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
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Professor Canter again
With the tragic death toll in Suffolk rising, Professor Canter returns to the pages of The Times here with another "analysis" piece. Yet again it's a mixture of statements of the obvious and contradictions, perhaps someone should analyse the professor.
Yesterday we were told of the importance of finding the first murder, as the killer would have slipped up and left important clues, making it relatively easy to solve. Today we're told: "Whatever distorted idea he had about the necessity of the killing will have given way to the cold logic of disposing of her body with the minimum evidence to lead back to him." and further on: "...as the pressures build from the massive police investigation and media interest, he can no longer take the precautions he originally did." Oh so in fact the first murder is likely to be the hardest to solve, well make up your mind professor.
We have some further speculation, no doubt only ever thought of by such an exalted mind: "It therefore has to be possible that even if there was one evil mind behind this he had a willing assistant." Actually professor, by my count that would make at least two evil minds, the "willing assistant" must be evil too, also I somehow suspect that this might have just managed to occur to the police quite independently of your own input.
The professor writes at some length on some killings in America and focuses on the geographic nature of the location of finding the bodies: "What brought the offender to this area? Is it a place he knew from more innocent activities? Or is he trying to put a distance between his base and the victims’ bodies? If so, how far would he think was an appropriate distance?" Yes well, all very good, but in practical terms we're far more likely to be able to answer such questions after the killer is caught, and even posing these questions to the investigative team will give them a bigger conundrum to solve than that of actually catching the killer (or killers); bear in mind that each location may have been chosen for a different reason.
We then get a lot of unnecessary distinguishing between these killings, and the shootings at Columbine and Hungerford, so he could just as well have drawn unnecessary distinctions with a fraud or a mugging.
A ridiculous statement of the obvious follows: "...the killer, or killers, by now will have thought through how best to avoid detection. He will be deeply interested in the police inquiry, but be at pains to avoid drawing attention to himself. As the international media interest grows he may be tempted to reveal his hand some more, but is more likely to be driven further underground." I translate this as: "It could be green or it could be red, but until we see it we really don't know." Do you think maybe the professor gets to be an expert witness in court?
He has more on the role of the police which seems to have changed a little into a more traditional role: "...the police will have the task of filtering out all the disturbed, or silly, individuals who seek some distorted glory, or confused expiation of their imagined sins, by confessing to the police for crimes they have not committed." Actually professor I'd have thought you'd have been best at this, I mean you'd be able to look at the psychology and with your "magical insights" (see yesterday) you'd be able to quickly identify and eliminate these people from the police enquiry.
Finally we get the admission of a sad, but inevitable truth: "...in the past serial killings against victims with whom the offender had no obvious connections have usually been solved by the killer making a mistake ..." Yes indeed no amount of psychology seems to work. We get a nice sop to the "big brother" state though (Is the professor perhaps hoping for something?) "Nowadays, with automatic numberplate recognition and closed-circuit television footage, ... it is much easier for even the most careful criminals to leave identifying traces." Just think if we had compulsory ID cards, perhaps the killer might have dropped his, wouldn't that have made it a lot easier? My view on CCTV and automatic number plate recognition is that any criminal with half a brain could easily avoid them (I won't say how).
Yet again an invaluable and insightful contribution from the professor to our understanding. Thank you so much.
Yesterday we were told of the importance of finding the first murder, as the killer would have slipped up and left important clues, making it relatively easy to solve. Today we're told: "Whatever distorted idea he had about the necessity of the killing will have given way to the cold logic of disposing of her body with the minimum evidence to lead back to him." and further on: "...as the pressures build from the massive police investigation and media interest, he can no longer take the precautions he originally did." Oh so in fact the first murder is likely to be the hardest to solve, well make up your mind professor.
We have some further speculation, no doubt only ever thought of by such an exalted mind: "It therefore has to be possible that even if there was one evil mind behind this he had a willing assistant." Actually professor, by my count that would make at least two evil minds, the "willing assistant" must be evil too, also I somehow suspect that this might have just managed to occur to the police quite independently of your own input.
The professor writes at some length on some killings in America and focuses on the geographic nature of the location of finding the bodies: "What brought the offender to this area? Is it a place he knew from more innocent activities? Or is he trying to put a distance between his base and the victims’ bodies? If so, how far would he think was an appropriate distance?" Yes well, all very good, but in practical terms we're far more likely to be able to answer such questions after the killer is caught, and even posing these questions to the investigative team will give them a bigger conundrum to solve than that of actually catching the killer (or killers); bear in mind that each location may have been chosen for a different reason.
We then get a lot of unnecessary distinguishing between these killings, and the shootings at Columbine and Hungerford, so he could just as well have drawn unnecessary distinctions with a fraud or a mugging.
A ridiculous statement of the obvious follows: "...the killer, or killers, by now will have thought through how best to avoid detection. He will be deeply interested in the police inquiry, but be at pains to avoid drawing attention to himself. As the international media interest grows he may be tempted to reveal his hand some more, but is more likely to be driven further underground." I translate this as: "It could be green or it could be red, but until we see it we really don't know." Do you think maybe the professor gets to be an expert witness in court?
He has more on the role of the police which seems to have changed a little into a more traditional role: "...the police will have the task of filtering out all the disturbed, or silly, individuals who seek some distorted glory, or confused expiation of their imagined sins, by confessing to the police for crimes they have not committed." Actually professor I'd have thought you'd have been best at this, I mean you'd be able to look at the psychology and with your "magical insights" (see yesterday) you'd be able to quickly identify and eliminate these people from the police enquiry.
Finally we get the admission of a sad, but inevitable truth: "...in the past serial killings against victims with whom the offender had no obvious connections have usually been solved by the killer making a mistake ..." Yes indeed no amount of psychology seems to work. We get a nice sop to the "big brother" state though (Is the professor perhaps hoping for something?) "Nowadays, with automatic numberplate recognition and closed-circuit television footage, ... it is much easier for even the most careful criminals to leave identifying traces." Just think if we had compulsory ID cards, perhaps the killer might have dropped his, wouldn't that have made it a lot easier? My view on CCTV and automatic number plate recognition is that any criminal with half a brain could easily avoid them (I won't say how).
Yet again an invaluable and insightful contribution from the professor to our understanding. Thank you so much.
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
