Group+2+Investigating+crime+gathering+evidence+and+use+of+technology

=Group 2: Investigating crime: gathering evidence and use of technology=

1. Are all crimes reported to police investigated? Explain your answer
====Police have to decide whether to take further action, based on the severity of the crime, the time and resources that are available and whether the crime is able to be successfully solved. This means that the crimes that are more high priority will be investigated while matters less serious, just don't have enough time or resources to be solved. It is to the police's discretion as to whether it is high priority but sometimes policy decisions require police to focus on some crimes more than others.====

2. Describe the process of gathering evidence and explain why special care must be taken by police in the way they go about collecting evidence
====Police must gather evidence in order to support a charge in court. A criminal charge must be proven through evidence by the prosecution. This must be physical (paper, weapons, clothing) or electronic (photos, records, computer drives) or through witness statements. They gain these through crime scene detectives. Witnesses can be dodgy because they can forget what they saw or heard, or misinterpreted the situation. All evidence must be obtained lawfully, as no person is above the law. The process must is very complex and so police officers must be specially trained in gathering and examining evidence. For example, fingerprints are examined by experts who might be called in court to say what their analysis concludes.====

3. How has the use of technology changed the way police investigate crimes?
====Through the growth of modern technology, new crimes have emerged, but also new tactics are being used to keep up with it. Technology can sometimes cause as many problems as it solves them. Internet fraud is a new crime, with perpetrators stealing identity and hindering a person economically over the internet. New tactic such as surveillance technology and CCTV cameras is an example of the efforts gone to in order to keep up with the technology of the day. This has assisted with identifying criminals in public places. This is now being used in order to save the environment through installing covert cameras in hidden locations along the fire trails to and from dumping hot spots in Sydney. However, sometimes there can be doubt in the reliability of technology, and the facts given in court, which could cause a wrongful conviction.====

4. Are police automatically allowed to collect DNA samples from suspects? Explain the legal process involved
==== In NSW police are allowed to take forensic samples such as blood or mouth swabs to match evidence found during an investigation. However a person must consent to the sample. If they refuse, the police can apply to a magistrate for an order to take the sample by using reasonable force.====

5. Find an example that shows how police use of DNA evidence has become crucial to the process of laying criminal charges (eg: Wee Waa case)

 * Wee Waa Case:**


 * http://www.policensw.com/info/forensic/forensic3.html**


 * http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35727**

==== DNA evidence has often been relied on in court as a dependable form of evidence. The danger of relying too heavily on DNA technology was highlighted in 2009, when a number of wrongful convictions were discovered in both NSW and Victoria that had been caused by errors in the DNA testing process. ====

Adam Bennett and Vincent Morello Sydney Morning Herald, 2 October 2009

 * ====A review by NSW Health on NSW’s criminal DNA testing process found that a glitch led to a man’s wrongful conviction====
 * ====The system matches DNA evidence from the crime scene with people on the state DNA database====
 * ====This error prompted a review of 17 000 links dating back to 2001 (when database was established)====
 * ====Acting NSW chief health officer said the mistake was caused by human sampling error. The tests were incorrectly located in a series of tests====
 * ====This led to DNA from one crime scene being ascribed to a person who was not at that crime scene====
 * ====The issue is that it is very easy for analysis to be flawed, it goes through several hands and stages====
 * ====Police and courts should rely on other evidence to corroborate a crime====
 * ====Improvements have been made to prevent future errors, including: the introduction of robotics, and the practice of reviewing all case work before results are released to police====