Criminal profiling is a process in the field of criminology that takes a keen interest in the available data on crimes to devise a psychological portrait of the culprits (Ambrose, 2002). The beginning of the twenty-first century brought forth tremendous revolutions to not only criminal law, but also criminology in general. Different perceptions and ideologies of individuals in the field of law and criminology point to one common satisfaction. The twenty-first century presented a new era in the enforcement of criminal laws (Ramirez, Mcdevitt, and Farrell, 2000). The question of whether criminal profiling has “begun to shape chance” has profoundly acquired public popularity owing to the increased media interest and coverage of the current trends in criminology (Ambrose, 2002). The discussion presented in this paper, therefore, attempts to clarify possible reasons why criminal profiling is to begin to ‘shape chance.’
The twenty-first century in the field of criminology was marked radical changes in the manner in which various criminal offenses were approached (Ambrose, 2002). During this period, an incapacitation theory was developed. The theory of incapacitation emphasized more on the class of the crimes committed other than the individuals who committed such crimes. According to the provisions of criminal profiling, punishment for various crimes committed are individualized (Harcourt, 2003). This procedure of punishment individualization implied that any action taken as a remedy to criminal offenses is based on not only the hereditary guidelines but also the environmental factors (Ramsland, 2011). Criminal profiling, therefore, begins to ‘shape chance’ through the replacement of the traditional criteria for punishment administration. The era of the 21st century gets rid of the criteria of measuring any costs related to the crimes committed such as all the benefits the criminal would otherwise obtain from their criminal acts.
The administration of cases by judges in courts of law is a paramount parameter of chance shaping by criminal profiling (Ramirez, Mcdevitt, and Farrell, 2000). Other than basing their courses of action on the traditional systems of considering the weight of the criminal offense to offer judgments, judges in courts of law are to acquire adequate knowledge of the causes of such crimes. The knowledge of factors that drive lawbreakers into criminal acts is vital for judges since their final verdicts in such cases should be based on their causes. In addition to understanding the causes, the judges have an obligation to render remedial verdicts other than the traditional lethal penalties. The verdicts offered should strongly suit the cause of such criminal offenses committed.
Criminal profiling during the 21st century was also a period epitomized by the increased use of the actual paradigm (Ambrose, 2002). Refinement of the paradigm influenced shaping the chance. Initially, criminal profiling was used purposefully for the identification of suspects and criminal lawbreakers at different levels and classes of crime. Criminal profiling was also used by law enforcement officers for targeting such criminals for surveillance (Harcourt, 2003). Identification and targeting, as well as surveillance of suspects, employed the use of a model of professional policing. However, professional policing later transformed into a new system of maintenance approach. On the contrary, the maintenance approach was limited in its ability to effectively curb the spread of more criminal activities across the community (Ambrose, 2002). This inefficiency of maintenance approach is to the impression received by the general public assuming that the authority is either less concerned or does not take part in a general war against criminal activities (Harcourt, 2003).
Subsequent cases alongside the existing ones in the 21st century fuelled the introduction of a new strategy (Harcourt, 2003). The new approach was designed for use in the process of risk analysis with reference to the crimes committed. With the integration of actuarial thinking, the switch to a bureaucratic crime management system facilitated the implementation of the probabilistic paradigm (Ramsland, 2011). Major alterations were introduced and implemented in not only the styles of probabilistic inferences but also the various uses to which the newly implemented systems were designed. The introduction and implementation of the new aspects of actuarial thinking were fuelled by the shift from the theory of rehabilitation to the theory of incapacitation (Harcourt, 2003).
Further attempts to ‘shape the chance,’ through the use of criminal profiling as an investigative method have resulted in the introduction of more efficient, intensive and conclusive methods of criminal detection (Ramirez, Mcdevitt, and Farrell, 2000). Criminal profiling in crime detection and investigation involves in-depth scrutiny of the scenes of crime. The information gathered from crime grounds is in an intensive and conclusive analysis before use in the identification of crime perpetrators (Ambrose, 2002). Despite the fact that criminal profiling does not reveal individual identification data such as exact names of the criminals, the process narrows down the aspects of criminal investigations thus facilitating subsequent criminal identification procedures.
Criminal profiling reveals a wider spectrum of information about criminals (Ramsland, 2011). This information includes a background of the perpetrators, which may entail ethnic, or community origin, age as well as individual personality (Harcourt, 2003). Similarly, the sex of the perpetrators is. Once the criminal investigating officers gather such information concerning the suspects, they use it in the isolation of individuals from large groups (Ramirez, Mcdevitt, and Farrell, 2000). The isolation of suspects from the groups is based on the principle that those who bear a close resemblance to the features provided by data from criminal profiling stand higher chances of being criminals. The suspects may be forwarded for further trial in courts of law.
Throughout the era of policing, the twentieth century and the periods after, experienced a progressive change and adoption of increased application of criminal profiling in the criminal investigation and detection techniques. Criminal profiling, as a new trend in the field of criminology, seeks to establish any factors of the relationship between particular criminal activities and a particular set of character traits (Harcourt, 2003). For instance, criminal profiling may relate burglary and other forms of theft to traits of late-night walking. Adequate knowledge of such traits with the relationships that exist between them and various criminal activities is useful in establishing suspects whenever a crime is (Harcourt, 2003). Criminal profiling employs the use of probabilistic analysis in the entire process of suspect identification and hence makes the suspects be the surveillance target. The use of criminal profiling gained more popularity during the last quarter of the 20th century.
The closure of the century had been characterized by the rise of convicted criminals (Ramirez, Mcdevitt, and Farrell, 2000). In addition, a larger population of criminals had been found in the great state and even in the federal detention camps (Harcourt, 2003). Similarly, the number of prisoners in local prisons under the direction and supervision of the state also picked a rising trend owing to the introduction of a more efficient technique for conducting and detecting criminal cases (Ramirez, Mcdevitt, and Farrell, 2000). The act of ‘shaping chance’ is evident from the number of criminals that have substantially reduced towards the close of the twentieth century.
In the field of criminology, there have been many groups or criminal departments that have identified with criminal profiling (Ramirez, Mcdevitt, and Farrell, 2000). The most common department in the field of criminology is the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Even though many individuals may make assumptions that the members of the subsequent criminal groups contributed to the development and the full realization of criminal profiling, it has that historical contributors saw the major success of this technique (Harcourt, 2003).
As a wrap-up, therefore, the question of whether criminal profiling has begun ‘shaping chance’ would best be answered when an individual carries out an analysis of the latter issues. On one part of this controversial debate, the technique of criminal profiling in criminal investigation and detection has begun to shape chance. This debatable stand would be associated with the increased interest and popularity accorded to the technique during the twentieth century. In addition to the popularity, the technique proved an indispensable tool in the national strategies in the reduction of prevalent criminal activities. Criminal profiling has facilitated and improved policing activities. Detection of criminals and criminal activities have to be more efficient, intensive and conclusive through the use of criminal profiling. Besides being the most popular technique in criminal investigation departments, criminal profiling has stood the most preferable among many nations since the close of the twenty century.
References
Ambrose, T. (2002). Profiling’s place on Sept. 11. Insight on the News. Washington, 18(34), 46.
Harcourt, E. (2003). The shaping of chance: Actuarial models and criminal profiling at the turn of the twenty-first century. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(1), 105-129.
Ramirez, D., Mcdevitt, J., & Farrell, A. (2000). A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection Systems. U.S Department of Justice. Web.
Ramsland, K. (2011). Criminal Profiling: Part 1 History and Method. TruTV Crime Library. Web.