To C Equation Action to Characteristics

a-to-C equation (Action-to-Characteristics) The a-to-C equation: The profiling debate The A-to-C equation (actions-to-characteristics) model is a critical component of investigative psychology, without which effective police investigating would be extremely difficult. The A-to-C equation presumes that certain crimes and certain crime scenes are more likely to be associated with criminals that possess certain types of characteristics vs. others.

For example, serial killers tend to be male rather than female; gang-related activities associated with certain street gangs, based upon location and also gang symbolism tend to be the products of specific gangs (which often have members with very specific ethnic characteristics). The model is far from foolproof, but when the police are beginning with very few viable leads, such A-to-C profiling can help. Rapists and arsonists also often have very specific characteristics, depending on the subtype of these types of crimes and the specifics of the crime scene (Douglas 1986: 402).

There are certain problems with the presumptions of the A-to-C equation of course. First of all, there are exceptions to every rule (there are some female serial killers, for example). Secondly, criminals might use its assumptions to cover up their criminal behaviors. Someone who committed a crime might use societal prejudices claiming that he or she saw an African-American teen running from the scene as a defense, given that there remains an assumption that this group of individuals is more likely to commit crime.

Or a single criminal might use gang-related criminal characteristics to cover up the evidence he was the perpetrator. The most important thing I have learned about the 'C' part of the model is the extent to which using profiling characteristics of 'C' must be used judiciously, in light of the demands of constitutional law, which investigators and forensic psychologists must keep in mind.

On a widespread level, the use of profiling can also create mistrust between the police and the community the police is striving to serve and raise the specter of troubling constitutional violations. For example, one of the most controversial policies in New York City is its 'stop and frisk' policies. "Each year in New York City, the NYPD stops and frisks thousands of individuals.

During each of these stop and frisk encounters, the right of individuals to be free from arbitrary and unwarranted intrusions by government authorities coincides with the duty of those agents to prevent crime and apprehend criminals. Achieving an appropriate balance between the right and the duty presents a challenge for any metropolitan police force" (Chapter 5: Stop, question, and frisk, 2013, Police Practices and Civil Rights in New York City).

Non-whites claim that they are more likely to be the target of such stops, more so than individuals of Caucasian descent; defenders of the law state it is merely because the police are more likely to conduct such stops in high-crime areas, which tend to have higher areas of minority concentration. "To justify a stop under the Supreme Court's Terry decision, a police officer must have 'a reasonable suspicion' of some wrongdoing.

In determining reasonableness, an officer 'must be able to point to specific and articulable facts' that warrant the governmental intrusion; reliance on "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or [a] 'hunch' " is not permissible… [although] police officers could draw conclusions based on their experiences to ascertain if an alleged suspect's conduct is.