Investigative Strategy
Introduction
A judicious investigation is crucial in serving justice. An investigating officer has the responsibility of ensuring that enough evidence is gathered and presented before the court of law for prosecution (Merck, 2013). A thorough investigation and subsequent prosecution of criminals will not only bring order to society but also serve justice. Some of the materials that can be used to obtain evidence include CCTV, fingerprints, footprints, blood, firearms, cartridges, as well as other forensic evidence. The crime scene should be cordoned off to prevent interference with evidence. Media and witnesses are also crucial in the provision of evidence.
Background Of Investigation
Mason was killed in a savage attack. However, no one has been charged with the murder. The forensic evidence, as well as crime scene materials, has been prepared. The police argue that they have substantial information that is adequate to bring the investigation to a conclusion. The investigating officers claim that there is new forensic evidence that can aid the investigation (Brookman, 2017). This paper seeks to formulate an investigative strategy to bring the investigation to a conclusion. Jim Mason was a police informer and a member of Leave (a paramilitary group). Before his murder, he informed the police that he was unsafe and that the group suspected him. After that, he died from a gunshot to the head while holding a gun in his hand. The media and newspapers argue that the police didn’t deal well with him and his family before he died.
Crime Scene
A crime scene is the place at which an investigation begins. It is where the crime happened. It usually has various pieces of evidence, such as a piece of cloth, blood stains, magazines, and the ground itself, among others. This evidence can be subjected to forensic assessments to determine what exactly happened (Daniel, 2015). I will secure the crime scene by cordoning it off. This means that the place is out of bounds for the public. I will ensure that the place is secured and under watch until the investigations are completed. While at the crime scene, as the investigative officer, I will look at every item that may provide evidence.
Forensics
The materials that can be used for forensic analysis include DNA, fibers, blood, fingerprints, footprints, firearms, and ballistics. First, DNA can be analyzed in the laboratory to determine the truth about the crime. If the victim or the criminal happened to have left blood stains or touched any objects, then those materials can be assessed through forensic analysis in a laboratory (Merck, 2013). Again, if one happened to have touched something or stepped on something, then their fingerprints or footprints could be taken and analyzed in a laboratory. Regarding firearms and ballistics, an investigator will look at fingerprints on firearms or ballistic evidence. Then, they will be subjected to forensic analyses (Fish, Miller, Braswell & Wallace, 2013). The cartridges will be analyzed, and the criminal who used the firearm may be pursued. The outcome of the chosen evidence will aid the crime investigation and help serve justice. This evidence should be recorded and kept safely for future reference if need be. The final forensic report will be presented to the court of law to convict a criminal.
CCTV
Today, technology has made it easy to conduct an investigation by following CCTV footage. It provides video evidence indicating who committed the crime, the place where it was committed, and the time when it was committed (Merck, 2013). It can be monitored. The investigative officer can use CCTV footage to pursue a criminal and launch an evidential investigation. The video from the CCTV should be safely kept for future reference if need be.
Witnesses (At The Scene/House-To-House Enquiries)
Witnesses provide an account of what happened, where, and how it happened. These people are believed to have seen the crime or event happen (Horswell, 2016). They can testify before the court or an officer that they actually witnessed the event. They can be asked to return to the scene and explain what happened and how. Alternatively, the officer may launch house-to-house inquiries to conduct an investigation. Witnesses should be protected.
Media
Media are also part of the investigation. Media are essential in providing evidence at the scene. They capture video and follow events as they happen. The police should work closely with the media to enhance their investigation. The media have been accused of revealing information to some victims or their families about what has occurred (Horswell, 2016). Thus, the police should request that the media not discuss crimes that are under investigation, since this may interfere with the evidence. The victim’s family should be encouraged to cooperate with the investigating officers for a better outcome of the investigation.
Evaluation Of The Available Evidence
It is important for the investigating officers to critically evaluate the evidence they have. Moreover, they should strive to look for more evidence. This evidence may be able to convict someone of a crime. Notably, if shoddy evidence is evaluated by the police, then there will be no justice for the victims and their families. According to Dammer and Albanese (2013), the investigative officers should work closely with the community to obtain substantial evidence. Additionally, the police should conceal the identity of the eyewitness/individual so that their life may not be at risk.
