Tag: murder

The New Detective: Rethinking Criminal Investigations

Eck and Rossmo, Criminological and Public Policy, 2019

Eck and Rossmo discuss developing a new role for law enforcement detectives. Research on the role of detectives has demonstrated that they solve only a small portion of cases, with witness and victim statements, and initial efforts by patrol officers, contributing more to case clearance than detectives and their work. Most innovations and reforms in policing have been focused on patrol officers and how they conduct their work and interact with the public (like problem-oriented policing, community-oriented policing, intelligence-led policing) but little attention in that regard has been made toward investigations. But the authors also consider that a traditional method of measuring detective effectiveness by the number of closed cases or clearance rate is a poor measure and does nothing to address improving detective performance.

Clearance rates have been in decline since the 60’s despite improvements in investigative technology and while law enforcement believes this is related to higher crime, less time, and lack of cooperation from the public, and charge reluctance by prosecutors, the authors contend the amount of crime is not the issue as crime has been on a downward trend since the ‘90’s. Eck and Rossmo believe that the wealth of information detectives have on crime and criminals is not being used effectively when detectives are being tasked with solving individual cases. Rather than working specific cases, detectives should be focusing on crime patterns, which may actually have an effect on reducing crime and improving clearance rates.

The authors suggest three areas that investigative management and detectives can improve on and orient themselves to; focus on quality and the reduction of errors, better organize detectives to address repeat problems and patters, involve detectives directly in crime prevention. Detectives can improve their investigations by understanding and utilizing inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning better, thus reducing wrongful arrests. Referencing a 2014 study, the authors state that of three factors affecting “criminal (case) failures” to identify offenders and arrest them (organizational, environmental, and personal), the personal factor, like a rush to judgement and confirmation bias, was the most common cause. Utilizing the acronym SRIP, detectives should evaluate the quality of evidence for significance (strength of the evidence as it points to guilt, exoneration, or other explanations) reliability (assessed before significance, how likely is the evidence to be true), independence (independently, does the evidence make a unique contribution, or is it merely derivative) , and patterns (how does the evidence fit in the overall information pattern of the case, evidence should not be cherry picked).

When too much focus is put on solving individual cases, detectives aren’t recognizing and understanding patterns and developing resources. Victims and witnesses provide much of the information needed to solve cases and detectives, and these participants, as well as offenders can deliver more information to detectives and help them recognize potential patterns. Knowing that crime patterns can be offender or situational based, this information can help link persons and places to crime patterns and disrupt these factors which lead to patterns. Detectives understand crime, criminals, and crime opportunities but that knowledge largely goes unused when detectives are only focusing on individual cases instead of taking a broader problem-solving approach.

The authors suggest there are four way detectives can better utilize their investigative knowledge and work toward crime prevention:

Routine debriefings of victims and offenders. Not just focusing on interviews and interrogations in a specific case to gather evidence and solve it, but utilizing after the fact interviews which can help detectives in determining patterns and conditions which can assist in future investigations and crime prevention.

Repeat victims and offenses. Detectives may not need to be assigned to a specific case but instead to victims or places, also to recognize and assess criminogenic factors and situations.

Place based investigation. Utilizing a problem solving approach they can eliminate or reduce offending when the precipitating factors are identified.

Detective involvement in problem solving. Utilizing their knowledge, detectives can be folded into more problem solving efforts, taking the lead or coordinating with other units to bring more of their specialized knowledge to bear in addressing and solving larger problems.

The authors contend that while detectives are being under (or incorrectly) utilized, trying to improve detective performance and utility by making marginal organizational changes, while still having detectives doing their job the same as they have for decades, will be insufficient.  Departments need to re-think and re-organize their detectives toward a larger, crime prevention mandate.

Eck, J. E., & Rossmo, D. K. (2019). The new detective: Rethinking criminal investigations. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 601-622

While Eck and Rossmo see clearance rates as a faulty measure of detective effectiveness, many departments, and the public, see this as an indication the police are doing their jobs. But clearance rates can vary on a number of factors between various crimes based on evidence, available information, and investigative effort. Authors Cook, Braga, Turchan, and Barao examine these issues in the differences between gun homicide and gun assault clearance rates.

