Investigating crime

Organic and inorganic trace evidences are usually used when investigating crime. Collection of trace evidence is done by scene specialists at the initial stages of an investigation. Inorganic evidence is derived from traces of fibers, hair, paint and tool marks while organic evidence is obtained from other traces which may come from the perpetrator or an animal. The most organic trace evidences used are fluids from the body as well as blood. While investigating a crime, both the organic and inorganic evidence are used so as to identify possible connections between the crime and suspected perpetrator.

However these two methods are very different as they involve different procedures and components (Fisher, 2003). Differences between the organic and inorganic evidence One of the major differences between these two evidences lies on the traces they use to gather evidence. Organic evidence is mostly based on traces which originate from the body of a suspected perpetrator. While using the organic evidence, mostly body fluids like semen and saliva are used to trace the perpetrator. Fluids from the body are tested for possible diseases which may be found on the victim and mostly for DNA.

Blood test to ascertain the DNA composition is also carried out. If a DNA test had bee performed before on the suspected perpetrator, the results are then compared and matched (Manes, 2007). Unlike the organic evidence, inorganic evidence may use other traces other than those from a person. Commonly used traces are fibers from the crime scene, paint and hair among other traces. This is a more physical approach where evidences collected from the crime scene are matched with those of the suspect. Clothes fibers are taken from the crime scenes are matched with suspected person’s clothes.

Presence of hair which has roots attached to them may be used to indicate a possible struggle that was going on between the victim and the suspect. Hair may also be used to determine the DNA of a suspect (Becker, 2008). Another difference between these two approaches of evidence tracing lies in the form of evidence obtained. Organic evidence is usually based on detailed examination of the traced evidence and mostly relies on facts rather than assumption. On the other hand, inorganic evidence is mostly based on the judgment of the investigator.

Inorganic evidence as mentioned earlier is more physical and used physical evidence unlike the organic evidence. Strengths and weaknesses of organic evidence One of the major strengths of organic evidence is that it is accurate with minimum chances of error. Organic evidence entails a detailed examination of the traces which originate from the body and as such chances of inaccuracy are minimal. Also, the DNA of an individual is unique and thus there is no possibility of picking the wrong person if the DNA matches that of the suspected perpetrator (Manes, 2007)

Organic evidence is also more reliable than the inorganic evidence making it more desirable. This evidence also can be used in a court of law since it is not biased or based on mere judgment of the crime investigator. However, despite the strengths of the organic evidence, this form of evidence has the weakness in that it is not always easy to find a perfect match of the DNA. Usually, fluids and blood obtained from a crime scene is tested for DNA and other elements like diseases and even the sex of a perpetrator. The results are matched with available results in the records of the investigation department.

The possibility of finding a match especially where there are no identified suspects is thus high making the investigation more difficult (Fisher, 2003). Strengths and weaknesses of inorganic evidence The major strength of this form of evidence is that it involves physical collection of evidence thus eliminating chances of deviation. Evidences like broken windows or chairs are picked while using this method and they can be positively identified in a court of law. Inorganic evidence is also effective in solving a criminal case than organic evidence. This is because inorganic evidence is mostly based on an individual’s judgment and institution.

This makes it possible to eliminate some possibilities and also gives a crime investigator more touch with the crime scenario. Judgment is vital while dealing with a crime scene especially in the initial stages where possibilities are supposed to be narrowed down (Fisher, 2003). The weakness of the inorganic evidence is that most perpetrators try to hide their identity by covering up their tracks so well and eliminating any possible evidence. Where criminal acts are well organized and carried out, it is difficult to find traces of evidence. Also, the judgment of a crime investigator may be wrong thus leading to wrongful arrests.

It is also hard to defend a case without concrete and founded facts. There is also high likelihood of the evidence being tampered with before or during the investigation thus making it unreliable (Sanchirico, 2004). Conclusion Investigating a crime is one of the tasks which require training and good judgment as well as dedication and experience. Organic and inorganic evidences are usually used to narrow down the scope of the crime. Inorganic evidence is important in initial elimination of causes while organic evidence is used to give the exact results since it is more scientific.

Both of these forms of evidence are vital in solving the mystery of a crime and are usually used simultaneously. Reference: Becker, R. F. (2008): Criminal Investigation. ISBN 0763755222, Published by Jones & Bartlett Publishers Fisher, B. A. J. (2003): Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. ISBN 084931691X, Published by CRC Press Manes, G. W. (2007): Digital Forensics in the Twenty-First Century. Journal article of The Forensic Examiner, Vol. 16 Sanchirico, C. W. (2004): Evidence Tampering. Journal article of Duke Law Journal, Vol. 53