User:TasiaD

=Analytical Writing=

Statement of Intent


Overview
What I intend to accomplish this quarter for analytical is to write a paper about criminal profiling. You know those shows where the detectives are chasing criminals and stuff, and they make assumptions on who they could be or what they're like based on their criminal behavior? I guess it is a real thing and I'm a bit curious on how they arrive at those assumptions. I Imagine there is some psychology involved with some weird detective skills thrown in. I plane to commit the first 2 weeks to be devoted to acquiring a large amount of research. I like to know exactly what I'm writing about before I start so I can organize my paper better. Then write a page per week having 6 pages by the end of the quarter.

Rationale
What I hope to get out of this is a better understanding of people. I guess I could research psychology but there is a class for that; well, I think there is. Plus imagine what kind of cool villains you could make with a knowledge of criminal mind-stuff. Maybe I will try to increase my vocabulary too.

Publication


Schedule

 * 1) week 2 research
 * 2) week 3 research and outline
 * 3) week 4 2 pages at least 300 words each
 * 4) week 5 2 pages at least 300 words each
 * 5) week 6 2 pages at least 300 words each
 * 6) week 7 2 pages at least 300 words each
 * 7) week 8 fine-tune
 * 8) week 9 reflection paper
 * 9) week 10 fine-tune

Anticipated Problems
If I get sick and by being sick I don't get what i wanted to get done that week; I will write 4 pages the following week.

Week 6 Project Review
I feel like I started really strong. But after our talk, I got blind-sided by my other classes mid-terms and then I fell way behind. I'm supposed to have like 900 words by now and I only have my first paragraph. I think I actually think I might have overwhelmed myself, but I know I haven't. I guess I underestimated the work load of my other classes. Perhaps I'm still in a state of shock. I imagine profiling to be like a special skill you'd have to learn with years of schooling in psychology and criminology. I actually thought I would write about how they actually analyze people, and how they do it. But I find out now it isn't glamorous at all. It's just overly gross stereo-typing. I know I should have known better; the realist that I am, but no. Clarisse in the silence of lambs wouldn't know poop if she was real. That being said it's 50/50 on skill thing, it's kind of like Sasquatch; you either believe in him or you don't.(I personally think Sasquatch is awesome.) But I definitely hope to get caught up with my schedule soon and keep on trucking. I also just learned that might've isn't really a word like I thought it was. 

Before Or During Week 6

 * What is it?
 * Bad examples
 * Internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII
 * Good examples
 * Serial Killers
 * Your own perspective - middle ground

Outline
I. History of criminal profiling or offender profiling:

- Mid-evil/1800s

- Thomas Bond

- Walter C. Langer

- James A. Brussel

- Howard Tenten

- Richard Walter and Bob Koppel

- John Douglas and Robert Ressler

- David Canter

II. The process:

- generalizations

- Psychology

- Organized and dis-organized.

- personality traits that parallel other people who have committed similar crimes.

III. The Good:

- Focuses the investigation

- locates possible suspects

- Identifying suspects

- assists the prosecution of suspects

IV The Bad:

- Bias

- Stereo-Typing

- Cold Reading -Rainbow ruse -The Jacques statement -The Barnum Statement -The fuzzy fact

- False Imprisonment.

offender profiling
The Psychological analyzing of criminals; known as 'Offender Profiling', is the modern interpretation of crime solving. Offender profiling is generally used by the FBI and in cases of psychopathy; serial killers and the like. There are many examples of it on television, books, and movies; such as the television show law and order: Criminal intent, or the book 'The Silence of the Lambs.' Both of these show the high-lights of offender profiling and the actual psychological analyzing of the criminal. The media interprets it as a highly skilled profession. We all know that the media has its way in exaggeration for effect. With offender profiling (Or better known as criminal profiling) there seems to be a 50/50 stand-point. One side looks upon it as the greatest thing to happen in crime-solving. The other side views it as outrageous stereotyping and cheap tricks.