Why do gun murders have a higher clearance rate than gunshot assaults?

Cook, Braga, Turchan, & Barao, Criminological and Public Policy, 2019

To explore the title issue, Cook and colleagues examined Boston shootings data from 2010-2014, comparing 204 homicides and 231 non-fatal shootings investigations with a quasi-experimental design using case narratives, data, and detective interviews. The authors mention that research from the ‘70’s indicated that investigative work had little effect on solving cases, indicating the importance of patrol officer work, and witness and victim statements. However, research in the ‘90’s revealed some investigative factors that were associated with arrest including what the first responding officer did at the scene, how soon the detective arrived, how many detectives were assigned, and how the scene was documented. However this previous research was more descriptive and couldn’t demonstrate a definitive causal relationship.

Initial comparison of gun homicides and gun assaults showed no statistical difference in the situational circumstances between the types of shootings with the exception that indoor shootings were more lethal. It also showed that gun homicide clearance by arrest was twice as high as gun assaults (43% vs 19%) and that clearance rates in both types were higher in personal disputes or domestic violence situations as opposed to gang and drug related disputes. The on-scene arrest rates for both types were 6% and arrest rates during the two days immediately following the shooting were the same for fatal and non-fatal cases, 11%. The difference in arrest rates arose later and the authors consider that the early matching rates are reflective of the “easy” cases in both types of crime. Easy cases are solved quickly and without the need for the extra resources deployed in homicide investigations; those resources being a possible source of overall higher clearance rates. Eyewitness testimony and the effort in gathering direct evidence were also prominently factored into the differences in the two types.

The prevalence of investigative success that comes from cooperating witnesses was the same in both types of cases, but the lower clearance rates for non-fatal shootings suggest less cooperative witnesses in these shootings. However, the data also indicates that witness cooperation is not always immediate and spontaneous, and that efforts may be necessary to locate and gain the cooperation of witness. Data also indicated that the likelihood of a surviving victim being cooperative was greater in homicide cases than assault cases. This may stem from a recognition of the more serious nature of a death, as well as assault survivors’ attempts to hamper witnesses from speaking out.

Another important factor in case clearance was the greater amount of forensic evidence gathered in fatal cases versus non-fatal and since the situational circumstances between the two types of crimes are very similar, it speaks to the greater amount of effort and resources put into fatal cases compared to non-fatal. The statistical analyses bears out that a significantly greater amount of evidence is collected in fatal shootings versus non-fatal, including latent prints, DNA, ballistics, electronic data analysis, and post-scene witness interviews, which may be a function of the finding that a greater number of officers were providing information in fatal cases versus non-fatal.

The authors summarize by referencing the 1976 RAND study that carried a lot of weight in presenting the view that detectives  have little effect on clearance rates, whereas on-scene arrests and eyewitness testimony matter more. While these were also determining factors in clearance rates in the current study, the authors disagree that detectives are of little value . Their findings show that 30% of homicide arrests where an eyewitness was a key factor occurred 6 months or more after the incident, and that this comes from the detectives’ effort and skill at locating witnesses and gaining their cooperation. The authors contend that clearance rates for gun assaults could be improved if additional resources and efforts were employed, even if not at the same level employed in homicide investigations.

Cook, P. J., Braga, A. A., Turchan, B. S., & Barao, L. M. (2019). Why do gun murders have a higher clearance rate than gunshot assaults?. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 525-551.

Cook et al. mention the difficulty that investigators may have in gaining witness cooperation in non-fatal cases, as they may be viewed as less serious crimes that don’t as heavily prompt cooperation, as well as witness suppression efforts by victims or other witnesses. Brunson and Wade explore this lack of desire to cooperate with the police in gun violence incidents.

