Category: Crime Investigation

The criminological theory that we are going to discuss in this paper is called Biosocial. This specific theory came to its current prominence during the last decade, when it was becoming increasingly clear to criminologists/law enforcement officials that the purely sociological (environmental) outlook on the origins of crime can no longer be considered thoroughly legitimate. One of the reasons for this is that through the same period, the sociological theories of crime have grown heavily affected by the discourse of political correctness, which resulted in diminishing their practical value rather substantially. As Walsh and Mueller noted: “Most sociological theories of crime ignore the moral culpability of the flesh and blood creatures who commit crimes and to indict society for its own victimization. Everything and everybody, or so it seems, is responsible for crime except those who actually commit it” (306). Another contributing element, in this respect, proved to be the fact that as time went on, there has been more and more scientifically sound evidence accumulated in support of the idea that there is indeed a link between the particulars of one’s biological makeup and the concerned person’s likelihood to become a criminal. For example, according to Wright and Cullen: “Meta-analytic analyses of heritability studies show that antisocial behaviour is roughly 50% heritable, whereas specific studies find that antisocial behaviour” (246). Consequently, this development resulted in forcing some criminological theorists to realise when it comes to designing the policies of crime prevention, legislators must proceed doing it within the combined methodological framework of both: biology (genetics/neuroscience) and sociology. Hence, the definition of the Biosocial theory in criminology: “It is an emerging interdisciplinary perspective that seeks to explain crime and antisocial behaviour by recognizing the potential importance of a host of factors including genetic factors, neuropsychological factors, environmental factors, and evolutionary factors” (Beaver and Walsh 4). Among the theory’s main conceptual provisions can be named the following:

• People’s tendency to lead a socially integrated lifestyle, as well as anti-social urges (leading to crime) in some individuals, are predetermined by the very logic of evolutionary selection. The rationale behind this idea has to do with the fact that, as many studies indicate, one’s willingness to live as the society’s integral part increases the concerned individual’s chances to propagate its genome. In its turn, the measure of his or her social adaptability is reflective of this person’s varying capacity to conform to the adopted code of behavioural ethics within the society. The capability in question is defined by the morphological (structural) subtleties of his or her brain.
• Even though most people do not realize it consciously, the actual purpose of their existence is strongly ‘biological’- just as it happened to be the case with all mammals. That is, it is ultimately concerned with ensuring that there are plenty of nutrients (food), with spreading genes (sex), and with trying to attain a social prominence (domination). (Rocque, Welsh and Raine 210). The process of a person striving to reach these objectives is controlled by paleomammalian cortex (also referred to as the ‘limbic system’) inside his or her brain. For as long as the workings of one’s paleomammalian cortex are concerned, it is absolutely of no importance, whatsoever, whether he or she goes about tackling these aims in a lawful or criminal manner – all that matters is that the person’s genome is successfully passed to the next generation. Due to being highly socialized creatures, most people are able to exercise rational control over their atavistic urges, originated in the limbic part of a brain – this is the price humans pay for being allowed to qualify for social inclusion. However, some individuals appear incapable of controlling their limbic sphere. As DeLisi pointed out: “For most of us, our frontal cortices and the executive functions therein stifle the limbic suggestions. But for others, there is insufficient cortical control of the limbic messages” (168). As a result, these people are naturally predisposed towards crime – their irrational desire to achieve instant gratification, with respect to the mentioned biological objectives, proves much stronger than their fear of being turned into social outcasts, because of it. This, in turn, explains the phenomenon of the so-called ‘natural born criminals’ – the individuals known for the sheer strength of their criminal mindedness.
• The surrounding socioeconomic environment has a strong effect on the formation of people’s sense of self-identity, which in turn causes them to adopt one or another stance in life. Therefore, it is thoroughly appropriate to suggest that the external factors of influence play as much of a role in bringing about one’s criminal attitudes, as it happened to be the case with the person’s neurological/genetic makeup. However, unlike the sociological theories of crime, the Biosocial theory does not refer to the external environment in terms of a ‘thing in itself’, quite independent from the affiliated people’s spatially stable tendency to address life-challenges in one way or another. Rather, it refers to the environmental factors of influence on one’s attitude towards crime as such that should be discussed in close conjunction with the essence of his or her innate psychological leanings. The reason for this is that, according to the Biosocial paradigm in criminology: “Environments are not purely social, but rather are biosocial entities affected by genetic propensities (Beaver and Walsh 10). People do not merely exist within a particular socioeconomic environment, but they also act as the main driving force behind its continual transformation.

The foremost strength of the Biosocial theory in criminology is that it effectively removes the element of interpretational subjectivity within the context of how criminologists go about discovering what had prompted a particular individual to commit a crime. The reason for this is that, unlike most sociological theories of crime, it presupposes the possibility of establishing a dialectical link between the observable aspects of one’s anti-social behaviour and the quantifiable subtleties of his or her genetic makeup/neurological constitution. While referring to the discursive implications of the Biosocial theory’s implementation, Wright and Boisvert could hardly keep their excitement under control: “Imagine criminology not wholly reliant… on the multitude of tired, worn-out theories… where a reliance on abstraction was replaced by a reliance on the measurement of directly observable phenomena” (1228). In its turn, this contributes rather substantially towards ensuring the axiomatic soundness of the theory’s methodological apparatus. As a result, the Biosocial theory should prove much more of a practical asset in the field of law enforcement, as compared to what it is being the case with most sociological theories in criminology.

The theories another strength is that its conceptualization of crime is fully consistent with most recent discoveries in the fields of genetics, neuroscience, and sociology. According to the earlier quoted authors: “Biosocial criminology draws on a large body of advanced, technical knowledge about human genetics and biological processes” (Wright and Boisvert 1232). Therefore, the theory’s practitioners are able to obtain a number of systemic insights into what accounts for the interrelationship between the biological and environmental triggers of criminal mindedness in an individual. Consequently, this establishes some objective prerequisites for biosocial criminologists to have a holistic (all-encompassing) understanding of the evolutionary predetermined motivations of crime. It is understood, of course, that this will come in particularly handy for those criminologists that are on the line of designing crime prevention policies.

Finally, we can mention the fact that the Biosocial theory contains many clues as to what needs to be done to adjust the currently deployed penological paradigm in the West to be more consistent with the realities of a post-industrial living. One of these clues is concerned with the idea that when it comes to providing an offender with the circumstantially appropriate criminal punishment, the person’s genetic risk-factors should be taken into consideration.

