The Necessity Of Profiling In FBI

Profiling is the idea of examining and analyzing offenders who are not known in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Howard D. Teten and Patrick J. Mullany first put it to use in 1972 on one of the unsolved cases that had been assigned to them. Profiling became a useful investigative tool to all law enforcement; with its effectiveness they adopted it and it became known as the Criminal Investigative Analysis Program (CIAP). Many agree with the idea of CIAP because it helps law enforcement search for and catch criminals. However, others fear that the police department has gone too far with it in the sense that they have used this tool based on race or ethnicity. People see this as an issue given that a tool created to help law enforcement catch those guilty of the crime, is being used to single out minority groups when looking for a reason to arrest someone. Although profiling was created as a tool that helps law enforcement and many agree, several argue that it is not being used as such.

In order to understand the topic in full, the origins of profiling need to be known, as well as its implementation. Diane Kratz wrote an article titled, “Do You Know Who Was the First Profiler in the FBI?”, where she talks about how profiling started out in law enforcement. In her article, Kratz states, “[Howard D.] Teten designed a method for analyzing unknown offenders” (Kratz). She informs us about who was the first FBI agent to profile and the process he went through. She explains the origins of the method known as profiling and how it was first implemented as a useful tool in the FBI. Later on, it becomes a useful tool in all law enforcement agencies and police departments as well.

Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject

Order now

In Kratz’s article, she talks about how Teten along with Patrick J. Mullany used the method in one of their cases. “Teten, Mullany, and Col. Robert K. Ressler employed their criminal investigative analysis technique to track down an unknown perpetrator” (Kratz). They used their profiling method for the first time and concluded with the results they were aiming for. This method went on to be used throughout the decades and is the program used by a plethora of agencies today.

It has come to show that the common public is blind to the process of how profiling actually works; with the like-minded thinking of many, they believe it is directed by one prospect of the whole idea. “How Profiling Works”, written by Ed Grabianowski can be summed up to being the manual for profiling. Grabianowski explains, “Basic profiling,” he then continues on by clarifying that it is “– identifying the perpetrator of a crime based on an analysis of crime and the way it was committed –” and that it “is a common investigative tool” (Grabianowski). This definition of profiling is one of many that are used by the public. It discussed the process of profiling in the article and the various types of profiling that exist to aid law enforcement.

Law enforcement profile because they want safety for American citizens. In an interview with Fox News, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was “All for” the profiling of Muslims, “…even the innocent ones” (Palin), she said, “Whatever it takes to save American lives” (Palin), the Alaskan Governor asserted. Many want the same thing as Sarah Palin want, and that is to keep all American citizens safe and sound.

The overall method of profiling came to be used by police department officers, as the public sees it the officers use it in their own way; in the means the officers us it can be identified as racial profiling. As said in Grabianowski’s article, “Racial profiling is a form of predictive profiling in which one of the factors (or the only factor) officers consider is the skin color or race of the suspect” (Grabianowski). The writer concludes that officers tend to profile based on race or ethnicity as a basis to arrest someone. In doing so, the public trust for police has been destroyed according to the various minority groups singled out by their action.

Profiling on the basis of race or ethnicity has left tension on the public trust in police as it has come to show in various ways. In the article titled, “Racial Profiling Has Destroyed Public Trust in Police. Cops Are Exploiting Our Weak Laws Against It” written by Ranjana Natarajan, the author explains the relationship between the common community and their local police on the fact that they racially profile. As Natarajan explains, “The NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk program shows similar evidence of racial profiling, with police targeting blacks and Latinos about 85 percent of the time.” (Natarajan). In other words, police implement racial profiling through law-abiding methods. In doing so, this highly contributing to the fight against profiling.

Along with the police-community relationship being strained, a lot of people find it to be a waste of time and resources when profiling based on race. Natarajan talks about how “In nearly nine out of 10 searches, police find nothing” (Natarajan). This goes to shows that, as said by many, police are wasting their time in profiling by race. A variety of opinion by the public want racial profiling to stop because they no longer want to see law enforcement harassing pedestrians for a means of arresting them.

