form of photos, sketches, videos, autopsy reports, interviews or the victims’ background.


 


            The second step involves the analysis of the offender’s victim. Unlike the FBI model where the profile of the offender is the priority, Bea promotes the belief that equal priority should be given to the offender and the victim. This is based on the fact that the background of the victim could possibly give leads to the characteristics of the offender. This second step is also termed by  as victimology. The crime scene characteristics, BEA’s third step, is concentrated on the identification of the distinct features observed in the crime scene, which may be related to the behavior of the offender. This is somewhat similar to what has been cited earlier as the offenders’ signature behaviors. Once all these data have been gathered, the final stage will be performed. This involves the development of the offenders’ behavior and other personal characteristics. Like the FBI model, the development of the offender’s behavior is based on multiple factors including his or her gender, physical build, work habits, medical history, skills, marital status and race ( 1999).


 


New Techniques


            Over the years of using investigative psychology for crime investigations, the techniques used had gone through major developments, particularly since the introduction of various information systems and technology. These new IP techniques include the use of Polygraphs and Brain Fingerprinting.


 



  • Polygraphs


            Polygraph or lie detector tests may not be a very new strategy for IP; however, years of combining psychological and technological concepts led to the enhancement of this technique. Polygraph testing works by connecting a person to a polygraph machine which is made up of a physiological recorder. This recorder is comprised of three main lie indicators, including respiration, skin conductivity and heart rate or blood pressure indicators. These indicators are measured by attaching the fingertips of the individual on a set of electrodes. A series of structured yes-no questions will then be asked to the individual being tested. The results of the test will depend on the movement of the polygraph pen, which is determined by the person’s emotional reactions to the given questions.


 


            Over the years, certain changes had been done in conducting polygraph tests. Also known as the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT), this alternative polygraph procedure works in a similar fashion as the lie detector; however, in this new alternative, a set of multiple-choice questions wherein choices are made up of multiple neutral and a single crime-relevant alternative (1998). Specifically each question is given six choices; one of them correctly pertains to crime or the possible suspect. Compared to the Control Question Test (CQT) applied in typical polygraph tests, GKT enables the protection of the innocent as chances for false positives are significantly reduced. Basically, the goal of this IP technique is to determine who among the tested individuals has the most knowledge about the crime.


 



  • Brain Fingerprinting


            Dr. is the one responsible for the development of these new IP techniques called brain fingerprinting. This technique significantly depends on the suspects’ brain electrical activity generated in response to the images derived from the actual crime scene. The electrical waves of the brain assessed by this investigative technology is called the p300 wave; this machine is different from that of a lie detector as brain fingerprinting is not based on the individual’s emotions. Rather, this IP technique is dependent on the information stocked in the person’s brain. This suggest that compared to the polygraph test, brain fingerprinting is more reliable as it does not depend on subjective interpretations. Moreover, brain waves and cerebral blood flows which are evaluated by the brain fingerprinting device are physiological elements that individuals cannot control, at least not yet. Currently, the results of this IP technique are already accepted in US courts (McCall, 2004).


 


            This technique operates by placing a headband of electrodes on the individual being tested. The person is then asked to face a computer screen where various photos from the crime scene are shown. The aim of this technique is to view the individual’s previous visual experiences. The brain wave p300 is said to be stimulated when a person sees an object or scene familiar to him or her.


 


Thus, if a particular weapon is flashed on the screen and caused no p300 activation, it is presumed that the person is neither aware of weapon’s significance to the crime or how it is used. However, if the image of a particular weapon causes a p300 reaction, then this implies that the individual being tested may have participated or have some knowledge about the crime being investigated. This process further makes brain fingerprinting very different from a lie detector machine (2001).


 


Analysis and Comparison


            The FBI model, its six-step process and its offender characterization had been use in several criminal cases, especially in reducing the number of possible suspects. Nonetheless, this technique has been criticized as it is significantly dependent on the interviews of the offenders. Moreover, the technique clearly lacks the use of any empirical procedures to pinpoint the perpetrator. The determination of the offenders’ character based on the disorganized or organized features is also questioned considering that such set features can easily be influenced by a number of factors. For instance, if an organized offender is on drugs during the time when the crime was committed, the manner to which the crime was done can be affected. Investigators are then likely to focus on searching for a disorganized-type of suspect instead of an organized one (1999).