Restoring Public Confidence
One of the tenets of crime investigation is the restoration of public trust. The reason is that public inquiry is crucial in providing leads to evidence that the investigative officer may need. To promote public confidence, the investigation should be conducted in a transparent and prompt manner. Failure to conduct a prompt investigation will erode public confidence.
Risks
While carrying out the investigation, it is important to maintain the safety of individuals engaged in the investigation, whether they are witnesses or investigative officers, as well as the community at large (Schaveling, Blaauw & van Montfort, 2017). Eyewitnesses should be protected. Furthermore, there is also a need for the investigative officer to guarantee the safety of witnesses, as provided in the Data Protection Act (1998), the Human Rights Act (2000), and the Freedom of Information Act. The acts provide a conducive environment under which the investigation is conducted and underscore the risk of accepting information at face value.
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is essential to determine what kind of information one should gather. It will also lead to proper decision-making. The decision that is to be made will be able to prevent the risk from occurring or recurring (Vito & Maahs, 2015). At disposition, many questions become relevant, including suitable placement, the level of security, as well as subsequent treatment programs for the youth. In this regard, dispositions demand that the court consider proper sanctions and interventions with the most appropriate procedures for preventing the particular behavior from recurring in the future (Mac Giollabhuí, Goold & Loftus, 2016). Additionally, after planning, community re-entry may benefit from risk assessment to establish the necessary level of intervention and monitoring for young people while they are living in the community. Thus, one needs to synthesize the information after gathering it, defining the type of problem/situation, diagnosing the condition of individuals, and conducting a proper assessment.
Assessment and screening ought to be tied together in a decision-making situation. One question that should be asked is whether the victim or the youth is suitable to be referred for diversion from the juvenile justice system. Moreover, at detention, one of the key questions that should be asked is whether the youth may require secure pretrial detention to prevent recidivism or failure to appear before a court of law (Siegel et al. 2014). In judicial processes, the question is more likely to be whether the case should be waived to an adult court or instead transferred to a juvenile court.
The Back on Track, also known as the BOT assessment tool, has two elements. The first element is the initial prescreen, while the second is the full assessment. Therefore, the two aspects incorporate domains similar to those in the PACT assessment tool. Also, social history, as well as behavior, plays a greater role in determining the reasons people commit crimes. The risk-screening elements are scored and carefully combined to create an overall risk score. Hence, the total score categorizes the youth’s level of risk, which is then used in making detention decisions (O’Neill, 2018). Similarly, PACT, the Positive Achievement Change Tool, and BOT, Back on Track, have various domains to provide workers with information on social as well as criminal histories. In this sense, the pre-screen establishes the risk level accorded to every individual (Akiyama et al. 2015). Nonetheless, it can be concluded that the two have higher chances of committing future offenses. The reason is that they have criminal records. Therefore, both juveniles may presently pose a risk of harm to the communities in which they live.
The extra information required to complete the risk assessment is crucial in producing a valid score and determining the level of risk. For instance, in the case of Mason, it is proper to have information regarding his murder. The above information is essential in determining the level of risk and mitigation measures.
Critical Incident Strategy/Management
Admittedly, proactive responses are significant in preventing a loss of confidence in the police. Effective professionalism is key to ensuring that the investigation is brought to a conclusion. First, there is a need to prepare for critical incidents (Newburn, Williamson & Wright, 2012). The main management offices will consider structures with adequately trained staff. These officers will be expected to embrace leadership and supervision abilities. Moreover, early identification and notification of crime are critical in ensuring a successful investigation.