There has been evidence of criminal profiling since way back in the Middle Ages and the 1880’s, but it hasn’t been in defined use since the 1940’s. It has been said that a detective by the name of Thomas Bond was the first to make a profile of a criminal. That criminal being Jack the Ripper. He noted the sexual nature of the crimes and how it seemed to point to the fact that he was quite possibly a misogynist. Jack the Ripper was never found and Thomas bond was actually a medical doctor. (Guillen -2)

James A. Brussel was a psychiatrist whom the FBI asked to make a profile of a criminal that was bombing notable buildings in New York City from 1940 to 1956. They showed him pictures of the crime scene and the notes that the bomber left behind. Brussel concluded that the offender would be an un-married man living with a relative, and a former disgruntled employee of Con-Ed; which was the company his notes were addressed to. Brussel also stated that he would be Slavic and neatly dressed. Sure enough the man the FBI found was living with his two older sisters, un-married, neat and angry at con-ed for firing him when he was injured. The actual profile that Brussel made is rather debated. It’s said he exaggerated the original profile for his book; to make it seem as if he was right on the mark. (Gladwell -1) Brussel is also accredited to the profile of the Boston Strangler.

Brussel is accredited to modern profiling. Other notable profilers who followed in his footsteps were; Howard Teten, Richard Walter, Bob Koppel, John Douglas, Robert Ressler, and David Canter. Bob Koppel is accredited to criminal profile of The Green River Killer. Both he and Richard Walter developed a system of profiling. (Gladwell -3) The system states that the criminal is either organized or disorganized. David Canter is accredited to the profile of the railway rapist in England. (Gladwell -4)

Profiling sounds complicated, but it really isn’t. All it takes is analytical skills and a basis in psychology. Some say that is it is nothing but bias stereo-typing. It is said that there are four phases to a profile. First one is the anecdote; which is basically how the murder was acted out or planned. This part is usually an educated assumption. The 2nd phase is what is the method and the manner of the murder; what type of person did they select, how did they kill them. The 3rd phase is how did they dispose the body; did they throw it just anywhere or did they hide it? The last phase is called post offense behavior; is the offender trying to help with the investigation? (Gladwell-6) The Green River Killer was said to have had called the police to help with the investigation.(NPR) They also then group their profile into an organized killer; did they plan it out? Or a disorganized killer; basically meaning spur of the moment or completely unplanned. An organized killer will also pick out there victim according to some specification, and a disorganized killer might just kill the first person it sees. Some assumptions they make is that if the victim is white; then more than likely the killer is white as well. If the killer is killing only women it must mean the killer is a misogynist. (Gladwell-5) They also tend to parallel a crime to another crime. Let say a man out there is killing prostitutes and burying them in a forest somewhere. They might as well use the same profile as green river killer. That is where the claims of stereotyping comes in.

Good things that can be accredited to profiling is that it focuses the investigation so that it doesn't stray too much off the path. The profile is meant to simplify the investigation so that the investigators won’t be wasting time on too many different scenarios. A profile is also meant to help investigators narrow the field of possible suspects by listing types of people whom might commit that crime. When the investigators come down to a list of suspects they can be narrowed down. A profile is also an aid in the prosecution of the suspect. A profile is not supposed to be the end all of detective work. The profile is intended to be a minor part of the investigation. Profiling is only 2nd to hard evidence like DNA, finger prints or eye-witness reports. (NPR)

When profiling goes array is when the profile is the main focus of the investigation instead of hard evidence. To almost anything positive there comes a negative. A criminal profile is intended to narrow down the investigation. This could also be perceived as ‘tunnel vision’ which is when they focus too much on something instead of considering other possibilities. (Gladwell - 5) A profile is used as a tool to narrow down a list of suspects. This can be perceived as stereo-typing; the most general known thing about that person or group and use that against them, even though people are all multi-faceted and different.