Oh Hell No, We Don’t Talk to the Police

Brunson and Wade, Criminological and Public Policy, 2019

The authors interviewed 50 young, black males from high-crime neighborhoods in Brooklyn and the Bronx who were high risk of violence individuals (active and former gang members, and others who had prior associations with illegal guns, and gun violence), endorsed retaliatory violence and anti-snitching, and who had knowledge about illegal gun markets, and the associated violence, in an attempt to understand the lack of witness cooperation in urban, low SES neighborhoods. Prior research has already pointed to factors that influence this lack of cooperation. Perceptions of both over and under policing can reinforce Blacks’ collective belief that policing is racially biased, harming police legitimacy, which can foster more community violence as Black residents feel the need to engage in retaliation and protection strategies that don’t involve the police. Individuals involved in violent crime can also take advantage of this perceived lack of legitimacy and non-reliance on the police to discourage witnesses from coming forward. These efforts help foster the impression with the police that anti-snitching attitudes are prevalent in urban communities. Though not often mentioned in police/race discussions, most Blacks are law abiding and support the role of the police in the community. While there should be opportunities for positive, mutually beneficial community partnerships between the Black community and police, these opportunities are undermined when Blacks engage in civil unrest following a publicized police action. This presents the image of wholesale denunciation of the police by Blacks, suggesting to law enforcement that Blacks are tolerant of crime and view the police as an intrusion.

The authors, while recognizing a no-snitching policy has long been part of  minority urban culture (a la E. Anderson’s code of the streets), also noted recent literature has shown inconsistencies in what offenders think constitutes snitching. While perceiving the police as illegitimate may provide an excuse for not cooperating with the police, it doesn’t fully explain the reticence of law abiding citizens from coming forward with information. This suggests that victim or witness intimidation, either actual or feared, may factor into whether there is cooperation with the police. High crime rates in neighborhoods and mistrust of the police can lead these residents to perceive they are being under-policed, while aggressive policing tactics prompts the belief in a racially biased police force and a feeling of being over policed. Residents question whether the police are concerned with reducing crime or are just interested in cracking down on minor offenses. This in turns raises questions of police illegitimacy and generates legal cynicism, not just with the police but the criminal justice system as well. This legal cynicism is directly related to the support of retaliatory violence, which leads to higher level of community violence, and can prompt conditions of over-policing as law enforcement struggles to deal with increasing levels of violence.

In the study interviews, several participants explained their dislike of the police because of negative, aggressive personal interactions but many (54%) also referenced widely publicized media accounts of police misconduct and the fatal shootings of unarmed Black men as reasoning for their dislike and mistrust of the police. 90% stated they wouldn’t call the police if a loved one was threatened with gun violence. Some participants also complained that the police were too focused on drug offenses, and were not concerned about addressing violence in the neighborhoods with 76% of participants offering up very negative comments about the justice system as a whole, believing it to be oppressive and not dedicated to justice in minority communities. Participants also indicated that most of the gun violence pertained to “beefs”, trivial conflicts involving disrespect, arguments, and misunderstandings. These beefs generate hard feelings between individuals and prompt them to carry guns for protection against “the people [that] don’t like you”. Many who were shot at claimed they didn’t know who (74%) or the reason (48%) and many feared being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a random shooting, though the prevalence of beefs with individuals on a block or in a neighborhood was a common occurrence in their narratives.

With so many of the participants holding views of police illegitimacy and legal cynicism, they preferred retaliatory violence (92%) as opposed to contacting the police after a shooting. As one participant put it, “If I go and tell the [cops and] this nigga fuck around and beat the case…this nigga still out here smoking blunts, doing everything while my [friend] dead, you feel me…that’s why I don’t understand that snitching to the cops shit…this nigga shot my [friend]…a real nigga would just go out and kill that nigga.” They viewed the police as ineffective because they would not be able to stop or prevent threats of violence against them and held mistrust of police motives, especially after feeling mistreated by the police when interviewed in previous incidents. As one participant said, “I got shot up here [on Wabada] and the cops [said] If I don’t cooperate, then [they] gonna take me to jail, take me to jail for what? I didn’t do anything to nobody, just because you stereotyping me and feel that I know who did it, now I’m in trouble?… You don’t gotta drag people and belittle them and make them feel lesser than who they are to get stuff out them….That’s  why…I won’t go to cops for nothing, if imma die, imma die…I ain’t going to cops for nothing, I’ll go to the ambulance before the cops.”

