Research Articles Base: Investigative Psychology

Most useful technique in Investigative Psychology

Most useful technique in Investigative Psychology Introduction This essay intends to discuss the Psychology, Forensic Psychology, Investigative Psychology and different techniques used in the said kind of psychology. The essay also intends to discus the most useful technique or method in investigative Psychology currently used today. Lastly the said most useful technique will be compared to the other techniques that came before it.   Psychology             Psychology is can be defined as the science of consciousness. It is the business of a science systematically to describe and explain the phenomena with which it is engaged. Chemistry, physics, and the various branches of biology all attempt to deal in this manner with some special portion of the facts or processes of nature. Mental facts, or facts of consciousness, constitute the field of psychology. Psychology can also be defined traditionally as the science of mind. This is the translation of the two Greek words from which ‘psychology’ is compounded (James 1909). The definition is now open to many objections. The most important of these is that the word ‘mind’ has in the course of long use taken on many meanings and implications which do not concern psychology as a science. Various terms have been suggested to avoid these objections. Psychology has been defined as the science of consciousness, or as the science of experience subjectively regarded (Baldwin 1889). Each definition has advantages, but no one so far suggested is free from objection. It is most satisfactory to give up the attempt to find a single word that will designate the facts covered by psychology, and to indicate the actual phenomena that it studies which is the evidences of mind. Psychology is the study of human nature. It is the study of man, man as a living being, how he/she acts in an ever-changing world, how he/she responds to things and events and other people. Knowledge of what man is, and having knowledge of the full answer to the question about the nature of man, brings about knowledge of what human nature is and what psychology comprises (Jastrow 1906).   Forensic Psychology In a book edited by Petrovsky and Yaroshevsky (1987) Forensic psychology is a branch of psychology that studies problems pertaining to legal proceedings such as  the psychology of judges, investigators, and other law-enforcement officers and lawyers, the essence of their professional activities, and their selection and training methods; it also studies the psychology of the accused, the witnesses, and the victims; it also studies the psychology of witness testimony and the psychological principles of investigatory and judicial actions including interrogation, confrontation, and others ; Furthermore the psychology of inquiry is being studied in this branch; and lastly the methodology and techniques of forensic psychological expert examination is studied. Forensic psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with predicting, assessing, and treating criminal behavior (Butler 2000). In The Concise Dictionary of Psychology, Forensic psychology is known as the study of the psychological factors involved in legal issues such as criminal behavior, decision-making by juries and eyewitness testimony (Statt 1998). Forensic psychology focuses on the law and the different aspects and details of it.   Criminal Psychology applies psychological knowledge to the understanding, prediction and nature of crime and behavior related to crime. This area has become more and more important in the matter of eyewitness testimony. In the area of forensic psychology, psychologists have recently helped to illustrate how highly unreliable this type of evidence is. In criminology, the psychologist conducts therapeutic work with people who have come into conflict with the law. (Petrovsky & Yaroshevsky 1987)   Comparison of Investigative Psychology used by US and UK Professor David Canter was the developer of Investigative Psychology or the method known as profiling method. He developed it in England between 1985 and 1992. This method is used in the United States (U.S.) and had certain differences with the method used in United Kingdom (UK). There are two approaches to modern day profiling. One is that as used by the F.B.I developed through the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) in Quantico, Virginia. Profiles are produced using data gathered from a series of in-depth interviews with convicted criminals resulting in a classification system for offences. The basis being that crimes then, depending on the modus operandi and the crime scene will fit into certain classifications giving indicators as to the offenders profile. The aim is then to give some scope for prediction of future crimes and lessen the field of investigation. The other approach is that commonly known as the British approach. This method has its origins in behavioral psychology and attempts to place a more scientific method to understanding the criminal mind and actions. Both these approaches have flaws and both have successes (Ainsworth 2000).   One of the main criticisms of the American approach is that it is founded on a small sample group. Further problems are seen that as a convicted criminal who is sentenced to a number of years may be too bored with his/her current routine. Just to gain more time out the normal routine these criminal exaggerate their accounts to keep the interviewers interested. The honesty and the authenticity of the data collected may be questioned. The British approach tends to have its roots in psychology and is seen more as a way of trying to understand the way in which the crime was committed and how, with a belief that the answers to these questions give an insight as to the probabilities of the criminals behavior in everyday life.   