 


            BEA may be a more effective technique than the FBI model. However, this technique has been criticized as well due to certain drawbacks observed when using this IP tool. Specifically, critics noted that mastering the use of the BEA process is very challenging. Furthermore, profilers who intend to practice this technique would need to have a highly diverse knowledge on the different fields of forensic science including psychology, criminology and crime scene analysis. Both the polygraphs and brain fingerprinting process are useful in the investigative process as they provide empirical findings that old techniques lack. However, the reliability of these IP techniques is questioned by critics.


 


The use of polygraphs or GKT for instance, requires the construction of questions that only a guilty person can answer correctly. Aside from the difficulty of developing these questions, information about the crime scene should be secured away from the media or other third parties. Moreover, though crime instances may have been correctly identified by the investigators, the suspects themselves may be uncertain of these facts. For example, the number of stab wounds found in the victims or the manner on how the gun was pointed may not have been registered to the criminals’ memory or awareness considering the circumstances.


 


In addition, as this test is based on emotions, individuals being tested with this technique can easily manipulate their feelings towards the questions of the investigator. The results of brain fingerprinting have already been accepted by the US courts; however, critics noted that more research and tests should be done to enhance this IP technique as well as prove its reliability.


 


            From the given old and new techniques used for investigative psychology, clear differences can be drawn. One of which is that old IP techniques tend to focus more on the determination of the actual crime suspect whereas new techniques allow investigators to let as many possible suspects go through a certain psychological test to determine their knowledge level about the crime.


 


In this perspective, it appears that testing individuals using either polygraph or brain fingerprinting is far easier than constructing the offenders’ behavior based on the investigators’ experience and intuition; going through the step-by-step process of collecting evidences and analyzing them is both time-consuming and tedious as compared to questioning possible suspects. However, it should also be considered that the reliability of both new IP techniques is debatable. In addition, investigators do not have the luxury of time to test all plausible suspects of the crime; thus, they will still have to depend on conventional techniques used for criminal profiling.


 


            Old IP techniques are also different from the new ones in terms of how they are structured. Specifically, old IP strategies had been developed based on the investigators’ experience as well as research and analysis of various criminals. On the other hand, new techniques were developed by combining the concepts of psychology and technology. While new technologies make use of empirical tests, old technologies were utilized base on individual perceptions. With the old IP techniques, the strategies are largely based on the investigator’s knowledge and experiences about crimes and offenders as well as their instincts. On the contrary, there is less human intervention on the investigators’ part when new IP techniques are administered. The machines do most of the analysis of data; hence, it likely to be more objective.


 


            In terms of objectives, the two sets of techniques are also different. In particular, the new IP techniques are after the determination whether the individual being tested is innocent or not. On the other hand, the old IP strategies involve an organized process wherein possible connections from previous crimes are also identified. In addition, old IP techniques enable the investigators to understand different types of offenders, making future similar investigations faster and more efficient. Although, both techniques have differences, it should be considered that they are used for a single purpose, and that is to aid in the investigation of crimes as well as provide data that will lead to the arrest of the offenders. Each of the cited IP techniques has their own advantages and disadvantages; thus, it is more effective if traditional and new IP techniques are integrated to optimize their use in crime investigations.


 


 Conclusion


            Investigative psychology is an important aspect of crime investigation as it develops distinct offender groups, which make the identification of crime offenders easier. This field of forensics also helps investigators limit the number of possible suspects involved in the crime. A number of old and new techniques are used to facilitate crime investigations. In this discussion, old techniques include the FBI model and the BEA process; new IP techniques on the other hand, include the use of polygraphs and brain fingerprinting.


 


While all these IP techniques utilize psychological aspects, each of these strategies has distinct strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, certain differences can be observed from both new and old IP techniques. Despite these differences, it is essential that investigators are aware of how the uses of these techniques can be optimized. The weaknesses of the cited IP techniques can then be covered through their appropriate utilization and integration.


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top