There are, however, a few weaknesses to the Biosocial theory as well. Probably the main of them has to do with the high cost of handling and studying one’s genetic material, as well as obtaining high-quality tomographic images of his or her brain. The latter task is obstructed even further by the fact that the operational resolution of most contemporary tomographs is still not high enough. This, of course, significantly reduces the scope of biosocial research.

Among the theory’s pitfalls can also named its potential capacity to contribute towards the legitimatisation of crime as the unavoidable aspect of modern living, which in turn may result in increasing the emotional appeal of a criminal lifestyle. Moreover, some criminologists believe that the Biosocial theory of crime may result in activating people’s interest in eugenics – a development that could hardly be deemed fully appropriate, given the concept’s association with Nazism.

As it was implied earlier, the Biosocial theory in criminology is comparatively new and it will still take some time before it is recognised thoroughly legitimate. Therefore, there have not been many articles published on the subject of this theory as of yet. Moreover, as it appears from the available publications of relevance, their authors do not quite agree as to what should be considered the theory’s discursive significance. Whereas, some authors do subscribe to the idea that the theory’s practical deployment should prove beneficial to the cause of keeping the crime rate down, others argue that this cannot possibly be the case because the Biosocial outlook on crime does not correlate with the ideological canons of the currently enacted social policies in the West.

The earlier quoted article by Wright and Boisvert is probably the most supportive of the Biosocial criminological paradigm. According to the authors, its eventual emergence was predetermined by the exponential progress in the domain of biology – this alone can serve as a good indication of the theory’s validity. Throughout the article’s entirety, the authors refer to this theory as such that has been destined to reformulate the most fundamental principles of criminology as a scientific discipline. In particular, the Biosocial theory will make possible the methodological enhancement of the criminological pursuit as a whole: “We believe that it is time for a paradigm shift in criminology, and we are confident that a biosocial perspective is the answer” (Wright and Boisvert 1238). The reason for this is that, as the authors see it, the very availability of the Biosocial theory renders the rest of sociological theories hopelessly outdated.

In their article, Barnes and Boutwell advance essentially the same idea. According to the authors, the Biosocial approach to addressing crime is based on the well-established fact that the way in which people react to the externally applied stimuli is defined by the interplay of hormones in their bodies. What this means is that one’s behaviour is not quite as reflective of the concerned individual’s ability to make rational choices, as the adherents of sociological theories in criminology tend to assume. The authors consider it as the best indication that the Biosocial theory is indeed scientifically sound. Barnes and Boutwell show that one of the reasons why this theory continues to be treated with suspicion by some criminologists is that its conceptual provisions are being commonly misinterpreted. For example, contrary to the popular myth, the Biosocial theory does not single out the biological predictors of crime as the most influential ones. The authors applied a great effort trying to educate readers in this respect: “Biosocial criminology is not a one-size-fits-all perspective… (it) necessarily assumes that human behaviour is the product of a complex arrangement of environmental and biological influences” (Barnes and Boutwell 1). This, of course, suggests that there is indeed much systemic integrity to the theory in question.

Nevertheless, there are also a few articles that criticize the Biosocial theory on a number of different accounts, with the authors going as far as denying much credibility to the very Biosocial principle. For example, according to Carrier and Walby, the Biosocial theory’s emergence should be seen as yet another attempt to revive the ‘Lombrosian myth’ in criminology, in the sense of legitimising the idea that there are indeed ‘natural born criminals’ and that they can be identified as such by having their DNA thoroughly analysed. The authors consider this idea morally inappropriate. They also do not like the fact that the Biosocial theory does not contain any provisions with respect to the continually transforming semiotic essence of the notion of crime. Their verdict is rather harsh: “Biosocial criminology must be viewed as an attempt to cement the Lombrosian project: it is an effort to imprison criminology in an aetiological space where the ontological status of crime goes unquestioned” (Carrier and Walby 5).

In their yet another article, Carrier and Walby came up with even more critical remarks regarding the Biosocial theory. According to the authors, the practical deployment of this theory will result in undermining the validity of many widely applied legal principles that enable the continual functioning of the judiciary system in Western countries. The reason for this is that the theory’s somewhat behaviourist conceptualisation of crime calls for the abandonment of retributive punishments, while being unable to provide any workable alternative to them. Carrier and Walby also stress out that the Biosocial theory pays very little attention to the effects of the currently prevalent ideological discourse on the legal conventions concerned with identifying criminality: “Biosocial criminology seems to exhibit… inability to understand that the epistemologically sound criminological object is not crime nor criminality, but criminalization” (101). Thus, there are some controversial qualities to the theory in question.

It appears that many of the Biosocial theory’s conceptual provisions can indeed be used to influence law enforcement policies in the US. For example, we can mention the theory’s claim that one’s chances to end up becoming a criminal can be inferred with respect to the particulars of this person’s ‘brain wiring’ or genetic makeup, on one hand, and the specifics of the affiliated social environment, on the other. When assessed through the methodological lenses of the Sociological paradigm of crime, the first part of this claim will appear misleading – the common assumption is that no other factors play a role in setting a person on the path of crime, but solely the environmental ones. In their turn, these factors are seen external to what account for his or her individuality. Hence, the sociological dogma – residing in the ‘ghetto’ will necessarily predispose one towards crime. As a result, the government allocates funds for the infrastructural improvement of ‘bad neighbourhoods’ while hoping that this would cause crime rate in the concerned areas to drop. However, the expected effect most commonly never takes place. The Biosocial theory contains clues as to why this is being the case – people affect the surrounding environment to a much stronger degree than they are themselves being affected by it. Therefore, the objective of making crime-ridden neighbourhoods safer should not be referred to as such that represents much value of its own, as many ‘sociological’ criminologists tend to do. Instead, it should be seen interconnected with yet another societal objective of encouraging residents to lead a biologically cautious (with respect to their sexual preferences and eating habits) lifestyle.

