Why do we need advancements?
Due to my interest in murder, or ‘homicide’ to give it a more professional description, I’m often found discussing the various methods countries employ to solve these crimes. One question I am often asked by police officers from around the world is, ‘Tell me, is it true that in your country computers are used to solve homicide and that more than one detective is assigned to each case?’ This particular question came from a murder squad detective in a large US city where I was doing some fieldwork. He wanted to know if his ‘clear-up’ rate for homicide was anything like those in the UK, and what effect the appliance of science might have on it. He was amazed when I replied that a team of detectives might well be assigned to one particular murder (perhaps 30 people in complex cases) and that a computer system would ‘tell’ officers what to do at each stage of the investigation. In a way this has relevance to the current debates about trust in public life, even though the source of the mistrust goes back to the 1970s.
The case of Peter Sutcliffe
More than 30 years ago the notorious case of Peter Sutcliffe (aka the Yorkshire Ripper) caused a great deal of damage to the reputation of the police. In an age before anyone had thought of using computers to manage case data, the officers hunting a serial killer would write all relevant data on index cards, which would be kept in boxes, and filed according to their supposed relevance to the case. When it was revealed that Sutcliffe had come to their attention sufficiently to be recorded at least nine times, the celebration of his capture turned into blame. Why were vital clues missed, resulting in more women being killed? How could the detectives have been so unprofessional? In fairness, this would not happen today.
As a result of that case HOLMES (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) was developed at tremendous expense. It is a computerised storage and retrieval system that can index and cross reference large amounts of complex data. To a degree the US cop I met was right: it does ‘solve’ crimes – in the sense that it directs officers to leads they may have missed. In other words, if a maverick, gut-instinct-driven detective decides to follow one line of enquiry, to the exclusion of all other leads, the computer should alert the team to other possible avenues.
To some extent, therefore, the trust that was lost in the 1970s should be restored because the computer system will ensure a fairer and more equitable pursuit of ‘truth’.
The question might be posed as to whether the public prefers to trust computers or human instinct. Of course, being human, the detectives find ways and means to subvert and circumnavigate science, but as data management improves and the generation of detectives in the teams become more technologically intelligent, new systems will replace HOLMES. The ability to piece together all the data, to be able
to search across other police force areas for suspects, and to have analytic computer
programs will be transforming.
The future of data storage
This said, machines can never replace human thinking. And in cases where murders
are involved, professional ethics and the detectives’ ‘morals’ are central to their
investigations. One of the ways they operate is to construct ‘life stories’ for victims,
suspects and witnesses, which are often based on the obvious dichotomy of ‘good’ vs ‘evil’. What can be said of future data storage and management systems, however, is that they will make officers think about and have to justify their suspicions and gut feelings, rather than relying upon their own, perhaps flawed, moral values or prejudices.
Find out more:
