Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Do You Know What You're Talking About?
With these worrying murders of prostitutes in Suffolk and the likelihood that a serial killer is at large, The Times gives us an analysis here from a Professor David Canter.
The good professor starts with some statements of the obvious: "They frequently have criminal backgrounds that can include burglary and theft, drug dealing or, of course, violence. They evolve through various stages of criminality..." Yes well, but when people call for tough deterrent sentences I don't hear you singing professor. Surely we shuold have strongly escalating deterrent sentences to discourage this ascent of criminality?
He then tells us: "...if the police can identify the perpetrator’s first violent crime, (referring specifically to a murder fdm) they will come very close to solving the case." As: "At the time of that first crime, he would not have honed his skills." Yes, but if at the time the police couldn't solve it then, it's going to be much harder now isn't it? If it was some time ago then the trail might have gone cold, unless of course the police made such a pig's ear of the initial investigation. In which case of course the job might be comaparatively easy.
The professor goes on to tell us of the killer's motivation, although in the following paragraph he admits that it is just speculation and adds nothing to the investigation. The professor continues: "Officers no longer believe that magical insights can be had from the poorly informed opinion of some Cracker-like figure." I'm not sure what to make of that, "officers no longer believe", does the professor think that perhaps they should? He certainly offers no justifications for a belief in "magical insights". For the director of the Centre of Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool, he seems very non-committal.
We're then told: "The investigative psychologists who contribute to police investigations do not call themselves profilers any more but behavioural investigative analysts. They see their job as operational guidance rather than psychological profiles." I translate this as: we couldn't do what he thought we could, but as we're all getting paid and need to justify our existence, we've changed our job title.
The professor gives us some detail on the new role: "They help the police to decide how to identify potential suspects. They give guidance on how suspects may be put into some order of priority. Most importantly, they draw on geographical profiling to create a very detailed analysis of where the victims’ bodies were found to build a picture of what the offender’s “mental map” is of the area, and how it may be influenced by other locations with which he is familiar, such as where he lives or works. That can then be used to focus house-to-house inquiries and other intelligence searches." Well I'd have thought that was the role of the police, you know identifying suspects, prioritising tasks etc. It just sounds like normal investigative work to me.
Still all is not lost as the professor then tells us what the police should do: "Police then need to identify the interpersonal and intellectual consistencies that the offender exhibits by detailed study of how he committed the crimes. For example, leaving the bodies in water will have reduced the forensic evidence but could carry great psychological significance. If there is no obvious sexual activity, as has been reported in this instance, it suggests anger rather than sexual sadism." Personally I couldn't care less for all this guff, I'm not interested in what motivates the killer, I like the vast majority of the public simply want the killer caught and brought to justice (which on the bare facts should mean hanging here), and I rather thought that was the job of the police.
We are then treated to another statement of the obvious: "One significant problem in this case will be the unwillingness of most potential witnesses — clients of prostitutes — to present themselves for questioning." What an insight, I can see why we need these sort of people to guide the police.
The professor finally concludes: "The confusions and inefficiencies in that investigation (Jack the ripper fdm) cast a long shadow over their work. No longer do you hear of police talking of the completely ineffective strategy of leaving no stone unturned. Instead they now have highly trained and sophisticated teams working steadily through the appropriate options. These actions will be guided by behavioural and other scientists, but in the end it will be the intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So if the guidance from the behavioural and other scientists doesn't solve the crime why do we have it? Note the clever inclusion of other scientists, clearly this behavioural analysis is just as important as forensics. In the end the professor admits that it's the: "intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So perhaps someone could tell me why do we pay these behavioural bods from the public purse?
The good professor starts with some statements of the obvious: "They frequently have criminal backgrounds that can include burglary and theft, drug dealing or, of course, violence. They evolve through various stages of criminality..." Yes well, but when people call for tough deterrent sentences I don't hear you singing professor. Surely we shuold have strongly escalating deterrent sentences to discourage this ascent of criminality?
He then tells us: "...if the police can identify the perpetrator’s first violent crime, (referring specifically to a murder fdm) they will come very close to solving the case." As: "At the time of that first crime, he would not have honed his skills." Yes, but if at the time the police couldn't solve it then, it's going to be much harder now isn't it? If it was some time ago then the trail might have gone cold, unless of course the police made such a pig's ear of the initial investigation. In which case of course the job might be comaparatively easy.
The professor goes on to tell us of the killer's motivation, although in the following paragraph he admits that it is just speculation and adds nothing to the investigation. The professor continues: "Officers no longer believe that magical insights can be had from the poorly informed opinion of some Cracker-like figure." I'm not sure what to make of that, "officers no longer believe", does the professor think that perhaps they should? He certainly offers no justifications for a belief in "magical insights". For the director of the Centre of Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool, he seems very non-committal.
We're then told: "The investigative psychologists who contribute to police investigations do not call themselves profilers any more but behavioural investigative analysts. They see their job as operational guidance rather than psychological profiles." I translate this as: we couldn't do what he thought we could, but as we're all getting paid and need to justify our existence, we've changed our job title.
The professor gives us some detail on the new role: "They help the police to decide how to identify potential suspects. They give guidance on how suspects may be put into some order of priority. Most importantly, they draw on geographical profiling to create a very detailed analysis of where the victims’ bodies were found to build a picture of what the offender’s “mental map” is of the area, and how it may be influenced by other locations with which he is familiar, such as where he lives or works. That can then be used to focus house-to-house inquiries and other intelligence searches." Well I'd have thought that was the role of the police, you know identifying suspects, prioritising tasks etc. It just sounds like normal investigative work to me.
Still all is not lost as the professor then tells us what the police should do: "Police then need to identify the interpersonal and intellectual consistencies that the offender exhibits by detailed study of how he committed the crimes. For example, leaving the bodies in water will have reduced the forensic evidence but could carry great psychological significance. If there is no obvious sexual activity, as has been reported in this instance, it suggests anger rather than sexual sadism." Personally I couldn't care less for all this guff, I'm not interested in what motivates the killer, I like the vast majority of the public simply want the killer caught and brought to justice (which on the bare facts should mean hanging here), and I rather thought that was the job of the police.
We are then treated to another statement of the obvious: "One significant problem in this case will be the unwillingness of most potential witnesses — clients of prostitutes — to present themselves for questioning." What an insight, I can see why we need these sort of people to guide the police.
The professor finally concludes: "The confusions and inefficiencies in that investigation (Jack the ripper fdm) cast a long shadow over their work. No longer do you hear of police talking of the completely ineffective strategy of leaving no stone unturned. Instead they now have highly trained and sophisticated teams working steadily through the appropriate options. These actions will be guided by behavioural and other scientists, but in the end it will be the intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So if the guidance from the behavioural and other scientists doesn't solve the crime why do we have it? Note the clever inclusion of other scientists, clearly this behavioural analysis is just as important as forensics. In the end the professor admits that it's the: "intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So perhaps someone could tell me why do we pay these behavioural bods from the public purse?
Labels: Crime
