Handling evidence properly is one of the most crucial points of any investigation. Without even intentionally doing so, mishandling of evidence could mean a case thrown out of court. Some types of mishandling of evidence would be planting of evidence, removing evidence, not following the chain of custody and unlawfully obtaining evidence. Rape cases should involve specially trained individuals, if an untrained investigator was to handle a rape case the way a homicide case was handled even more issues can arise. Reducing Ethical Considerations From arrival at a crime scene the investigator must follow only the facts and remove any emotion from considerations.
The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges. Basically one wrong moved can make us lose a suspect of a horrible crime if we are not careful. Law enforcement just need to be cautious so they are doing their jobs correct, and setting a person free will get them into trouble (cjlf.org, 2011). When we are identifying the exclusionary rule it is a great rule to have so police have to stop and think. Police have to think before they search because it could cost them a lot if they just do what they want.
Criminal justice professionals play an important role in the court system, and if they lie on accusations and evidence, the innocent become victims of the dishonesty. A second quality that is good to see in the criminal justice professions is to be objective. It is important for our law enforcement and public servants to not let their personal goals, feelings, or prejudice to get in the way of the criminal justice goals. Objectivity ensures that the professionals will make the right choices even when they have reasons that should make them choose otherwise. A simple example of this trait could be a law enforcement officer writing a ticket to someone regardless of the relationship they may or may not have.
The key difference between these two models is that the crime control model is much more harsh and unrelenting; it emphasizes controlling crime via punishing suspects while the due process model emphasizes careful examination to ensure less innocent people are unjustly convicted. The crime control model places an emphasis on "placing as few restrictions as possible on the ability of law enforcement officers to make discretionary decisions in apprehending criminals"(Gaines). Under this model, courts would be more willing to convict offenders, even with an absence of compelling evidence. For example, a court would be more willing to accept a police officer's account of a homicide without careful cross-examination under the crime control model in order to repress crime. In contrast, the due process model emphasizes "protecting the rights of the accused through formal, legal restraints on the police, courts, and corrections" (Gaines).
Also, it is important in this process to prove a person guilty by legally-found facts and evidence. However the crime control model does not protect a suspected offender’s rights as much. The crime control model is based more on helping the victim, even if defendant’s rights are compromised. This model attempts to repress crime and give expansive power to police. It looks to find guilt rather than prove innocence.
From this type of profiling an offender can be categorized as organized nonsocial offenders and disorganized asocial offenders. The killing from theses two types of offenders would produce two different crime scenes, one of complete chaos and plenty of evidence all over and another with little evidence and more controlled. A major benefit from using this type of profiling is that it let investigators know what kind of offender they will be dealing with so they know how to proceed with the case and interrogate them. A limitation from this type of profiling can be that too much attention is paid to the physical evidence and not on the nonphysical (Holmes & Holmes,
In line with this, the investigative department requests warrants to search for evidence, but they must be approved by the judicial branch. (Lynch, 1998) Most defenses that invoke the exclusionary rule are based on the lack of or improper application of search warrants. Those that support the continued use of the exclusionary rule argue that there must be this line between the police officers that are often emotionally involved in a case, and an impartial third party that can objectively review the evidence. Without this safeguard, citizens would have little protection from overzealous police officers who could search their homes and persons with almost anything serving as probable cause in their opinion. The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures.
Nathan Malbrue Charles Hauber Victimology CJUS280-1403A-01 7/18/2014 PH 2 DB Measuring Crime Victimization This paper will cover sources of reporting crime/arrest data and which I feel is best. Which method I think is accurate, significant challenges and overcoming them. The most important form of crime reporting data is from witnesses and victims. The most accurate data can be from a witness because they have nothing to gain from telling lies. The victim may lie in order to try and gain sympathy or favor.
One thing that is important to remember is the use of terminology within your career path whether it be in criminal justice or not. The last thing any of us would ever want to endure is dealing with someone whom isn’t fully knowledgeable on a subject matter when we need them to be that is. I think one thing that I realized about the researching process is that it’s not always the same for everyone and what my methods are may differ entirely from what another’s might be. Nonetheless having an organized plan of attack in gathering the information you require is what the common goal should be for us all, and however you obtain that is all that really counts in the end. I hope my paper has helped you understand what methods I choose to address when I conduct my own researches and/or papers.
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.