Differences in the British and American approaches can be described as follows. The US use more of a top-down method relying on data drawn from previously interviewed convicts,  while a bottom-up approach is applied by the British profilers. The latter is seen as the more scientific attempt to connect crimes and criminal characteristics via analysis of crime scenes. A weakness that can be formulated  from the approach by UK includes their psychologists are not usually brought in to assist police until later by which time the actual crime scene is not generally available. However, this approach can dispel assumptions and presuppositions of previous criminal’s behavior as the American approach can be seen to focus on. The American approach also can be seen to lead to generalizations.   Both the British and American approaches tend to be based around serious crime such as serial murder or serial rape/ sexual assault. The main focus of the method is to categorize the crime into disorganized and organized. The disorganized crime being one that sees the criminal as having acted in a disorganized fashion, a more opportunistic occurrence with the crime scene itself seeming haphazard, the body not concealed or concealed badly. The organized crime is just that, their victim has generally been chosen for a reason, the actual act planned and the evidence concealed or arranged particularly. The disorganized criminal tends to act only when the opportunity and an overwhelming compulsion are combined. This method could be seen to be placing a large emphasis on the individual profiler making the distinction. Once made then certain assumptions are made as to other likely factors of the criminal’s life such as social functioning age etc drawn from existing data. (McIllveen 1998).   Investigative Psychology Part of Forensic psychology is Investigative Psychology. Investigative Psychology is the ways psychology can be used or integrated with the processes and procedures of criminal investigation. Criminal investigation involves steps that includes determination if a crime has been committed, verifying the jurisdictional and statutory authority before beginning a thorough and systematic inquiry, discover all the facts and collect evidences, if there are stolen property recover it, identify the perpetrator or perpetrators, locate and apprehend the said perpetrator or perpetrators, aid the persecution by providing evidence admissible in court, and testify effectively as witness in court. Investigative psychology uses methods like psychological autopsies, polygraphs, forensic hypnosis, facial composites, DNA testing. (NCWC 2000)   Autopsy also referred to as a postmortem examination or necropsy, is an Ancient practice. The term is derived from the Greek word autopsia, meaning seeing with one’s own eyes. Autopsy is the medical examination of a dead human body, including the internal organs, to determine the cause of death or to study pathological changes. An autopsy is performed by a doctor trained in pathology (Rentein 2004).   After the exterior body is thoroughly examined, an incision is made to expose the internal organs. Their position is noted, and they are removed for examination by eye and further study under a microscope. Most autopsies serve to advance medical knowledge, but autopsies also have legal uses. Deaths resulting from violence or poison, or occurring under suspicious circumstances, are investigated by a government officer, called either a coroner or a medical examiner. In such instances, the autopsy is made to determine the time and circumstances of death, thereby providing evidence for legal action. Autopsies are performed for several reasons. The most obvious is to establish the cause or causes of death. A more specific justification is for criminal investigation, particularly when there is a suspicion of foul play and for medical investigation, when there is a threat to public health, sometimes to prevent infection. In addition to these, other reasons why autopsies are performed include the quality control of health institutions, including hospitals and mental institutions. Autopsies may confirm the accuracy of clinical diagnoses. Another purpose of autopsies is the documentation of disease rates and the identification of new diseases. The autopsy also has educational benefits for medical schools for use in their research and training.    Psychological autopsy is a medical examination investigative tool that helps to determine the decedent’s role in his or her demise. It is an investigative tool that helps to reconstruct the decedent’s background, personal relationships, habits, character, and coping patterns (Kurke & Scrivner 1995). Its purpose is to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between the decedent’s lifestyle and his death. It is a clinical investigative tool that assists in clarifying the manner of death whether suicide, homicide, or accidental death. It focuses on the psychological aspects of the death. Its primary purpose is to understand the circumstances and state of mind of the victim at the time of death. The procedure involves the reconstruction of the lifestyle and circumstances of the victim together with the details of behaviors and events that led to the death of the individual. Psychological autopsy is a postdictive analysis. It is speculative and probabilistic. However, it is the best in giving a logical understanding of the relationship between the deceased and the events and behaviors that preceded the death (Berman & Littman 1993). The accuracy of a psychological autopsy is contingent on available records and interviewees. Psychological autopsy refers to psychiatric consultation to the coroner’s office in assisting with the manner of death determinations. Forensic psychiatrists thoroughly examine the person’s lifestyle and the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors that existed during the days and weeks prior to death to better understand the psychological events of those last weeks and the circumstances that might have contributed to the death.   