Study

The 2009 study Neighborhoods and Genes and Everything in Between: Understanding Adolescent Aggression in Social and Biological Contexts by Hart and Marmorstein exemplifies how the Biosocial theory can be used for defining the research model’s format. In this study, the authors aimed to test the validity of their hypothesis that adolescents residing in urban, racially heterogeneous, and child-saturated (ethnic ‘ghetto’), are much more likely to exhibit delinquency/aggression than their non-associated peers. The study’s another objective was to confirm/refute the cause-effect relationship between the presence of the polymorphic gene MAOA in the participants’ DNA and their heightened likelihood to indulge in aggressive behaviour. The study’s methodological format is best defined as a qualitative research inquiry. While through the study’s empirical phases, Hart and Marmorstein surveyed 90.000 participants (high school students, grades 7-10). After having subjected the obtained data to the correlation analysis, the authors were able to confirm the validity of the earlier mentioned hypothesis: “The results of this study indicate that neighbourhood urbanicity, child saturation, and racial heterogeneity are associated with adolescent aggression” (Hart and Marmorstein 969). Hart and Marmorstein also succeeded in specifying the role of the genetic factor in creating the objective preconditions for adolescents from the described residential areas to be tempted to indulge in delinquency. According to the study, polymorphisms in MAOA do exert strong influence on the functioning of the affected person’s monoamine system, which in turn results in causing the shortage of ‘happiness-inducing’ neurotransmitters in his or her brain – hence, naturally prompting this individual to exhibit anger along with delinquent attitudes. As it was suggested by the authors, “MAOA polymorphisms contribute to social sensitivity through neurological mechanisms in the limbic area of the brain… Adolescents with the short (MAOA) allele tend to experience high levels of distress culminating in aggression” (Hart and Marmorstein 965). What is particularly valuable about the study is that it contains a number of the evolutionary (Biosocial) insights into the phenomenon of delinquency in youth. Apparently, the socioeconomic and demographic qualities of the ‘ghetto’ environment presuppose that the social dynamics within it are strongly affected by the Darwinian principle of the ‘survival of the fittest’. What contributes to the situation even more is that most ghetto-residents are ‘horizontally’ (communally) integrated into the neighbourhood’s social fabric, which serves as even more powerful incentive for youths to be willing to break the law as something that is expected to help them to achieve self-actualisation.

Thus, we can positively identify three indications of the discussed article does operationalize the Biosocial theory’s research model. Probably the most notable of them has to do with the fact that in their study Hart and Marmorstein decided to combine two seemingly incompatible research methodologies – genetic research and sociological inquiry. This correlates well with the popular view on Biosociology as probably the most interdisciplinary of all criminological theories.

The study’s prominent deployment of DNA-research serves the purpose of promoting biological determinism, commonly referred to as the main discursive hallmark of the Biosocial theory in criminology (Rafter 40). The authors have taken it even further – they made a deliberate point in linking a seemingly insignificant genetic marker inside one’s DNA to this person’s presumed predisposition towards delinquency (and consequently crime). The authors’ move, in this respect, is consistent with the presumed ‘neo-Lombrosian’ quality of many of the Biosocial theory’s conventions.

The study adheres to yet another conceptual provision of the Biosocial outlook on crime, concerned with the idea that one’s biologically defined predisposition to indulge in antisocial behaviour is highly individual and that it should not be assessed outside of the affiliated environmental context. The study’s name correlates with this idea perfectly well. In full accordance with one of the theory’s discursive postulates, Hart and Marmorstein’s study shows that ordinary citizens play no lesser of a role in the formation of the surrounding social environment than the high-ranking governmental officials. The study’s main finding also has a strong biosocial sounding to it – whereas, one’s continual exposure to poor environment may indeed result in encouraging him or her to grow disrespectful towards the law, the person’s decision to break it is most commonly ‘gene-activated’.

The study implies that there is a systemic quality to the relationship between just about everybody who share the same neighbourhood, reflective of the principle “whole is greater than the sum of its part”. This explains the discursive significance of the study’s finding that: “changes in aggression levels in adolescence are associated with changes in neighbourhoods” (Hart and Marmorstein 972). Apparently, there is a strong synergetic interconnectedness between the society and its members. This conclusion is fully consistent with the Biosocial theory’s sociological provisions that presuppose the full appropriateness of evaluating the essence of transformative dynamics within the society, as being reflective of the most basic Darwinian principles of evolution. Thus, there is indeed a good reason to consider the discussed theory rather enlightening.

References

Barnes, John, and Brian Boutwell. “Biosocial Criminology: The Emergence of a New and Diverse Perspective.” Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law & Society 28.1 (2015): 1-5. Print.

Beaver, Kevin and Anthony Walsh. “Biosocial Criminology.” Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime. Ed. Kevin Beaver and Antony Walsh. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2011. 3-17. Print.

Carrier, Nicolas, and Kevin Walby. “Ptolemizing Lombroso: The Pseudo-Revolution of Biosocial Criminology.” Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology 7.1 (2015): 1-45. Print.

DeLisi, Matt. “The Limbic System and Crime.” Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime. Ed. Kevin Beaver and Antony Walsh. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2011. 167-181. Print.

Hart, Daniel, and Naomi.Marmorstein. “Neighbourhoods and Genes and Everything in Between: Understanding Adolescent Aggression in Social and Biological Contexts.” Development and Psychopathology 21.3 (2009): 961-973. Print.

Rafter, Nicole. “H. J. Eysenck in Fagin’s Kitchen: The Return to Biological Theory in 20th-Century Criminology.” History of the Human Sciences 19.4 (2006): 37-56. Print.

Rocque, Michael, Brandon Welsh, and Adrian Raine. “Biosocial Criminology and Modern Crime Prevention.” Journal of Criminal Justice 40.4 (2012): 206-312. Print.

Walsh, Anthony and David Mueller. “Social Class and Criminal Behavior through a Biosocial Lens.” Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime. Ed. Kevin Beaver and Antony Walsh. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2011. 306-327. Print.

Wright, John, and Danielle Boisvert. “What Biosocial Criminology Offers Criminology.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 36.11 (2009): 1228-1240. Print.

Wright, John, and Francis Cullen. “The Future of Biosocial Criminology: Beyond Scholars’ Professional Ideology.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 28.3 (2012): 237-253. Print.

