How Police Policies and Practices Impact Successful Crime Investigation: Factors That Enable Police Departments to “Clear” Crimes

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 Social Sciences Justice System Journal Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/0098261X.2020.1719246
Yung Hyeock Lee
{"title":"How Police Policies and Practices Impact Successful Crime Investigation: Factors That Enable Police Departments to “Clear” Crimes","authors":"Yung Hyeock Lee","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1719246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A nationwide survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies was conducted by Horvath et al. (2001) with an aim of describing comprehensive information about police practices and policies regarding the criminal investigation process. Using the survey results, this study explores whether and how police organizations vary in their ability to clear crimes by examining organizational policies and practices that can predict cleared crimes against persons and property. The study’s results reveal, contrary to the conclusions of the RAND Corporation’s landmark 1977 report on police criminal investigations, that certain organizational characteristics of “crime control” efforts, including the police department’s perceived importance of clearance rates, cold case units, detachment from the public, case screening methods, Automated Fingerprint Identification System ownership, the use of “team policing”, and members of task forces were effective, but that those with a more “due process” orientation such as education requirements for investigators and their supervisors, prosecutor consultation, and problems with prosecutors’ advice tended to inhibit the clearing of cases. Implications for the effectiveness of police organizational policies related to the criminal investigation process are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1719246","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract A nationwide survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies was conducted by Horvath et al. (2001) with an aim of describing comprehensive information about police practices and policies regarding the criminal investigation process. Using the survey results, this study explores whether and how police organizations vary in their ability to clear crimes by examining organizational policies and practices that can predict cleared crimes against persons and property. The study’s results reveal, contrary to the conclusions of the RAND Corporation’s landmark 1977 report on police criminal investigations, that certain organizational characteristics of “crime control” efforts, including the police department’s perceived importance of clearance rates, cold case units, detachment from the public, case screening methods, Automated Fingerprint Identification System ownership, the use of “team policing”, and members of task forces were effective, but that those with a more “due process” orientation such as education requirements for investigators and their supervisors, prosecutor consultation, and problems with prosecutors’ advice tended to inhibit the clearing of cases. Implications for the effectiveness of police organizational policies related to the criminal investigation process are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
警察的政策和做法如何影响成功的犯罪调查:使警察部门“清除”犯罪的因素
Horvath等人(2001)对美国执法机构进行了一项全国性调查,目的是描述有关刑事调查过程的警察实践和政策的全面信息。利用调查结果,本研究通过检查可以预测针对人员和财产的清除犯罪的组织政策和实践,探讨警察组织是否以及如何在清除犯罪的能力上有所不同。研究结果表明,与兰德公司1977年关于警察刑事调查的里程碑式报告的结论相反,“犯罪控制”工作的某些组织特征,包括警察部门对破案率、悬案小组、脱离公众、案件筛选方法、自动指纹识别系统所有权、“团队警务”的使用以及特遣部队成员的重要性的认识是有效的。但是,对调查人员及其主管的教育要求、检察官咨询、检察官建议问题等“正当程序”倾向的问题往往会阻碍案件的结案。讨论了与刑事调查过程有关的警察组织政策有效性的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.
期刊最新文献
State Supreme Court Responsiveness to Court Curbing: Examining the Use of Judicial Review The Effects of Jurors’ Initial Views of Jury Service on Predeliberation Preferences for Prosecution or Defense Emerging Hardball Confirmation Tactics and Public Support for the U.S. Supreme Court A War of Words Over Abortion: The Legal-Framing Contest Over the Undue Burden Standard Letter from the Editor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1