Reflection #3

penvenh — 2024-05-29 18:19:54 UTC

I don’t think I could become a good investigator or even decent at best because there is so much to learn and obstacles that can be challenging when it comes to investigating crime itself. I believe becoming an investigator takes a lot of time and care when working in the field and when it comes to gathering information and documents about particular crimes or suspects, I can get confused about where to start or even what documents I should be looking over. Working with people is the main goal of being an investigator but for me, I can get confused about the situation that they are telling me and I don’t want to deliver the wrong message to them that can make them worried or even panic but investigators want instead a calm and reasonable reaction. Also, the main reason I wouldn’t be a good investigator would be the crime cases themselves. I don’t do well with cases that involve murder or even death in general because it can be traumatic and difficult to handle. Even hearing stories of victim’s loved ones being caught in murder cases can be heartbreaking to hear. It's not just murder but can be with assaults, kidnappings, etc. If investigators rely upon knowledge from crime TV shows can lead to potential errors because most or even all crime TV shows are fast-paced and even dramatic at some points because it’s an entrainment system and in reality, everything must be taken into careful condensation about what is being conducted for investigation and how to handle it properly. Failed forensic evidence that is presented in trials must be prevented. The reason why would be that it can lead the innocent defendant to be guilty of a crime he or she didn’t commit based on evidence that their fingerprint is somewhat similar to the actual criminal’s finger because of ridges on the fingers. Most forensic evidence is not even used for scientific basis like bite marks, fingerprints, and the “Smell Test” because in the end it's determined by the judge to make the decision. Forensic evidence is to be expected to be presented by a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and may testify in the form of an opinion. Some experts could be potentially wrong with the data they presented about the defendants being guilty and wouldn’t matter because judges and jurors believe the expert because of their scientific background and will still agree to their decision of the defendant being guilty of the crime. There must be an improvement in the education of forensic evidence because orgainzations offer exams that are open book for 600 dollars and passing makes them qualified which can lead to inexperienced and nonprofessionals in this line of work. Also, the testimonies going forward should be more accurate of the data and facts that are presented in trials. Products of these must be looked through carefully to prevent innocents going to jail.

GSS 3231 Reflection 3 by Hunter Penven

Reflection #3