Many of the participants embraced a no snitching stance, saying it just went against their culture and referenced the code of the street. Those who retaliated were revered but those who went to the police were viewed with contempt, however some of them considered there were acceptable exceptions; with female family members, intimates, and boys. It was also noted that beside their adherence to the edict, they used intimidation of community members to ensure their compliance as well.

Fear over repeat victimization prompted the participants to carry a gun. The participants were willing to face arrest for gun possession in order to ensure their safety on the street, feeling that the police are ineffective at finding and stopping known shooters, and won’t be around to save them when confronted over a beef. As one participant said, “I was just thinking about my safety….I don’t wanna say that I was clueless to the consequences, I just didn’t care about them…because it was like, once you get shot, the only thing you care about is, [not] getting shot again, because it really, really hurt[s]…so I’m just like, I don’t want this to happen again.”

Brunson and Wade consider three goals to be achieved; reducing gun violence so high risk people can live in safety, launch grassroots campaigns countering pro-violence and anti-snitching, and improving police-minority relations. However with the prevalence and necessity of carrying defensive firearms in high-violence neighborhoods, disarming individuals will be difficult. However, allocating more resources to gun assaults may improve perceived police legitimacy as well as improve clearance rates, helping to reduce fear. Focused deterrence programs have also been shown to be effective in reducing gun violence.as well as using community intermediaries to help quell violence.

Brunson, R. K., & Wade, B. A. (2019). “Oh hell no, we don’t talk to police” Insights on the lack of cooperation in police investigations of urban gun violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(3), 623-648.

While the suggestion of allocating more resources toward investigations may improve clearance rates, as well as perceptions of police legitimacy, citizen perceptions can vary of police actions especially when accompanied by a difference in policing style. Deuchar, Miller, and Densley examine this variance in perception in stop and search efforts in Scotland. The article also reminds us that procedural justice and police legitimacy are not just in the purview of minority-police relations but rather the issues pertain to those who are targeted; young, lower income males.

The Lived Experience of Stop & Search in Scotland: There Are Two Sides to Every Story.

Ross Deuchar, Johanne Miller, and James Densley, Police Quarterly, 2019

The authors consider there has been little interconnected research between procedural justice and stop and search practices but research has shown that the disproportionate use of stop and search in ethnic minority communities fosters a perception that the police are biased and lack legitimacy. Similar to “stop and frisk” in the U.S., in Scotland, police have the power to stop and search, without arrest or charge, if they have “reasonable grounds to suspect” that an individual is in possession of a weapon, drugs, or that an offense has or is about to be committed. This requirement was applicable even if the person gave consent (though voluntary searches are typically not legally challenged).

When the policy had a widespread rollout in 2012, there were concerns that it would have a negative effect on perceptions of procedural justice and hamper building positive relations between the police and the public. To address youth crime in high crime areas, Force Flexible Policing Units were assigned to areas of  juvenile crime hot spots with highly visible patrol and stop and searches. Glasgow and some surrounding areas in the west of Scotland used a predominantly aggressive approach toward policing while areas in the east including the capital of Edinburgh used a “softer”, more negotiated, order maintenance style. Populations in both areas were approximately 88% White.

The authors utilized a participant observer approach shadowing officers and observing 55 incidents, 30 in the west and 25 in the east that primarily involved white, male teenagers. They also conducted 23 interviews with officers on the reasoning behind stop and search, why they are conducted in the neighborhoods they are, and whether they are achieving goals, as well as commenting on young peoples’ perception of the police and how stop and search may influence this. 46 young people (8 from Edinburgh in the east and 38 from Paisley and Glasgow in the west) who had recent stop and search activity with police were also interviewed about their views of the police, their experiences with stop and search, the perceived influence the experience had on views of the police, as well as their views on improving police/public relations.

