Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Professor Canter returns
With the arrest of a suspect in the Ipswich murders, it comes as no surprise that Professor Canter returns to the pages of The Times here. This time is different however lacking the pre-Christmas winterval book plug.
Also lacking is his old style, gone are the contradictions and statements of the obvious and instead we're treated to an exercise in banality and a commentary of what the police do. I would have thought a policeman or policewoman might be better placed to tell us what the police do.
Unfortunately, also missing is him telling us what the psychologist does, and I suspect there is good reason for this, something along the lines of the answer being: "nothing". I would have thought that with his "magical insights" see his previous writing, the psychologist would be the ideal "professional" to tell us if this suspect is guilty or not. The suspect himself has publicly stated he has no alibis for any of the murders (itself unusual as no one (apart from the murderer) knows when they happened, so how would you know if you had an alibi or not?) Also that he knew all five victims (what's the odds?). Professor Canter admits that getting the necessary forensic evidence could be very painstaking and time consuming; so I'd have thought it a great boon to know that yes the police are concentrating on the right suspect.
I would have thought that with psychology being clearly recognised as a science that with some psychological techniques and analysis Professor Canter should be able to tell us definitely yes this suspect is capable to these crimes or no he isn't. Remember to that there have been proposals to suggest that these things can be spotted very early on and that such people can and should be "treated" before even committing any crime. If that is truly the state of the science, once they've actually committed the crime, spotting them should be child's play especially to an advanced practitioner such as the professor.
Only a nasty cynic such as myself would say that the reason the professor has nothing to say and can't actually do any of this stuff, because psychology is just a load of mumbo jumbo; that exists merely to pay the wages of the practitioners. I wonder if a true scientific study was undertaken, in the actual tangible provable benefits of psychology what we might actually find, and I'd be surprised if we could rate it above astrology.
I don't think I've seen a horoscope in The Times, perhaps they need one.
Also lacking is his old style, gone are the contradictions and statements of the obvious and instead we're treated to an exercise in banality and a commentary of what the police do. I would have thought a policeman or policewoman might be better placed to tell us what the police do.
Unfortunately, also missing is him telling us what the psychologist does, and I suspect there is good reason for this, something along the lines of the answer being: "nothing". I would have thought that with his "magical insights" see his previous writing, the psychologist would be the ideal "professional" to tell us if this suspect is guilty or not. The suspect himself has publicly stated he has no alibis for any of the murders (itself unusual as no one (apart from the murderer) knows when they happened, so how would you know if you had an alibi or not?) Also that he knew all five victims (what's the odds?). Professor Canter admits that getting the necessary forensic evidence could be very painstaking and time consuming; so I'd have thought it a great boon to know that yes the police are concentrating on the right suspect.
I would have thought that with psychology being clearly recognised as a science that with some psychological techniques and analysis Professor Canter should be able to tell us definitely yes this suspect is capable to these crimes or no he isn't. Remember to that there have been proposals to suggest that these things can be spotted very early on and that such people can and should be "treated" before even committing any crime. If that is truly the state of the science, once they've actually committed the crime, spotting them should be child's play especially to an advanced practitioner such as the professor.
Only a nasty cynic such as myself would say that the reason the professor has nothing to say and can't actually do any of this stuff, because psychology is just a load of mumbo jumbo; that exists merely to pay the wages of the practitioners. I wonder if a true scientific study was undertaken, in the actual tangible provable benefits of psychology what we might actually find, and I'd be surprised if we could rate it above astrology.
I don't think I've seen a horoscope in The Times, perhaps they need one.
Tags: crime, justice, psychology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Crime, Psychology