Crime is still a part of human life, and thousands of people are injured or even killed every day. Criminals commit crimes and often try to conceal their actions, but there are still various tracks that enable the criminal justice system to locate criminals and prove their guilt. These tracks can be of different types as they can be pattern evidence, weapons or parts of arms, clothes or fragments of garments, and so on. These track mainly referred to as physical evidence. Physical evidence can be defined as “any type of tangible evidence as opposed to something such as the testimony of an eyewitness” (Bell, 2012, p. 208). Bell (2012) stresses that to be presented in the court and be a sound piece of evidence, physical evidence “must be documented, collected, marked, transported, and stored” in a specific manner that depends on the type of evidence.

One of the most widespread types of physical evidence is the so-called pattern evidence. These include fingerprints, as well as shoeprints or footprints, tire prints, tool marks, and handwriting (Siegel, 2011). These types of proofs are called ‘pattern’ as they share some features in common. It is necessary to note that technology plays an important role in the identification of patterns, and numerous automated fingerprint identification system exist (Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward, 2009).

At the same time, people still analyze the pairs that are characterized by a significant likelihood of matching. Thompson, Tangen, and McCarthy (2013) note that the court relies on experts’ decisions when it comes to the analysis of physical evidence. Importantly, this reliance is often questionable due to various errors experts have made. Taylor, Laber, Kish, Owens, and Osborne (2016) also analyze the way experts draw their conclusions and claim that although experts become very conservative in many cases and try to be absolutely sure in their reasoning, they still make mistakes that can often ruin people’s lives. One of the major downsides of this method is that experts rely on their experience, skills, and knowledge, which can be insufficient for making the right decision. More so, in some cases, experts’ decisions can be biased as they can be aware of the conclusions of other professionals (Siegel, 2011).

As far as the case in question is concerned, police can obtain several types of physical evidence, and fingerprints are one of these. Criminalists find several latent fingerprints on some surfaces in the bar. The latent fingerprint is “strictly defined” as fingerprints that are invisible or hardly visible (Bell, 2012, p. 148). Nonetheless, any type of fingerprints (irrespective of their visibility) is referred to as latent at present (Bell, 2011). Dactyloscopy is the science that studies fingerprints and other “friction ridge structures” (Siegel, 2011, p. 49). Ridgeology is the ridge analysis utilized to compare this type of pattern evidence. It is necessary to note that footprints and tire prints are also analyzed using the methods of dactyloscopy.

It is noteworthy that there are many forensic science laboratories in the USA. One of the peculiarities of the American system of justice is that police departments order (and pay for) any types of tests. There are around 400 forensic science laboratories in the country. They are mainly funded by the government (state or federal). At that, defendants also have an opportunity to order some tests. Most forensic science laboratories have a section that focuses on physical evidence (or even concentrates on latent fingerprints, in particular).

The laboratory criminalists may use an automated fingerprint identification system to find possible matches. The use of technology makes the process faster and more efficient as people can focus on a limited number of pairs instead of looking through all existing samples. However, technology is not used to analyze the prints that are most likely to match. The expert analyzes manually pairs that are the most likely to match to identify whether they are identical. They focus on ridges and some other features including shape or size.

Apart from the fingerprints, criminalists should also analyze the bloody footprints found by the door of the bar. It is necessary to note that the analysis of this type of evidence is similar to the one mentioned above (Brown & Davenport, 2012). Experts should identify whether the footprints match with the footwear of the suspect. The same section of the forensic science laboratory usually analyzes this type of physical evidence. The size, the shape as well as ridges of the footprint and the footwear will be considered. Clearly, this type of evidence is not as informative and relevant as the analysis of fingerprints that are unique and prove the person’s presence in this or that place. The footprint can only serve as an additional piece of evidence since there are always chances that someone else could wear the suspect’s footwear that day. Nonetheless, the availability of different types of pattern evidence can help the police locate the suspect and prove their guilt.

At that, the bloody footprints can also provide another type of evidence. The analysis of DNA can also help prove the guilt of the criminal (Siegel, 2011). Thus, the blood of the victim should be analyzed, and it is important to identify whether the footprint contains the blood of the victim (or, maybe, the blood of the criminal as well if he was injured). The examination of the suspect’s footwear can also reveal the victim’s DNA. The criminal could forget or fail to remove the victim’s blood from the footwear. At the same time, the footprint can belong to a patron who was an eyewitness, which can also help as the vast majority of eyewitnesses left the crime scene before the police arrived. Nevertheless, the number of existing eyewitnesses can be enough, and there can be no need in looking for more witnesses.

Another pattern evidence that criminalists can analyze is the tire print left in the parking lot. The physical evidence section or the section of latent prints of the forensic science laboratory can concentrate on the analysis of this type of evidence (Siegel, 2011). Tire prints can help police prove that the criminals were at the crime scene. Obviously, this will not be the central piece of evidence, but it can also help the police to recreate the picture of the crime. The experts will analyze the tire print and the tires of the suspect’s car. If they are identical, the police will prove that the suspect’s car was there that night.

Finally, it is also necessary to use other physical evidence. Michelle claims that she has some threatening letters written by Joe. Therefore, it is important to identify whether it was Joe who wrote the letters. The analysis of handwriting can answer this question. The section of physical evidence often includes experts specializing in the analysis of handwriting (Siegel, 2011).

The task of the expert is to identify whether the handwriting in the letters and in some papers belonging to Joe are identical. During the analysis, the expert will focus on the peculiarities of the handwriting, the size of particular letters, some features peculiar for that handwriting. It has been acknowledged that people’s handwriting is quite unique as each person writes in quite a unique way (pressing the pen in some places, making letters of different sizes, using some peculiar signs, and so on) (Siegel, 2011). Sometimes individuals may try to feign someone’s handwriting, but this is quite difficult, and an expert can still reveal the fraud.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that the crime in question is associated with the availability of several types of physical evidence including fingerprints, footprints, tire prints, handwriting, and DNA of the victim. Criminalists can analyze these pieces of evidence and come to a conclusion concerning the individual who committed the crime. It is necessary to add that the use of technology makes the process faster, more efficient, and cost-effective, but the reliance on experts’ skills and experience is still regarded as one of the most significant downsides of the process. There are still quite many errors as experts may lack the necessary knowledge or experience and can be biased. At the same time, the more pieces of evidence are found, the more chances of finding and punishing the right person exist.

References

Bell, S. (2012). A dictionary of forensic science. New York, NY: OUP Oxford.

Brown, R., & Davenport, J. (2012). Forensic science: Advanced investigations. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Siegel, J. (2011). Forensic science at work. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. (2009). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies.

