How should crime be investigated?

Nessie

Penultimate Amazing
Nessie
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
16,059
I would like an overhaul of how crime is investigated. The main change is that I think that the police should be split into two.

One part are trained investigators, who have degree qualifications and whose prime role is to find and gather evidence. They are the existing CID officers, but they are brighter and work to a higher standard.

They should be fully compliant with the duty to investigate all reasonable lines of enquiry including that which may be exculpatory evidence and the duty to disclose ALL evidence. They should be better aware of the right to presumption of innocence.

The other part of the police are the first responders to incidents, who deal with minor crime, disturbances and who have training in crime scene preservation for major crime. They are the existing uniformed officers, from response, community firearms etc policing. They also know about duty to investigate etc, but they deal with minor crimes.

Both should then submit ALL the evidence to the prosecutor who then decides if someone is to be charged or not and if any more enquiry is needed. They act as an independent quality control check. The police should not have that power to charge any more. They can only report a person with an evidence file.

In effect that would make defence lawyers jobs far easier, as they should find there is pretty much nothing they have to investigate. If they do think somethign has been missed, they can request enquiry.

The judge/sheriff/jury then gets presented with pretty much all the evidence, in a far more matter of fact way than the present story telling a version of events that goes on in courts. The court decides from the evidence.

I think that would reduce miscarriages of justice and drive up the quality of investigation.
 
The question is, how would you ensure that investigators search for and disclose all evidence?
 
Make it law and make it so that police officers who fail to investigate clear lines of enquiry or fail to disclose evidence can be punished.
 
Nessie said:
Make it law and make it so that police officers who fail to investigate clear lines of enquiry or fail to disclose evidence can be punished.
Click to expand...

And the initiator gets it out there loud and clear!!!!!!:):):thumbsup:
 
Why a degree?

What is there about a degree that would make someone a good detective?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why a degree?

What is there about a degree that would make someone a good detective?
Click to expand...

Degrees involve training people to investigate, evidence and present their work. Whether it is a historian examining the causes of WWII or a psychology student studying certain behaviours, they have to produce an evidenced report which is marked on how well they investigated the sources.

Other degrees, such as computing and accountancy are directly relevant as cyber crime is where many criminals are now making their money. More police are going online to fight crime, such as grooming activities.

Get the brightest, most inquisitive people trained up to investigate crime and not just those who like the idea of being a tough detective based on what they saw on TV.
 
Sorry Sergeant Lewis, you can't investigate crimes even though you seem to be very good at it. You don't have a degree you see. Off to the crossing patrol, there's a good chap.

Same with you Morse, you never finished your papers did you? Almost a degree is not good enough. There's a chap over here has a First in Ancient Greek, he will be ideal for the job.
 
Essentially you're arguing for the Officer/Enlisted divide that the military uses which, I can safely say after 20 years in it, has probably lasted longer than it is useful.

"Yes 2 week out of the Academy with a degree in Mesopotamia Underwater Basket Weaving Ensign I am sure that I, the 18 year IT with the A+, Network+, Security+, MCSE, CASP, and CISSP do know what I'm doing on the network and don't really need your input."
 
Gosh, you guys have really quickly spotted the fatal flaw in Nessie's plan! I wonder how it could possibly be solved? Oh well, might as well give up.
 
Most problems in investigations can be solved by more staff, fewer hours, more continued training. Same applies to Courts to reduce the number of plea bargains.
Oh, and get rid of that stupid Jury system.
 
It sounds quite like the inquisitorial system used in places such as France and Italy. It could be noted that if you remove the former Eastern Bloc countries from the list, Italy has the most cases pending in the ECHRs, so....
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Sorry Sergeant Lewis, you can't investigate crimes even though you seem to be very good at it. You don't have a degree you see. Off to the crossing patrol, there's a good chap.

Same with you Morse, you never finished your papers did you? Almost a degree is not good enough. There's a chap over here has a First in Ancient Greek, he will be ideal for the job.
Click to expand...

There would still be detective training to complete, which is the guy with a first in Greek fails, he does not get the job. If Lewis and Morse are that bright, let them show it with a degree before they apply to join.

The claim that policing is independent of intelligence is one I encountered a lot and it is, when you think about it, quite an extraordinary one to make.

How about teaching? Will you make that accessible to anyone who fancies doing it, without showing they are bright?
 