Polygraphs are various scientific recording devices designed to register a person’s bodily responses to being questioned (Brewer & Wilson 1995). Popularly known as a lie detector, the polygraph has been used chiefly in criminal investigations, although it is also used in employment and security screening practices. A polygraph is several instruments combined to simultaneously record changes in blood pressure, pulse, and respiration. The electrical conductivity of the skin’s surface can also be measured; increased sweat-gland activity reduces the skin’s ability to carry electrical current. Polygraphs are sensitive electronic monitoring devices that use ink writing pens to trace out different kinds of physiological responses on moving chart paper. Modern polygraphs are portable and can be made to fit inside an attaché case. The physiological reactions monitored are those governed by the autonomic nervous system, the branch of the nervous system that generally functions outside of conscious awareness and is sensitive to emotional states.   This device is used in testing honesty, dependability, and integrity. Because no machine can unerringly recognize when a person is lying, the polygraph results are used in conjunction with other evidence, observations, and information. The polygraph provide basis for an evaluation of whether or not the subject’s answers are truthful. This test has also been helpful in exonerating innocent persons accused of crimes.    As mentioned earlier polygraphs were used for employment purposes. In the United States, the use of it is forbidden by law. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which became effective December 27, 1988 ( Frierson, 1988; House of Representatives, 1988), outlaws most business uses of polygraphs, especially pre-employment polygraph exams used to screen out job applicants with a history of theft. Polygraphs were outlawed for three major reasons. First, there was a lack of scientifically acceptable research that showed that job applicants’ polygraph results were accurate predictors of their past or future theft. The pre-employment polygraph exam was never thoroughly and scientifically validated with job applicants.  It should be noted that although there is little evidence that the pre-employment polygraph actually works, either is there any research or evidence that it does not work. There simply is very little scientific research actual proofs. Second, the accuracy, fairness, and consistency of the polygraph exam appeared to be a function of the skill of the examiner. For example, more reliable admissions were obtained by licensed, highly trained examiners as opposed to less skilled examiners. The polygraph industry never established and enforced a universal standard of competence that had to be met by all polygraphers; consequently, examples of abuse were common and rampant. Finally, the pre-employment polygraph examination has been criticized as being unpleasant and stressful to applicants. Although polygraphers were often skilled at interrogation and getting theft admissions from applicants, this process tended to provoke strong negative feelings from applicants (Lykken 1981).    A contemporary method for distinguishing truth from deception is through the use of the polygraph, commonly known as the lie detector. The polygraph is controversial. Its defenders point to the confessions of countless criminals, the uncovering of spies and terrorists, and millions of dollars saved by American businesses through the polygraph’s ability to reveal employee theft. Critics of the polygraph argue that it is no more than quackery, claiming it unreliable and invalid, prone to brand thousands of innocent persons as guilty, inordinately coercive, and a violation of basic Constitutional rights protecting privacy and self incrimination. Hypnosis is a special state of consciousness in which certain normal human capabilities are heightened while others fade into the background. About 90% of the population has some ability to enter a hypnotic state. Hypnosis can be combined with any type of therapy: supportive types, behavior modification, dynamic therapy, and others (Fromm & Shor 1979). When combined with dynamic types of therapy, that is, psychoanalytic methods, it is called dynamic hypnotherapy or hypnoanalysis; when combined with other therapies, it is called hypnotherapy. Hypnosis itself is not a therapy, although the relaxation that accompanies it can be beneficial. Hypnosis is altered state of consciousness and heightened responsiveness to suggestion; it may be induced in normal persons by a variety of methods and has been used occasionally in medical and psychiatric treatment. Forensic hypnosis is the process of hypnotizing a witness of a crime to extract needed information to be used as evidence in court or help solving the crime (Encarta Online 2003).   Most states in the US have refused to admit as evidence information gained by hypnosis, its use in legal situations has continued to grow. In 1983 the state of Massachusetts established strict guidelines for the use of hypnosis. This includes the following guidelines. A record must be established of what the witness knew prior to the use or attempted use of hypnosis. A witness will be allowed to testify to his or her present memory of events prior to hypnosis only if that record has been made. The court defines “hypnotically aided testimony” as testimony by a witness to a fact that became available following hypnosis. Hypnotically aided testimony not remembered before hypnosis will not be admissible unless corroborated by tangible evidence and a case for independent reliability can be made. The party that uses hypnosis must make disclosure that hypnosis or its attempted use was employed. The court also recognizes that on occasion the hypnotist need not be a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. He must, however, be qualified in the use of hypnosis and independent of the investigation of the crime. In some situations a person other than the hypnotist and the subject, for example a parent of a child may be present before, during and after the hypnosis.     