John Duffy Railway Rapist Essay Example

John Duffy Railway Rapist Paper Offender profiling is a general term that has no accepted definition and varies in its use between the USA and the UK. It is based on three strands of expertise: statistical analysis of crime data, behavioural science, and detective expertise. Psychological profiling was in fact used in the Second World War to profile enemy leaders to see if they had weaknesses that could be exploited for example, William Langers profile of Hitler and his accurate prediction of suicide after defeat (Langer, 1972). Traditionally police collected hard evidence from the scene of a crime, such as blood, saliva and semen. Other less concrete indicators might be ignored, such as the choice of victim, what was said or not said, the location and the nature of the assault. Psychologists help police to interpret these clues. The basic assumption of offender profiling is that the offenders behaviour at the crime scene reflects something about them as a person. It leaves a psychological fingerprint, particularly where there is a pattern over a number of crimes. For example, tying up a victim suggests a need for control. The aim is to go beyond the facts and develop hypotheses about the offender. The information used includes the analysis of the crime scene, details of the victim and current knowledge about offenders from research. We will write a custom essay sample on John Duffy Railway Rapist specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on John Duffy Railway Rapist specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on John Duffy Railway Rapist specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Holmes (1989) suggests that profiling is most useful when the crime reflects psychopathology, such as sadistic assaults. 90% of profiling is for murder or rape, but can be used for arson, burglary, and robbery. Homant and Kennedy (1998) see crime-scene profiling as including psychological profiling of offenders, geographical profiling (the area of the crime and where the offender may live) and, in the case of murder, equivocal death analysis (how the murder was committed, and a psychological autopsy of the victim). The overall aim is to look for patterns and to compare them to what is known about certain crimes and criminals. The British Approach was developed independently of the police authorities from the separate work of David Canter and Paul Britton. There is some debate about which case was the first in Britain to use profiling. Many see Paul Brittons help in the 1983 case of Paul Bostock as the first time a psychologist was used to profile the offender. This case involved two separate murders with black magic associations found near the victims. Britton gave a limited profile to the police of a young, isolated man, who had access to knives, with an obsession for black magic (what Britton called a belief dysfunction). The police eventually arrested Bostock, who was a nineteen-year-old loner, a meat factory worker, with a house full of black magic items. He did not confess to the murders, so Britton advised a line of questioning based on Bostocks fantasies, which proved fruitful. The first well-known case in Britain to involve direct help to the police in profiling came in 1986, when David Canter started to help in the case of the Railway Rapist. This case involved 24 sexual assaults near railways in North London, and three murders (between 1982 and 1986). All the crimes showed signs of having the same offender. The first attacks were rapes, which initially were thought to be the work of two offenders together. Then the pattern became clear, and with the later murders, it was definitely one man. Canter was able to analyse the details and drew up the profile. Main points of Canters profile; Lived in area near to area of first crimes. Probably lives with woman. Aged mid-to late-20s. Right-handed. Semi-skilled or skilled job with weekend work, but relatively isolated work. Knowledge of railways. Previous criminal record for violence (maybe arrested between October 1982 and January 1984). Characteristics of offender; Lived in area suggested. Recently separated from wife. Aged late 20s. Right-handed. Travelling carpenter. Worked for British Rail. Raped wife at knife point. David Canter (1994) believes that criminals, like most people behave consistently. An analysis of the pattern of behaviour observed over a number of crimes committed by a serial offender will give clues about the non-offending everyday behaviour of the criminal. We all operate within a social context and so Canter believes that offences are not separate behaviours from the rest of the offenders life but rather are directly linked to their everyday interactions. Interviews with victims about things that were said at the time of the crime could give an indication of how the criminal normally interacts with others. For example, a rapist who is hesitant and apologetic to his victim could well be committing the rape because he does not know how to go about forming a genuine close relationship with a woman in his everyday life. The British approach involves advising police officers about correlations between sets of data, such as time, place and choice of victim. Canter identified five characteristics which, they believe can aid investigations Residential Location Criminal Biography Domestic/Social Characteristics Personal Characteristics Occupational/Educational History Canter believes that