Crime Scene Investigation
A crime scene investigation is a complex and multistage research process in which a criminology specialist uses various scientific techniques and methodologies from diverse disciplines such as logic, chemistry, ballistics, and statistics. Criminology experts see this investigative practice as a five-step process. The first step is the recognition during which a professional finds and measures “the potential and importance of physical evidence, large and small, at the crime scene” (Miller & Massey, 2018, p. 7). The next one is the identification of the unknown substances found; comparison testing is common practice during this stage (Miller & Massey, 2018). Then forensic and criminology specialists determine the origin and source of identified and described substances; simply put, a determination is the third stage (Miller & Massey, 2018). The fourth one is individualization, during which forensic scientists establish the connection between the evidence and particular persons (Miller & Massey, 2018). Crime reconstruction is the final procedure in this investigative process. Law enforcement officials test and evaluate the plausibility and likelihood of their hypotheses and guesses using the available physical evidence and other data.
The general approach to investigating crime in the public and private sectors is similar. Investigators follow the five steps outlined above in each of the two settings. Its function and duty are the same in both contexts. These are to “help people find answers and provide” (Private vs. public investigators, n.d., para. 6). However, the tools by which these two categories of investigators achieve these goals vary. According to experts, “all investigative tools are supplied for public investigators, whereas a PI must provide their own investigative equipment” (Private vs. public investigators, n.d., para. 4). Moreover, private criminal investigators do not have a special formal right to carry small arms (Private vs. public investigators, n.d.). The big difference lies in obligation since public investigators serve society and the country, while private ones are accountable to the specific people and firms that hired them.
Tools for Measuring Scientific Opinion in Court and Their Differences
It is no secret that crime investigators are not the only group of public and private specialists involved in identifying offenders and victims and confirming their statuses. Courts are also engaged in the search and establishment of the truth in the crimes that have occurred. These organizations use excellent investigative techniques and techniques to explain the events and identify the responsible individuals, which are legal standards and testimonies of persons. The testimony of expert witnesses is of particular decisive and critical value for the flow of the trial, as their opinion is objective and, therefore, different from other ones. As O’Neil (2017) notes, “the overriding duty of an expert witness is to provide independent, impartial, and unbiased evidence to the court or tribunal” (para. 5). Since the insight they give to the judge and other participants in the trial is of the utmost importance, unique legal criteria have been developed to assess and confirm their truthfulness, objectivity, and relevance.
United States judicial law has two standards by which judges assess the admissibility and objectivity of scientific testimony, and these are the Frye rule and the Daubert one. Both have emerged from case law; the former was introduced into the judicial code in the 20s of the last century, and the latter during its last decade (Cappellino, 2021). Each of these involves using and relying on a scientific perspective by the judge in their final decision in incorporating expert witness testimony into the course of the trial (Cappellino, 2021). These two legal standards differ in the principle of their functioning. The Frye rule implies that if the aggregate opinion of a particular scientific community, which the expert witness represents, admits the methodologies and techniques with which the testimony was developed, then such testimony is admissible in court (Cappellino, 2021). The Daubert standard has specific universal analytical criteria by which the objectivity of a scientific judgment of an expert witness is assessed. Therefore, one can say that Daubert Rule is a narrowed version of the Frye one.
Pretext and Its Applications in Crime and Criminology
When studying criminology, one may find both criminals and law enforcement officials use pretexts. According to experts, “in the employment law context, pretext means a reason for an action that is false” (What is a pretext in an employment law case? n.d., para. 2). Offenders use pretexts to both grab the victim’s attention and distract them. Police officers and other crime investigators use pretexts primarily to obtain evidence directly from a suspect. As one can see, it is a dualistic thing that people resort to both to hide their true intentions and to reveal the truth.
Employment discrimination cases are the most common type of wrongdoing in which offenders use pretexts to commit an offense successfully. Most often, the offender in such cases is the employer, and the victim is the unjustifiably fired or unjustly treated employee (What is a pretext in an employment law case? n.d.). Sexual assault crimes are another category of crime where pretext is a commonly found criminal trick. One should also mention cybercrimes, where cybercriminals use them to gain online users’ personal and financial data. As noted above, law enforcement officials and private investigators also use pretexts in pretext calls. According to Broughton (n.d.), “a pretext call is a call between two people, recorded under the supervision of law enforcement” (para. 10). These are made by the investigators themselves or by people associated with the perpetrator or victim. It is noteworthy that sometimes law enforcement officers even ask children to make a pretext call to deceive suspects.
My Professional Knowledge after Security Investigation Course
I can safely say that this course in Security Investigation was an exciting and joyful experience, and the teachers taught me many theoretical and practical things about crime investigation. Learning about direct and covert data collection techniques was especially crucial for me. During the course, educators showed me how to act appropriately and behave while obtaining the necessary information from suspects in an undercover investigation. They also taught me how to introduce witnesses and victims into the process without revealing that the procedure is in action. I also learned that employee behavior patterns and timings are top priority signs that an investigator should look out for in surveillance. Practical approaches to finding the background information of applicants and employees, such as analyzing biometrics tracking personal apps, were other important things that this course showed me (Mateescu & Nguyen, 2019). Here I also learned how to analyze and interpret a company’s internal monetary statistics to find evidence of covert crimes. I always struggled with statistics, especially financial ones, and this security investigation course taught me how to approach them correctly.
References
Broughton, M. A. (n.d.). What is a pretext. Mark A. Broughton, PC. Web.
Cappellino, A. (2021). Daubert vs. Frye: Navigating the standards of admissibility for expert testimony. Expert Institute. Web.
Mateescu, A., & Nguyen, A. (2019). Explainer: Workplace monitoring & surveillance. Data & Society. Web.
Miller, M. T., & Massey, P. (2018). The crime scene: A visual guide. Elsevier Science.
O’Neil, C. (2017). The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses. Lexology. Web.
Private vs public investigators. (n.d.). Precise Investigation. Web.
What is pretext in an employment law case? (n.d.). PLBSH. Web.