Petherick Applied Crime Analysis

A Social Science Approach to Understanding Crime, Criminals, and Victims
1. Auflage 2014
ISBN: 978-0-323-29641-0
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 304 Seiten

Most approaches to crime analysis focus on geographical crime mapping, which is helpful in identifying crime clusters and allocating police resources, but does not explain why a particular crime took place. Applied Crime Analysis presents a model that brings statistical anchoring, behavioral psychopathology, and victimology from the social sciences together with physical and crime scene evidence to provide a complete picture of crime. This hands-on guide takes theoretical principles and demonstrates how they can be put into practice using real case examples. In addition to covering key topics such as staged crime scenes, false reports, and criminal motivations, the book's includes a final chapter on report writing, showing readers how to use their findings to successfully advance to prosecution and succeed in court. - Presents a model that takes social science concepts, including statistical anchoring, behavioral psychopathology, and victimology and connects them with crime scene evidence to examine and analyze crime - Puts crime analysis theory into practice with real-world examples highlighting important concepts and best practice - Includes a report writing chapter to demonstrate how this approach can strengthen criminal cases and succeed in court - Instructor materials include a Test Bank, Powerpoint lecture slides, and Instructor's Guide for each chapter

Wayne Petherick is Associate Professor of Criminology at Bond University in Australia. Wayne's areas of interest include forensic criminology, forensic victimology, criminal motivations, criminal profiling, and applied crime analysis. He has worked on risk and threat cases, a mass homicide, stalking, rape, and a variety of civil suits involving premises liability and crime prevention. He has presented to audiences in Australia and abroad, and has published in a variety of areas including social science and legal works in the areas of criminal profiling, expert evidence, stalking, serial crimes, criminal motivations, and victimology. Wayne is co-editor of Forensic Criminology, and editor of Profiling and Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues, now in its third edition.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Petherick, Wayne

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Applied Crime Analysis: A Social Science Approach to Understanding Crime, Criminals, and Victims;4
3;Copyright;5
4;Contents;6
5;Acknowledgments;14
6;About the Authors;18
7;Foreword;22
8;Chapter 1 - An Introduction to Applied Crime Analysis;28
8.1;Key Terms;28
8.2;INTRODUCTION;28
8.3;1.1 Types of crime analysis;29
8.4;1.2 Applications;35
8.5;Conclusions;39
8.6;References;39
9;Chapter 2 - Logic and Reasoning in Crime Analysis;41
9.1;Key Terms;41
9.2;INTRODUCTION;41
9.3;2.1 Logic and reasoning;41
9.4;2.2 Cognitive tools;45
9.5;2.3 Cognitive errors;48
9.6;2.4 Inductive logic;51
9.7;2.5 Current research on abduction murder;52
9.8;2.6 Deductive logic;55
9.9;2.7 Structured professional judgment;57
9.10;2.8 When probability is the only possibility: analysis of competing hypotheses;59
9.11;Conclusion;63
9.12;References;64
10;Chapter 3 - Physical Evidence and the Crime Scene;66
10.1;Key Terms;66
10.2;INTRODUCTION;66
10.3;3.1 What is science?;67
10.4;3.2 Forensic roles;68
10.5;3.3 What is a crime scene?;69
10.6;3.4 Crime scene types;69
10.7;3.5 What is physical evidence?;72
10.8;3.6 Should the crime analyst visit the crime scene?;80
10.9;3.7 Processing the crime scene;81
10.10;3.8 Reporting results;86
10.11;Conclusion;87
10.12;References;88
11;Chapter 4 - Forensic Victimology;89
11.1;Key Terms;89
11.2;INTRODUCTION;89
11.3;4.1 Victimology defined;89
11.4;4.2 Victim precipitation;90
11.5;4.3 Risk factors for victimization;91
11.6;4.4 Types of victim risk;96
11.7;4.5 Victimology: a suggested approach;98
11.8;Conclusion;105
11.9;References;105
12;Chapter 5 - Detecting Staged Crime Scenes: An Empirically Derived “How-to”;108
12.1;Key Terms;108
12.2;INTRODUCTION;108
12.3;5.1 Staged crimes in the literature;108
12.4;5.2 Red flags for staged homicides;119
12.5;5.3 Determining the presence of staging;120