Taylor, M., Laber, T., Kish, P., Owens, G., & Osborne, N. (2016). The reliability of pattern classification in bloodstain pattern analysis, part 1: Bloodstain patterns on rigid non-absorbent surfaces. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 61(4), 922-927.

Thompson, M., Tangen, J., & McCarthy, D. (2013). Expertise in fingerprint identification. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(6), 1519-1530.

Inchoate offenses are the actions that assisted in the commission of a crime and are divided into conspiracy, solicitation, and attempt. The liability of these violations is measured by the range of a criminal’s intention instead of their danger to society. Inchoate offenses types’ variation is based on the initial purpose and how it influences the target illegal act. Indeed, conspiracy is an agreement for crime commitment where the actor allows a violation to happen and does not intervene (Rimo, 2021). The attempt contradicts conspiracy as it includes actions as steps performed towards committing the target crime (Rimo, 2021). Solicitation is different from conspiracy and attempt because it is based on an actor’s intention to force another individual to commit a crime (Rimo, 2021). Conspiracy is not merged into the target crime while the other two types are included therein litigation.

Inchoate offenses are also different when viewed through the actus reus and men’s rea elements of a crime. As the former is related to physical actions that led to a crime, attempt and solicitation are appropriate to be considered in that intent (Stasi, 2021). Men’s rea addresses the mental element of crime commitment, thus conspiracy and non-physical variation of solicitation are related to that purpose (Stasi, 2021). Inchoate offenses are considerable for the trial and investigation, thus analyzing them through actus reus and men’s rea is essential.

In my opinion, conspiracy, attempt, and solicitation must have different levels of classification, based not only on an actor’s intentions but also on their action’s influence on a crime’s seriousness and danger to society. Indeed, solicitation with its indirect nature of commitment can lead to severe violations, and conspiracy can cause worse consequences and involve innocent people (Lee, 2021). Attempt and solicitation should be judged as separate crimes, and all the three inchoate offenses should have higher classification to help prevent serious illegal acts from happening.

References

Lee, Y. (2021). Proxy crimes and overcriminalization.Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1-16. Web.

Rimo, A. A. (2021). Is prevention better than cure?: The ever-increasing criminalization of acts preparatory to an offense in Spain. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 10(1), 1-14. Web.

Stasi, A. (2021). Actus reus and mens rea. In General Principles of Thai Criminal Law (pp. 25-30). Springer. Web.

Crime is very difficult to explain and many criminologists have attempted to explain crime but none has come up with conclusive evidence about crime. Criminologists are accused of failing to achieve their goal because they are not willing to try new methods that are found in fundamental sciences (Beaver & Walsh 2008).

The biosocial method incorporates the help offered by the fundamental sciences. It integrates the traditional methods used in criminology with approaches used in biological sciences. Anyone who would have tried to bring up the question of using biological sciences in criminology would only have been met with opposition and derision. This was because sociology was used in training most criminologists and sociology denies claims made by other disciplines concerning crime. Furthermore most criminologists had poor training in biology and few were interested in changing their view point in criminology by learning other methods outside what they learnt in school. This was sad because biological sciences in ten years have helped in understanding of behavior than sociology has done for about fifty years (Beaver & Walsh 2008).

Nevertheless some criminologists are willing to embrace other disciplines to understand criminal behavior. The society set the stage for a crime to occur but crimes are executed by human beings who have genes, blood and brains and this entails biology. Not only does biosocial comes recognize the role the environment plays in influencing human behavior but also that the environment acts on different human materials. Therefore biosocial shows how similar environmental aspects influence human beings differently (Beaver & Walsh 2008).

Biosocial criminology is dynamic in that it explains human behavior in the different paths of development. Things that were meaningful at one point in their life may become meaningless for example approval from peers. On the other hand things that meant little to them previously may become very important to them later. The approach goes further, gives explanations why the changes occur at one point of their lives and not others. In addition the approach explains how different individuals are affected by these changes differently. Unlike traditional criminology theories that are static. They entail the notion that criminal behavior once initiated in a human being it will become self perpetuating and thus continuous (Beaver & Walsh 2008).

From research done criminal behavior has continuity. Antisocial behavior observed in childhood can be traced even in childhood. Researches done over a long period of time have shown that criminal behavior over continues over time. From the research it was observed that children involved in criminal behavior were more likely than those who did not have childhood delinquency to become adult offenders. Childhood delinquency acts as a prerequisite for criminal behavior later in adulthood. Stability was also observed between early belligerent behavior and criminality later in adulthood. The continuity in criminal behavior was observed across many countries therefore this can be said to be a universal behavior pattern. Wright (2008) noted that social bonds formed for self control in childhood resulted into bonds later into adulthood and if there was childhood delinquency in the childhood social bonds it a sign of adulthood offending. Later Wright (2008) found that social bonds and self control are connected when it comes to crime and those with low self esteem formed the bonds to make them feel that they were in control. To them crime was a way of showing that they are in control.

Continuity in criminal behavior is associated with negative opportunities for engaging in crime that adulthood permits. The young adults are lured into crime in the labor market and later they are convicted. While in incarceration they do not change their behavior which is always the intention of sending offenders to state correction centers. While in jail they learn new ways of doing crime when they join jail gangs and after they are released they continue the criminal behavior. This group finds it hard to find a job due to their felony history and if they are lucky to their job stability is reduced (Beaver & Walsh, 2008).

Criminal behavior is related to our genetic make up as well as the environment. Children who develop in violent environment are more likely to become violent later in life. This is because they expect people to treat them with violence and they therefore behave accordingly because this is the only way they know from what they have observed day in day out. Experiences in childhood organizes the brain development and the neural pathways laid down at this early stage are not altered later thus the child develops with a brain that is ready to be influenced by any antisocial behavior (Beaver & Walsh, 2008). Therefore violence and brain is related.

Adult criminal behavior in most cases needs a childhood that was antisocial though not all anti social children become adult offenders. However stability is attributed to genetic makeup and environment that remain stable over a period of life that may lead one to the path of crime. The biological and social processes in a human being become consistent and thus they are replicated throughout one’s life though changes may occur that may move a person from one path to another. It can therefore be said that one may start on a wrong path when young and stay on that course.

References

Beaver, K.M. & Walsh, A. (2008). Contemporary Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research, New York: Taylor & Francis

Wright, J. Tibbetts, S. & Daigle, S. (2008). Criminals in the Making: Criminality across the life course, Los Angeles CA: SAGE.