JoeBentley said:
Essentially you're arguing for the Officer/Enlisted divide that the military uses which, I can safely say after 20 years in it, has probably lasted longer than it is useful.

"Yes 2 week out of the Academy with a degree in Mesopotamia Underwater Basket Weaving Ensign I am sure that I, the 18 year IT with the A+, Network+, Security+, MCSE, CASP, and CISSP do know what I'm doing on the network and don't really need your input."
Click to expand...

I am arguing that the brigher people do the more complicated investigations.

Your analogy is false as it ignores that the degree student will have had to pass detective training and he/she will not then be put onto an enquiry that involves a specialist skill such as networking, of which they know nothing. I have already said that ceratin degrees, such as computing, should be targeted for cybercrime. The 18 year old can go and get a degree and then join, but he/she still needs to pass detective training.
 
Who says it's indepoendant of intelligence?

I jsut don't see why a degree should be a prerequisite.

Nursing has gone down the degree route.


If Lewis and Morse are that bright, let them show it with a degree before they apply to join.
Click to expand...

What a load of bollocks. You aren't even proposing a specialist 'detecting' degree, just making a degree an arbitrary qualification for joining a profession.
Nursing and teaching have been hampered by degree entry.
If someone wanted to be a nurse or a teacher there was the option of specialised nursing and teacher training colleges as well as a degree.
Now it's a degree only entry to the professions via University.
I know several teachers and nurses, they are people I was at school with.
They tell me that if it had been degree entry when they were leaving school they wouldn't have joined the profession but at least the requirement is for a specialised degree.
 
Getting a degree shows many qualities, not just intelligence and many jobs require degree applicants.

There are already police related degree qualifications available;

https://www.northampton.ac.uk/study...MI1d3aitfw1wIVzpztCh2n5QwXEAAYASAAEgLa0fD_BwE

and of course law degrees. I would suggest they are better degrees to get than Mesopotamian Pottery if the aim is to get into the police.

Bear in mind the way to get into CID now is to pass the very basic police entry requirements, do a few years on the beat, impress a CID officer in an interview and there you go, you are now working on serious crimes.
 
I would like to see cameras with a microphone on all police that must be working and seen to be working whenever they are interacting with the public.
Also police to be more involved with social welfare. And get rid of illegal drugs. They are a big waste of time for police.
 
Nessie said:
Make it law and make it so that police officers who fail to investigate clear lines of enquiry or fail to disclose evidence can be punished.
Click to expand...

In the U.S, that isn't the job of LEO's, it's the job of prosecutors, by law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

The Brady Rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense.
 
Nessie said:
I would like an overhaul of how crime is investigated. The main change is that I think that the police should be split into two.

One part are trained investigators, who have degree qualifications and whose prime role is to find and gather evidence. They are the existing CID officers, but they are brighter and work to a higher standard.

They should be fully compliant with the duty to investigate all reasonable lines of enquiry including that which may be exculpatory evidence and the duty to disclose ALL evidence. They should be better aware of the right to presumption of innocence.

The other part of the police are the first responders to incidents, who deal with minor crime, disturbances and who have training in crime scene preservation for major crime. They are the existing uniformed officers, from response, community firearms etc policing. They also know about duty to investigate etc, but they deal with minor crimes.

Both should then submit ALL the evidence to the prosecutor who then decides if someone is to be charged or not and if any more enquiry is needed. They act as an independent quality control check. The police should not have that power to charge any more. They can only report a person with an evidence file.
In effect that would make defence lawyers jobs far easier, as they should find there is pretty much nothing they have to investigate. If they do think somethign has been missed, they can request enquiry.

The judge/sheriff/jury then gets presented with pretty much all the evidence, in a far more matter of fact way than the present story telling a version of events that goes on in courts. The court decides from the evidence.

I think that would reduce miscarriages of justice and drive up the quality of investigation.
Click to expand...

You do realise the highlighted bit is already the case don't you?

IDK why you think people with degrees will make good investigators. I know lots of people with degrees who are thick as pig ****.
 
Nessie said:
Getting a degree shows many qualities, not just intelligence and many jobs require degree applicants.

There are already police related degree qualifications available;

https://www.northampton.ac.uk/study...MI1d3aitfw1wIVzpztCh2n5QwXEAAYASAAEgLa0fD_BwE

and of course law degrees. I would suggest they are better degrees to get than Mesopotamian Pottery if the aim is to get into the police.