12.6;5.4 Ferguson checklist: an empirically derived “how-to”;123
12.7;5.5 Staged burglary/homicides;124
12.8;5.6 Staged car accidents;127
12.9;Conclusion;128
12.10;References;129
13;Chapter 6 - Case Linkage;131
13.1;Key Terms;131
13.2;INTRODUCTION;131
13.3;6.1 What is case linkage?;132
13.4;6.2 Theoretical underpinnings of linkage analyses;132
13.5;6.3 Nomothetic case linkage: the use of databases;141
13.6;6.4 Considerations in determining case linkage;143
13.7;Conclusion;147
13.8;References;148
14;Chapter 7 - False Reports;150
14.1;Key Terms;150
14.2;INTRODUCTION;150
14.3;7.1 The problem of false reports;151
14.4;7.2 Incidence and prevalence of false reports;152
14.5;7.3 False reports;153
14.6;7.4 False allegations;159
14.7;7.5 False confessions;161
14.8;7.6 Motivations for false reporting;162
14.9;7.7 Managing false reporters;166
14.10;7.8 Considerations in determining reports;168
14.11;Conclusion;172
14.12;References;173
15;Chapter 8 - Motivations;175
15.1;Key Terms;175
15.2;INTRODUCTION;175
15.3;8.1 Motivations;176
15.4;8.2 The Groth typologies;184
15.5;8.3 The Massachusetts Treatment Center typology;186
15.6;8.4 The Hazelwood adaptation of Groth and colleagues;187
15.7;8.5 Other typologies;190
15.8;8.6 Considerations in determining motive;191
15.9;Conclusion;195
15.10;References;196
16;Chapter 9 - Risk Assessment;199
16.1;Key Terms;199
16.2;INTRODUCTION;199
16.3;9.1 What is risk assessment?;200
16.4;9.2 Types of risk assessment;201
16.5;9.3 The problems with risk assessment;206
16.6;9.4 Communicating risk;209
16.7;9.5 Risk assessment is not yet an exact science;211
16.8;9.6 When harm is likely or imminent;212
16.9;Conclusion;213
16.10;References;214
17;Chapter 10 - Threat Assessment and Management;217
17.1;Key Terms;217
17.2;INTRODUCTION;217
17.3;10.1 First involvement;218
17.4;10.2 Sources of information;220
17.5;10.3 Information analysis;221
17.6;10.4 Intervention;224
17.7;10.5 Monitoring;229
17.8;Conclusion;230
17.9;References;231
17.10;Bibliography of suggested reading;232
18;Chapter 11 - Psychopathology and Criminal Behavior;235
18.1;Key Terms;235
18.2;INTRODUCTION;236
18.3;11.1 What is psychopathology?;236
18.4;11.2 What is forensic psychopathology?;239
18.5;11.3 The nature versus nurture fallacy: the interaction between programing, predisposition, and experience;241
18.6;11.4 Genetics;242
18.7;11.5 Criminal psychopathology: mental states and characteristic pathology associated with the perpetration of crime;245
18.8;11.6 Typical psychopathologies, mental states, and psychopathological characteristics associated with perpetrators of crime;246
18.9;11.7 Compulsive homicide;250
18.10;11.8 Sadistic aggression;252
18.11;11.9 Addiction and criminal behavior;257
18.12;11.10 Disordered thinking;260
18.13;11.11 Delusional subtypes with forensic association;263
18.14;11.12 Delusion as a feature of other forensic psychopathology;264
18.15;11.13 Psychotic disorders;264
18.16;11.14 Personality disorders;266
18.17;Conclusion;271
18.18;Chapter Summary;272
18.19;References;276
19;Chapter 12 - Report Writing, Style, and Components;280
19.1;Key Terms;280
19.2;INTRODUCTION;280
19.3;12.1 Basic components;281
19.4;12.2 Suggested report layout;285
19.5;12.3 Conclusions;292
19.6;Conclusion;295
19.7;Reference;296
20;Appendix A - Threat assessment and management process—organizational settings;297
21;Index;298

Leseproben

Acknowledgments
I was once told at a meeting that it takes, on average, 3 to 5 years to write a book. There were no specifics as to the type of book: a discipline based dictionary or encyclopaedia; a single authored text; an edited text; any other type of work? The message was also not clear as to how many chapters, or how long each chapter was. Still, I remember thinking at the time: that seems awfully long. As the reader will be aware (at least those who have read the Foreword will know), I never believed I was up to the task of writing a text. Who I am to write a book, the kid who spent half his school year in detention? I scoffed at the very idea, but a plain and simple challenge, the throwing down of the proverbial gauntlet, got me to make a plan, seek out a publisher, and execute it over the course of about 18 months from conception to printing. When you don’t believe you can do something, the best thing to do is to prove that you can. Three