during the crime vital clues are left behind and the distinctive personality of the offender shows through in some ways. Thus, it is thought that the way in which the crime is committed is in part a reflection of the everyday traits and behaviour of the individual. The interaction between the offender and the victim is thus studied closely and categorised. Canter believes that by this careful study of offence behaviour, patterns can be established and variations between offenders identified. However unlike the FBI approach, Canter does not attempt to place offenders into rigid typologies, but rather suggests that their behaviour will mirror other aspects of their day-to-day life. Canter (1994) describes his task as picking from the shadows left by the criminals, those consistent patterns in behaviour. What happens during the offence can give clues to the non-offending parts of their lives. There will also be evidence from the interaction between the victim and the offender because we are social beings even in such unusual situations. For example, murderers who kill a stranger without any interaction are likely to live a solitary life (Canter, 1989). Other important factors may be the choice of victim, location, nature of the crime and what is/isnt said, and forensic awareness of the offender, like rapists who force victims to bathe after the attack to remove any evidence of pubic hairs. One aspect of profiling that is often overlooked is the methodological collection of data and statistical analysis. Often the profiler is no more than a glorified statistician. Canter and Heritage (1990) combed through the victim statements of 66 UK sexual assaults and with sophisticated statistics were able to identify clear patterns in the form of the attack. It is possible to group how the victim is treated in three ways, each giving a clue to the offender. Victim as person involving conversation during the attack asking whether the woman has a boyfriend, or complimenting her on her appearance. This type of offender believes he is developing some type of relationship with the victim, and mistakenly believes, the sexual assault produces intimacy. Victim as object blindfolding and/or gagging the victim, while the offender tends to be disguised. The offender is concerned most with control in the interaction of the rape. The woman is seen as a dangerous object that must be trussed and coerced (Canter, 1994). Victim as vehicle violence (both physical and verbal), which demeans the victim. The actions here are a reflection of the offenders anger. This emphasis on statistical patterns has led to the creation of a database called CATCHEM (Central Analytical Team Collating Homicide Expertise and Management). The database contains details of over 4,000 child murders, which allows police officers to make statistical predictions about the killer. For example, 62% of killers of females under seventeen are single, but 83% if the victim is male and under sixteen. If the childs body is found without sexual interference, there is around a 70% likelihood that the killer is the guardian or parent, but when there is sexual interference, this figure drops to 1% -2 % (Murder in Mind, 1993). In the UK there seems to have been some resistance to profiling by the police because psychologists have been viewed as outsiders and not being able to offer anything more than what a could practitioner (eg, detective) could. Geberth (1983) feels that experts have very little to say compared with what experienced police officers are likely to work out for themselves. Holmes (1989) reports that out of 192 offender In the UK the ability of profiling to accurately identify a culprit is felt to be limited. Copson and Holloway (1997) in a survey found that detectives felt that profiling led to the identification of the offender in only 2.7% of cases and helped to solve 16% of cases. Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990) attempted to discover whether professional profilers would be more accurate than detectives, clinical psychologists and students. They asked the participants to examine two closed police cases (a sex offence and a murder) and to draw up profiles. What they found was that the profilers did indeed produce richer and more detailed profiles and in relation to the sex offence, they were more accurate than non-profilers, but the detectives were more accurate on the murder case. Pinizzotto and Finkel concluded that the success of the profilers was the result of both confidence and experience rather than the use of an exclusive technique. The implications would therefore be that both training and practical experience are vital in developing profiling expertise and that productive liaison between the police and psychologists is the way forward in order to achieve both investigative and clinical objectives. There are a number of misconceptions about profiling, usually based on its fictional use and psycho-dynamic portraits of politicians. Rarely does profiling provide the specific identity of the offender, and this is not its purpose. The aim is to narrow the field of the investigation and suggest the type of person who committed the crime (Douglas et al, 1986). The profile report will try to establish the gender, approximate age, marital status, educational level and details of possible occupation of the offender. There may be suggestions of whether this person has a previous police record and if another offence is likely. Whether profiling