This week’s case study requires that we analyze and discuss the 2009 survey of forensic evidence published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), in which 2,000 state and local law enforcement participated. (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 300). This survey revealed that between the years 2002 through 2007, law enforcement had not submitted forensic evidence to a crime lab for analysis for a number of valid reasons; on the other hand, the one reason that I found a bit concerning was that “some police may not fully understand the value of evidence in developing new investigative leads.” (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 301). I found this reason to be quite surprising as it is in the best interest of law enforcement to use any and all methods of investigation
…show more content…
301) Nevertheless, sending forensic evidence to a laboratory may not only confirm the presence of a suspect at a crime scene, it may also serve to identify one that may have been overlooked initially, or just recognize a suspect who has not been identified as such. Another surprising finding from the survey is that: “Three in 10 said they did not submit evidence because they were uncertain of its usefulness.” (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 301) This response reflects that some law enforcement agencies do not fully understand how they can support the three goals of the criminal justice system that are: “doing justice, controlling crime, and preventing crime.” (Cole, Smith, DeJong, 2013, p. 91) Our textbook says that: “evidence can potentially identify a suspect in a so-called no suspect case.” (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 301) which goes to support the number one goal of the criminal justice system that is doing justice, in which “we want to investigate, judge and punish fairly.” (Cole, Smith, DeJong, 2013, p. …show more content…
This can be accomplished by the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) or the latent print database, which are maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (“Laboratory Services”, n.d.) By doing this, we continue to build upon the existing evidence databases currently in existence, in addition to sharing that information, which may lead to the discovery of a connection to unsolved crimes around the country. Some of the other reasons noted in the survey for law enforcement agencies not to send evidence to a laboratory included: “the lab’s inability to produce timely results, and not accepting new evidence due to backlog.” (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 301) In my opinion, these are not sound or valid reasons not to send evidence to a laboratory for processing, and they just fall short of an excuse not to follow through with a thorough
301) Nevertheless, sending forensic evidence to a laboratory may not only confirm the presence of a suspect at a crime scene, it may also serve to identify one that may have been overlooked initially, or just recognize a suspect who has not been identified as such. Another surprising finding from the survey is that: “Three in 10 said they did not submit evidence because they were uncertain of its usefulness.” (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 301) This response reflects that some law enforcement agencies do not fully understand how they can support the three goals of the criminal justice system that are: “doing justice, controlling crime, and preventing crime.” (Cole, Smith, DeJong, 2013, p. 91) Our textbook says that: “evidence can potentially identify a suspect in a so-called no suspect case.” (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 301) which goes to support the number one goal of the criminal justice system that is doing justice, in which “we want to investigate, judge and punish fairly.” (Cole, Smith, DeJong, 2013, p. …show more content…
This can be accomplished by the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) or the latent print database, which are maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (“Laboratory Services”, n.d.) By doing this, we continue to build upon the existing evidence databases currently in existence, in addition to sharing that information, which may lead to the discovery of a connection to unsolved crimes around the country. Some of the other reasons noted in the survey for law enforcement agencies not to send evidence to a laboratory included: “the lab’s inability to produce timely results, and not accepting new evidence due to backlog.” (Walker & Katz, 2013, p. 301) In my opinion, these are not sound or valid reasons not to send evidence to a laboratory for processing, and they just fall short of an excuse not to follow through with a thorough