Filtering by
- Creators: Barrett, The Honors College
- Creators: Holtfreter, Kristy
Since the inception of what is now known as the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the 1970s, criminal profiling has become an increasingly prevalent entity in both forensic science and the popular imagination. The fundamental idea of which profiling is premised – behavior as a reflection of personality – has been the subject of a great deal of misunderstanding, with professionals and nonprofessionals alike questioning whether profiling represents an art or a science and what its function in forensic science should be. To provide a more thorough understanding of criminal profiling’s capabilities and its efficacy as a law enforcement tool, this thesis will examine the application of criminal profiling to investigations, various court rulings concerning profiling’s admissibility, and the role that popular media plays in the perception and function of the practice. It will also discuss how future research and regulatory advancements may strengthen criminal profiling’s scientific merit and legitimacy.
In the last decade, California’s imprisoned population of women has increased by nearly 400% (Chesney-Lind, 2012). The focus of this thesis is to discuss the treatment—or lack thereof—of women within California’s criminal justice system and sentencing laws. By exploring its historical approach to two criminal actions related to women, the Three Strikes law (including non-violent drug crimes) and the absence of laws accounting for experiences of female victims of domestic violence who killed their abusers, I explore how California’s criminal code has marginalized women, and present a summary of the adverse effects brought about by the gender invisibility that is endemic within sentencing policies and practice. I also discuss recent attempted and successful reforms related to these issues, which evidence a shift toward social dialogue on sentencing aiming to address gender inequity in the sentencing code. These reforms were the result of activism; organizations, academics and individuals successfully raised awareness regarding excessive and undue sentencing of women and compelled action by the legislature.
By method of a feminist analysis of these histories, I explore these two pertinent issues in California; both are related to women who, under harsh sentencing laws, were incarcerated under the state’s male-focused legislation. Responses to the inequalities found in these laws included attempts toward both visibility for women and reform related to sentencing. I analyze the ontology of sentencing reform as it relates to activism in order to discuss the implications of further criminal code legislation, as well as the implications of the 2012 reforms in practice. Through the paper, I focus upon how women have become a target of arrest and long sentences not because they are strategically arrested to equalize their representation behind bars, but because the “tough on crime” framework in the criminal code cast a wide and fixed net that incarcerated increasingly more women following the codification of both mandatory minimums and a male-oriented approach to sentencing (Chesney-Lind et. al, 2012).
Crime has become an inescapable part of being a consumer and viewer in today’s society. The interest in crime, however, could not have just been created by the media or a few specific parties and gained the amount of attention that is has today. Crime has been of interest since ancient times, seen immortalized in art and literature with famous events like the death of Socrates and the assassination of Julius Caesar. However, only more modern advances in media and the growth in consumerism could have led to interest and commodification of crime as we see it today. Landmark cases like Ted Bundy and O.J. Simpson have contributed to the growth of the media landscape, but because of the cyclical nature of the news and consumer cycle, these cases would not differ much in the way that they would be covered today, even with the new methods of disseminating information that we have today, such as social media and news websites that are accessible by everyone. Crime as entertainment has been a product not just of the media and popular culture but also from American consumers who continue to give media and pop culture producers a consumer who wishes to view their content and to continue to further the interest in crime. Media and popular culture are not the only people to blame for the popularization of crime as a product; people in the United States, and globally, are just as much responsible for the creation of crime as entertainment.
commits. Outside of the house, there are people speeding, jaywalking, littering, sharing
medication, and driving without seat belts. Inside the house, people are downloading
music/movies, drinking while underage, using (and abusing) social media while under the age of
18, and reading another person’s mail. With so much of a focus on serious crimes, or felonies,
people tend to forget about the everyday actions in America that are also illegal. For example, a
police officer may not do anything if several cars are going well over the speed limit on the
highway, because it is normalized. This paper explores two sides of this issue: the psychological
side and the legal side. The goal is to find out how culpable people really are for their actions
when they do not have the mental intent that the they are determined to have in court. All human
behavior will be divided into two sections (people with non-extreme mental disorders and people
who have total control over their behavior). First, I dive into the complexity of anxiety,
depression, and ADHD, and explain how these disorders will subtly change someone’s behavior.
Next, I examine how actions like speeding and jaywalking and explain how certain illegal
actions have become so normalized that people may not be very guilty, even when they are
knowingly committing these crimes. I use different misdemeanors as examples for each of these
types of behaviors to argue why people should be more culpable (aggravating factors) or less
culpable (mitigating factors) because of their respective predispositions. Finally, I discuss issues
of fixing the criminal justice system such as: how to make all punishments fair/accurate, how to
fix the public’s distrust towards the law, and how to stop these normalized illegal behaviors for
all people, regardless of mental health or intent.