to five years? Surely not. It is at this point that I should toot my own horn, ring my own bell, blow my own whistle, and shout from the rooftops what an amazing writer I am. How the words flow from my fingers, and magically appear on the screen in front of me by the thousands. How the copy editors mail me with their praise and claims that they can now go home early because so little work needed to be done on some of the most amazing writing they have ever seen. And then the bubble bursts, the coconut-borne drink in my hand disappears in a cloud of Looney Tunes-style dust, the sandy beach I am reclining on turns back into my desk, and my reality comes crashing back to my not-too-comfortable chair. The breeze in my hair isn’t a Pacific breeze carried on trade winds, and the rustling isn’t the gentle back and forth sway of palm fronds. It is the gale of the fan, and the rustle of the hundreds of pieces of paper that line my desk at any given moment, ready for the transition from one chapter to the next. In this reality, my Mac and I engage in daily staring competitions (we are currently 64, computer’s favor). An important journal article it took me forever to find is blown off the table by my fan where it is promptly chewed by the dog, or returned as a colorful drawing by my well meaning nine-year-old, or as a list of friends my now teenager has drawn up for her weekend plans. And there is always just enough pen or pencil over that actual part that I wanted the article for in the first place as to render it useless. Oh, and this reality involves far too much coffee and cursing. This fantasy carries me from work to work, but the reality is somewhat different. While I can look back proudly at what has come from these efforts, and they are an effort, I cannot claim grand success as a writer or the Bradley Cooper-esque drug-enhanced-speed-writing authorship of the movie Limitless. If I am honest with myself, writing is something that I have always struggled with. The words don’t always come easy, and they don’t always flow. Books don’t magically appear on my computer, and copy editors don’t email me praise. But I think writing shouldn’t be easy. I think if it was, we would be missing something. And even when the words do seem to come (such as the report writing chapter, compiled in less than 8 hours or so), it is because they are the result of hundreds of hours of reading, research, thinking, distilling, culminating, critiquing, applying, testing, falsifying, reworking, reconsidering, teaching, and abandoning. Even a chapter that takes less than 8 hours to complete is a labor of hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of work that has led you to that point. So while we may be flippant with the time it took to actually write, the effort is far more than the time it took where the end result is words on a page. Returning now to the time it takes to write. I will admit I have never taken 3 years to do any book project and would likely lose interest if it did. Approximately 90% of this book was finished in a period of six to seven weeks. So this then begs the question of how these projects are possible, given the usual timeframe of several years, and the more than occasional struggle with writing? Well, by accident or design, the answer is relatively simple: you surround yourself with good and competent people and you rely on and trust them to do the job you have set for them. If they can’t, you have chosen the wrong people. But when you find them, and you will not mistake when you do, each and every project becomes easier and easier as you know each other’s strengths, weaknesses, style, and approach. They will know what you want before you ask for it, and they will each have their part finished before it is due. It is working with the right people that allows these projects to be finished well before the 3- or 5- year point. They will cut down the total amount of work required, and render any editorial work obsolete beyond the most basic of keystroke error. They will make every effort an absolute joy, and they will guarantee that you will look back on every single aspect of every single project with a smile and a sense of satisfaction. This I can tell you from experience. So, with that in mind, I offer up the following heartfelt thanks, in no