The Effective Investigation and Resolution of a Major Crime - Essay Example

Investigation and Resolution of a Major Crime The effective investigation and resolution of a major crime is a complex task involving a wide range of multi-disciplinary experts. Discuss. It is certainly true that the investigation and resolution of major crimes can become quite complex while requiring the help of a large number of experts who can let the investigators come to the right conclusion. However, this complexity not only comes from the level of technology we have with regard to investigative procedures, it also comes from the desire to seek out the truth and to protect the innocent from being punished for a crime they did not commit. In that regard, forensics becomes the most complex of the sciences which are used to solve major crimes. In essence, forensics are nothing more than the application of scientific principles to the study of pieces of evidence that are gathered from and around a crime scene. This is the pinnacle of detective work and has been used to solve crimes since ancient times. In fact, the most famous detective of all is none other than Sherlock Holmes who often used forensic tools to solve crimes. Even in modern times, television shows and films show detectives using things such as DNA Analysis and fingerprints to catch the villains of the story. The Norfolk Constabulary (2008) reports that: “The media image of Crime Scene Investigation is very different to the reality. On TV, instant information about the victim, time and reason for death and a profile of the murderer is provided by forensic investigators instantly at the scene of a crime. The whole crime is usually solved by the end of the program (Norfolk Constabulary, 2008, Pg. 1)”. However, in the realm of reality, forensics is perhaps less glamorous since it involves a lot of work and might take a lot of time on part of the investigators working on a crime. In terms of forensic investigations, the Norfolk Constabulary (2008) considers major crimes to be murder while theft or vandalism is taken to be minor crime. In essence, the job of a forensics expert is to interpret the crime scene and use all possible tools such as DNA analysis, fingerprints, hair samples, cloth fibres, paint chips, glass shards, tool marks and even shoe prints which can lead to the conviction of a criminal. All these pieces of data become evidence against a party and when enough evidence to make a conviction has been gathered, arrests can be made and the accused individuals can be taken to trial. This is where the legal experts and the lawyers come into play as the accused needs to be defended and s/he needs to be prosecuted. In some situations, court room dynamics and possibly loopholes within the law may lead to a mistrial and the accused can be let go if the case falls apart in court on legal grounds. However, the majority of convictions are accurate and leave very little to chance except in cases where the accused is suffering from a mental disease (Rowe et. al. 2003). In fact Henderson (2003) discusses the misconception that the insanity plea is a useful defence in legal cases. He notes that a person suffering from a mental condition is more likely to harm his/her own self than anyone else. Further, their chances of being found guilty are much higher as well therefore a significant portion of inmates in Her Majesty’s Prison System are suffering from mental conditions. Rowe et. al. (2003) discuss the case of Australia and discuss the information gathered from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research which show less than 1% of criminal cases are ever dismissed on mental grounds. In fact, the rate of dismissal on legal and procedural grounds is much higher since criminals can fall through the cracks. Lawyers in general know that the insanity defence or mental illness as a tool is not a very good idea since some courts have been known to make the accused in such cases a mental patient and forced them to live in a hospital. In such situations, they may end up spending a longer time incarcerated within the hospital than what they would have spent in the prison if they had been found guilty. As a matter of fact, the situation could be tilted in the other direction since a large number of mental health patients may not have the charges against them dismissed and would therefore be incarcerated and made a part of the prison population (Henderson, 2003). There are some very sobering statistics which show that having and placing mental health patients in the prison system creates a problem with prison suicides. Stewart and Hatloy (2007) reported that: “In 2002, there were 94 suicides in prisons in England and Wales: 85 men and nine women. Prison suicide increased by 40 per cent during the 1990s. The number of self-inflicted deaths in 2002 was the highest in the last 10 years. This rate translates as being over 12 times the total male suicide rate (Stewart and Hatloy, 2007, Pg.1)”. These figures clearly show that there is something very wrong with our prison system which is highlighted by the fact of increased numbers of prison suicides in recent years. The prison management body in the UK, i.e. HMPS (Her Majesty’s Prison Service) declared quite clearly in their corporate plan that, “A reduction in the number of self-inflicted deaths has been rated as the Service’s highest priority (HMPS, 2004, Pg. 20)”. However, despite the issues, it must be noted that the prison system remains best tool available to the government to ensure that the individuals who owe a debt to society pay it in terms of the punishment they are given. With regard to punishment, Burke (2005) gives an excellent overview of the idea of punishment and he credits the modern system of punishing criminals through prison and incarceration to an Italian thinker named Beccaria. Becaaria founded the classical school of criminology where the idea of crime and punishment are based on the social contract between the individual and society. Crime was seen as a violation of the contract and the punishment given to a criminal was considered the settlement of the debt. However, in a marked difference to earlier philosophies about crime where the punishment was dependent on factors beyond the nature of the crime alone, Beccaria suggested that the debt owed by criminals should be in direct proportion to the crime which they had committed. In the early and late medieval age, the punishments for even the most minor offenses committed by the public could be quite harsh and physical torture was quite common. Beccaria went ahead and recommended that crimes as well as the punishment for the crimes should be noted and given according to their seriousness with respect to their impact on individuals as well as society at large. He also suggested that capital punishment i.e. the death penalty should be removed from the books altogether. Instead of capital punishment, the criminals should be used by the social system as a part of the labour force (Burke, 2005). It must be noted that during Beccaria’s time, more than a hundred criminal offenses against the government, the royalty, or society could result in the criminal being awarded the death penalty. Thus Beccaria’s ideas of using criminals to bring some value to society while ensuring that their lives were saved, was certainly a moderate and enlightened idea for the time. In fact, the idea of using criminals for the benefit of society still remains an important fixture of the justice system (Siegel, 2005). Burke (2005) credits the overall development and application of the idea of the rational actor model with regard to the criminal justice system to Beccaria when he says that, “It is Beccaria’s theory of criminal behaviour that provides the essential foundations of the rational actor model (Burke, 2005, Pg. 24)”. Of course today depending on the location and the situation in which a person is placed in prison, the utility which society derives from him/her may change quite dramatically. While prisoners are put to work for the benefit of society in many places, others simply put them in situations where they only become hardened criminals by not focusing on their education and training (Bayliss, 2003). Unfortunately, there have also been situations where individuals have been wrongly accused, wrongly convicted and even been given the death penalty when it was later discovered that they were innocent of their crimes. While the justice system cannot do anything about reversing the death of a person, they can certainly learn from such situations to ensure that the same do not happen in the future. Most importantly, the justice system itself and all the crime related experts who work within the justice system work tirelessly to ensure that no one is wrongly accused and no one is wrongly punished. Undoubtedly, the hanging of an innocent man is something which no one wants to see therefore the idea of reasonable doubt and being considered innocent until proven guilty remains important concerns for those who deal with justice. Works Cited Bayliss, P. 2003, Learning behind bars: time to liberate prison education, Studies in the Education of Adults, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 157-172. Burke, R. 2005, An Introduction to Criminological Theory, Willan Publishing. Henderson, C. 2003, ‘Why people with a mental illness are Over-represented in the Criminal Justice System’, [Online] Available at: http://www.mhca.org.au/ HMPS (Her Majesty’s Prison Service), 2004. Corporate Plan. [Online] Available at: http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/abouttheservice/ Norfolk Constabulary. 2008, ‘Forensic Investiagtion’, [Online] Available at: http://www.norfolk.police.uk/article.cfm?artID=11271&catID=671&bctrail=0 Rowe, R. et. al. 2003. Sadness, pathology and the Australian newspaper media. Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 680-696. Siegel, L. 2005, Criminology, Wadsworth Publishing. Stewart and Hatloy, 2007. ‘Suicide in prisons’, [Online] Available at: http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Factsheets/Suicide/ Word Count: 1,558 Read More