Criminal investigations and procedural methods

Criminal Investigations

This text will concern itself with a number of issues related to criminal investigations. In so doing, it will amongst other things address the various criminal investigation inquiry methods and discuss an investigator's optimal mindset. Further, in addition to highlighting the scientific method and how it is utilized by investigators in criminal investigations, this text will also identify a criminal investigator's major sources of information.

Inquiry Methods and their Utilization in Criminal Investigation

According to Palmiotto (2004), "investigative authorities estimate that approximately 95% of crimes are cleared through interviews and interrogations." The relevance of these two basic methods of inquiry cannot hence be overstated when it comes to criminal investigation. An interview in the author's own words can be defined as "a purposeful and planned conversation between an interviewer and interviewee to collect data pertaining to an investigation or to substantiate physical evidence" (Palmiotto, 2004). In that regard, an interview within the context of criminal investigation seeks to gather crime details while at the same time advancing investigations. It is however non-custodial. Conducted in a more cordial atmosphere in comparison to an interrogation, an interview provides an investigator with an opportunity to gather all the relevant information from not only victims but also witnesses. It is important to note that interviews can be conducted at any stage of the investigative process. When it comes to an interrogation, Palmiotto (2004) is of the opinion that unlike an interview, the same is rather adversarial. An interrogation according to Kenney and More (as cited in Palmiotto, 2004) is "a systematic questioning in a formal situation where the subject is resistant or unwilling to participate." In the author's opinion, the individual being subjected to an interrogation would most likely want to conceal some information from the investigator. It is for this reason that an interrogation is conducted in an adversarial atmosphere, i.e. The interrogation cubicle where the interrogator possesses a certain level of physiological advantage over the suspect. Unlike an interview, an interrogation is custodial.

An Investigator's Optimal Mindset

Some of the key responsibilities of an investigator include the collection and analysis of evidence. To be able to fulfill these responsibilities, an investigator must have a certain mindset. According to Hess and Orthmann (2009), an investigator should not only be optimistic but also confident. Towards this end, an investigator must never be intimidated by the level of education or even social status of the individual from whom he is seeking some information. A criminal investigator must also be able to remain objective at all times. In this case, Hess and Orthmann (2009) point out that an investigator should avoid having an already preconceived idea regarding the case. As the authors note, any personal prejudices an investigator harbors could interfere with his or her questioning and/or investigations. A sober mind is also critical when it comes to criminal investigations. In this case, the investigator must be able exercise self-control while remaining sensible and rational throughout the investigative process. As Hess and Orthmann (2009) point out, proper utilization of both patience and self-control can "motivate people to talk." It is through motivating people to talk that an investigator gets an opportunity to delve deeper into the very particulars of the investigation.

The Scientific Method and its Application to Criminal Investigations

The application of the scientific method in criminal investigation is according to Becker and Dutelle (2012) largely partial. In the authors' opinion, the parts of the scientific method applicable at any given moment depend on two variables. These two variables are: "the type of crime being investigated and the type of information available" (Becker and Dutelle, 2012). The scientific method essentially concerns itself with the identification of the problem(s) followed by the formulation of the hypothesis and later the collection of all the relevant evidence or data. The Interpretation of data and drafting of conclusions follows thereafter. For instance, in a hypothetical criminal investigation case, the problem remains the crime committed. The formation of a hypothesis in this case could involve the identification of the most likely suspects. It is important to note that hypothesizing as to whom the suspects could be does not necessarily result in the loss of objectivity on the part of the investigator. This is more so the case if the hypothesis is based on an analysis of the motive and/or presence of physical evidence. Data collection on the other hand could include interviewing witnesses, interrogating a potential suspect, etc. Data interpretation could take the form of evaluating as well as reviewing evidence gathered at that point in time. A suspect can be arrested once there is sufficient evidence to charge him or her in a court or law. This allows for the drawing of conclusions. It is however important to note that the hypothetical example I highlight above in an attempt to relate the scientific method to criminal investigation is not standard.

Criminal Investigation: Primary Sources of Information