Bear in mind the way to get into CID now is to pass the very basic police entry requirements, do a few years on the beat, impress a CID officer in an interview and there you go, you are now working on serious crimes.
Click to expand...

You do realise that isn't the case and that you need to pass a detectives exam (after first having spent time as a trainee detective), don't you?

Honestly Nessie, you are embarrassing yourself here.

Edit: also worth noting that the police phase 1 entry test has a 50% failure rate, much much higher than the average degree course
 
Last edited:
Investigating needs clear procedures much more than brilliant intellect: the kind of reasoning we get from Sherlock Holmes would never get a conviction in court.
 
Conan Doyle apparently based Sherlock Holmes on a pathology professor at Edinburgh University. He spotted the similarities in mind-set between trained diagnosticians and good criminal investigators. It's basically puzzle-solving.

I've frequently bemoaned the difference in mindset between lawyers and scientists. Scientists in general are trying to find the truth, lawyers to spin anything and everything to suit their side of the argument. Nessie has said, well we police do our best but then it's up to the cleverer lawyers to determine if we've made a good case or not. But the lawyers are all spinning like dervishes.

It would be good if the cops approached cases in a more open-minded, scientific way. Though from what I've seen of Operation Sandwood, modern policing does have some good scientific principles in it.
 
rjh01 said:
I would like to see cameras with a microphone on all police that must be working and seen to be working whenever they are interacting with the public.
Also police to be more involved with social welfare. And get rid of illegal drugs. They are a big waste of time for police.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly, body cams appear to have no effect on police behaviour

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/police-body-camera-study.html

"The 18-month study of more than 2,000 police officers in Washington found that officers equipped with cameras used force and prompted civilian complaints at about the same rate as those who did not have them."

I agree that police working with education, health, social work etc is a good idea and it has been the case in Scotland since 2003, when partnership working became a statutory requirement.
 
BStrong said:
In the U.S, that isn't the job of LEO's, it's the job of prosecutors, by law:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

The Brady Rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense.
Click to expand...

I think this is better way to do it, but it is generally ignored by the police and prosecutor in Scotland

http://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Docu...osure of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings.pdf

Both the Scottish police and the prosecutor (COPFS) have a duty to disclose all evidence, with very few exceptions and so as to close the loophole of avoiding disclosing what has not been enquired into, they both have the duty to enquire into all reasonable lines of enquiry, including exculpatory evidence.
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
You do realise the highlighted bit is already the case don't you?

IDK why you think people with degrees will make good investigators. I know lots of people with degrees who are thick as pig ****.
Click to expand...

The highlighted part is a requirement, but it is often ignored. The S164 Code of Parctice to do with investigation and disclosure in Scotland, also requires police officers to be trained in the procedure. As of a couple of years ago, only about 3% of police had been trained.

I do not think have a degree = good investigator. I do think have a degree and there is likely a better understanding of the law, procedures and degrees do train people to ensure they get their facts correct.

Why do you think having a degree is not going to improve police investigation?
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
You do realise that isn't the case and that you need to pass a detectives exam (after first having spent time as a trainee detective), don't you?

Honestly Nessie, you are embarrassing yourself here.

Edit: also worth noting that the police phase 1 entry test has a 50% failure rate, much much higher than the average degree course
Click to expand...

I am obviously form Scotland and am presenting this with a SCottish slant. There may be set ups elsewhere that are far closer to the ideal than here.

In Scotland you get accepted as a trainee Detective Constable, based on an interview where senior detectives decide if they like you or not. Depending on how well you do as a TDC, which really means, does your face fit, you will be then appointed Detective Constable. DCs can then wait for years before they finally go on the DC training course at the police college at Tulliallan.

Now do you understand why I think there needs to be a change.

What system are you referring to?
 
Rolfe said:
Conan Doyle apparently based Sherlock Holmes on a pathology professor at Edinburgh University. He spotted the similarities in mind-set between trained diagnosticians and good criminal investigators. It's basically puzzle-solving.

I've frequently bemoaned the difference in mindset between lawyers and scientists. Scientists in general are trying to find the truth, lawyers to spin anything and everything to suit their side of the argument. Nessie has said, well we police do our best but then it's up to the cleverer lawyers to determine if we've made a good case or not. But the lawyers are all spinning like dervishes.