Overview

Evidence – any object, item or statement, legally submitted to competent tribunal in order to establish matter of fact under investigation. (Fisher, 2004, p. 1).

Relevant Evidence – the evidence which have any tendency to affect the probability of the existence of a fact “that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (“FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE,” 2006).

Evidences, evidence collection and the quality of evidence are directly related to the object of criminal investigation, i.e. winning convictions.

Evidence Collection

The evidences, although comprising of subgroups, can be divided into two main types:

• Physical evidences – evidence with an objective existence, i.e. has size, shape and dimension.
  • The collection of evidences implies:
    • General walkthrough of the crime scene;
    • Recording of the crime scene, photography or video;
    • Crime scene searches;
    • Recording transient evidence;
    • Establishing a chain of custody;
    • Preserving and identifying the evidences.
• Testimonial evidences – an evidence in a form of statement made under oath and usually given as a result of questioning.
  • The collection of evidences implies:
    • Interview;
    • Interrogation.

Examining Evidence

• Evidences are examined on the crime scene, and in case laboratory analysis is required, evidences are forwarded to servicing crime laboratory.
• Examination of physical evidences can be performed through two areas:
  • Identification –determining the physical identity and the characteristics of the object.
  • Comparison – establishing common origin between known and unknown specimen.
• Comparison implies looking for characteristics of the examined specimen, which can be divided into two types:
  • Individual characteristics – characteristics that share a common point of origin, e.g. fingerprints.
  • Class characteristics – characteristics that are shared with a group of items, e.g. blood types. (Osterburg & Ward, 1997).

Information from Evidence

• The types of information evidences can provide depend on the type of examined evidences. Most physical evidences are needed to establish the association with a culprit if the investigation has one. The exceptions include:
  • Fingerprint, as the large data base can be used for comparison.
  • DNA samples, as similarly with blood data bases there are DNA banks.(American Law and Legal Information, 2009)
• Generally, the information obtained from physical evidences can provide the following information:
  • The species of origin, e.g. human and animal hair.
  • The relation of the specimen to the crime scene, e.g. domestic or international explosives.
  • Identification of the nature of the occurring events, e.g. semen, blood, and etc.
  • The relation of the suspect to the crime and the crime scene, e.g. blood, semen, and fingerprints.
  • The weapon of crime, e.g. the type of firearms based on cartridge case. (Osterburg & Ward, 1997).
• Testimonial evidences can provide information based on whether the questioned person is a victim, witness, informant or suspect, and accordingly, in case of the witnesses, the division might include primary or secondary witnesses. The information might include, but not limited to the following:
  • Eyewitness description and identification;
  • Modus operandi;
  • Motive;
  • Confession;
  • Psychological profiling.

Contamination Issues

• In addition to mishandling, and destruction, evidences are subject to contamination.
• Contamination can be defined as “a concern for proper preservation of evidence.” (Fisher, 2004, p. 12).
• Issues to consider regarding contamination related to the collection of evidence might include the following:
  • The contamination of the crime scene by people, animals and external elements which might alter or destruct the evidences.
  • Improper packaging of evidences prior to sending them to the laboratory.
  • Mixing of evidences leading to cross contamination of known and unknown specimen (Fisher, 2004, p. 157).
  • Contamination of evidences present on the bodies of the victims, due to improper medical aid.
  • Incorrect priorities when collecting evidences leading to the contamination or destruction of evidences. (Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation, 2000).

Types of Evidence

Physical evidence

• Direct physical evidence –evidence that can be touched and evaluated tactually, e.g. weapon of murder.
• Forensic physical evidence – Evidence requiring scientific validation, e.g. DNA, blood, semen and etc.

Testimonial evidence

• Direct testimonial evidence – evidence obtained from testifying witnesses, e.g. primary witness.
• Circumstantial evidence – evidence obtained from non-eyewitness testimony, e.g. secondary witness (Becker, 2008, p. 1).

Relevant Issues

In addition to the accuracy of collecting the evidences and the efforts of preserving them an important notion should be paid to the formal procedures, which ensures the integrity of the collected evidences.

Such procedures include:

• Chain of custody – the custodians of evidence should maintain a chain of custody of all evidence collected.
• Maintaining the legality of obtaining evidences, e.g., a search warrant.

References

American Law and Legal Information. (2009). Police: Criminal Investigations – Sources Of Information And Evidence In Criminal Investigations. Net Industries. Web.

Becker, R. F. (2008). Criminal investigation (3rd ed.): Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Federal Rules of Evidence. (2006). U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. Web.

Fisher, B. A. J. (2004). Techniques of crime scene investigation (7th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Osterburg, J. W., & Ward, R. H. (1997). Criminal investigation : a method for reconstructing the past (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Pub. Co.

Swanson, C. R. (2006). Criminal investigation (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation. (2000). Crime Scene Investigation. U.S. Department of Justice. Web.

After reading the article, it is notable that there are awesome highlights explaining the history, development, and evolution of crime in the society. The first thing that comes out clearly from the article is the nature of crime. Different criminal activities have existed in the society over the past centuries. For example, certain criminal activities such as robbery have been common. In the recent past, new criminal activities have emerged such as piracy and gunfights.

Some crimes such as slavery have reappeared in the form of kidnappings. It is because of this aspect of crime that new technologies scientific inquiries have emerged to understand the field of criminology much better. In the 18^th century, criminology emerged as a major field of study with different sociologists and scholars contributing a lot to the field. This eventually played a major role towards reforming criminal justice and law in Europe.

The other fascinating issue from the article is how crime has changed over the centuries. Crime and the definition of criminal acts and deviant behaviors are “social products”.

This means that the individuals in a specific society will define what should be a crime or not. Criminologists distinguish acts depending on the society and the existing political laws. It is also notable that the article explains how people identify certain acts to be bad because they have been prohibited in the society. This explains why there are some universal laws against acts such as assault, rape, and murder.

The author of the article goes further to present a fascinating point of interest. There are two models of criminal law. These include the “consensus” and the “conflict” models. The consensus model explains how a society describes what is “wrong” and then implements the most effective laws.

The conflict model, on the other hand, explains how criminology and criminal law originates from the interests or expectations of various politicians, interest groups, or leaders. This means that the definition of crime mainly reflects the expectations and views of the powerful people in a society.

