Criminal Profiling and Criminal Investigation - Essay Example

Nevertheless, the possibility of this evidence stands the challenge of being circumstantial evidence in a court of law (Robertson & Law, 2007). In a bid to make the case more concrete and formidable, a forensic analysis of the environment of the car will need to be conducted to determine the possibility of the victim having been in the car. Evidences such as fingerprints and body secretion analysis will offer concrete backup of the already present evidence. Additionally, a DNA cross mating in an expertise environment will be used in support of the relationship between the hair and the victim.

DNA offers a formidable ground for prosecution thus offering a piece of factual evidence that the suspect was involved in the crime (Devery, 2010). The use of dogs in criminal investigation has been in existence in criminal justice for a long time. The use of investigator dogs is as a result of a highly developed sense of smell that the dogs have as compared to a man. In this relation, in an attempt to improve the efficiency of the investigation, different sub-species of dogs have been employed for this duty owing to the differences in the sense even among the dog species.

In most circumstances, arson dogs are used as aids is a compilation of pieces of evidence in the determination of the fire was accidental or was intentionally caused. The use of these dogs in sniffing inflammable is a time used in a court of law as proof for the intentional cause of the fire. Nevertheless, the main question is the credibility of the findings of the dogs as evidence for a conviction. On a personal opinion, the use of evidence from arson dogs in a court of law presents nonfactual ruling.

A dog like any other animal could commit errors and cannot be relied on completely to be the sole determinant of evidence (DesPortes, 2010). Nevertheless, I believe chemical sniffers are better positioned to give evidence that is more credible in a law court than the use of arson dogs. Additionally, the evidence presented from the findings of an arson dog should be treated as circumstantial evidence as it lacks concrete backing from other sources that can scientifically link an individual to a criminal act.