ies take place, law enforcement is in charge of the people it serves and should perform its obligation by promptly conducting an investigation of these crimes. If possible the investigation will encourage or induce the offender to attend to a court hearing in order to explain his/her actions (Simon, 2012). Finally and perhaps most essential, is that the offender’s detection, arrest, and investigation, successfully works to inhibit recidivism or reoffending thus decreasing total crime rate (Osterburg & Ward, 2013).
Every investigation, irrespective of purpose, includes the job of collecting and analyzing information. The dynamics of investigation must be seen in terms of informational gathering, instead of trying to acquire evidence. However, this does not imply that investigators should disregard noticeable, evident objects of evidence or objects that can possibly become a strong piece of evidence (Osterburg & Ward, 2013). The investigation must be carried out with the mentality that evidence can be derived from information. The information collected passes through meticulous, careful inspection before it is presented in court through screening, analysis, and assessment (Orthmann & Hess, 2012).
Most of the evidence collected by investigators is not admissible for demonstration in court because of the rules of evidence. Nevertheless, this does not prevent these bits of information from helping or guiding the investigator insomuch as pointing him/her toward admissible evidence; every piece of information holds a certain level of importance (Orthmann & Hess, 2012). Essentially, the criminal justice investigator considers and induces the human component—all of human behavior’s sociological, environmental, psychological, and emotional features. On the other hand, the value and level of information gained from physical objects inspected, largely relies on the capability of the investigator at a certain scene to identify possible pieces of evidence (Simon,