Procedural Justice
Procedural justice and police legitimacy are subjects of concern today and cannot be wished away because they directly affect the community. Whenever it comes to the discussion of criminal investigation, the subject takes center stage (Becker, 2005). The subject broadly concerns the trust communities have in the police who enforce the law. The sensitivity of the matter has caused the two concepts to be combined into a single subject today, despite the fact that they developed several decades ago as independent subjects. There are different principles on which the concepts have been founded, and a lot of information has been combined so that the concepts can be better understood and efficiently implemented to create harmony between the involved parties: the police and the community they serve. There are four major components governing procedural justice: neutrality, or simply being fair in justice dispensation; listening to the inner voice; treating the subjects with respect; and the essence of trust in the community by law enforcers (Becker, 2005). Diverse approaches have been created and used for some time to create harmony and a working partnership between law enforcement agencies and all other stakeholders in the process of actualizing procedural justice and ensuring that the police execute their responsibilities with due diligence.
Moreover, procedural justice revolves around the act of being fair and transparent whenever it comes to decision-making (Backer, 2017). It can alternatively be perceived as an act of distributive justice: being fair whenever giving penalties for offenses committed by the subjects. Whenever one is charged with the responsibility to administer justice, they should remain non-partisan and penalize the offender according to the law but not do so with malice or favor (Lofstrom & Raphael, 2016). All the involved individuals should be heard fairly before any verdicts are made. A fair hearing is a considerable step and is accepted by all as appropriate when it comes to procedural justice. Once adhered to, the ensuing judgment of the situation will be considered due process in administering justice to the victims. Equitable outcomes have been witnessed according to procedural justice theories (Higgins, 2014). The theory emphasizes that whenever a fair procedure is held, justice must always prevail. The outcome must always be of high quality according to interpersonal interactions, as the process of procedural justice broadly discusses. Whenever there is conflict resolution, an act of fairness always has a positive impact on the perception of all the involved parties.
The media have investigated and followed up on some criminal cases. Certain media have video evidence as well as sound recordings, which are essential in proving a case in the judicial system (Newburn, Williamson & Wright, 2012). Thus, an investigator should take evidence from the media seriously and use it with other sources of evidence to bring an investigation to a conclusion (Becker, 2005). Additionally, forensic evidence is crucial in crime investigations since it provides a significant amount of evidence that can aid judicial processes (Smith, 2018). It is one of the sources of evidence that can lead to a conclusion of the case. A gunshot is also another source of evidence. There may be witnesses who can both see and hear the event or who happen to be around at the time of the shooting. Moreover, after gunshots, bullet cartridges are left behind, which are also a main source of evidence. CCTV cameras capture video of events (Becker, 2005). They are installed in specific places such as buildings, within houses, or on roads to capture events as they happen. They provide visual evidence that can be trusted and can help in judicial procedures. The video can later be analyzed by experts to find out who committed crimes in a specific area.
Some investigative media have vital information regarding crime and criminals. Thus, the police should work closely with the media in order to enhance their investigative duties (Newburn, Williamson & Wright, 2012). For instance, at the crime scene, the police should cordon off the area and even keep away people and the media before an investigation is launched. The reason is that the media at the crime scene may interfere with evidence and report things that have not been confirmed. The evidence at the crime scene may not take a lot of time to investigate because there are traces of items, blood, and weapons that can be examined (Becker, 2005). On the other hand, CCTV may store large amounts of data for a long time until the crime is investigated. The data may be kept for future reference. Gunshots provide effective evidence to crime investigators. Conversely, witnesses testify about what they saw or heard. They can speak, and this evidence is live testimony. However, there could be biases among witnesses.
National Decision Model
Police deserve to be given their space when it comes to discharging their responsibilities. They should be well endowed with the authority to enable them to effectively exercise the duty of law enforcement so that law and order can be maintained among the subjects (Smith, 2018). This way, conflicts can be easily and effectively managed, and the emerging problems in the community can be readily solved. Police legitimacy can be anchored on three perspectives or judgments; the most significant is the trust the community has in the police and the extent to which the public can confide in the police. For there to be confidence in the police, the community should believe and be sure that the police are always honest when discharging their duties and that they are doing so to the best of their abilities (Kassin, Kukucka, Lawson & DeCarlo, 2014). Besides, the community should understand that the police exist for their well-being because they protect the community from possible violence and crime. Secondly, legitimacy brings out the idea that the subjects should be willing to recognize the authority of the police. The entire community within which any police unit operates is obligated to submit to its authority and take responsibility for accepting that the police are the law-enforcement unit (McCartney, 2005).