The article also explores the problem of crime from a sociopolitical and economic perspective thus making it a frustrating “moment”. According to statistics, global crime has been on the rise since the Second World War. Crime continues to take new forms depending on technological changes and developments.

As well, crime is a major problem because it is hard to estimate its costs. A study by David Anderson indicated that the cost of crime is very high and affects the lives of people across the world. The article explains how crime affects people and increases the level of government expenditure to cater for prisoners, control crime, and policing. This is the reason why governments and societies should consider the best laws to address the problem of crime because it affects all people alike.

In our modern world, the article explains why crime continues to become a major challenge across the globe. Crime also has both sociological and psychological aspects thus making it full cost incalculable. That being the case, there should be new inquiries to define crime accurately and be able to address it because it is a major concern today. I would therefore recommend this article because it offers a wider range of views, insights, and understanding of crime as a major sociological issue affecting the world today.

Introduction

Proportions and probabilities are instrumental approaches in the analysis of statistics generated from criminal justice and criminology practice. During this evaluation process, probabilities are applied in scenarios of uncertainty, whereas proportions are used in situations where the outcome is certain (Gau, 2018). Empirical values and theoretical predictions play a critical role in the interpretation of criminology-related statistics.

For instance, empirical values arise from known and observable events or features, whereas theoretical predictions are generated from logical conclusions about a particular event’s outcome (Gau, 2018). Binomial presentation of data is a strategic approach in statistical criminology whereby the probability analysis regarding two possible sets of effects is performed (Gau, 2018). Normal distribution of data in crime-based statics refers to the presentation of data based on the inclination to the given distribution’s mean value.

Major Arguments

The author posits that the element of probability originates from the possibility that a given event shall happen in the stated circumstance (inferential-statistical approach). Gau (2018) further argues that the sum of a probability results in the value of 1.0. For instance, if a coin is tossed in the air, the probability of a tail result is (1/2), and that of a head result is (1/2); hence the summation is 1.0 (Gau, 2018). Another fundamental argument made by Gau (20180 is that there are two principal forms of data distribution in criminology statistics: standard (normal) and binomial. Binomial presentation applies to dichotomous (binary) variables that bear two probable outcomes.

On the other hand, the standard (normal) distribution method is suitable for continuous data sets that obey the normal curve pattern- associated with the z-scores (Gau, 2018). The author also contends that in the normal and binary patterns, the fundamental element is the theoretical- premises for mathematical and logical assumptions (Gau, 2018). Ultimately, he asserts that empirical distributions assume the abstract form; they can be analyzed and manipulated and are tangible.

Critique

The author should have considered sharing some in-depth information regarding the underlying relationship between the subject’s background and criminal justice and criminology. The citation of practical examples (based on statistical tools) of landmark criminal cases conducted in the United States using appropriate research methods, including experimental and quantitative criminology, would be ideal. Furthermore, the author should have integrated modern statistical tools in line with computerized systems and software. He should have also considered the aspect of impression by using multiple images and designs to illustrate and demonstrate the statistical concepts.

Reference

Gau, J. M. (2018). Statistics for criminology and criminal justice. Sage Publications.

Introduction

The theory of broken windows is a theory in criminology that considers minor offenses not only as an indicator of the criminogenic situation but also as an active factor affecting the serious crime rate. The theory claims that the connivance of society to minor offenses, such as vandalism and others, directly provokes people to commit similar or more serious offenses (O’Brien et al., 2019). There are different views on the theory of broken windows, but I am inclined to believe that there are more positive sides than critics.

Main body

Each individual lives in a specific social environment. And to change the situation, people need to apply efforts to change this environment. For example, actions to combat petty hooliganism have indeed reduced the crime rate in New York. As part of the criminal investigation program in many parts of New York, criminal activity was monitored on an ongoing basis, with the responsibility of the police in each district (Kamalu & Onyeozili, 2018). However, the study tracked a correlation, not a causal relationship, that would prove that acts of petty hooliganism push the same or other people to more serious crimes. On the other hand, there was no evidence that no third force would reduce or affect the number of serious crimes in the city. Indeed, the number of serious violations has decreased, but extraneous factors have not been investigated, and because of this, the theory of broken windows has been heavily criticized.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are arguments both for and against the broken windows theory, which may raise doubts about its effectiveness and applicability to different environments. However, the theory can be considered from different angles, highlighting the positive aspects of a particular situation. Reducing even minor crimes does not bring any negative consequences, so it is not necessary to track the relationship between light and serious crime in order to put the theory into practice in a particular city.

References

O’Brien, D. T., Farrell, C., & Welsh, B. C. (2019). Broken (windows) theory: A meta-analysis of the evidence for the pathways from neighborhood disorder to resident health outcomes and behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, 228, 272-292. Web.

Kamalu, N. C., & Onyeozili, E. C. (2018). A critical analysis of the ‘Broken Windows’ policing in New York city and its impact: Implications for the criminal justice system and the african american community. African Journal of Criminology & Justice Studies, 11(1), 71-90. Web.

Theory Description

Criminology theories offer different reasoning for committing crimes. According to McGee, Farrington, Homel, and Piquero (2015), life-course criminology is one of the most used theoretical approaches to crime analysis. This perspective views one’s criminal activities as a dynamic process influenced by various circumstances. According to this theory, people may start engaging in illegal activities because of their environment, influences, and living conditions.

Such aspects as one’s childhood experiences, for instance, can impact his or her decision in the future. This theory states that different life events can change one’s attitude and create specific behavior patterns that may lead to offending.

Life-course approach can differentiate some possible factors that affect one’s life choices. First of all, individual characteristics are a broad category of factors that can impact a person’s life (McGee et al., 2015). Second, one’s family can also affect his or her development of offending behaviors. Hurtful childhood memories, poor relationships between family members, verbal and physical abuse, and parental patterns of criminal career can make a person engage in illegal activities.

Third, socio-economic factors are also critical in shaping one’s personality. While they may not affect every person the same way, financial struggles, for example, can become a strong motivator for an individual to commit a crime. Other possible factors can include one’s relationships, neighborhood, and age. The life-course theory does not consider each aspect in isolation, instead focusing on the combination of multiple factors and their connections with each other. Moreover, this approach does not rely solely on various inherent characteristics. It is interested in the fluidity of one’s behavior and the process of change.

