Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
51 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is logic in criminal profiling |
It may be defined as the process of argumentation -a unified discipline which investigates the structure and validity of knowledge -principles of logic allows for more than simply providing a theoretical foundation, logic allows for more rigerous testing of an argument |
|
|
Has much literature been produced on profiling? |
Yes, much has been produced on goals, inputs, outputs, and individual profilers. however there has been less writing on logic and the reasoning in the process - |
|
|
What are the two main approaches used by profilers to arrive at their conclusions |
Induction and deduction |
|
|
How do we determine logic? |
We can establish the veracity of a conclusion by juxtaposing the theory of logic onto that conclusion to determine weather it complies with good reasoning |
|
|
What is the main difference between profiling methods |
Logic and reasoning styles I.e induction vs deduction |
|
|
Is logic both a science and art |
Yes |
|
|
Why is logic useful |
For testing the veracity of arguments |
|
|
What are the 3 principles of logic |
1. The principle of identity 2. The principle of the excluded middle 3. The principle of sufficient reason |
|
|
1. What is the principle of identity (basic principles of logic) |
-“a thing is what it is” -each case should be treated as an individual rather than simple extension of similar crimes - each crime represents its own universe of evidence |
|
|
2. What is the principle of the excluded middle (the basic principles of logic) |
-“between being nothing and non being there is no middle state” -either a crime has occurred or it hasn’t - key to establishing this validity is in carrying out a detailed reconstruction to established what happened and what did not |
|
|
3. What is the principle of sufficient reason (the basic principles of logic) |
- there is sufficient reason for everything - everything has an explanation, nothing is self explanatory. Any argument put fourth must not be sensational or rely only on phenomenological explanations for cause or existence |
|
|
Is there confusion regarding the logic behind criminal profiling |
Yes a great deal |
|
|
The confusion with logic and profiling - what does it mean that most profilers don’t define the terms they are using, |
Most profilers use the term deduction rather casually to mean any conclusion. Deduction has taken on a casual meaning with majority treating it as syonmous with a conclusion thereby believing any conclusion is a deduction - these concepts do get confused - most often seen as a total disregard for profilers in a practical application of logic and reasoning as well as a lack of theoretical perspective |
|
|
The concepts of profiling get confused. But what is evident in all profiling methods |
All approaches use logic to reach conclusions |
|
|
The logical structures of profiles are based on what two main components ? |
Premises and conclusions |
|
|
The two logical components of profiling: 1. What is premises |
These are the reasons that support the main claim of an argument |
|
|
The two logical components of profiling: 2. What is the conclusions? |
What is inferred from the premises. |
|
|
What is an example of premises and conclusions? |
Profiler suggests offender is male. -premise : semen found in victim (reason which supports claim of argument) - conclusion : offender is male |
|
|
What are inductive arguments |
They are likely arguments made by the supporting premises. |
|
|
What are characteristics of the inductive profiling method? |
- the argument is not fallible, still matter of probability. - inductive characteristics are projective - inductive characteristics are trait based, assumed to be stable over time - it’s a type of inference. Where observations are compaired to similarities in the past/ cases of similar nature - statistical, abstract, world oriented - varying degree of certainty for conclusions based on probabilities |
|
|
What does it mean that inductive characteristics are projective ? |
They say what an offender will be like at sometime in the future - predict some future event I.e what offender will be like when found or arrested |
|
|
What do inductive profiles rely on? |
Statistical or correlational reasoning. - information based on probabilities |
|
|
Why might inductive methods be attractive |
Simplicity of the method makes it attractive. Requires little in depth knowledge or training |
|
|
Are inductive generalizations always true |
No. There is no garuntee they will apply in the current case. Often statistics are not well informed |
|
|
What are problems involved with inductive profiling |
- sample size used for generalizations and statistics is generally small - limits studies to exploration rather than explanation - generalizations this may not apply to all crime types or specific crimes - some theoretical models are questionable - presentation of crime scene may confuse classification efforts - I.e staged crime scenes may prevent application of generalizations of offender characteristics |
|
|
What is the principle propose with inductive reasoning |
Is the development of hypothesis and not in providing thorough conclusions |
|
|
What does deductive profiling method involve |
A more rational, local process - relies on the scientific method - offender characteristics are a direct extension of the physical evidence. - if premises are true conclusions must also be true |