It would be good if the cops approached cases in a more open-minded, scientific way. Though from what I've seen of Operation Sandwood, modern policing does have some good scientific principles in it.
Click to expand...

For example, a lot of CID work is now about finding and preserving evidence and in particular DNA. Tactics used to burst confessions out of suspects are not as extreme as they used to be. That was when a "good" DC was a terrifying personality who scared the heck out of the criminals and did deals with them over admissions. Intelligence was not such an issue.
 
I think miscarriages of justice happen more in the courtroom than in the investigation. We should get rid of "probably guilty", and leave only "the possibility of innocence is scientifically impossible".
 
JJM 777 said:
I think miscarriages of justice happen more in the courtroom than in the investigation. We should get rid of "probably guilty", and leave only "the possibility of innocence is scientifically impossible".
Click to expand...

This makes for interseting reading

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_mscarriages_of_justice

an FOI about miscarriages of justice, which shows of "78 individuals whose convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2009" the causes were;
• New Expert (non- medical) evidence: 7 (covering a range if issues from DNA to false confessions and psychiatric reports).
• Discredited expert witness: 3 (this is a single case with three co-defendants).
• New medical evidence: 3.
• Unreliable witness / miscellaneous new witness: 11 (basically where new information about a witness, often but not always the complainant, or new witness testimony has been obtained to undermine the safety of the conviction.)
• Non-disclosure of material to the defence -13 (the accidental or deliberate non-disclosure, by prosecuting or investigating authority, of material which might have assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution and which the disclosure rules say the defence should have had access to).
• Misconduct by police or other authorities (such as HM Customs and Excise) – 15 (15 individuals involved in six actual cases)
• Judicial / process failure: 10 (issues such as errors in summing up, jury directions, not making alternative counts available for the jury to consider – this includes two cases involving a ruling by the House of Lords to clarify a point of law about causation in manslaughter conviction)
• One case was referred on grounds of defence incompetence.
• One was a magistrates’ court case related to planning law

I would say that the prosecution is responsible and got it wrong where later discredited experts and unreliable witnesses were used and evidence was not disclosed, that is 27 instances.

The police/HMICS failed with the misconduct, so that is 15.

The courtroom failed with the judicial failure and the planning case, so that is 11.

New evidence was 10 times and defence failure only once.

It is clear that the investigation of the crime is where the most failures are.
 
Nessie said:
The highlighted part is a requirement, but it is often ignored. The S164 Code of Parctice to do with investigation and disclosure in Scotland, also requires police officers to be trained in the procedure. As of a couple of years ago, only about 3% of police had been trained.

I do not think have a degree = good investigator. I do think have a degree and there is likely a better understanding of the law, procedures and degrees do train people to ensure they get their facts correct.

Why do you think having a degree is not going to improve police investigation?
Click to expand...

Doesn't CPIA affect Scotland? Maybe not, but in E&W its been a requirement to record all evidence, to investigate all reasonable lines of enquiry, and to disclose all relevant material to the defence, even if unused.

I disagree with you about people with degrees. I dont think there is any evidence at all that simply having a degree makes you a better detective.
 
Nessie said:
I am obviously form Scotland and am presenting this with a SCottish slant. There may be set ups elsewhere that are far closer to the ideal than here.

In Scotland you get accepted as a trainee Detective Constable, based on an interview where senior detectives decide if they like you or not. Depending on how well you do as a TDC, which really means, does your face fit, you will be then appointed Detective Constable. DCs can then wait for years before they finally go on the DC training course at the police college at Tulliallan.

Now do you understand why I think there needs to be a change.

What system are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Certainly the police services I have worked with in England and Wales demand first a period as a TDC then passing an exam before you can wear the title of detective (other than plastic detectives who work for SO15 or the Flying Squads).
 
As a further point, most police forces really struggle to recruit detectives because being a detective means getting bogged down in a collosal volume of paperwork and then facing the stress of presenting at court.

On the other hand, most police officers would far rather blat around in a high powered car with the nee-naws on at 100mph tackling villains, which is much more fun than filling out MG forms all day.
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
Doesn't CPIA affect Scotland? Maybe not, but in E&W its been a requirement to record all evidence, to investigate all reasonable lines of enquiry, and to disclose all relevant material to the defence, even if unused.

I disagree with you about people with degrees. I dont think there is any evidence at all that simply having a degree makes you a better detective.
Click to expand...