is effective or not is a key question, and historically there are famous successes and failures. One of the best-known failures in America was the case of Albert DeSalvo (known as the Boston Strangler). A profile suggested the offender was a male homosexual schoolteacher living alone. When arrested, DeSalvo was found to be a heterosexual construction worker living with his family. In the UK, the Rachel Nickell case is seen as a failure of offender profiling. Rachel Nickell was a young woman who was brutally murdered in mid-morning while walking on Wimbledon Common in south London. As part of the investigation into the killing, a profile was commissioned from a psychologist. A suspect was eventually identified and it was noted that he seemed to fit the profile well. An elaborate operation, drawing partly but not only on the profile, was put together in which a police woman befriended the socially isolated and inadequate suspect, offering the promise of an intimate re lationship in exchange for descriptions of his sexual fantasies and a confession that he murdered the woman on the Common. The confession was not forthcoming, but he was still arrested. The case fell apart. Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990) argue that profiling is most effective in serial sexual offences because of the extensive research base, and least effective for fraud, burglary, robbery, theft and drug-induced crimes. Holmes (1989) feels that it is most useful when there is a psychopathology involved, such as sadistic assault. Holmes (1989) cites FBI data, which reveal that in 192 cases of profile generation in 1981, arrests were made in 88, but in only 17% of these did the profile contribute to the arrest. Others ( Oleson, 1996) point out that the seminal work of the FBI in establishing offender profiling may be methodologically flawed since no control groups were used to compare the evidence obtained from interviews with offenders and there is no mention of the statistical techniques used to analyse their data. Moreover, much of the evidence used by the FBI was simply information obtained in interviews with offenders and was accepted at face value. More recent research has made greater claims for the usefulness of offender profiling (for example, approximately 80% of cases solved were helped by offender profiling according to Canter and Heritage, 1990). In the UK, a survey of detectives in 48 police forces, who had worked with offender profiling concluded that identification of the offender came in 2.7% of cases and general help in 16% (Copson, 1995). What the survey did find was variety in the individuals who did the profiling. Those involved included clinical psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, academic psychologists, clinical psychiatrists, forensic psychologists and consultant therapists. The skill of the individual profiler determined whether the police officers were satisfied with profiling generally. Indeed the research suggests that, at this stage of the development of profiling in Britain, approaches to profiling are idiosyncratic (Copson, 1995). Britton (1997) also admits that a large number of cases continue to be solved, not by profiling, but by routine police work, or the use of forensic evidence. However we should also be aware that police officers may be reluctant to admit that outsiders have helped to solve a crime. Profiling does at least allow the police to better focus their investigations. This can be important for as Canter (1994) has noted the alternative is that the police will simply throw more and more resources at a crime in the hope that something will turn up. Nevertheless Jackson et al (1997) conclude that when profiles are considered as a separate entity, they seldom, if ever, offer enough foundation to guide an investigation in a new direction. They conclude that any profile should be accompanied by practical advice on how best to proceed with a particular investigation. We should also be aware of the danger of the self-fulfilling prophecy with respect to profiling. Detectives should bear in mind that a profile may well fit a number of people and may not be totally accurate. The fact that a suspect happens to fit the profile does not prove that they committed the offence. There may be several people who share the suspects make-up and so the police should be cautious before making a presumption of guilt. This issue is most likely to be created because psychologists will tend to work on probabilities whereas police may be more likely to operate in absolute terms of guilt and innocence. The danger is that once a person has been labelled as a suspect and brought in for questioning, the police will make a presumption of guilt and see their role as merely to elicit a confession. There is little good scientific research to which one can turn in trying to answer the question of how useful profiling is. Success or failure are not so easily measured when one is dealing with the sort of material used in profiling. If a profilers information proves to be 50% accurate and 50% inaccurate should this be counted as a success or a failure? In addition if any information provided by a profiler is used that helps in catching a criminal is this success, even if the rest of the information provided was useless? A related issue to this is that profile details may only be considered as useful if it provides a type of detail, which the police could not have reasonably deduced, for themselves.