Supporting Article Analysis

The life-course branch of criminology is supported by many scholars as it chooses to employ a sophisticated approach to criminal behavior. For instance, Broidy et al. (2015) note that this theory can be considered the foundation of criminology as a whole because it offers a qualitative description of the behavioral patterns of offending. The article focuses on many personal traits of persons and also highlights the importance of such inherent characteristics as one’s gender and race.

The authors point out that while other factors are also crucial to the process of developing offending behavior, one’s ethnicity and gender can affect individuals’ life and, therefore, impact their life choices. In this case, these two characteristics are viewed as the basis of further life choices. The study by Broidy et al. (2015) analyzes a group of people who were born at the beginning of the 1980s. These individuals had contacts with the criminal justice system at some point in life.

The results of the study reveal a connection between one’s demographics and offending behavior. While the patterns are not universal, some links can be seen. Authors conclude that one’s ethnicity can affect his or her life. Thus, it also influences the risk of engaging in illegal activities. Cultural and societal pressures experienced by particular members of the society may drive them towards criminal behavior.

Furthermore, the authors show that these factors influence each other, gender often being a decisive element. This article states that the life-course theory can integrate many factors to create a framework for establishing and understanding people’s behavioral patterns. This argument is also supported in the study by Jennings, Rocque, Fox, Piquero, and Farrington (2016), who note that such taxonomy of offenders can help scholars identify patterns of improvement and deterioration of attitude. It also can help them create intervention and improvement activities that would allow people to recover from their hurtful behaviors.

Refuting Article Analysis

While many researchers support the usefulness of this theory and state that has a strong theoretic foundation, some of them argue that it does not address the aspect of one’s resilience to the environment. Pratt (2016) proposes a different strategy that builds on some elements of the life-course theory but uses a different approach to people’s behavior. The author argues that it includes factors that the life-course perspective fails to acknowledge.

For example, he presents multiple arguments that show that the life-course theory may prove useless in addressing one’s personality (Pratt, 2016). As a contrast, the scholar offers an approach which improves the original perspective with the concept of self-control. In this case, this notion is proposed by the author as a dynamic ability of a person who can change over time. It is also viewed as an essential part of the decision-making process. Therefore, the researcher attempts to prove the life-course theory is not valid on its own because it ignores a part of people’s personality.

The article outlines ten major propositions which prove that the self-control theory is more useful in the field of criminology than the life-course perspective. First few points state that self-control changes as an individual becomes older. While infants and children may have low self-control due to their level of development, young people are more susceptible to self-control depletion because of their temper. On the other hand, older people are capable of exercising self-regulation easier due to their life experiences.

This argument better explains the age-crime curve often used by criminologists (Pratt, 2016). The following propositions argue that negative experiences can be overcome with self-control. Individuals can also exercise self-regulation while trying to cope with life events that would significantly affect them otherwise. While the life-course theory may portray people as having no control over their decisions, this approach places more responsibility on individuals. This strategy also explains one’s choice to engage with society and the quality of interactions a person can have with his or her friends, family, and colleagues.

Therefore, this article refutes the universal use of the life-choice theory, presenting an alternative which accounts for people’s ability to make decisions. While the original approach centers on the environment of a person, it fails to consider his or her individuality and personality that may not be influenced by outside sources. A similar theme is also represented in the article by Fox, Jennings, and Farrington (2015), who argue that the life-course perspective should include psychopathy and behavioral control into the factors of influence. It can be hard to analyze which parts of one’s personality come from some internal traits and which are a result of nurture. Thus, this theory can exist alongside the original concept.

Conclusion

The life-course theory can be considered one of the fundamental approaches in criminology. It should be used to create crime control policies because it allows people to focus not only on the current motives and surroundings of a person but also on his or her deeper reasons for committing crimes. This approach goes beyond rationality and inherent nature of an individual and examines a complex structure that exists around every person. Although it may fail to recognize one’s ability for self-regulation, it still offers significant information about one’s behaviors. This theory is positive and focused on recovery, which also makes it highly valuable.

References

Broidy, L. M., Stewart, A. L., Thompson, C. M., Chrzanowski, A., Allard, T., & Dennison, S. M. (2015). Life course offending pathways across gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1(2), 118-149.

Fox, B. H., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Bringing psychopathy into developmental and life-course criminology theories and research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 274-289.

Jennings, W. G., Rocque, M., Fox, B. H., Piquero, A. R., & Farrington, D. P. (2016). Can they recover? An assessment of adult adjustment problems among males in the abstainer, recovery, life-course persistent, and adolescence-limited pathways followed up to age 56 in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Development and Psychopathology, 28(2), 537-549.

McGee, T. R., Farrington, D. P., Homel, R., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Advancing knowledge about developmental and life-course criminology. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 307-313.

Pratt, T. C. (2016). A self-control/life-course theory of criminal behavior. European Journal of Criminology, 13(1), 129-146.

No police academy course is complete without the lesson on policing principles established by Robert Peele. As Britain’s Home Secretary and Prime Minister, he was one of the most influential people in 19th century England. His work focused on working-class issues, social reforms, and criminal law. Most notably, Robert Peele created the “Metropolitan Police” based on his own nine principles of policing (Nazemi, n.d.).

This guide is centered around the idea of policing by consent. This notion has been very influential as police officers started to be regarded as citizens equal in their standing to other people. They exercise their powers legitimately only with the implicit consent of the citizens they are required to serve. Thus, it is evident that the value of such an approach has been tremendous. Policing became a legitimate practice in the eyes of the public. In addition, ordinary citizens now had the right to keep policemen accountable, which maximized integrity and transparency.

The focus of Peelian principles is on preventing crime and not necessarily catching criminals in the act. As a result, integrating such standards into practice led to departments becoming more proactive and community-oriented. In order to successfully prevent criminal activity, the police have to gain public support, which makes it important for policemen to ensure community members are involved in policing. They can do that by earning respect through demonstrating achievements such as low crime rates and upholding established standards. The value of Robert Peel’s approach is even more prominent today. As the United States tries to grapple with the rise of police brutality and the Black Lives Matter movement, abolishing the police is not a sustainable solution, while investing in developing community initiatives in POC neighborhoods is.

Reference

Nazemi, S. (n.d.). Sir Robert Peele’s nine principles of policing. Web.