Regarding Gabianowski’s article, another circumstance was embarked on, “The real controversy erupts when police departments have policy-level profiling systems that include race as a factor, or a department-wide culture that teaches and reinforces the practice” (Grabianowski). When the department as a whole allows this practice, it does not sit well with the public. Several use this as another fact to protest profiling and the use of it at all law enforcement levels.

The effectiveness of profiling has proven to be valuable, when race presents itself in profiling it tends to “…reduce — not enhance…” (Head) the chances of catching criminals. In Tom Head’s 2018 article titled, “Why Racial Profiling Is a Bad Idea”, he talks about how race playing a role in profiling is not the best path to take. “The effectiveness of searches”, Head wrote, “is reduced — not enhanced — by racial profiling. When racial profiling is used, officers end up wasting their limited time on innocent suspects” (Head). In other words, profiling someone based on their ethnicity is a waste of time for law enforcement agencies, while they’re busy with that their guilty suspect has yet to be questioned. It goes to show that ethnic profiling is something that is not needed and the thing that many oppose.

An important topic Head talks about in his article is how profiling on the basis of race is unconstitutional. Head writes, “The Fourteenth Amendment states, very clearly, that no state may ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws’” (Head). Profiling because of someone’s ethnicity is unconstitutional. Therefore, when police departments and other law enforcement agencies allow this practice they’re being unconstitutional and the public does not want to allow that. According to Natarajan’s article, “…excessive force by police persists despite the constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures” (Natarajan). In this quote, she talks about the same topic as Head; ethnic profiling is not a law-abiding system. They both discuss how racial profiling is unconstitutional through the method of stop-and-frisk and or search and seizures.

Bountiful people acknowledge that profiling is essential for the safety of American citizens. Known to everyone to be created for positive use, many have come to the terms that profiling has become misconstrued. People deem profiling to only being lead on the grounds of race or ethnicity and argue that it is unconstitutional. There are many sides to the overall idea of CIAP, both valid and immoral. Profiling was first invented for law enforcers to catch criminals. Which then, in turn, helped keep American citizens safe. However, profiling has been misinterpreted to the point where officers focus on the ethnic factor of it. Which then creates an untrustworthy atmosphere around law enforcers.

The Dark Side Of Adoption: Mental Health In Adoptees

To an outsider, the idea of adoption may seem as a very fruitful endeavor – the birth family gets spared of the financial and time-consuming burden that can come with having another child while the said adoptee gets placed into a more stable environment, with a family who can provide for them in ways the birth family cannot. While on paper this ideology might ring with a perfect tune, to those who have lived as adoptees know the tone to be a more somber ring. When a child learns of their adoption story and where they came from, it can either be a source of pride or a source of anguish, hence why adoption is essentially a double-edged sword. Yes, the child will be exposed to better socioeconomic situations in this new life but their knowledge of being given away might take its toll on their mental health; hence why many adoptees may “struggle with self-esteem and identity development issues more than their non-adopted peers” while also being exposed to more caregivers in the field of mental health. (Long Term Issues for the Adopted Child)

According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) approximately “120,000 children are adopted annually, and adopted individuals constitute about 1.5 million children younger than age 18 years.” With this sheer number of children being adopted per year, it has often been questioned by professionals if the prospect of adoption is damaging to the child’s mental state and how they cope with their new lives. To better understand the risks associated with being adopted in infancy the University of Minnesota conducted a study between 1998-2004, with the objective to “determine whether adopted youth are at an excessive risk for clinically relevant behavioral and emotional problems. (NCBI). This study used 409 adoptive families as well as 208 non-adoptive families to evaluate mental health, not only interviewing said participants but also sought insight from teachers and mental health professionals. After all the assessments had been finished and calculated, it was discovered that “adoptees scored only moderately higher than non-adoptees on quantitative measures of mental health. Nonetheless, being adopted approximately doubled the odds of having contact with a mental health professional and of having a disruptive behavior disorder.” (NCBI). It is also important to note that “population-based studies have reported an elevated risk for psychological maladjustment…significantly more behavioral problems among adoptees as compared to non-adoptees.” After observing this study adopted children, even if the difference is slight, have been shown to be more at risk for mental health issues and developing further illnesses. This could come from many issues such as self-esteem or guilt, but it is interesting to see just how adoption forms the mind of an adoptee.

Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subject

Order now

Along with a heightened risk towards developing a mental illness or battling mental health in general, adopted children struggle once again when it comes to their own personal value. According to the American Society for the Positive Care of Children (ASPCC), “A number of studies have found that, while adopted persons are similar to non-adopted persons in most ways, they often score lower on measures of self-esteem and self-confidence…some adopted persons may view themselves as different…rejected.” Dealing with the idea that the people who gave birth to you didn’t want you in your life, for whatever reason, is something that leaves a massive hole in the soul of an adopted child, something that can never truly be filled. Hence why negative feelings could be harbored towards oneself, resulting in poor self-esteem levels or even hating oneself. While an unfortunate tragedy, it is natural to evaluate and judge oneself as this is how we grow as individuals, but for the adoptee, being different is one of the worst things to be.

Countless studies have been centered around the adopted child and just how their brains are affected by the trauma of adoption, but it turns out they suffer in another area as well – the education system. A study undertaken by the Institute for Family Studies proved to be quite fruitful in showing this divide between an adopted child and a non-adopted one: known as the ECLS-K study, a group of 160 children/families were evaluated based on kindergarten school behavior. In terms of classroom conduct, “adopted children were more likely than biological ones to be reported to get angry easily and often argue or fight with other students. In kindergarten, the average problem behavior rating for the adopted group was at the 64th percentile, whereas for children with both birth parents, it was at the 44th percentile. (Higher percentile ranks indicate more problem behavior. The 50th percentile represents the average rating score for all students.)” (IFS). Adopted children do less well, at first, in the classroom setting due to emotionally reactions, but this could tie largely into the mental health aspect. Since the adopted children realize they are different from the rest and do not have the experience with how to cope with these newfound emotions, it is natural they would retaliate with the easiest emotion – anger/violence. While this is a poor method of coping it may be the only thing these children have in order to work through past trauma, perhaps needing guidance or special attention to satisfy their needs as well. This acting out could also result in attention deficit disorders, which adopted children have been proven to be at more risk for, but further research would be needed to truly understand this.

Along with behavior, in terms of reading and math skills it has been shown that these kids suffer as well. In the study it was found the adopted children “at the 49th percentile” ranked lower than the “56th percentile” of children who had both their birth parents. (IFS). This means in terms of early reading skills, adopted children still do suffer, but not as highly as social cues. This could be due to education efforts made by wealthy adoptive parents, but these only go so far. As of math skills, the results prove this same discrepancy, “Their average raw score was about the same as that for all U.S. kindergartners, that is, at the 50th percentile. However, they did less well than children with both birth parents, whose average math skills were at the 59th percentile. And their performance was not significantly better than that of children from single-parent, step, and foster families, who were at the 41st percentile.” In any given educational field, the children may perform well in subjects such as math or reading, but still come short of both the national average and the scores of those who have both birth parents. It has been theorized that both acting out and poor scores could result from attachment issues, post adoption stress issues, and genetic impulses, all of which can be felt by an adopted child. While the parents of said adoptees may provide the child with quality education and the necessary tools to learn, their performance may still hinder, something both family and child alike should adapt and improve on.

The face of adoption has changed. While more people continue to adopt daily, it is important to note just how adoption will affect the child being brought into the home. Not only will they face identity issues, self-esteem issues, but also those of mental health and behavioral disorders. They will face more challenges in school then most children and may act out in social situations, but this can be fixed or improved. Through the use of information, professional help, or encouragement within the family, these issues can be addressed and adapted to, in order to help the child succeed in life. Adoption is going to bring many joys to both family and child alike, but it is important to understand just how adoption can affect said child and why. In no way is this meant to sway people away from adoption, but merely allowing them to see a point of view they may have never seen before – the negative side. Mental health is seldom ever talked about, even more so adopted children’s mental health, but through education efforts, patience, and love can these children be pulled out of misery and thrive in life, just like any normal child.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× How can I help you?