Module 3 Overview In Module 2 You Learned About Police Psych ✓ Solved

Module 3 Overviewinmodule 2 You Learned About Police Psychology And T

In Module 2, you learned about police psychology and the roles and functions of mental health professionals working with law enforcement officers. You were introduced to investigative techniques such as interviewing, interrogation, and polygraphy examinations that officers employ during the course of their duties. In Module 3, you will learn about two areas closely related to police psychology: criminology and investigative psychology. This module will focus on criminal profiling, the use of the polygraph and other lie detection techniques, forensic hypnosis, and the ways to enhance the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies. When studying criminal profiling and forensic hypnosis, direct your attention to their validity and accuracy and the potential for introducing false and misleading information into an investigation.

You will examine the role of psychopathy in criminal behavior. Finally, this module will focus on various types of criminal acts, including violent crimes and sexual assault. Many students and forensic psychology professionals alike have become increasingly interested in the process of criminal profiling—the process by which information pertaining to a crime is utilized in creating a description of the likely offender. In your first assignment, you will discuss the techniques involved in criminal profiling. In addition to discussing techniques, though, you will consider the issues of accuracy and validity in criminal profiling.

Given that profiling has had some major failures—consider, for example, the misidentification that occurred in the Atlanta Bomber case (Dewan, 2005)—issues of validity are important to be kept in mind. Following from the issue of accuracy and validity is the courtroom admissibility of profiling data. If you are unsure of the accuracy of profiling data, would you recommend its use in a court of law? If so, under what circumstances would you allow or not allow its use. Another investigative technique in which forensic professionals are involved is forensic hypnosis—the process of eliciting memories of an event or events while under hypnosis.

In forensic hypnosis, as opposed to clinical hypnosis, an examiner attempts to elicit memories for the purposes of identification of subjects or for understanding details of a crime. In your assignment, you will discuss your understanding of forensic hypnosis. Like profiling, there are significant questions of accuracy and validity. In memory recall under the influence of hypnosis, there is a potential for recalling memories, which are inaccurate or patently false. Once again, this raises the issue of courtroom admissibility.

In conducting research on the admissibility issue, you will find that courts have varied in how they have decided the admissibility of recovered or refreshed memories. As you work on your assignment, ask yourself whether you will be in favor of allowing recovered memories in court. Fieldwork Observation: Another important activity in this module is completing your fieldwork observation and submitting your fieldwork report. If you had no difficulty with your first two fieldwork assignments, in which you developed a list of potential placements and then submitted a plan for your fieldwork placements, the observation experience itself should be enjoyable and informative.

Some students do encounter difficulties, such as finding that an appointment has been cancelled or the professional is no longer available to talk. If this occurs, remain patient and persistent, and rely on your backup plans. And, of course, contact your instructor if you need assistance.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Psychological practices within criminal investigations are multifaceted, involving techniques such as criminal profiling, lie detection, forensic hypnosis, and eyewitness testimony enhancement. The effectiveness and validity of these techniques vary, and their admissibility in court depends upon their scientific backing. This paper explores the core methods used in criminal profiling, the role and reliability of forensic hypnosis, and the ethical and legal considerations surrounding their application within the criminal justice system.

Criminal Profiling Techniques and Their Accuracy

Criminal profiling, also known as offender profiling, involves analyzing crime scene evidence, victimology, and behavioral patterns to infer characteristics about the offender. Techniques include examining physical evidence, behavioral clues, and crime scene reconstruction, often combined with psychological theories about criminal behavior (Canter & Youngs, 2003). Profilers evaluate the modus operandi, signature behaviors, and target selection to develop a profile that narrows suspect pools.

The accuracy of criminal profiling has historically been questioned. While some cases, like the BTK Killer, have demonstrated the potential success of profiling, others—such as the misidentification in the Atlanta Bomber case (Dewan, 2005)—highlight its limitations. Profiling relies heavily on psychological intuition and inductive reasoning, which can lead to biases and false assumptions. Statistical analyses reveal that profilers can correctly identify offenders in a small proportion of cases, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence (Kocsis et al., 2002).