|
|
What is the main characteristic of deductive profiling |
The conclusion is implicitly contained within the premises, if the premises are valid the conclusion must also be so. - deductive arguments take us from truth to truth |
|
|
What does it mean that deductive arguments are meant to take us from truth to truth |
It is not logically possible for a conclusion to be false if the premises are true. the conclusion must be true if the premises are true. Otherwise would be contradictory |
|
|
What does it mean that a characteristic of deduction is the scientific method? |
This method involves the testing of hypothesis through experimentation and observation -deductive methods develops hypothesis then attempts to rule out compteing hypothesis on the basis of evidence. |
|
|
Are deductive profiles static or dynamic |
They are not static. New developments in logic challenge currently held hypothesis it can be updated to fit new understandings |
|
|
In deductive profiles what are conclusions formed based on? |
Conclusions are a direct extension of physical evidence and does not make any conclusions outside the physical evidence, and these conclusions are still suggesting not defiantly naming offenders - it works with physical evidence and does not venture with suspicion/ assumption |
|
|
Do deductive profiling methods provide wider conclusions ? |
No it is less adventurous with its conclusions. It’s suggested that only 4 characteristics can be deductible inferred - but deductive profiles are more complex than statistical generalizations |
|
|
What are the 4 main characteristics of the deductive method which can be deductively inferred |
1. Knowledge of victim 2. Knowledge of crime scene 3. Knowledge of methods and materials 4. Criminal skill |
|
|
What are problems with deductive profiling |
- relies on physical evidence being accurately assessed - amount of info available may dictate amount or validity of conclusions. - more time and effort - requires for education and training |
|
|
Is logic used in both induction and deductive profiling methods |
Yes |
|
|
What is the term non-sequitur mean? |
This is a conclusion that does not logically follow from previous argument. - this would not include a deductive argument. |
|
|
What is the importance of logic in criminal profiling process |
The main principles of logic allow for rigourous scrutiny (careful observation) of arguments put fourth in a profile - therefore logic is useful for testing the veracity of arguments |
|
|
Who is an example of someone confusing the logics of profiling |
James Brussel. Who made the profile of the mad bomber said it was deductive but it wasn’t |
|
|
What must a conclusion have in inductive methods vs deductive |
Inductive conclusions - rely on most basic level of statics Deductive conclusions - based on the established validity of the premises. |
|
|
What are deductive methods characterized as |
Rational, concrete, Case oriented |
|
|
What is the wickton case an example of ? |
A lack of understanding or confusion regarding the type of reasoning - in this case the profiler said they made a deductive argument based that this offender was a guitar player with long fingernails. But other possibilities may explain this difference so it was actually inductive |
|
|
Where does the confusion in criminal profiling usually drive from |
The definitions of induction and deduction used |
|
|
What term are most people in this field using to describe their method of profiling |
Deduction. But it’s being used casually to mean any type of conclusions |
|
|
What is the main difference between inductive methods and deductive methods |
It’s mAinly between the strength between the premises and the conclusions that the profiling methods seem significantly different |
|
|
Do inductive methods have a place in logical argumentation |
Yes their arguments are likely - but they still have a place in logical argumentation but it’s place within the process is questionable the statistical measures are not a conclusion |
|
|
How do inductive and deductive methods present a continuum? |
Deductive - certain Inductive - likely These two methods represent different points of certainty along the same continuum |
|
|
Inductive characteristics are predicted to be stable over time what theory is this based on |
Behavioural consistency, a specific type of behavioural consistency - interpersonal coherence |
|
|
Turvey - who developed BEA what is his example of deductive profiling |
He developed a hypothesis based on evidence from crime scene that if an offender carefully disoriented everything than a person has shown some form of medical knowledge. Conclusion that offender has some medical knowledge is a direct extension of physical evidence It does not make conclusions out side of the physical evidence nor does it claim what level of medical knowledge offender must have |
|
|
The utility of a profile is largely based on what? And what profiling method is this stronger for |
The utility of a profile is largely a consequence of the surity of its conclusions, which is stronger in deductive profiling |
|
|
Can inductive predictions become deductive? |
Yes. Inductive predictions can become deductive certainties. Induction is more for creation of hypothesis and is not well suited for conclusions of offender characteristics or for making a final conclusion about offender characteristics |