Facial composites provide valuable visual information to identify suspects in a crime. Witnesses describe a suspect first by a cognitive interview and then selecting facial features from a computerized facial composite system. Facial composites are a process of remembering or reconstructing the assailant’s face through different methods. The memory of any witness should be sharp and he/she should be honest enough so that no innocent person will be involved in such task (Brewer & Wilson 1995).   Although facial composites can be helpful for investigative psychologist, and bringing an accused to justice, it may be costly and a source of inaccuracy during investigation. The witness may mistakenly identify someone innocent to the crime. It might be due to the time of the day the crime happened or how far the witness when he/she saw the crime.  The witness may also is unsure or has problems remembering the facial features or characteristics of the accused. Lastly the witness may be someone paid by the accused to create a diversion to the investigation.              DNA fingerprinting is a method of identification that compares fragments of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). It is also known as DNA typing. DNA is the genetic material found within the cell nuclei of all living things. A DNA fingerprint is constructed by first extracting a DNA sample from body tissue or fluid such as hair, blood, or saliva. The sample is then segmented using enzymes, and the segments are arranged by size using a process called electrophoresis. The segments are marked with probes and exposed on X-ray film, where they form a characteristic pattern of black bars the DNA fingerprint. If the DNA fingerprints produced from two different samples match, the two samples probably came from the same person. Every person has a unique genetic makeup except for identical twins, which are genetically identical. This genetic variation among individuals has proven useful in courts of law, as it provides an identifying marker for each person, similar to the unique skin pattern on each person’s fingertip. Often, some tissue from an assailant, in the form of skin, blood, semen, hair, or saliva, remains on the victim or at the scene of a violent crime. DNA is extracted from this tissue and compared to a suspect’s DNA through a technique called DNA fingerprinting. DNA fingerprinting is gaining increasing appeal to the military, law enforcement and other governmental authorities, to gain evidence to establish the identity of a dead body, a missing person, a biological relative, or the perpetrator of a crime (The Columbia Encyclopedia 2004). Identification of suspects through DNA fingerprinting is a tremendous technological breakthrough. Yet, like Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and other technologies, it is not always available to those who need it. The problems with DNA fingerprinting lie in the price tag and time frame, rather than in the technology itself. Most agencies can’t afford to use it in any but their most pressing cases. Anything that an agency or police department would find forensically useful may cost as much money to process, in addition to the fees associated with obtaining the expert witness testimony required by the court system, The Federal Bureau of Investigation will process DNA samples at a much lower cost, but because of its backlog of cases it may take more than a year to obtain the necessary information.               When conducting DNA fingerprinting questions that are asked include if there is an instance of accidental random match, if the DNA sample is planted or made up, if the person accused left the DNA sample at the exact time of the crime. If the DNA sample was left at the exact time of the crime does it mean the accused is guilty of the crime. This questions help in determining if DNA fingerprinting done is valid, needed, accurate, and can help in solving any crime.  Such questions are asked to ensure that undergoing a DNA fingerprinting is not a waste of time.   The accuracy of DNA fingerprinting has been challenged for several reasons. First, because DNA segments rather than complete DNA strands are “fingerprinted,” a DNA fingerprint may not be unique; large-scale research to confirm the uniqueness of DNA fingerprinting test results has not been conducted. In addition, DNA fingerprinting is often performed in private laboratories that may not follow uniform testing standards and quality controls. Also, since human beings must interpret the test, human error could lead to false results (Kegley 1998).   DNA fingerprinting can be applied in fields like paleontology, archaeology, various fields of biology, and medical diagnostics. It has, for example, been used to match the goatskin fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In biological classification, it can help to show evolutionary change and relationships on the molecular level, and it has the advantage of being able to be used even when only very small samples, such as tiny pieces of preserved tissue from extinct animals, are available. Such method is used in investigative psychology as a way to have a clearer description of the perpetrator or pinpoint the real suspect in a crime. The establishment of serious mental illness by a licensed psychologist can be used in demonstrating incompetency to stand trial, a technique which may be used in the insanity defense.   