I know I have already written about this, but I have been doing some additional research, and I cannot digest the amount of money that states put into civil confinement of sex offenders. The Department of Justice reports that there are almost 4000 sex offenders in civil confinement at a cost of $700 Million per year. Take it a step further and assess one time costs for facility construction, and we can annualize it to at least $1 Billion year over the next ten years, assuming that no more offenders are committed. For that kind of money, they might as well rent out a resort in the Carribean, put up some fences, and just send them all there.
Or maybe, states might consider taking just a small share of that money and hiring the best forensic psychologists and researchers to come up with a better plan. That wouldn't be so unreasonable.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thoughts on Criminal Profiling
Criminal profiling is used to bring criminals to justice. Age, gender and personality are examples of traits identified when profiling a suspect. Profiling reliability can be better assessed by examining evidence of its failures and successes in the past and the present.
Although it seems that history is a powerful tool in advancing criminal profiling, the current world in which we leave consistently presents challenges to such improvement. It is often difficult to use historical data considering the complexity of current issues such as terrorism, where we are left with little to work with.
Information cannot be completely accurate unless it is analyzed and questioned, something which our society fails to do by accepting assumptions about different people. Mostly we must remember the lessons learned in order to prevent them in the future.
False information, racism, and hatred can result in wrongful criminal profiling. While statistics prove time and again the reliability of criminal profiling, there is ample historical data that proves that it can be equally detrimental, resulting in wrongful detentions, accusations, and incarceration.
In certain regards, I believe that criminal profiling can be related to labeling. With labeling, professionals attempt to assess problems with people before they occur by separating them into categories that would help treat criminal behavior before it occurs. With criminal profiling, professionals assume either that a crime has already occurred or is imminent. Both labeling and profiling can incorrectly utilize assumptions about a person, which ultimately victimizes them. The primary difference is that it is easier to correct faults in profiling than in labeling. The 21st Century has blessed us with a myriad of technological advances such as DNA technology, enhanced fingerprint analysis, vocal analysis, and GPS tracking. All of these tools, if available several decades ago, may have prevented poor use of criminal profiling techniques.
Racial profiling is perhaps the most prevalent form of profiling that needs to addressed. Muslims, Jews, and African American have been victimized for years because of the inherent racism that plagues the profiling system. While some might even argue that racial profiling works, I would argue that it may induce greater crime levels. While racial profiling has achieved limited success in places like Israel, one cannot make a strong argument that it is an effective deterrent. Criminal profiling, however, is not without gains. If used properly, I believe it could help us eliminate suspects in certain cases, or at least narrow the search. However, using criminal profiling as the sole basis for identifying criminals or potential criminals is a crime in itself.
Profiling could work if those who practice is adhere to stricter principles. Objectivity is key to successful profiling, though it is difficult to shed one's personal beliefs and feelings with respect to certain people. While it should go without saying, criminal profiling should never be used as the foundation for any case in a court of law. Procedures should be re-examined and be made subject to greater austerity. Perhaps then, it may be possible to correctly use it.
Although it seems that history is a powerful tool in advancing criminal profiling, the current world in which we leave consistently presents challenges to such improvement. It is often difficult to use historical data considering the complexity of current issues such as terrorism, where we are left with little to work with.
Information cannot be completely accurate unless it is analyzed and questioned, something which our society fails to do by accepting assumptions about different people. Mostly we must remember the lessons learned in order to prevent them in the future.
False information, racism, and hatred can result in wrongful criminal profiling. While statistics prove time and again the reliability of criminal profiling, there is ample historical data that proves that it can be equally detrimental, resulting in wrongful detentions, accusations, and incarceration.
In certain regards, I believe that criminal profiling can be related to labeling. With labeling, professionals attempt to assess problems with people before they occur by separating them into categories that would help treat criminal behavior before it occurs. With criminal profiling, professionals assume either that a crime has already occurred or is imminent. Both labeling and profiling can incorrectly utilize assumptions about a person, which ultimately victimizes them. The primary difference is that it is easier to correct faults in profiling than in labeling. The 21st Century has blessed us with a myriad of technological advances such as DNA technology, enhanced fingerprint analysis, vocal analysis, and GPS tracking. All of these tools, if available several decades ago, may have prevented poor use of criminal profiling techniques.
Racial profiling is perhaps the most prevalent form of profiling that needs to addressed. Muslims, Jews, and African American have been victimized for years because of the inherent racism that plagues the profiling system. While some might even argue that racial profiling works, I would argue that it may induce greater crime levels. While racial profiling has achieved limited success in places like Israel, one cannot make a strong argument that it is an effective deterrent. Criminal profiling, however, is not without gains. If used properly, I believe it could help us eliminate suspects in certain cases, or at least narrow the search. However, using criminal profiling as the sole basis for identifying criminals or potential criminals is a crime in itself.
Profiling could work if those who practice is adhere to stricter principles. Objectivity is key to successful profiling, though it is difficult to shed one's personal beliefs and feelings with respect to certain people. While it should go without saying, criminal profiling should never be used as the foundation for any case in a court of law. Procedures should be re-examined and be made subject to greater austerity. Perhaps then, it may be possible to correctly use it.
Involuntary Civil Confinement
Sorry for the posting gap. I have been extremely busy. Anyway, I have been taking a PHD class in Forensic Psychology, and find myself extremely interested in some topics.
While some might strongly disagree with me, I find that I have strong opinions about involuntary treatment and civil confinement of sexual offenders. One point of interest is how the U.S. Supreme Court assessed and decided on the constitutionality of civil commitment for sex offenders. The dominant issue was whether or not the likelihood of a person to commit a sexually predatory act constituted a mental illness, providing grounds for civil confinement of sex offenders. In this case, the Kansas Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court later reversed this decision, arguing that such confinement was constitutional; that the confinement was not punitive although treatment was not a prerequisite.
I can't help but disagree with the Supreme Court on this. It only makes it more difficult to identify a necessary, definitive line between the criminal justice and mental health system in this country. The ruling seems self contradictory as it relates to the involuntary commitment of convicted sex offenders after they have completed their prison sentences. Several questions arise from this. First, how can a person be civilly committed to a mental health institution without defining a course of treatment? Second, how can civil confinement not be considered as a punishment if there is no treatment? The questions are rhetorical, as the decision is clearly just legal camouflage for continued criminal justice. I am not arguing that such offenders shouldn't be confined, but rather that we accept responsibility for that confinement instead of creating legal loopholes and wasting valuable resources in the mental health system.
While some might strongly disagree with me, I find that I have strong opinions about involuntary treatment and civil confinement of sexual offenders. One point of interest is how the U.S. Supreme Court assessed and decided on the constitutionality of civil commitment for sex offenders. The dominant issue was whether or not the likelihood of a person to commit a sexually predatory act constituted a mental illness, providing grounds for civil confinement of sex offenders. In this case, the Kansas Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court later reversed this decision, arguing that such confinement was constitutional; that the confinement was not punitive although treatment was not a prerequisite.
I can't help but disagree with the Supreme Court on this. It only makes it more difficult to identify a necessary, definitive line between the criminal justice and mental health system in this country. The ruling seems self contradictory as it relates to the involuntary commitment of convicted sex offenders after they have completed their prison sentences. Several questions arise from this. First, how can a person be civilly committed to a mental health institution without defining a course of treatment? Second, how can civil confinement not be considered as a punishment if there is no treatment? The questions are rhetorical, as the decision is clearly just legal camouflage for continued criminal justice. I am not arguing that such offenders shouldn't be confined, but rather that we accept responsibility for that confinement instead of creating legal loopholes and wasting valuable resources in the mental health system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
