Investigative Strategies for Identifying Dangerous Repeat Offenders (From Dealing With Dangerous Offenders, Volume 2, 1983, by Daniel McGillis et al - See NCJ-92277-92292)

• NCJ Number: 92288
• Author(s): J E Eck
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 23 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-NI-AX-0116
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Corporate Author: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Available on microfiche as NCJ-92277. Prepared for the Conference on Public Danger, Dangerous Offenders and the Criminal Justice System, Harvard University, February 11 and 12, 1982

Annotation

After describing the investigative process followed by most police agencies, this paper analyzes the usefulness of postarrest investigations in identifying repeat dangerous offenders, and the usefulness of proactive investigations in identifying and apprehending such offenders.

Abstract

The information and data presented are gleaned from a 2-year study by the Police Executive Research Forum on robbery and burglary investigative practices in three police departments located in Georgia, Florida, and Kansas. The first section of this paper describes the process by which serious crimes are investigated, beginning with the report of an offense and then proceeding through the preliminary investigation, assignment of the case to a detective, and culminating with the arrest of the offender and preparation of the case for the prosecutor. The study concludes that although postarrest investigations should be conducted as a matter of routine to determine the amount of prior criminal activity of arrested suspects and identify repeat dangerous offenders, the most productive sources of information about related offenses are not likely to be useful for documenting repetitive criminal behavior. These sources will either be unwilling to make statements that could put them in jeopardy (suspects and informants) or their statements are based on suspicions that cannot be substantiated by hard evidence; therefore, the use of postarrest investigations is unlikely to produce dramatic improvements in the ability of the criminal justice system to identify, convict, and punish dangerous repeat offenders. Proactive investigative strategies are concluded to have greater potential than postarrest investigations in enhancing the identification and conviction of dangerous offenders. Instead of merely acquiring information about criminal behavior, proactive investigations use the information for such proactive activities as surveillance and staking out possible crime targets. This permits a quicker identification of dangerous offenders than is possible through traditional investigation procedures. Thirteen references are provided.