This is a peer review assignment for my English 102 class. The requirements are to create a rough draft of my essay, which will be approximately 8 pages long, and three things I need to work on. PLEASE AND THANK YOU!
Technology is always rapidly changing due to inventions and discoveries, creating a cultural lag, as society tries to catch up. Careers are adjusting to new techniques and criteria, thus creating new programs and degrees for scholars. Criminal profiling, also referred to as criminology, used to revolve around analyzing and predicting the behavior of criminals based on the psychological behavior patterns of other criminals throughout history. In the last two decades, DNA has emerged and dominated numerous areas of study. With new insight into the relationship between a person's DNA and the way they behave, criminology may be reshaping its standard techniques, and it may have no choice. A new proposal for accurate profiling of criminals involves incorporating the original technique of profiling and examining behavior on a biological level. This, many suggest, would increase the success rate of creating criminal profiles from just 80% to higher accuracy. In order to further the accuracy and success of criminal profiling, criminologists must understand the scientific (biological) portion of the process instead of mere statistical probabilities.
Incorporating the original methods of profiling criminals with biological DNA evidence can lead to a faster and more efficient way of making profiles, leading to the apprehension of criminals. Scientists now argue that by examining DNA evidence, diagnosed patterns of the current behavior of criminals can be firmly supported or dismissed completely. This is also true for diagnosing patterns of their future behavior, such as chances of recidivism. Genetics are one thing that can incorporate both methods: psychology and biology.
DNA evidence of genetics can determine the nature of the behaviors in criminals. It is well known in criminology and psychology in general that genetics can determine behavior and strong impulses within an individual. For example, when you go to a Doctor and they ask you if you have a family history of a certain illnesses, this is because the particular genes that cause an illness tend to run throughout family generations. If your mother has had breast cancer, you have a higher chance (if you're a woman) of developing this disease as well. DNA evidence of genetics can explore the patterns in actual strands of DNA. Genetic links can be analyzed by differences in DNA structure as well as ancestral behavior patterns. Via this incorporation of new techniques in criminal profiling, the lack of accuracy in the original methods is being questioned.
With an average of 80% in successful profiling, there is some doubt to the methods used. Today's criminal profilers rely heavily on statistical probabilities and predictions of behavior based on patterns of previous criminals. Social and psychological assessments of the offender can be easily debunked when there is little evidence of their behavior. In the state of Washington, fall of 2002, a criminal profile was established for a supposed sniper in the area. Criminal psychologists predicted that the suspect was "a lone shooter, and he would probably be white". What they had wrong was everything: the individual sniper was actually two men, and they were black, not white. Many criminologists profile serial killers based on behavior patterns of previous killers of a similar nature, and then predictions are made about the potential suspect and their likelihood of recidivism.
By researching criminal profiling of serial killers in the CQ Researcher database, I was able to find arguments debating both sides of the topic. Sarah Glazer, author of the article, "Serial Killers: Do we know enough to catch them", argues and displays various examples of modern day methods of criminal profiling, focusing on serial killers, and argues that they aren't accurate enough without biological science to back them up. Glazer studies health, education and social-policy issues. She is sponsored by The Washington Post, Glamour, The Public Interest where she has written articles, and Gender and Work, a book of essays. Glazer insists that, "There is little doubt, however, that the profilers' guesses reflect the agency's heavy reliance on statistical probabilities."
By contrast, the article, "Biology and behavior: How much do our Genes control the way we act?", by Adriel Bettelheim, argues that biology or the environment play a greater role in determining behavior, rather than all scientific assumptions based on DNA. Bettelheim discusses human behavior and possible predictions of their future behavior. The article by Sarah Glazer argues that criminal profiling serial killers needs DNA, while this article, found in the same database, argues that DNA should be the second thing to look at. They claim criminal profiling does not necessarily require DNA evidence to explain genetic behavior. Gregg O McCrary, author of, "The unknown darkness: profiling the predators among us" as well as a former Supervisory Special Agent for the FBI, discusses the harrowing competition between the agency and the individuals they seek to capture. His argument is that modern criminal profiling should be related to human behavior, which compliments Adriel Bettelheim's argument. They also argue that criminology isn't all predictions, because human behavior is a great indicator of profiling criminals. Criminology can be successful based on "crime scene analysis, offender characteristics" among other analyzed behavioral patterns.
