The current technology advancements in crime scene preservation and protection states that responders and law enforcement officers must be responsible for crime scene protection, physical evidence preserving, submitting, and collecting the evidence for scientific examination. Broadly, physical evidence has a significant role in the whole investigation and resolving an act performed by a suspected criminal. The potential realization was independent of actions undertaken early in the criminal investigation at the crime scene. However, advancements and developments in technology in interpreting and analyzing physical evidence from the crime scene will be of greater significance on a well-preserved and documented proof.
The investigators must approach the crime investigation scene cautiously. They should also consider other case statements or information derived from suspects or witnesses properly in their objective evaluation of the crime scene. At times, an investigation may change course during such inquiries and physical items which at first were irrelevant, becomes useful in a successful case resolution (Yang et al., 2014).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
From what we already know, all crime scenes are unique. The decision of the investigating personnel on the crime scene, with the responders' help, like the prosecutor, must get incorporated in the implementation of this technology. It is therefore essential for an investigator to use specific steps in handling a crime scene. After all, an approach of a burglary is different from a homicide crime scene approach. Outdoor, indoor and conveyance scenes of crime all have unique considerable aspects.
The Science of Criminalistics
Technical and scientific literature of criminalistics or forensic science aims at laboratory designs in examining and interpreting physical evidence collected in the crime scenes. The data derived from physical evidence drives the physical evidence examination and collection process. However, scientific laboratory designs hold the ability of information development from physical evidence at the crime scene, which can aid in examining what transpired at the scene plus who took part in the crime (Kohlhepp, 2016). In the last a hundred years, detectives and courts have relied on forensic testimonies and evidence since the field can be a supplier of data concerning the crime largely unavailable to fact-finders and investigators
Firstly, is clarification and identification of evidence items from the scene of crime. In the crime labs, physical evidence review by competent examiners generally commences with tests for identifying a substance, for instance, in determining a bloodstain or a white powder as cocaine. Remains from a suspected burning scene might give information concerning a volatile liquid present in ruins. Through examinations, the examiner can put the supposed evidence into a more restricted category or class. For instance, finding out human blood or petroleum product in a crime scene, or that a bullet came from a 38-caliber firearm, or that the fiber found was from cotton. Even fingerprints can first be identifiable from a human, which makes a subsequent origin determination in the investigation. These clarifications ensure an examiner concludes the evidence at hand by speculating the source of the crime.
The next data type is a common origin. It is a rugged and refined conclusion that the examiner concludes that something from the evidence came from a specific source or person. Commonly, an investigator will compare the object with a reference of a known source and finalize that they are identical by all means and comes from a common origin. By doing this, the criminalist acquires the ability to connect and associate instruments and persons to the scene of a crime–for instance, a weapon or a tool or even a physical environment. These common origins' conclusions get termed by professionals as individualization and mostly involve comparing an item of an unknown source and another with a known basis (Yang et al., 2014). Nonetheless, although examiners, after doing many measurements, acquire two paint chips, fibers, or hairs to get indistinguishable, the investigator might not conclude an individuality has been received. However, many masses found items in current society might be equal in all quantifiable characteristics, but forensic scientists are very cautious in reaching such conclusions.
Thus, in current investigations, most of the evidence items frequently yield unique conclusions or a common origin, are primarily from weapons, latent fingerprints on the scenes of crimes, and other biological evidence. In the past many years, the United States courts have admitted evidence of fingerprints and examiners' testimony that a particular latent print was from a specific person, at the exclusion of another individual. Toolmark and firearm evidence has the same history, having been firstly admitted in courts at similar moments. The refinement and discovery of DNA profiling tests and its introduction in the United States courts have changed the forensic serology face. Studies have indicated that each person has a unique DNA. The advancement of techniques applied in determining DNA evidence types in crime scenes has revolutionized judicial and investigation inquiries (Allwood et al., 2020).
Another technological advancement concerning crime scene is the computerized databases, which have influenced the forensic science valued in the criminal justice system. Until the mid-'80s, detectives required a standard reference before making a statement concerning a common origin. Latent fingerprints from the crime scene could identify offenders unless a well-known fingerprint set got obtained from more than one suspect. However, the manual filing program set in place did not help match fingerprints with the specific owner. Equally, serologists required biological evidence from a suspected individual before the bloodstain or semen from the crime scene could get matched. Also, examiners of firearms were nearly helpless in weapon identification used in shooting a bullet recovered in the homicide victim's body, unless the detectives found the suspected weapon to test-fire evaluation projectiles.
Thus, as computer science developed ways of digitalizing and storing intricate designs of firearms and fingerprint images, these innovations ensured that detectives acquired the capability to search large databases. The first system to get introduced was AFIS to store information concerning fingerprints; the data was for confirming fingerprints plus arrestees' identities and applying the data recovered in scenes of crime in identifying the offender. The FBI CODIS program's introduction made sure law enforcement departments kept DNA data from known offenders and searched the files of the recovered unknown offenders in the crime scenes. Law enforcement agencies and crime labs have been of success in the past years by identifying new offenders and linking individuals with the crime by applying CODIS.
Steps While Dealing with a Crime Scene
Although many documents can be created by the investigator in managing the crime scene, there is no document that can be essential than the notebook of the investigating personnel. Thus, the first step of investigating a crime scene is by taking notes. The court can accept police notes made on scrap paper if the material is the only thing available at the moment. While testifying, the court allows the investigator to refer to their notes and refresh their memories on how the events happened ( Lee & Pagliaro, 2013 ). Useful notes for an investigator indicate the chronology of events seen/heard and the actions taken at the crime scene. Therefore, the concept of note-taking gets emphasized in police training since it is a personal skill in solving scenes of crimes.
The next step is to protect the integrity of the crime scene. It involves the tasks that must be considered in protecting, preserving, and collecting evidence that the court will accept. The charges incorporate locking the scene of crime down, setting up a stage of crime perimeters, establishing contamination path, and establishing the location of crime security. When an investigator gets to a crime scene, it is an obligation to protect the scene as it will be a requirement in determining the criminal event and the offender.
Technology to Connect the Laboratory to the Scene
The introduction of computers ensured advancement in computational science. A sustainable e-infrastructure could accelerate and facilitate scientific knowledge generation by supporting new data modeling, acquisition, visualization, sharing, archiving, and mining. Broadly, new data acquisition designs involve the application of sensor networks in gathering data on a scale that is unprecedented not only in terms of size but also in spatial and temporal resolution. Wireless sensor networks have emerged on communication protocols, data security, and aggregation, network design concerning sensor technology.
Therefore, to acquire the ability to gather more detailed chemical, biophysical and physical data, complex equipment and devices should get connected in a network. For instance, use of phone camera in taking crime scene photos has been of great help in forensic science, mainly in high volume casework with little forensic interpretations. Nevertheless, there is a substantial intrinsic motivation in the criminal systems in ensuring the availability of forensic information, which can be of much help in solving cases, as indicated earlier in this paper. Thus, subsequent laboratory evidence analysis remains a crucial requirement in courts ( Rawtani, & Hussain, 2020 ).
Nevertheless, the success of advanced crime scene technicians in the last decade has come at a price. As a result of the forensic and the sector institutes' organizational structure, the rise in demand for the science has brought about severe backlogs and long turnaround times. The pressure from the operational side of agencies has resulted in barricading for advanced innovation, plus it is delaying the stipulated paradigm shift. Several insights have been put up for integrating forensic science and the art technology to foster more efficient evidence investigation.
In conclusion, the application of new technology and science in the past decades in areas like the crime scenes allows creating a considerable rise in demand for forensic science services. When new technologies are available, they will enable valuable data in solving crimes, which will immediately lead to a significant need for it. It is essential to note that new traces of evidence come up through technological advancements in forensic science, which were not evident earlier. Either with the reason that the evidence failed to exist or the methods used in the analysis were unavailable in investigating the evidence. People live in a hybrid world that possesses both digital and physical traces used in a criminal investigation. For instance, in a country like the Netherlands, there are no criminal investigations that do not incorporate the use of digital sources, which provides relevant and reliable information of investigators and detectives in the nation.
References
Allwood, J. S., Fierer, N. & Dunn, R. R. (2020). The future of environmental DNA in forensic science. Applied and environmental microbiology Journal, 86 (2), (100-102)
Kohlhepp, B. (2016). Advanced crime scene photography . Forensic Science Review, 28 (1), 15.
Lee, H. C. & Pagliaro, E. M. (2013). Forensic evidence and crime scene investigation. Journal of Forensic Investigation , 1 (2), 1-5.
Rawtani, D., & Hussain, C. M. (Eds.). (2020). Technology in Forensic Science: Sampling, Analysis, Data, and Regulations. John Wiley & Sons.
Yang, Y., Xie, B. & Yan, J. (2014). Application of next-generation sequencing technology in forensic science . Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 12 (5), 190-197