What Happens When Presidents Are Unfit to Serve

What Happens When Presidents Are Unfit to Serve American presidents are not required to pass mental health exams or psychological and psychiatric evaluations  before taking office in the United States. But some psychologists and members of Congress have called for such mental health exams for candidates following the 2016 election of Republican Donald Trump. Even members of Trumps own administration expressed concern about his erratic behavior in office. The president described himself as a very stable genius. The idea of requiring presidential candidates to undergo mental health exams is not new, though. In the mid-1990s, former President Jimmy Carter  pushed for the creation of a panel of physicians who would routinely evaluate the most powerful politician in the free world and decide whether their judgment was clouded by a mental disability. Many people have called to my attention the continuing danger to our nation from the possibility of a U.S. president becoming disabled, particularly by a neurologic illness, Carter wrote in a December 1994 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Monitoring a Presidents Health Carters suggestion  led to the creation in 1994 of the  Working Group on Presidential Disability, whose members later proposed a nonpartisan,  standing medical commission to monitor the presidents health and issue periodic reports to the country.  Carter envisioned a panel of expert physicians who were not directly involved in the care of the president determining whether he had a disability. If the president of the United States must decide within minutes how to respond to a dire emergency, its citizens expect him or her to be mentally competent and to act wisely, wrote  Dr. James Toole, a professor of neurology at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center in North Carolina who worked with the working group. Because the presidency of the United States is now the worlds most powerful office, should its incumbent become even temporarily unable to exercise good judgment, the consequences for the world could be unimaginably far-reaching. There is currently no such standing medical commission in place, however, to observe a sitting presidents decision-making. The sole test of a candidates physical and mental fitness to serve in the White House is the rigor of the campaign trail and elector process. Mental Fitness in the Trump White House The idea of requiring presidential candidates to undergo mental health evaluations arose in the general election campaign of 2016, primarily because of Republican nominee Donald Trumps erratic behavior and  numerous incendiary comments. Trumps mental fitness became a central issue of the campaign and became more pronounced after he took office.   A member of Congress, Democrat Karen Bass of California, called for a mental-health evaluation of Trump before the election, saying the billionaire real-estate development and reality-television star exhibits signs of  Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In a petition seeking the evaluation, Bass called  Trump dangerous for our country.  His impulsiveness and lack of control over his own emotions are of concern. It is our patriotic duty to raise the question of his mental stability to be the commander in chief and leader of the free world. The petition carried no legal weight. A lawmaker from the opposing political party, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives during Trumps first year in office encouraging the vice president and the Cabinet to hire medical and psychiatric professionals to evaluate the president. The resolution stated: â€Å"President Donald J. Trump has exhibited an alarming pattern of behavior and speech causing concern that a mental disorder may have rendered him unfit and unable to fulfill his Constitutional duties. Lofgren said she drafted the resolution in light of what she described as Trumps increasingly disturbing pattern of actions and public statements that suggest he may be mentally unfit to execute the duties required of him.† The resolution did not come up for a vote in the House. It would have sought the removal of Trump from office by employing the 25th Amendment to the  Constitution, which allows for the replacement of presidents who become physically or mentally unable to serve.   In December 2017, more than a dozen members of Congress invited a Yale University psychiatry professor, Dr. Bandy X. Lee, to evaluate Trumps behavior. The professor concluded: â€Å"He’s going to unravel, and we are seeing the signs.† Lee, speaking to Politico, described those signs as Trump â€Å"going back to conspiracy theories, denying things he has admitted before, his being drawn to violent videos. We feel that the rush of tweeting is an indication of his falling apart under stress. Trump is going to get worse and will become uncontainable with the pressures of the presidency.† Still, members of Congress did not act. Trump Declines to Make Health Records Public Some candidates have chosen to make their health records public, particularly when serious questions have been raised about their well being. The 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, did so in the face of questions about his age- he was 72 at the time- and previous ailments including skin cancer. And in the 2016 election, Trump released a letter from his physician that described the candidate as being in  extraordinary health both mentally and physically.  If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency, wrote Trumps doctor. Trump himself said: I am fortunate to have been blessed with great genes- both of my parents had very long and productive lives. But Trump did not release detailed records about his health. Psychiatrists Cant Diagnose Candidates The American Psychiatric Association banned its members from offering opinions about elected officials or candidates for office after 1964, when a group of them called Republican Barry Goldwater unfit for office. Wrote the association: On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.   