Carl Kruse at Princeton University
We study criminology almost to the level of exhaustion, and we came up with some pretty interesting statistics; statistics that are indeed so relevant which they almost can not be denied. Profiling is nothing new, we realize a horrible lot about the topic, still, once we mention the term many of us cringe. Why?
Well, as an example, the question brought forth in the favorite movie Minority Report tells us why, an account that has another setting where people are arrested prior with their crimes and there is a pre-crime division that goes out to obtain them, prior to the act. This topic both fascinates us and scares us, and the character of Carl Kruse Academic Profile and predictability is far to upsetting for most of us to need to discuss.
Soon ago, I met a gentleman with a massive "probation" case load of 125, that's six clients (convicted criminals) per day if you see every one once per month and thus, it should be tough to really make an impact, especially "high-risk" criminals, gang members and such? He indicated which they focused on the highest risk repeat offenders, making sense, obviously, that does involve profiling.
Yes, we do profiling; we almost have to in order to get all the authorities, corrections, and criminal justice done efficiently inside our nation. In fact, I was sitting at the Quantico, VA Starbucks and had this conversation once with someone there; he was opting for his finals for the FBI criminal corruption division. Profiling helps them catch criminals pure and simple.
The issue in society becomes; what do authorities tell a person who asks them about "risk levels" and then likens it to "The Minority Report" I mean, how will you side step or straddle the matter, and still maintain the rule of law; as in we are all suppose to be equal under it? Currently, I'm reading; "Mind Hunter - Within the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit" by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker; and you'd be amazed at how well they are able to profile and catch criminals.
Currently, this whole problem of pre-crime, rule of law, and preventing future crimes is in the news at a complete new level of discussion, even changing public policy as we speak, and this can be a hot topic right now, as an example:
Profiling is necessary and what we train our computers to complete, we often deny our policing agencies to complete, many believe to our own peril. Yet, we do profile in several places, as an example probationary work inside our society, and it appears these departments doesn't have choice but to cope with what they consider "high risk levels" of repeat offenders just to deal with the case loads. Unfortunately, just as much sense as this makes, additionally it runs somewhat unlike some of the academic legal thinking on the topic? See the situation?