The validity of profiling is contingent upon the standards of scientific rigor and the context in which it is used. Its application is more justified as an investigative aid rather than as definitive evidence in court.

Admissibility of Profiling Data in Court

Legal systems differ in their acceptance of profiling evidence. In the United States, the Daubert standard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993) requires scientific validity for expert testimony. Criminal profiling has often struggled to meet this standard due to its primarily inductive, less empirically verified basis (Goodstone & Canter, 2006). Typically, courts admit profiling information when presented as expert opinion, not as direct evidence of guilt (Kocsis & Turvey, 2003). The lack of standardized procedures and varying scientific support limit its use as substantive evidence.

Given its questionable scientific validity, I would recommend restricting profiling data to investigative contexts and not relying solely on it for prosecution. Profiling should supplement other concrete evidence rather than serve as the primary basis for legal decisions.

Forensic Hypnosis and Memory Recall

Forensic hypnosis involves hypnotically enhancing a witness’s memory to retrieve details about a crime. It is distinct from clinical hypnosis, which aims at therapy. The technique's primary purpose is to help witnesses overcome trauma or repression and recall details crucial for investigations (Koss & Levin, 2002).

Research indicates that memories retrieved under hypnosis are highly susceptible to distortion. The American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association have expressed concerns about the risks of false memories being implanted during hypnotic sessions (Lynn et al., 2010). Studies show that hypnotically refreshed memories can often contain inaccuracies, making their use in court highly controversial (Hyman & Billings, 1998).

Legal decisions about admissibility vary by jurisdiction. For example, some courts accept hypnotically refreshed memories if the process was conducted properly and the memory's reliability is vouched for by an expert; others reject such evidence entirely (Kassin et al., 2010). Ethical considerations also arise, as hypnosis is susceptible to leading questions and suggestion, which can undermine its credibility.

Alternatives for Victim Identification

Given the limitations associated with eyewitness testimony under trauma and hypnosis, alternative investigative methods should be considered. These include DNA analysis, surveillance footage, and behavioral analyses through criminal profiling. Additionally, focusing on physical evidence such as fingerprints and forensic analysis of attack sites can provide objective leads (Dror et al., 2006).

In cases where the victim’s memory is repressed or uncertain, encouraging the victim to participate in non-leading interviews and using cognitive interview techniques can help improve recall accuracy (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Training law enforcement officers in these methods and employing multidisciplinary approaches enhances investigative effectiveness without overly relying on potentially unreliable testimony.

Conclusion

Criminal profiling and forensic hypnosis are valuable tools within criminal investigations but require cautious application given their scientific and legal limitations. Profiling should serve as an investigative supplement rather than a determinant in court, and forensic hypnosis should be used judiciously, primarily as a supplemental technique rather than evidence. It is essential for forensic psychologists and law enforcement to adhere to ethical guidelines and stay abreast of current scientific findings to ensure that investigations and legal proceedings remain fair and credible.

References

• Canter, D., & Youngs, D. (2003). Criminal profiling: Principles and practice. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(5), 551-569.
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
• Dror, I. E., et al. (2006). Cognitive bias: A source of wrongful convictions. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(2), 258–269.
• Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, P. J. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
• Goodstone, A., & Canter, D. (2006). Investigative Psychology and Profiling: From Crime Scene to Courtroom. Wiley & Sons.
• Hyman, I. E., & Billings, F. J. (1998). The false memory syndrome debate. American Psychologist, 53(5), 519–525.
• Kassin, S. M., et al. (2010). The use of hypnosis in criminal investigations: Scientific and legal issues. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 5(2), 234–245.
• Kocsis, R. N., & Turvey, B. E. (2003). Three approaches to criminal profiling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(4), 375–396.
• Kocsis, R. N., et al. (2002). Profiler accuracy: Quantitative and qualitative assessments. Journal of Investigative Psychology, 1(2), 45–58.
• Koss, R., & Levin, S. (2002). Forensic hypnosis: Ethical and legal issues. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(2), 179–191.
• Lynn, S. J., et al. (2010). The scientific status of recovered memories. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18(4), 247–263.
• Loftus, E. (1997). Creating false memories. Scientific American, 277(3), 70–75.
• Y