The policy became known as the Goldwater Rule. Who Decides If a President Is Unfit to Serve So if theres no mechanism in place by which an independent panel of health experts is able to evaluate a sitting president, who decides when there might be a problem with his decision-making process? The president himself, which is the problem. Presidents have gone out of their way to hide their ailments from the public and, more importantly, their political enemies. Among the most notable in modern history was John F. Kennedy, who didnt let the public know about his  colitis, prostatitis, Addisons disease, and osteoporosis of the lower back. While those ailments certainly would not have precluded him from taking office, Kennedys failure reluctance to disclose the pain he suffered illustrate the lengths to which presidents go to conceal health problems. Section 3 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1967, allows a sitting president, members of his cabinet- or, in extraordinary circumstances, Congress- to transfer his responsibilities to his vice president until he has recovered from a mental or physical ailment. The amendment reads, in part: Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. The problem with the constitutional amendment, however, is that it relies on a president or his cabinet to determine when he is unable to perform the duties of the office. The 25th Amendment Has Been Used Before President Ronald Reagan used that power in July 1985 when he underwent treatment for colon cancer. Though he did not specifically invoke the 25th Amendment, Reagan clearly understood his transfer of power to Vice President George Bush fell under its provisions. Reagan wrote to the House speaker and Senate president: After consultation with my Counsel and the Attorney General, I am mindful of the provisions of Section 3 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and of the uncertainties of its application to such brief and temporary periods of incapacity. I do not believe that the drafters of this Amendment intended its application to situations such as the instant one.  Nevertheless, consistent with my longstanding arrangement with Vice President George Bush, and not intending to set a precedent binding anyone privileged to hold this Office in the future, I have determined and it is my intention and direction that Vice President George Bush shall discharge those powers and duties in my stead commencing with the administration of anesthesia to me in this instance. Reagan did not, however, transfer the power of the presidency despite evidence that later showed he might have been suffering from the initial stages of  Alzheimers.   President George W. Bush used the 25th Amendment twice to transfer powers to his vice president, Dick Cheney. Cheney served as acting president for about four hours and 45 minutes while Bush  underwent sedation for colonoscopies. Key Takeaways: When a President Is Unfit to Serve Presidents and candidates seeking election to the White House are not required to pass mental health exams or psychological and psychiatric evaluations.The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows members of a presidents cabinet or Congress to remove a president from office if he is mentally or physically unable to serve. The provision has never been used to permanently remove a president from office.The 25th Amendment remained a relatively obscure provision in the Constitution until Presidential Donald Trump took office. Members of Congress and even his own administration grew concerned about his behavior. Sources Karni, Annie. â€Å"Washingtons Growing Obsession: The 25th Amendment.†Ã‚  Politico, 3 Jan. 2018.Barclay, Eliza. â€Å"The Psychiatrist Who Briefed Congress on Trumps Mental State: This Is ‘an Emergency.’†Ã‚  Vox.com, Vox Media, 6 Jan. 2018.Foiles, Jonathan. â€Å"Is Donald Trump Unfit to Be President?†Ã‚  Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 12 Sept. 2018.

Conflict Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

Conflict Management - Essay Example Individual conflict can also occur because of his different positions and roles with the organization. The individual can also create conflict within himself if there are too many ambiguities contained in his position. Therefore there are a number of reasons for conflicts, which an individual experiences within the confinement of his job duties. All conflicts are basically inter-personnel conflicts because most of the conflicts involve conflict between a person in one organization or a group and another person in other organization or a group. Inter-personnel conflict can be presented in terms of different levels of obstruction. Inter-personnel conflict may lead to delay in decision-making or may arise either due to distortion in the structure form or because of the complexity of individual needs. Inter-personnel conflict has the tendency to resolve itself because of the conflicting parties are not able to continue in a tense situation for a very long time. Time is the healing factor for interpersonal conflicts. It is the time factor, which normally helps to resolve interpersonal conflicts. In inter-organizational conflicts, the external environment like social institutions, group dynamism, and culture of the group and government policies plays an important role. Cont1icts are not evil but the art of the natural order. Conflicts are because of the generational gap. Managers must try to live with the conflict. If the conflict is properly handled, it can be constructive in achieving the results. It can act as a stimulus; it may be a challenge and motivational force to