A Review of the Criminal Investigation Process Study

According to the Uniform Crime Report published annually by the FBI in 2005 only 45.5% of violent crimes and 16.3% of crimes in the United States were solved. This means that the majority of crimes go unsolved. Why is this? The Criminal Investigation Process Study claims that it is due to the ineffectiveness of detectives the misallocation of police resources, but I am not convinced that this is entirely true.

In 1975 the Rand Corporation published a three volume report on the criminal investigation process in the United States. The study focused on the investigations of serious felonies such as homicide, rape, assault, robber, burglary and theft with four major goals: "1) to describe, on a national scale, current investigative organization and practices. 2) To assess the contribution that police investigation makes to the achievement of criminal justice goals. 3) To ascertain the effectiveness of new technology and systems being adopted to enhance investigative performance. 4) To reveal how investigative effectiveness is related to differences in organizational form, staffing, procedures, etc." (Hayes 1987; 101) Researchers disturbed questionnaires to over 300 large police departments and 153 departments responded. From those respondents 25 were selected for more detailed study. Based on the study of those departments the Rand Corporation published these six major findings:

"1. Differences in investigative training, staffing, workload and procedures appear to have no appreciable effect on crime, arrest or clearance rates.

2. The method by which police investigators are organized (i.e. team policing, specialists vs. generalists, patrolmen, investigators) cannot be related to variations in crime, arrest and clearance rates.

3. Substantially more than half of all serious reported crimes receive no more that superficial attention form investigators.

4. An investigator's time is largely consumed in reviewing reports, documenting files, and attempting to locate and interview victims on cases that experience shows will not be solved. For cases that are solved (i.e. suspect identified), an investigator spends more time in post-clearance possessing than he does in identifying the perpetrator.

5. The single most important determinant of whether or not a case will be solved is the information the victim supplies to the immediate patrol officer. If information that uniquely identifies the perpetrator is not presented at the time the crime is reported, the perpetrator, by and large, will not be subsequently identified.

6. of those cases that are ultimately cleared but in which the perpetrator is identifiable at the time of the initial police incident report, almost all are cleared as a result of routine police procedures" (Hayes 102).

Rand recommended that half of all investigative effort be moved to something more productive and that the effectiveness of investigations would not be compromised as a result. This created much controversy in the policing community because the researchers were questioning the traditional roles and policies of the police specifically detectives. It was argued that the researchers lacked the necessary knowledge of investigative functions to make such assertions.

Nevertheless, as a result of this research many departments began to have detectives serve as part of a neighborhood unit or made detectives and uniformed officers one entity. Departments also worked to make preliminary investigations more effective by using new techniques and technology in order to reduce the number of unsolvable cases and the need for follow up investigation. Furthermore, over 700 departments participated in the Managing Criminal Investigations program (MCI) which focused on "The enhancement of the investigative role of patrol officers... case screening... management of continuing investigations... police-prosecution liaison

I find it easy to agree with finds 4-6. The patrol officers are the first responders to the crime and the success of the investigation hinges on how well they handle the preliminary investigation and what they do before the detective arrives. This is especially true when dealing with the victims and witness. The patrol officer is the one taking their statements and getting their personal information in case the detectives need to contact them later. If this is not done properly can severely damage the chances that the case will be solved and vise versa. Detectives spend a bulk of their time writing reports, preparing the case for trial and doing follow up to what the patrol officer did; but this is an important part of clearing the case. It does not do any good to identify the perpetrator if the investigator did not prepare a strong enough case to get a conviction. I can also accept that most cases where the perpetrator is not immediately known are solved by routine police work. As the patrol officer are the ones out on the street and interacting with the community the most it seems probable to me that many cases are solved through this routine work. For there reasons finding 1-4 seem reasonable to me.

I have more difficult, however, accepting findings 1-3. To say that training, staffing and workload have no real affect on arrest or clearance rates seems unlikely. If a detective is not properly trained and overworked I doubt he/she will be as effective as a highly trained detective with a more manageable workload. I also have difficulty believing that how detectives are organized has no relevancy. Team policing and specialist seem to be effective to me. Having detectives trained to handle certain crimes such as homicide, child molests or identity theft would be more effective that just having general detectives who investigate all types of crimes. If someone were investigating a crime that I was a victim of I would prefer to have someone who specialized in that specific field and worked in it daily. In my eyes that would have much more credibility to the victim and to the court.

Finally, to say that over half of serious crimes are only treated superficially is an over generalized based at what they found in some of the large department that they researched. In many departments this is far from the truth. While I am sure many "non serious" crimes are handled haphazardly I do not believe that the same is true for serious crimes especially in smaller communities than the ones researched.

While the Rand Corporation study of the criminal investigation process was done over 20 years ago it is still an important study. Despite the controversy that surrounded its findings it has effected much change in the way our nations police departments handle investigation. While it makes valuable conclusions from the data collected it is my opinion that these conclusions must not be taking at face value but rather with a grain of salt.

Works Cited

Hayes, Colin (1987he Impact of Recent Research on the Detectives Role", Police Journal, 60/2 (April-June): 97-111

Langworthy, Robert H. and Lawrence F. Travis III (2008) Policing in America: A Balance of Forces. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall

Uniform Crime Report: 2005, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/clearances/index.html