Officer views on stop and search found it to be an effective tool at crime prevention, locating knives and thus preventing and deterring violence as well as addressing drugs on the street. One officer said, “I think it’s a very valid tactic, personally . . . it’s helped to take a lot of knives and other offensive weapons off the street, and drugs too . . . it’s not just necessarily getting that small bag of a drug, or that weapon, you know, it can lead to vast quantities of drugs being recovered . . . if it’s used and done properly it can lead to better and bigger things.” However the youth participants did not view it as a deterrent to carrying weapons or contraband, but the researchers, and a number of youths, noted that they seemed to be targeted for stop and searches based on their demeanor or style of dress

The difference in policing style in carrying out stop and search did generate different attitudes. Youth in the west of Scotland felt resentment toward the police, feeling they were being treated like criminals during the stops. The different approach used in Edinburgh (East) generated different reaction from youths. Stop and search was conducted in a more unobtrusive and procedurally just manner, with officers speaking politely and respectfully to those stopped. As one sergeant from the east side said, “It’s no’ nice to be stopped by police and to be searched, and it’s quite embarrassing and things. So, I suppose it’s about getting that, that rapport, and getting a bit of a relationship wi’ this person, even if it’s a two or three minute interaction, just quickly trying to put them at ease a wee bit, and just saying “listen, you know, I’m no’ saying you’re a horrible, bad person, but this is why we’re here and actually your behavior has just, just caught our eye, and it was a bit strange. And, you know, there might be a perfectly logical explanation for it.” During the interviews, many of these youths perceived that the officers were doing their jobs fairly and believed that stop and search was effective in addressing youth crime issues. While youths in Edinburgh believed that the officers were professional, responsive, honest, and fair, the youths in the west of Scotland more often experienced aggressive, confrontational stops that in turn made them determined to avoid contact with the police as well as being confrontational during stops. As one youth stated “Most of the time I havnae done nothin’, and most of the time if they didnae stop us we wouldnae have committed the crime we done which is police assault or resisting arrest”.

Part of the difference in approaches stemmed from the basis for the stops. Besides statutory searches (requiring reasonable grounds to suspect) up until the Spring of 2017 Scottish Police could stop and search non-statutory, commonly referred to as voluntary or consent searches. Voluntary search numbers were high in west Scotland and many youths complained they gave consent even when they didn’t want to because of the belief that if they refused, it would make matters worse as it would turn into a statutory search. If they refused, officers would then claim they’re being stopped under the relevant statute and the majority believed the police would just make up a reason for it be statutory. Officers also had an obligation to tell individuals that they had a right to refuse a consensual searches but often this was not done. However, officers in the east typically employed the statutory standard and implied informed consent on searches.

Political, public, and media concerns over the high number of consensual stops led to reforms in 2014 that defined stop criteria, would end a presumption of consensual searching, and in such cases, requires informed consent, and reinforced the need for procedural justice. This change negatively affected the morale of officers in both east and west Scotland. Officers in the west felt anxiety that these reforms took away a valuable tool at deterring violent crime and instilled a “rights culture” among people that prompted them to be obstructive. Officers in the east didn’t experience much concern over the reforms and the ending of consensual searches because they typically used statutory searches, engaged positively with youth, and appropriately documented their searches. However their morale suffered as they felt their integrity was being questioned. Regarding the reform, youth in the west felt little would change in regards to the procedural justice they experienced as policing as typically more aggressive there, but youth in the east, because of law enforcement’s already existing low key approach, had more feelings of trust and legitimacy about the police. The authors concluded the study shows the connection between procedural justice and police legitimacy, and that procedural justice tenets should be safeguarded in police practices that may be construed as intrusive or confrontational. The positive examples shown in Edinburgh could be used as a training model to help support officers in redefining a policing style more synonymous with procedural justice. They also consider that “procedural justice is only one part of a broader narrative around police legitimacy” that should include an examination of whether the style of enforcement expresses the shared values of the community as well as examining the legality of some police activities.

Deuchar, R., Miller, J., & Densley, J. (2019). The Lived Experience of Stop and Search in Scotland: There Are Two Sides to Every Story. Police Quarterly, 1098611119849646.