Lastly, police legitimacy should be perceived as meaning that the actions of the police are morally justified and appropriate to the situation. The prevailing view should be that the police have always acted in the interests of the people they serve and not in their own interests or those of the agencies they belong to. A conflict of interest would arise should the police become partisan in their duty and, as such, would result in a state of lawlessness that might not have any positive impact on any well-meaning community.
Minorities in most communities and the racially maligned may, in many instances, perceive law enforcement agencies and the police as unlawful. This is founded on the relationship the police often have with the latter (Sinclair, 2017). Such a perception creates distrust between the police unit and communities. Such distrust may have distasteful consequences.
Thus, the relationship between the police and this subset of the community would remain poor. Such a situation would greatly undermine the legitimacy of the police and, by extension, the law-enforcement process. So long as the police have been labeled illegitimate, they may lose their moral authority, and the unit may become ineffective because it would not have the authority or the ability to effectively execute its duties (Xin, 2015). Overall, for any society that wants to be free and safe, effective law enforcement should be the pillar or fabric that holds the community together. Effective law enforcement would mean accountability and integrity, and there would be cooperation between the involved parties. Such a community would be open to new ideas, and service delivery would be quick (Jarvis, 2015). The community would be more livable, and it would be open to development. It would be a community in which mutual respect is upheld, and it would be easier to nip any emerging animosities in the bud to ensure the entire community remains in order.
Formulating An Alternative Hypothesis
An alternative hypothesis on the evaluation of the evidence is key to ensuring that investigations are successfully concluded. It is true that police decision-making is complex (Becker, 2005). The reason is that decisions are needed in the most difficult situations and are usually made with contradictory or incomplete information (Huff-Corzine et al., 2013). Police officers are required to make decisions in situations in which those involved give misleading information. Thus, these decisions may not be able to achieve a satisfactory outcome (Sansoni, Trebeschi & Docchio, 2009). To assist every person in policing to evaluate evidence and provide a framework in which decisions can be challenged and evaluated, police services are expected to adopt a national decision model. The reason is that the national decision model gathers information from various documents. This information can be accessed by any investigating officer from any point.
A Constraint In The Form Of Risk Management
There is a need to have good political will and support for investigating officers. This will give the officers the motivation to conclude an investigation successfully. Also, there is a need to have robust policies in place that will assess and support any research. Regarding ethical issues, data protection acts prohibit revealing the identities of witnesses for their security. Thus, there is a need to have a robust legal framework that is supportive and flexible so that investigations will be concluded and justice served. The risk-management plan should be robust and elaborate.
References
Akiyama, Y., Nolan, J. J., Weiss, K. G., & Gilliard-Matthews, S. (2015). Lifetime Likelihood Computations With NIBRS. Justice Research and Policy, 16(2), 129-146.
Backer, L. C. (2017). From a ‘ Two Thrust Approach to a ‘ Two Sword One Thrust Strategy’ to Combat Criminal Corruption: Government Enforcement of Compliance and Oversight by Sovereign Investors.
Becker, R. F. (2005). Criminal investigation. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Bennett, W., & Hess, K. (2006). Criminal investigation. Cengage Learning.
Bitzer, S., Ribaux, O., Albertini, N., & Delémont, O. (2016). To analyze a trace or not? Evaluating the decision-making process in the criminal investigation. Forensic Science International, 262, 1-10.
Brookman, F. (2017). Accessing and analyzing police murder files. In Qualitative Research in Criminology (1999) (pp. 46-61). Routledge.
Carr, J. B., & Doleac, J. L. (2016). The geography, incidence, and underreporting of gun violence: new evidence using ShotSpotter data. Incidence and Underreporting of Gun Violence: New Evidence Using Shotspotter Data (April 26, 2016).
Dammer, H. R., & Albanese, J. S. (2013). Comparative criminal justice systems. Cengage Learning.
Daniel, B. (2015). Software and the Law: Digital Forensic Investigations and E-Discovery.