Some people, although, disagree with the argument and proposal for the incorporation of methods. They argue that obtaining DNA or coercing it from criminals is unconstitutional, that DNA is "property". This is a well founded argument. Criminal profiling does not always require biological science to achieve a successful profile, predict or explain genetic behavior. Accurate predictions can be made by examining the psyche of criminals. People against the incorporation proposal believe that modern criminal profiling should relate to behavior and established patterns among other criminals of a similar nature. Criminal psychologists note other serial killers' behaviors and patterns of behavior to make a prediction of the killer at hand's profile, and study genetics without examining the biological structure of DNA. Because this topic is of high debate and subject to change its methods, criminology will require a whole new area of study for both criminologists and scholars aiming for a career in criminal profiling.
For a successful career in criminal profiling, research must be done to average the rate of criminals caught using profiling techniques. Scholars aiming for a career in this field should prepare themselves for a change in requirements to have this career. Scholars can then potentially expand their view on what it is they want to do with their career and what they want to be a part of. This area of study is of high interest to me both personally and as a scholar, and to further my knowledge on the subject, continuing research can help me to stay unbiased and educated.
This topic wouldn't be up for debate unless there was a solid foundation or reason for changes to be made. The study of the psychology of criminals has a high success rate in its' practice today, but increasing the success rate of apprehending criminals can only be a positive direction in the safety of citizens and crime rates. My sources lean more towards my argument, that the profiling of serial killers should have DNA evidence to support it. I offer counter-arguments, such as the opinion that "coercing" suspects to give DNA evidence is unconstitutional. Summarized, my argument credibility revolves around the idea that genetics should play a large role, as they can determine behavior and strong impulses, which can also be accomplished by looking at patterns of the criminals' ancestral behavior and mannerisms. As with the case of the two male snipers in Washington, the profile created for the supposed singular sniper ended up being completely inaccurate, as the profile is based on previous, similar cases. While extracting DNA can be viewed as unconstitutional, it can also increase the rates of successful profiles of serial killers by examining genetic traits via a more scientific approach, rather than predictions.
Until there is a time when both biological science involving DNA and psychology of criminals, it can't be known for sure whether or not either claim is well founded. Profiling of criminals can only be so accurate when there is little evidence to support the profiles created, while disregarding any scientific evidence found at crime scenes. The scientific evidence has been proven to find criminals already in the system, which isn't violating the constitution if this DNA has already been obtained legally. Identifying certain "mutations" or differences in the structure of DNA can only further this area of study, as it is already known to criminologists that genetics can explain behavior further. Combining both studies of genetics would increase the accuracy of profiles created. My proposal is that further research should be done to assess whether to combine both biological DNA science and established methods of profiling criminals based on the psychological profiles of previous criminals.
Technology is always rapidly changing due to inventions and discoveries, creating a cultural lag, as society tries to catch up. Careers are adjusting to new techniques and criteria, thus creating new programs and degrees for scholars. Criminal profiling, also referred to as criminology, used to revolve around analyzing and predicting the behavior of criminals based on the psychological behavior patterns of other criminals throughout history. In the last two decades, DNA has emerged and dominated numerous areas of study. With new insight into the relationship between a person's DNA and the way they behave, criminology may be reshaping its standard techniques, and it may have no choice. A new proposal for accurate profiling of criminals involves incorporating the original technique of profiling and examining behavior on a biological level. This, many suggest, would increase the success rate of creating criminal profiles from just 80% to higher accuracy. In order to further the accuracy and success of criminal profiling, criminologists must understand the scientific (biological) portion of the process instead of mere statistical probabilities.
Incorporating the original methods of profiling criminals with biological DNA evidence can lead to a faster and more efficient way of making profiles, leading to the apprehension of criminals. Scientists now argue that by examining DNA evidence, diagnosed patterns of the current behavior of criminals can be firmly supported or dismissed completely. This is also true for diagnosing patterns of their future behavior, such as chances of recidivism. Genetics are one thing that can incorporate both methods: psychology and biology.
DNA evidence of genetics can determine the nature of the behaviors in criminals. It is well known in criminology and psychology in general that genetics can determine behavior and strong impulses within an individual. For example, when you go to a Doctor and they ask you if you have a family history of a certain illnesses, this is because the particular genes that cause an illness tend to run throughout family generations. If your mother has had breast cancer, you have a higher chance (if you're a woman) of developing this disease as well. DNA evidence of genetics can explore the patterns in actual strands of DNA. Genetic links can be analyzed by differences in DNA structure as well as ancestral behavior patterns. Via this incorporation of new techniques in criminal profiling, the lack of accuracy in the original methods is being questioned.
