Criminal Investigation

Criminal Investigation

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 5

CriminalInvestigation

CriminalInvestigation

Task1

Televisionand media have ranging effects on one’s view about the criminalproceedings and investigations. By seeking to disseminate informationabout a criminal case, the media affects the integrity of theprocess. At times, the jury is subject to bias from the media andpublic due to the CSI effect. Pretrial publicity has great influenceis some cases since they ultimately shape the views of the jurors.The worst scenario happens when the jurors take distorted view thatlead wrongful acquittals. Nonetheless, the media has positiveinfluence where one gets to know the deliberations by thenon-judicial actors. One popular television show that has generatedserious concerns is the CrimeScene Investigations(CSI) since they affect the discussions and outcomes of a jury. CSIeffect has become popular in the last decade with media houses suchas CBS running the CrimeScene Investigationsshow. Opening the crime investigations to the public generates mixedviews with little regard about the legal aspect. As such, the jurorsmight find themselves in a delicate position trying to make a rulingin cases whose public has already given their perspective. It isbelieved that the bench gets confused in attempting to disseminate orbelieve information given by the television and standard practicewithin the criminal system. As such, there are varied expectationsowing to the evidence presented by the CSI. The influence by the CSIhas significantly changed my perspective on the criminal system. Ibelieve that the jury needs to consider how the evidence gatheredfrom the CSI can be appropriately used in a case. CSI effectinfluenced my decision to take up a career in criminal justice whereI will seek to ensure that the standard practice prevails over themedia influence (Swanson, Chamelin, Territo, &amp Taylor, 2012).

Task2

Fingerprintsgathered from a crime scene are used extensively to supportinvestigations. The method helps identify any evidence that cansupport investigations in an ongoing case. Its usage is driven by thefact that every individual has unique fingerprints. Fingerprintsmethod has proven to improve criminal investigations, especiallymurder and robbery cases. It has proven to be an effective way toascertain the innocence or guilt of an individual. The law enforcersuse finger printing to identify potential suspects during aninvestigation. In the case where Thomas Jennings was suspected tohave killed Clarence Hiller, it was identified that fingerprintingmethod was appropriate in investigations by enhancing the credibilityof the evidence. Jennings’ fingerprints were found in Hiller’shouse hence supporting the claim that he was the murderer. The caseis important as it has helped in utilizing better approaches inconvicting criminals. It has also made it easy for the investigatorsto use the method to support other judicial functions. Identifyingthe history of a suspect has been made easy with the forensicscientists using the approach to collaborate evidence with other armsin the justice system. In the contemporary setting, the investigatorsuse technology and fingerprinting to hasten court cases. It has alsohelped to reduce backlog in the court systems that arise due tolengthy and inappropriate investigations process. we cannotunderestimate the significance of fingerprinting in enhancing thespeed and integrity of the evidence presented to courts (Swanson,Chamelin, Territo, &amp Taylor, 2012).

Task3

TheFourthAmendmentdisallowed unwarranted seizure and searches when seeking to getevidence in a case. It made a requirement that the officers get awarrant from the courts. The requirement sought to ensure that dueprocess is followed after it was identified that individuals wereabusing the ‘writ of assistance’. The scope of the searches andseizure were only limited to the information given by the issuingcourt. Its significance to the judicial system is that the rights andprivacy of the accused are protected. It also protects the lawenforcers from incriminating themselves. In the US, the phrase ‘fruitof the poisonous tree’ is used to illustrate any form of evidencethat is gathered using illegal means. As such, the evidence cannot beadmitted in the courts. Evidence collected with due adherence to theFourthAmendmentcannot be admitted to the courts to support a case. One case wherethe amendment was inappropriately applied was the case betweenSilverthorneLumber Co. v. United States.Silverthorne had avoided remitting taxes as required by the law. Thelaw enforcers illegally searched the premises illegally where theycollected tax books and made copies as evidence to support the case.The judge rule that the evidence collected through illegal meanscannot be used in the courts. It was ruled the law enforcers hadcontravened the spirit of the FourthAmendment.It is true that the company evaded paying taxes but the process usedby the law enforcers to collect evidence did not uphold the valuesbrought about by the FourthAmendmenthence its reference as ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ (Swanson,Chamelin, Territo, &amp Taylor, 2012).

Reference

Swanson,C. R., Chamelin, N. C., Territo, L., &amp Taylor, R. W. (2012).Criminal investigation (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.