submit a detailed description of a fictions crime and focus on the crime scene. Be sure to conduct research to understand crime scenes. For example, if you are planning to profile a serial killer, be sure you have researched crime scenes from serial killers to ensure you are including plausible information.
The information you describe in this assignment may also be used in your final presentation to the FBI (due in Week 8), when you present your profile. You will want to consider that your final project will build upon the information you are describing in your crime scene analysis paper this week. You must be able to make conclusions that are realistic. Include in your description the following information:
Crime scene details (e.g. bloodstain pattern, finger prints, weapons)
Geographical location(s)
Evidence collected
Eyewitnesses
Corroborating evidence
Modus Operandi
Sample Solution
confident tone and writing style in Natural Justice, Binmore agrees with many of his critics. For instance, in addressing Fabienne Peterâs Justice: Political Not Natural, Binmore admits to uneasily agreeing with Peter that naturalist theories are not written by nature but are scholarly attempts to reflect on a select set of data about social life (2006 p. 115). He also agrees with Cushman, Young, and Hauserâs insistence on the importance of process (2006 p. 116). Binmoreâs shortest response to but at the same time, strongest agreement with Brian Skyrmsâ Ken Binmoreâs Natural Justice stands out among all his responses to the book reviewers and critics. Here, Binmore simply agrees that all the weaknesses of his work pointed out by Skyrms are to the point as well as the overall summary provided on his book. However, Binmore notes that Skyrmsâ review, although being agreeable, lacks further research. If further research is done properly, Binmore sincerely believes that it could be positively contributing to the political literature. Not all reviewers of Ken Binmoreâs Natural Justice are strong critics of the author and his work. For instance, Harms (2012) agrees that Binmoreâs work is correct about several aspects. One of the aspects Harms agrees with is Binmoreâs belief that social reforms should be based on an understanding of the status quo and realistic expectations (2012). Harms also is on the same page with Binmore that economic and mathematical theories, along with game theory applications are the only effective ways to address the issues of social reforms in a precise manner (2012). Harms is not the only person who agrees with Ken Binmoreâs Natural Justice. Another reviewer, Dr. Paul Seabright of the University of Toulouse, France, is also a fan of Binmoreâs work. Seabright agrees with Binmore that the norms of social justice have evolved as a part of human social behavior. He also agrees with Binmore that these norms are actually produced as central products of the human evolution instead of merely being the by-products of the process. For these two firmly naturalistic reasons, Seabright wholeheartedly agrees Ken Binmoreâs explanations of natural justice is theoretically sound (2006). After reading both Natural Justice and its reviews by critics of Binmore, I find myself in the middle ground of neither being a fan nor foe of Binmoreâs work. As someone who agrees strongly with Thomas Hobbesâ natural state of war and his discussion on the glory-seeking behavior of human beings, I find myself supporting Binmoreâs statement that all humans are staunchly self-regarding individuals. However, I do agree with some of Binmoreâs critics that in an attempt to combine mathematical game theory with explanations of the nature of human societies, Binmore failed to present a balanced mixture of mathematics and political theory. I find most of his book still very technical, even when Natural Justice is far less game theoretical than most of Binmoreâs former works. Regardless of stating that he is not going to rely on mathematical equ>
confident tone and writing style in Natural Justice, Binmore agrees with many of his critics. For instance, in addressing Fabienne Peterâs Justice: Political Not Natural, Binmore admits to uneasily agreeing with Peter that naturalist theories are not written by nature but are scholarly attempts to reflect on a select set of data about social life (2006 p. 115). He also agrees with Cushman, Young, and Hauserâs insistence on the importance of process (2006 p. 116). Binmoreâs shortest response to but at the same time, strongest agreement with Brian Skyrmsâ Ken Binmoreâs Natural Justice stands out among all his responses to the book reviewers and critics. Here, Binmore simply agrees that all the weaknesses of his work pointed out by Skyrms are to the point as well as the overall summary provided on his book. However, Binmore notes that Skyrmsâ review, although being agreeable, lacks further research. If further research is done properly, Binmore sincerely believes that it could be positively contributing to the political literature. Not all reviewers of Ken Binmoreâs Natural Justice are strong critics of the author and his work. For instance, Harms (2012) agrees that Binmoreâs work is correct about several aspects. One of the aspects Harms agrees with is Binmoreâs belief that social reforms should be based on an understanding of the status quo and realistic expectations (2012). Harms also is on the same page with Binmore that economic and mathematical theories, along with game theory applications are the only effective ways to address the issues of social reforms in a precise manner (2012). Harms is not the only person who agrees with Ken Binmoreâs Natural Justice. Another reviewer, Dr. Paul Seabright of the University of Toulouse, France, is also a fan of Binmoreâs work. Seabright agrees with Binmore that the norms of social justice have evolved as a part of human social behavior. He also agrees with Binmore that these norms are actually produced as central products of the human evolution instead of merely being the by-products of the process. For these two firmly naturalistic reasons, Seabright wholeheartedly agrees Ken Binmoreâs explanations of natural justice is theoretically sound (2006). After reading both Natural Justice and its reviews by critics of Binmore, I find myself in the middle ground of neither being a fan nor foe of Binmoreâs work. As someone who agrees strongly with Thomas Hobbesâ natural state of war and his discussion on the glory-seeking behavior of human beings, I find myself supporting Binmoreâs statement that all humans are staunchly self-regarding individuals. However, I do agree with some of Binmoreâs critics that in an attempt to combine mathematical game theory with explanations of the nature of human societies, Binmore failed to present a balanced mixture of mathematics and political theory. I find most of his book still very technical, even when Natural Justice is far less game theoretical than most of Binmoreâs former works. Regardless of stating that he is not going to rely on mathematical equ>