particular order. Without those below, this work would have taken me 3 years (more realistically 10). Well there is only one Claire Ferguson, and some would say thank God. I recall the very first class Claire took as a Postgraduate student and remember thinking you’ll go far. And she did. Not only did she top pretty much every class, but she became my first PhD student as a supervisor. When her first draft arrived, I read it and thought I had failed her: I couldn’t find anything wrong and assumed it was my error as a critical supervisor. As it turns out, the three examiners it went to couldn’t find anything wrong either, and it just so happens it was a quality work with a unanimous three pass no revisions verdict returned. It was just that good (I’d like to take more credit but I can’t). Since then, we have worked together on many projects, chapter, journal, and text, and it has always seemed less like work. We taught together for four and a half years, and they were among the best work years of my life, such that it never seemed like actual work. But something conspired against us and another institution now enjoys the fruits of her labor (her current boss refers to her as their Black Caviar- a reference to an Australian thoroughbred racehorse undefeated in 25 races). Despite this, we will always write together, and she may not have as much choice in this as she thinks. Love working with you Brosephine! Those who know Grant Sinnamon would describe him as a cross between Thor and the Energiser Bunny. He is like Hawking without the wheelchair, and by 2015, he will have more degrees than a thermometer. From his knowledge of the history of the world through to his understanding of functional neuroanatomy, every conversation is like a lesson wrapped in a mental gym session. Grant proves the if-he-doesn’t-know-it-it’s-not-worth-knowing rule. Beyond this he is a humanitarian and a damned fine person and his family are equally great. While we had a gap in the middle, I consider him one of my oldest and best friends. Andy Rowan and I met many moons ago (I won’t count, it makes me feel old), and since then our paths have crossed a number of times. I run into Andy now and then at an Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society meeting, or should he be able to teach the odd subject here and there. It’s always a pleasure to see him and if I’m honest I’d say I’d like to catch up for a few more coffees. Despite my best efforts, I lost contact over the chapter project with Andy, and despite this he didn’t reject my 11th hour pleading and came on board and this chapter turned out to be one of my favorites in the book. In short, you’re a bloody legend! Jess Gormley took a subject with me whilst doing her Master of Psychology, and she was a great student, and she has become a great practitioner. She answered the call and provided a great overview on risk assessment including problems with the practice, and a number of other areas. She has extensive experience in the field, and has since returned to her home town but I am sure our paths will cross repeatedly while she is doing her PhD. At least that is my hope. Thanks for your input Jess, your contribution to the book was greatly appreciated, as was your insight. Keep your computer handy, your name is now on my list! I first met Jim Cawood in Las Vegas in 2000. I was familiar with Jim’s work in The Psychology of Stalking, and can say he came across as a genuinely great guy, and very down to earth. This is rare for someone of Jim’s celebrity (I know he probably wouldn’t be comfortable with my use of that term!), and we had a great conversation over a beer at the bar of the Holiday Inn on the strip. He asked me what areas I was interested in and when I mentioned stalking, he asked “have you ever been stalked?” When I replied in the negative, he said “stick with this area long enough, and you will be”. Over the years our paths crossed from time to time, and he has given me great advice when I needed it. As a result, when I decided to include a chapter on threat management, I could think of no one better. Thanks for your efforts and your input Jim, both were greatly appreciated and this work is so much the better for it. And of course who could forget Natasha Petroff? I get many Facebook friend requests from...