Among the above mentioned methods the most useful method is DNA fingerprinting. It is can bring a fast results and a higher chance of having accurate results. Compared to other methods such as polygraph, psychological autopsy, facial composites, and Forensic hypnosis DNA fingerprinting have a higher percentage of accuracy and there are lesser chances for mistakes. DNA fingerprinting although questioned and said to be not beneficial; can be of use to forensic and investigative psychologists in determining the suspect in a crime and proving someone’s innocence or proving someone’s guilt to a crime.    Conclusion Psychology has been defined as the science of consciousness, or as the science of experience subjectively regarded. Psychology occupies different fields this include General Psychology, Physiological Psychology, Comparative Psychology, Psychology of individual differences, Industrial Psychology, Child Psychology, Educational Psychology, Abnormal Psychology, Dynamic Psychology, Clinical Psychology and Social Psychology. Psychology can be used in practical applications like health, education, business and law. Psychology can be used in solving crime this aspect of Psychology is called Forensic psychology.    Forensic psychology focuses on the law and the different aspects and details of it. Criminal Psychology or Forensic psychology applies psychological knowledge to the understanding, prediction and nature of crime and behavior related to crime. This area has become more and more important in the matter of eyewitness testimony. Part of Forensic psychology is Investigative Psychology. Investigative Psychology is the ways psychology can be used or integrated with the processes and procedures of criminal investigation. Investigative psychology uses methods like psychological autopsies, polygraphs, forensic hypnosis, facial composites, DNA testing. References Ainsworth P, 2000, Psychology and Crime, myths and reality, Pearson Education Ltd.   Angell, JR 1908, Psychology; an Introductory Study of the Structure and Function of Human Consciousness, H. Holt and Company, New York.   Baldwin, JM 1889, Handbook of Psychology, New York, H.Holt.   Berman AL, & Litman RE 1993, Psychological autopsy, Unpublished manuscript.   Boring, EG, Langfeld, HS, Weld, HP 1948, Foundations of Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York.   Brewer, N & Wilson, C 1995, Psychology and Policing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.   Brooks, FD 1937, Child Psychology, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.   Butler, G & McManus, F 2000, Psychology: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.   Chaplin, JP & Krawiec, TS 1962, Systems and Theories of Psychology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.   Encarta Encyclopedia Online, Forensic Hypnosis, viewed 07 October, 2005, <http://encarta.msn.com/>.   Freeman, GL 1934, Introduction to Physiological Psychology, Ronald Press, New York.   Frierson JG 1988, The new federal polygraph law’s impact on business.   Fromm, E & Shor, RE (eds.) 1979, Hypnosis: Developments in Research and New Perspectives, Aldine Publishing, New York.   House of Representatives, Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988.   James, W 1909, Psychology, New York, H. Holt and Company.   Jastrow, J 1906, The Subconscious, Boston, Houghton Mifflin.     Jones, JW 1991, Pre-employment Honesty Testing, Quorum Books, New York.   Kegley, JA (ed.) 1998, Genetic Knowledge: Human Values and Responsibility, Lexington, KY, ICUS.   Kurke, MI & Scrivner, EM (eds.) 1995, Police Psychology into the 21st Century, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.   Lauerman, L 2002, Science & Technology Almanac, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.   Lykken, DT 1981, A tremor in the blood, McGraw-Hill, New York.   McIllveen R (ed.) 1998, Applying Psychology of Crime, Hodder and Stoughton, London.   North Carolina Wesleyan College 2000, Investigative Psychology, viewed 07 October, 2005, <http://faculty.ncwc.edu/>.    Petrovsky, V & Yaroshevsky, MG (eds.) 1987, A Concise Psychological Dictionary, International Publishers, New York.   Pillsbury, WB 1920, The Essentials of Psychology, Macmillan Company, New York.   Rentein, AS 2004, The Cultural Defense, Oxford University Press, New York.   Statt, DA 1998, The Concise Dictionary of Psychology, Routledge, London.   Sprowls, JW 1927, Social Psychology Interpreted, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Most useful technique in Investigative Psychology

Most useful technique in Investigative Psychology Introduction This essay intends to discuss the Psychology, Forensic Psychology, Inves...

Investigative Psychology: A Comparison of Old and New Techniques

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. <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> FBI Model</li> </ul>             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)   <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Behavioral Evidence Analysis (BEA)</li> </ul>             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.   <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Polygraphs</li> </ul>             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.   <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Brain Fingerprinting</li> </ul>             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

Investigative Psychology: A Comparison of Old and New Techniques

Investigative Psychology: A Comparison of Old and New Techniques Introduction The investigation of a crime scene is an impo...