No CPIA is not law in Scotland and as I said, the S164 Code of Practice is not common practice.

A degree is an indication of intelligence and the ability to gather information and present an argued case. Why would not being able to do that, not affect the ability to detect crime?
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
Certainly the police services I have worked with in England and Wales demand first a period as a TDC then passing an exam before you can wear the title of detective (other than plastic detectives who work for SO15 or the Flying Squads).
Click to expand...

Not here. For example, rape investigation teams, each division has one. They are made up of a combination of PCs (no previous detective experience necessary) and DCs (not all of whom who have been on the DCs course). I was present when a very young in service, but over confident Detective Inspector was talking about upcoming interviews for the team with the DS. They were keen on one applicant because she "talked to people when passing them in the corridor" which made her "a good team player". She got the post over a far more experienced cop, who was very bright, had a degree, but they were not sure she would fit into the team. What they meant was she had more service and was cleverer than the DI.
 
Hubert Cumberdale said:
As a further point, most police forces really struggle to recruit detectives because being a detective means getting bogged down in a collosal volume of paperwork and then facing the stress of presenting at court.

On the other hand, most police officers would far rather blat around in a high powered car with the nee-naws on at 100mph tackling villains, which is much more fun than filling out MG forms all day.
Click to expand...

By repostitioning detectives as a graduate job, whereby the old school grizzed detective with a "degree in life" is allowed to die out and the culture changes.

Driving at 100 mph with blue lights is also very stressful and fraught with career ending risks. Most response/community cops deal with drunks, not villains. Their paperwork is horrendous.

I would also restructure pay, where the detectives would be paid more as they are taking on the harder work.
 
Argumemnon said:
What's the point of diplomas, then, if not to show a competence that someone without it would be more hard-pressed to prove?
Click to expand...

I am always suspicious of people who claim further education is not really needed for police officers. Policing involves a lot of complicated, fluid situations which need intelligence to keep track of. Just knowing the law is hard, of which there is a lot and unlike solicitors who can reference a book in their office, police need the knowledge in their heads all the time.

Hence the most complex of enquiries needs those who are at least bright and can prove it. That is not to say aptitude is not also a requirement. Being bright does not mean you can be a good doctor either.
 
On a slightly related note, I've seen it suggested that the criminal justice system should model itself more on the aviation industry when it comes to following up miscarriages of justice.

When there is an air accident (or even a near miss) the AAIB mounts an investigation to find out what went wrong. This isn't about fault-finding or apportioning blame, but about discovering whether there was a fault in the system that could be rectified to prevent a future incident happening the same way. It's about learning lessons and improving procedures.

It seems that the response of the criminal justice system is to stuff its fingers in its ears, hum real loud, and say "we didn't get anything wrong and this person should never have been released." I've plugged this book in another thread - Blind Injustice by Mark Godsey. The intransigence of prosecutors and judges even to contemplating that someone might have been wrongfully convicted is appalling.

Looking at these occurrences with a "let's learn lessons" mindset could feed back and improve police detection procedures as well.
 
I had a prof tell me once, "I know a lot of stupid people with PhD's. They just stuck with it longer than most."
 
Nessie said:
I am always suspicious of people who claim further education is not really needed for police officers. Policing involves a lot of complicated, fluid situations which need intelligence to keep track of. Just knowing the law is hard, of which there is a lot and unlike solicitors who can reference a book in their office, police need the knowledge in their heads all the time.

Hence the most complex of enquiries needs those who are at least bright and can prove it. That is not to say aptitude is not also a requirement. Being bright does not mean you can be a good doctor either.
Click to expand...
I'm suspicious of people who think its a degree that cops actually need rather than more specific technical education.

Anyrate, if I understand it correctly, what you describe is more or less how it's suppose to work in the US, we aren't exactly a beacon of good police work to the world.

I know for instance that prosecuters are required to share evidence with the defense. Doesn't always seem to happen though.
 
More cameras, then more...cameras everywhere, millions of them. Make it hard to commit crime without being seen. OK, maybe not in your house, but everywhere is better.
While we are at it (putting up millions of cameras) lets collect DNA from EVERYONE, start at birth.
Have a profile of rifling of every gun made, make it easy to identify who made "the" shot. Yes this would require gun registration obviously.
We don't need better detectives, we need more science and social engineering.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom