Gathering Evidence for a Crime - Essay Example

Critical Analysis of Forensic Criminological Examination of Sex Offence While gathering evidence for a crime, police have three main aims - to help establish what offence was committed, to collect evidence, and to search for clues for identifying or confirming the identity of offender (Queensland Police 2014). Evidence is gathered from the crime scene, victim’s clothing, forensic examination of victim, medical examination of suspect (if located), and examination of items used during offence (cps.gov.uk n.d.). The forensic medical examination is performed within 72 hours after the assault by a doctor or general practitioner with specialised training whose task is to gather any form of DNA or other evidence on the victim’s body and clothing and to note injuries that may have occurred (nidirect.gov.uk n.d.). Samples such as pubic hair, hair, saliva, blood and scrapes from under finger nails are collected and sent for laboratory investigation to detect the attacker’s DNA. Sample collection is done using a rape kit which generally includes items such as swabs, blood collection devices, comb, envelopes for fibers and hair, evidence collection bags and sheets and documentation forms (Murnaghan 2009). Forensic examiners detect the presence of body fluids such as semen of the suspect, which is detected through acid phosphatase test, prostate specific antigen, choline or laurell test or by simply detecting the presence of spermatozoa; vaginal secretions of the victim which may be present on the accused individual’s clothing or body; saliva of the accused individual which might be present on the victim’s body due to kissing and biting; blood which is detected by crystal tests, presumptive peroxidase test, etc., and also the presence of faeces or urine (Fraser and Williams 2013). Semen may however not be always detected because the assailant may have used a condom during the offence, or ejaculation may not have occurred, or he may have had a vasectomy or he may have a low sperm count (Forensic Access 2015). In the case of all these samples however, DNA profiling helps in identifying the suspect. In other cases, blood pattern analysis may also be performed to help in the investigation (Forensic Access 2015). DNA profiling, also called DNA fingerprinting or STR analysis is also called a “gold standard for truth telling” (Aronson 2007, p. 1). It is a very sensitive technique that can be done with a minute amount of sample and helps identify individuals based on their DNA profile (Aronson 2007). It is possible to differentiate the DNA of one individual from another and match the DNA profile from sample to that of suspect or victim. The DNA profile can also be compared to other profiles on a DNA database and find a match with other individuals on the database to identify the assailant (Aronson 2007). However, DNA evidence may not always be fool-proof because although it can help identify an assailant with a high degree of certainty or at least link him to the crime scene, it is not always clear how that individual’s DNA came to be present at the crime scene and does not reveal anything about whether the victim may have been a consenting individual at the time the act had taken place, especially when the victim and the suspect have been in an intimate relationship earlier (aifs.gov.au 2015). Therefore, in most cases, DNA evidence is not often sufficient to base a conviction. Apart from the investigation of presence of DNA evidence from body fluids, forensic examination also involves forensic toxicology, which helps ascertain whether an individual was under the influence of drugs, alcohol, medicines, poisons or other volatile substances at the time of the crime (Forensic Access 2015). Typically, urine and blood samples are taken for toxicology tests and the results provide valuable clues for further forensic examination of the incident. Police also attempt to gather evidence from the crime scene and take down the victim’s account of the incident. In such a case, evidence such as fingerprints are detected at the crime scene and subjected to biometric analysis (Karanja 2008). However, this process is cumbersome as finding fingerprints and then matching them with possible suspects is a long process. It also has the same disadvantages as that of DNA profiling as the presence of fingerprints alone cannot confirm whether the associated individual was actually involved in the crime itself. Apart from gathering physical evidence, interviews are taken from the victim, witnesses (if any), and other relatives, friends and neighbours for background investigation (The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training 1999). If the victim is a child, a special child interviewer is sanctioned for the interview (Terry 2012). If a suspect is unknown, detectives investigate as to who it might be and if he is identified, the victim may be asked to identify him from a photographic line-up (cps.gov.uk n.d.). Once the suspect is identified, he is interrogated as per protocol. Polygraph (lie detector test) may also be used during suspect interrogation (Burkey, Bensel and Walker 2013). In the case of sexual offences, it is not possible to make an arrest immediately after a victim reports the crime (Marie De Santis 2010). This is because it takes time to develop the evidence to prove an offence in court. Finding DNA evidence is the most crucial part of the investigation that helps build a strong case that can be presented in court (Petherick, Turvey and Ferguson 2009). In the case of sexual offence, the victim’s body also becomes a “crime scene” which must be protected to avoid losing evidence (Snow 2006). Detection of the defendant’s (suspect) DNA in biological material (such as semen and saliva) left on the victim’s body proves that he is its source and thus the perpetrator of the crime (Lifecentre n.d.). However, this could sometimes be misleading, especially if the defendant is a relative or friend of the victim and who might have been in close contact with him before the occurrence of the offence (Hazelwood and Burgess 2008). Collection of physical evidence is also difficult as trace evidence such as hair can be lost in transit, or by actions of the victim himself (such as bathing) before reporting the crime (nidirect.gov.uk n.d.). Medical examinations could also be embarrassing for the victim as he is required to recall the incident while exposing parts of his body that may have been subjected to the offence. Victims may hesitate or shy away from revealing their bodies to medical examiners (Snow 2006). Most often, there is very little or no evidence found in medical examinations to support the victim’s statements. At such a time, forensic criminological examination tends to rely on the investigative skills of police officers to establish evidence of guilt for the offence (The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training 1999). Typically, they rely on the victim’s statement, eye witness accounts and suspect interviews to find cues and establish the defendant’s guilt (Gavin 2013). For this, police officers determine the ‘probable cause’, i.e. whether or not reasonable grounds exist to conclude whether the crime did occur and that the suspect did commit the crime (Baldwin 2015). If the police is able to determine the probable cause, they may arrest the suspect even before charges are filed (Terry 2012). Interviewing a sex offence victim is a tricky and sensitive process. Victims are required to recall the entire experience, which in itself might be painful for them, and this is further magnified when police ask personal questions in detail (Orthmann and Hess 2012). There are also chances of false accusations by victims. It is seen that some women may file false reports for various reasons such as getting revenge from an ex-lover who jilted their love, getting attention, or covering up a pregnancy (Orthmann and Hess 2012). Chances of such false accusations could be minimized through polygraphs (Gavin 2013). However, on the other hand, it may also occur that a victim or eye witness is completely convinced that he/she is telling the truth but he/she may actually be mistaken about the identity of the suspect (Rowley 2009). A woman mistakenly claimed that a TV personality was her rapist while the actual incident was that she had watched the man on television sometime before being raped by another individual (Hayasaki 2014). Many other false convictions have been subsequently proved wrong. Eye witness testimony may not always be reliable because victims or witnesses of a crime are emotionally and psychologically disturbed and may not be in a strong mental state to correctly identify a suspect, especially in photographic line-ups (Rowley 2009). Police also interview suspects in order to elicit a confession, which is a strong evidence to produce in court and which is difficult to refute during a prosecution (Gavin 2013). Confessions are most often sought by investigators if there is not enough physical evidence to establish guilt (Burkey, Bensel and Walker 2013). However, it should be noted that suspect confessions are also not always true and there are chances of false confessions (Jensen n.d.). It is hypothesized by researchers that sometimes, suspects tend to give false confessions as they are led to believe that the whole affair will be handled quietly if they simply tell the investigators what happened and if they refuse to answer, they will be subjected to a very public prosecution (Jensen n.d.). Once enough evidence is collected against a suspect to present in court, a prosecutor needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect actually committed the crime (Richardson and Clark 2014). References aifs.gov.au (2015), “The role of forensic medical evidence in the prosecution of adult sexual assault”, accessed at https://www3.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/issue/i15/i15c.html. Aronson, J (2007), Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Baldwin, L (2015), “Pressing Charges for a Criminal Act”, accessed at http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-offense/pressing-charges-a-criminal-act.htm. Burkey, CS, Bensel, T, & Walker, JT (2013), Forensic Investigation of Sex Crimes and Sexual Offenders, Oxford: Routledge. cps.gov.uk (n.d.), “Rape and Sexual Offences: Chapter 9: Forensic, Scientific and Medical Evidence”, accessed at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/forensic_scientific_and_medical_evidence/. Forensic Access (2015), “Forensic science for the investigation of sexual offences”, accessed at http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/forensic-science-sexual-offences.asp. Fraser, J, & Williams, R (2013), Handbook of Forensic Science, Oxon: Routedge. Gavin, H (2013), Criminological and Forensic Psychology, London: Sage. Hayasaki, E (2014), “The End of Eye Witness Testimonies”, accessed at http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/28/end-eyewitness-testimonies-285414.html. Hazelwood, RR, & Burgess, AW (2008), Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Florida: CRC Press. Jensen, JW (n.d.), “How do police investigate sex crimes?”, accessed at http://www.jensendefense.com/articles/sexcrimesinvestigations.html. Karanja, SK (2008), Transparency and Proportionality in the Schengen Information System and Border Control Co-Operation, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Lifecentre (n.d.), “Gathering Forensic Evidence”, accessed at http://www.lifecentre.uk.com/police_info/gathering_forensic_evidence.html. Marie De Santis (2010), “First Line Criminal Justice Advocacy”, accessed at http://justicewomen.com/handbook/part2_e.html. Murnaghan, I (2015), “Processing Rape Evidence”, Explore Forensics, accessed at http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/processing-rape-evidence.html. nidirect.gov.uk (n.d.), Handbook for victims, accessed at http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/victims-of-rape-and-sexual-assault. Orthmann, CS, & Hess, K (2012), Criminal Investigation, London: Cengage Learning. Petherick, W, Turvey, BE, & Ferguson, CE (2009), Forensic Criminology, London: Academic Press. Queensland Police (2014), “Gathering Evidence”, accessed at https://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/adultassault/report/gatherEvidence.htm. Richardson, N, & Clark, P (2014), Richardson and Clark: Sexual Offences: A Practitioners Guide, London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Rowley, Sylvia (2009, August 18), “Wrongful conviction throws spotlight on unreliability of eyewitness evidence”, The Guardian, accessed at http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/18/eyewitness-evidence-wrongful-conviction. Snow, RL (2006), Sex Crimes Investigation: Catching and Prosecuting the Perpetrators, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Terry, K (2012), Sexual Offenses and Offenders: Theory, Practice, and Policy, London: Cengage Learning. The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (1999), Guidelines for sexual assault investigation, accessed at http://lib.post.ca.gov/Publications/42653792.pdf. No. of words: 1573 Read More