With an average of 80% in successful profiling, there is some doubt to the methods used. Today's criminal profilers rely heavily on statistical probabilities and predictions of behavior based on patterns of previous criminals. Social and psychological assessments of the offender can be easily debunked when there is little evidence of their behavior. In the state of Washington, fall of 2002, a criminal profile was established for a supposed sniper in the area. Criminal psychologists predicted that the suspect was "a lone shooter, and he would probably be white". What they had wrong was everything: the individual sniper was actually two men, and they were black, not white. Many criminologists profile serial killers based on behavior patterns of previous killers of a similar nature, and then predictions are made about the potential suspect and their likelihood of recidivism.
By researching criminal profiling of serial killers in the CQ Researcher database, I was able to find arguments debating both sides of the topic. Sarah Glazer, author of the article, "Serial Killers: Do we know enough to catch them", argues and displays various examples of modern day methods of criminal profiling, focusing on serial killers, and argues that they aren't accurate enough without biological science to back them up. Glazer studies health, education and social-policy issues. She is sponsored by The Washington Post, Glamour, The Public Interest where she has written articles, and Gender and Work, a book of essays. Glazer insists that, "There is little doubt, however, that the profilers' guesses reflect the agency's heavy reliance on statistical probabilities."
By contrast, the article, "Biology and behavior: How much do our Genes control the way we act?", by Adriel Bettelheim, argues that biology or the environment play a greater role in determining behavior, rather than all scientific assumptions based on DNA. Bettelheim discusses human behavior and possible predictions of their future behavior. The article by Sarah Glazer argues that criminal profiling serial killers needs DNA, while this article, found in the same database, argues that DNA should be the second thing to look at. They claim criminal profiling does not necessarily require DNA evidence to explain genetic behavior. Gregg O McCrary, author of, "The unknown darkness: profiling the predators among us" as well as a former Supervisory Special Agent for the FBI, discusses the harrowing competition between the agency and the individuals they seek to capture. His argument is that modern criminal profiling should be related to human behavior, which compliments Adriel Bettelheim's argument. They also argue that criminology isn't all predictions, because human behavior is a great indicator of profiling criminals. Criminology can be successful based on "crime scene analysis, offender characteristics" among other analyzed behavioral patterns.
Some people, although, disagree with the argument and proposal for the incorporation of methods. They argue that obtaining DNA or coercing it from criminals is unconstitutional, that DNA is "property". This is a well founded argument. Criminal profiling does not always require biological science to achieve a successful profile, predict or explain genetic behavior. Accurate predictions can be made by examining the psyche of criminals. People against the incorporation proposal believe that modern criminal profiling should relate to behavior and established patterns among other criminals of a similar nature. Criminal psychologists note other serial killers' behaviors and patterns of behavior to make a prediction of the killer at hand's profile, and study genetics without examining the biological structure of DNA. Because this topic is of high debate and subject to change its methods, criminology will require a whole new area of study for both criminologists and scholars aiming for a career in criminal profiling.
For a successful career in criminal profiling, research must be done to average the rate of criminals caught using profiling techniques. Scholars aiming for a career in this field should prepare themselves for a change in requirements to have this career. Scholars can then potentially expand their view on what it is they want to do with their career and what they want to be a part of. This area of study is of high interest to me both personally and as a scholar, and to further my knowledge on the subject, continuing research can help me to stay unbiased and educated.
This topic wouldn't be up for debate unless there was a solid foundation or reason for changes to be made. The study of the psychology of criminals has a high success rate in its' practice today, but increasing the success rate of apprehending criminals can only be a positive direction in the safety of citizens and crime rates. My sources lean more towards my argument, that the profiling of serial killers should have DNA evidence to support it. I offer counter-arguments, such as the opinion that "coercing" suspects to give DNA evidence is unconstitutional. Summarized, my argument credibility revolves around the idea that genetics should play a large role, as they can determine behavior and strong impulses, which can also be accomplished by looking at patterns of the criminals' ancestral behavior and mannerisms. As with the case of the two male snipers in Washington, the profile created for the supposed singular sniper ended up being completely inaccurate, as the profile is based on previous, similar cases. While extracting DNA can be viewed as unconstitutional, it can also increase the rates of successful profiles of serial killers by examining genetic traits via a more scientific approach, rather than predictions.
Until there is a time when both biological science involving DNA and psychology of criminals, it can't be known for sure whether or not either claim is well founded. Profiling of criminals can only be so accurate when there is little evidence to support the profiles created, while disregarding any scientific evidence found at crime scenes. The scientific evidence has been proven to find criminals already in the system, which isn't violating the constitution if this DNA has already been obtained legally. Identifying certain "mutations" or differences in the structure of DNA can only further this area of study, as it is already known to criminologists that genetics can explain behavior further. Combining both studies of genetics would increase the accuracy of profiles created. My proposal is that further research should be done to assess whether to combine both biological DNA science and established methods of profiling criminals based on the psychological profiles of previous criminals.