one page paper on what you see as the biggest ethical issue in crime reconstruction.

Assignment Two – Ethics of the Reconstruction Process

I. What are Ethics?
Ethics may be loosely defined as “the inherent inner voice that is the source of self-control in the absence of external compulsion” (Yeschke, p. 3). Ethics is one of those things that is very difficult to define, but everybody knows it when they see it. Your ethics are those values that guide and inform your actions. It is very difficult to judge a person’s ethics apart from their actions. According to Yeschke, ethical behavior is judged by the way we act, the values that motivate us, the policies we have adopted, and the goals we seek to achieve (Yeschke, p. 3).
II. Advance Consideration
Just as with your interviews and interrogations and every other phase of law enforcement you need to approach ethics in crime reconstruction in the same way that we approach officer survival. When we are working out on the street, we all play the “What if” game where we say “What if the driver has a firearm on this traffic stop, what am I going to do?” It is a way of mental preparation and training so that if the “What if” scenario happens, it is not a total surprise. You need to do the same thing in relation to your ethical decisions. “I know this guy is guilty and I need to fudge just a little bit on this piece of information in order to make sure I get him.” The point where we cross the line from ethical to unethical behavior is often shadowy and vague and if we don’t think about it and plan for it ahead of time, we can cross the line before we even know it. One of the easiest traps for us to fall into as law enforcement officers is the end justifying the means where we believe that crossing the line to achieve a “greater good” is justified. Don’t kid yourself and say you have never thought about it, because we all have. Thinking the issues out ahead of time may help us avoid a trap.
III. Ethical Traps and Problems in Crime Reconstruction
There are a number of problems and traps that you need to watch out for when you are reconstructing a crime.
A. Fallacies of Logic – Traditionally fallacies in logical thinking have not been given a lot of attention in crime reconstruction (Chisum, p. 39). They are very subtle and can have profound effects on how we interpret information and reconstruct the scene. We will discuss these in much more detail in Assignment Three. Suffice it to say now that the fallacies will generally fall into the categories of fallacies of relevance; fallacies of weak induction; fallacies of presumption; fallacies of ambiguity; and fallacies of grammatical analogy (Chisum, p. 40.). In Assignment Three, we will explain each one of these and give examples as well as recommendations for how they can be avoided.
B. Deception – The courts have said that it is permissible to deceive a suspect during an interrogation. Often this takes the form of telling a suspect that we have found some piece of evidence or reconstructed the crime in certain way when we really have not. The purpose being to convince the suspect that we have a greater amount of information than we really do and thus induce him to confess. While the courts have condoned this practice, it becomes and ethical problem whenever we carry it outside the interview room and it becomes a part of our real reconstruction.
C. Fraud – There are a few rare people who will deliberately lie and fraudulently reconstruct a crime for their own personal gain or advancement. There are also people who may deliberately misrepresent their training, experience and credentials in crime reconstruction. These people and incidents not only fall outside the pale of any kind of ethical reconstruction, they and their behavior is criminal.
D. Haste – Even an honest mistake in the way a crime is reconstructed may have terribly severe consequences for the person accused of the crime. Most of these “honest” mistakes arise from carelessness or a lack of thoroughness in evaluating all information and evidence due to being in a hurry (Chisum, p. 44).
E. Inexperience – This is the untrained person who is unfamiliar with reconstructing a crime and with all intricacies involved in it. This may lead them to make erroneous judgment calls that will affect the course of the investigation. Accurate crime reconstruction involves a great deal of knowledge and experience in many aspects of forensics and investigation. It is not something anyone learns overnight or quickly.
F. Pressure – According to Chisum, “It is essential that the crime reconstructionist deliver an opinion that not plant a false impression in the mind of anyone” (Chisum, p. 45). The pressure for someone reconstructing a crime can become intense from prosecutors, defense attorneys, superior officers, etc. to slant the reconstruction a certain way. It is absolutely critical that the person doing the reconstruction not submit to this pressure. The reconstructionist should make it absolutely clear at the first attempt to apply pressure that it will not be tolerated. We must pursue and present objective truth no matter what the effect is on the case or matter at hand.
G. Unevaluated Opinion – Any crime reconstruction is by its nature an opinion. It has to be based on evidence and facts, but the reconstructionist’s experience also enters into this. It is essential that we NOT present opinion as fact. All opinions should be objectively tested where possible. In my own experience with blood spatter, I have conducted experiments to see if it is possible to achieve particular stains in the manner I believe they were made. In some cases, the testing has shown it to be highly unlikely the stains were created in the manner I first supposed and I then had to revise my opinion. It is also critical that opinion be clearly presented as opinion and not as an established fact.
IV. Practice Standards Related to Crime Reconstruction – There are certain ethical standards that must be maintained in relation to crime reconstruction (Chisum, pp116-123):
A. The reconstruction must diligently try to avoid bias;
B. All relevant evidence and information must be considered in order to perform and adequate reconstruction;
C. The reconstructionist must determine if the evidence is of sufficient quality to provide the basis for a reconstruction.
D. The reconstructionist must visit the crime scene in person;
E. The reconstructionist must make his conclusions and the basis for them in writing;
F. The reconstructionist must have an understanding of science, forensic science, and the scientific method;
G. The conclusions MUST be based on established facts – no fact may be assumed for the purpose of the analysis;
H. Any conclusions must be valid inferences based on logical arguments and analytical reasoning;
I. The conclusions must be made through the use of the scientific method – that is put the conclusions to the test; and
J. Any evidence, data, or findings on which the conclusions are based must be made available through presentation of the evidence itself or through citation of a source that can be examined by others.
Even though these standards technically apply to someone who is declared an expert in crime reconstruction, they also should apply to us as investigators as we try to reconstruct the crime through our investigations. The paramount idea is one that I have tried to practice in every investigation we have ever done –
Seek the Total Truth and Follow It Wherever It May Lead!!
As trite as it may sound, we are the finders of fact and it is up to others to determine guilt or innocence based on the facts we find. Therefore we can never afford to manipulate or shade the facts in any manner. We have to present the total facts – everything we know about the case to the triers of fact. I truly believe that investigation is sacred trust that I can never violate except at great peril to everything I swore to protect. Enough said!

END OF READING

References
Chisum, W. Jerry and Brent E. Turvey. Crime Reconstruction. Boston: Academic Press-Elsevier, 2007.
Yeschke, Charles L. The Art of Investigative Interviewing, 2nd. Edition. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003.