Fish, J. T., Miller, L. S., Braswell, M. C., & Wallace, E. W. (2013). Crime scene investigation. Routledge.
Granja, F. M., & Rafael, G. D. R. (2015). Preservation of digital evidence: Application in criminal investigation. In Science and Information Conference (SAI), 2015 (pp. 1284-1292). IEEE.
Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Cho, H. L. (2016). Criminal investigation. Cengage Learning.
Higgins, G. E. (2014). Understanding Digital Piracy Using Social Networks. Social Networking as a Criminal Enterprise, 111.
Horswell, J. (2016). Crime scene investigation. In The Practice of Crime Scene Investigation (pp. 29-72). CRC Press.
Huff-Corzine, L., McCutcheon, J. C., Corzine, J., Jarvis, J. P., Tetzlaff-Bemiller, M. J., Weller, M., & Landon, M. (2013). Shooting for accuracy: Comparing data sources on mass murder. Homicide Studies, 1088767913512205.
Jarvis, J. P. (2015). Examining National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Data Perspectives From a Quarter Century of Analysis Efforts. Justice Research and Policy, 16(2), 195-210.
Kassin, S. M., Kukucka, J., Lawson, V. Z., & DeCarlo, J. (2014). Does video recording alter the behavior of police during interrogation? A mock crime-and-investigation study. Law and human behavior, 38(1), 73.
Lofstrom, M., & Raphael, S. (2016). Crime, the Criminal Justice System, and Socioeconomic Inequality. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 103-126.
Mac Giollabhuí, S., Goold, B., & Loftus, B. (2016). Watching the watchers: conducting ethnographic research on the covert police investigation in the United Kingdom. Qualitative Research, 16(6), 630-645.
Maguire, M. (2003). Criminal investigation and crime control. Handbook of policing, 363-393.
McCartney, C. (2005). The DNA expansion programme and criminal investigation. British Journal of Criminology, 46(2), 175-192.
Merck, M. D. (2013). Crime scene investigation. Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations, 17-35.
Newburn, T., Williamson, T., & Wright, A. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of the criminal investigation. Routledge.
O’Neill, M. (2018). Key challenges in the criminal investigation. Policy Press.
Osterburg, J. W., & Ward, R. H. (2010). Criminal investigation: A method for reconstructing the past. Routledge.
Rakoff, J. S., & Goldstein, H. W. (2017). RICO: Civil and Criminal Law and Strategy. Law Journal Press.
Rossmo, D. K. (2017). Place, space, and police investigations: Hunting violent serial criminals. In Principles of Geographical Offender Profiling (pp. 165-180). Routledge.
Sansoni, G., Trebeschi, M., & Docchio, F. (2009). State-of-the-art and applications of 3D imaging sensors in industry, cultural heritage, medicine, and criminal investigation. Sensors, 9(1), 568-601.
Schwartz, J., & Vega, A. (2017). Sources of Crime Data. In Preventing Crime and Violence (pp. 155-167). Springer International Publishing.
Shaveling, J., Blaauw, S., & van Montfort, K. (2017). Predictors of group performance in a police criminal investigation department: The role of gender homogeneity, leadership, and team characteristics. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32(4), 358-368.
Siegel, M., Negussie, Y., Vanture, S., Pleskunas, J., Ross, C. S., & King III, C. (2014). The relationship between gun ownership and stranger and nonstranger firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981–2010. American journal of public health, 104(10), 1912-1919.
Sinclair, G. (2017). ‘Hard-Headed, Hard-Bitten, Hard-Hitting and Courageous Men of Innate Detective Ability…’ From Criminal Investigation to Political and Security Policing at the end of Empire, 1945-50. In Police Detectives in History, 1750–1950 (pp. 195-217). Routledge.
Smith, G. (2018). Active Investigation of Alleged Police Human Rights Abuse: Combating Impunity. In The Police and International Human Rights Law (pp. 83-101). Springer, Cham.
Vito, G. F., & Maahs, J. R. (2015). Criminology. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Xin, Z. (2015). The Reflection and Construction on the Research Methods of Science of Criminal Investigation.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
