AC (3) 1.2 Practice Assessment Question
AC 1.2 Assess The Usefulness Of Investigative Techniques In Criminal
Investigations.
1 hour and 30 mins to write
4 investigative techniques (link to contexts and case studies)
Firstly, DNA and databases are very effective investigative techniques that can cause major
breakthroughs in high profile cases. Police databases are electronic records of citizens within the
country, this includes The Police National Database, vehicle database and IDENT1, which is the
fingerprint database. This type of investigative technique is extremely helpful at the crime scene, as
DNA can be extracted from surroundings of the scene, or clothing and other materials found such as
a weapon. This is also useful in a laboratory, as DNA can be tested and therefore possibly linked to a
suspect, who may be already on the police database. As well as this, DNA evidence is useful in crimes
such as sexual crimes, where bodily fluids can be tested and murder when blood can be tested. DNA
may also be effective for theft, as fingerprints can be extracted from surfaces. This type of technique
is effective as it can be highly useful in an investigation, where there are no witnesses, or CCTV
evidence and therefore no suspect. Some people suggest that everyone should be on the database,
criminal or non criminal. Moreover, databases can provide a turning point, and show strong evidence
of guilt or evidence. Moreover, a match helps identify a suspect in 60% of cases around the UK,
displaying how it is extremely effective. As well as this, the national database even benefits finding
criminals around the world, as database information can be shared between countries. However, in
terms of negatives, databases do reveal some ethical issues, some people also suggest that only
convicted criminals should be on the national database, and no one else. This is because of privacy
issues and on the basis of human rights, not everyone should have to give their full identity to the
government. Moreover, with more sophisticated technology, criminals have become more ‘savvy’,
and therefore can find ways around this database. Moreover, DNA is also a very effective technique
in criminal investigations. DNA can be found in a person’s blood, semen, skin cells, virtually anywhere
in the body, this makes it an extremely effective technique. This evidence is normally collected from
the crime scene and is tested by highly controlled and experienced scientists in the laboratory. It is
extremely good evidence for court, and can determine guilt or innocence, as it can connect a suspect
to a scene. Moreover, taking a DNA sample is also a simple procedure that involves a cheek swab,
which leads personnel to know a criminal's identity, meaning they can be linked easily to the crime, if
their DNA is found there. DNA is particularly useful in sexual crimes, as bodily fluids can be tested, as
well as murder as blood and fingerprints can be tested. However, DNA sometimes relies heavily on
evidence being found, and sometimes a weapon, or a body is not found. DNA collection also can
result in prejudice: 80% of black juveniles are on the NDBASE, as a result of misuse of police Stop and
Search powers to collect data, this is unfair as ethnic minorities are overrepresented when it comes
to the DNA database, highlighting human right issues. Furthermore, DNA can be easily contaminated
if it is not collected and stored correctly, for example no evidence containing moisture should be
, sealed for more than 2 hours, this is because evidence can be destroyed and therefore can’t be
tested. This means a valuable DNA found at a crime scene can not be matched and profiled, which
will greatly affect a case. An example of DNA not being effective is the Amanda Knox case, the police
failed to wear protective masks and caps when collecting the evidence, and this collection fell below
international standards, therefore, the DNA was at great risk of cross- contamination. The police
were using plastic bags to wrap evidence, insead of paper, as well the scientists original test not
following recommendations. Overall, DNA would be useful at a crime scene as it will link a suspect to
a scene, it is also extremely useful in a labatory as DNA can be tested and potentially linked to a
suspect.
Surveillance is also a good investigative technique. It would be useful at a crime scene as it can
capture the crime actually taking place or a suspect, however it would not be as useful in a
laboratory, as it cannot be tested and blurry, obstructed pictures make it extremely difficult to link to
a specific identity. Surveillance would be useful to crimes such as theft and vehicle crimes, as it can
place a suspect at a specific time and can potentially disprove a suspect's alibi. There are many types
of surveillance. Liquid surveillance is normally subtle, this includes ring doorbells, black boxes. People
tend to not realise, as it is there every day. There are an estimated 5.2 million CCTV cameras in the
UK, and if you live in London you may be caught on CCTV up to 300 times a day. Moreover,
Panopticon surveillance is where people are being watched by a guard but they cannot see they are
being watched. Synopticon surveillance is the idea that everyone is watching everyone, an example
of this would be dashcams. Lastly, self - surveillance, captures our habitual bodies monitoring and
disciplining ourselves, this stems from fear of judgement from each other and knowing we are being
watched. Moreover, some people suggest that CCTV should be in all public places and even in some
private places, this way many criminal acts will be caught on camera. An example of this is the Libby
Squire case, where CCTV caused a major breakthrough as there was no forensic evidence or eye
witnesses. In 2019, Libby went missing, and due to CCTV her murderer , Pawel Relowica was caught
following Libby, as well as approaching her and forcing her into his car. CCTV also caught him driving
to the park where her body was found. Relowicz would not have been found guilty without
surveillance, displaying its importance. This shows CCTV is useful in terms of murder, and would also
be effective in property and assault crimes, if camera footage is at the crime scene. However, it
would not be effective in white collar or technological crime. As well as this, a CCTV controlled area
will make the public feel more secure and safe, as surveillance can act as a deterrent for criminals.
Linking to this, it is said to have caused a 13% reduction of crime, 20% in drug crime and 14% in
property crime, this is very successful. Moreover, surveillance is useful when prosecuting crimes,
meaning more positive convictions. Police can also use metadata, which is essentially a ‘digital
fingerprint’, this is surveillance extracted from our phones, including text messages, phone calls,
social media activity and where we have been with our phones. This can be very useful in criminal
investigations, in the police station and the court process. as it can create time stamps of where
suspects/victims last were and who they last contacted. However, many people also suggest we
should have minimal surveillance in public life and none in private places, this is due to human rights
meaning everyone has a right to privacy, an example of this would be CCTV in toilets which
unequivocally is a breach of privacy rights. Moreover, CCTV is not always the most effective for police
, as it can be from a bad angle, meaning the criminal cannot be proven they were there, CCTV can
also be obstructed, grainy and have no sound. This will fail to provide a strong case, and therefore
will not end in successful conviction. Surveillance can also lead to prejudice issues, many minorities
may be profiled more, 40% of black males have the profiles stored on the National DNA database,