Many who oppose criminal profiling describe it as ‘cold reading’. Cold reading is used by fake psychics, it’s a technique where you make a very general statement and the person you tell it to makes their own conclusion. (Gladwell - 5) Let’s say you’re an elderly woman and you meet with a so-called psychic. He knows absolutely nothing about you. He makes a statement about how someone dear to you died. He can make this generalization because you’re an elderly old woman and more than likely someone dear to you has died. Why else would you go see him. There was a study done where they showed a profile to investigators whose profile was meant for their case. They said that everything was logically. They showed the same profile to a different group of investigators whose case the opposite of the profile. They too thought that the profile fit. Another claim is that a lot of criminal profilers have huge egos. Many notable ones have written books.

Many people claim that the profilers change what the original profile was after the investigation to something that makes more sense. (Gladwell-5) Lets take James A. Brussel as an example. In his book he wrote his profile for the con-ed bomber as such; unmarried, living with a sibling, disgruntled former employee, neatly dressed, a slav, and that when the investigators find him he’ll be wearing a double-breasted suit. In actuality Brussels profile was that he’d have a facial scar, be born and educated in Germany, has a night job, and live in Westchester. (Gladwell- 6)

TV displays profiling in a positive - almost super hero like light. TV shows will show the profile in the field dealing with the criminals first hand. In reality they sit in an office and the investigators bring them crime scene information. Criminal profiling can be a useful tool in crime-solving when it’s used as an aid to hard-evidence and not the only evidence.

"Criminal Profilers Investigate Murderous Minds.(14:00-15:00 PM)(Broadcast transcript)(Audio file)." Talk of the Nation. National Public Radio, 2007. NA. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Seattle Public Library. 1 Mar. 2010 .

Gladwell, Malcolm. “Dangerous Minds; Criminal Profiling made easy.” The New Yorker. 12 Nov 2007. 17 Feb 2009.

Guillen, Tomas. Serial killers issues explored through the Green River murders. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. Print.

REFLECTION: Looking back on everything I thought about criminal profiling, I definitely had an idealistic view on it. I viewed it like the profilers were out there active in the investigation, interviewing suspects, battling bears with their pure strength and agility. What I found out was that they sit in an office somewhere in the FBI playing cup golf, while frustrated detectives bring them their crime-stuff and plead for them to make an educated guess on what their culprits are like. They totally have no other thing that they do. They sit in an office, occasionally go to a crime-scene to look at stuff, or look through some folder with crime photos in it. They then make a broad statement, and the detective can make of it whatever he wants. Talk about a cush job. I think it could be more effective if they actually were like a part of the investigation instead of some guy on the side they contact to make a profile. I think a basis of psycology would be good for a detective to know. Just a basis on how the mind works or something. I don’t think psychology is 100% though. I think people are too complex to really group in sociopaths or empaths or whatever. What I’ve come down to though is that crime-solving should stick to hard-evidence and not so much, “what was this guy thinking when he blew up that peanut-butter jar in the car, causing grandma to have a heart-attack.” I think it could help but it shouldn’t be the end all. Kind of like salt, you only need a pinch of it.

SELF ASSESSMENT
What did I learn in this class? How to self motivate. Having my own deadlines was a really new experience for me. I was able to learn how to set time for research and stuff. What I could learn more of really is not to procrastinate and to be ready for anything. I mis-judged the workload of my other classes and had to push my paper aside for like two weeks, which I felt was pretty harmful for my paper. What I did do well I felt was not falling to behind my own deadline. I guess it would’ve been sad if I fell way behind on my own deadline, but I often do that normally. So I felt I was able to overcome my incessant procrastination. Then again it helped a lot that I was researching something I had a great interest in and it was something I had no real idea about. I do feel like I could have put more time into my paper though. Like, I felt I put more time and interest into the research but not into the actually writing of the paper. I feel absolutely prepared for future studies. I think it allowed me to gain more skill sets. Such as, self motivation and stuff like that. I feel like those are hard things to accomplish in a class, but I was able to kick it. I’ll be honest though I didn’t contribute too much to the actual class discussion. I’m not much of a eloquent speaker and I usually describe sopmething as a thing. BUT! I did try to put As much imput  on the workshop papers as I could. I also feel like you; Steven Arnston, should get an award for the most super hyper awesomest teacher in the universe. You are way too cool for school. You and your little concertina.