Discussion: Methods of Criminal Profiling
James Bond is the character I choice 
There are different ways of approaching criminal behavior and evidence. A criminal investigative analyst may use different reasoning skills, methods, and approaches when analyzing a criminal case. The analyst may use empirically based information or group statistics to guide decisions, and conclusions may be based solely on the facts of a case. Is it professional, however, to go beyond statistics and facts and use experiences and education to guide criminal analysis in profiling?
In this Discussion, you will continue to use the character you selected in Week 1 as you analyze his or her approaches and methodology.
To prepare for this Discussion:
Review the Learning Resources concerning concepts of criminal profiling.
By Day 3
Post a response to the following:
Based on the character you selected in the Week 1 Discussion, explain how he/she approached profiling. Explain whether the character uses deductive or inductive reasoning, whether he/she uses the nomothetic or ideographic method, and whether he/she uses a clinical or actuarial approach. Provide examples to support your rationale for each.

Evaluate use of deductive or inductive reasoning in criminal profiling
Evaluate use of nomothetic or ideographic methods in criminal profiling
Evaluate use of clinical or actuarial approaches in criminal profiling

Some reading and Learning Resources/Reading 
Bartol, C. R. & Bartol, A. M. (2010). Criminal & behavioral profiling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 2, Crime Scene Profiling (pp. 21“56)

Turvey, B. E. (2012). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Chapter 3, Alternative Methods of Criminal Profiling (pp. 67“100)

Carson, D. (2011). Investigative psychology and law: Towards collaboration by focusing on evidence and inferential reasoning. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8(1), 74“89. doi:10.1002/jip.133
Devery, C. (2010). Criminal profiling and criminal investigation. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(4), 393“409. doi:10.1177/1043986210377108
Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2016). Criminal profiling as expert witness evidence: The implications of the profiler validity research. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49(Part A), 55“65. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.05.011
Kocsis, R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2015). Disentangling criminal profiling: Accuracy, homology, and the myth of trait-based profiling. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(3), 313“332. doi:10.1177/0306624X13513429
Writing expectations 
Main Discussion Posting Content
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 27 (54%) – 30 (60%)
   
27 (54%) – 30 (60%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning id
Levels of Achievement:
Excellent 9 (18%) – 10 (20%)
Writing
Levels of Achievement:
   
9 (18%) – 10 (20%)
Student interacts frequently with peers. The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, use of scholarly, empirical resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
Excellent 9 (18%) – 10 (20%)
   
9 (18%) – 10 (20%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.