Good news on the murder front.

(1/1)

just Warren:
Just need more resources to actually be able to utilize the information.

230RN:
I'm sure there's a relationship between "clearance rates" and "conviction rates," and  I guess if his system works, then the system works.

But I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a mere clearance (meaning an arrest) is a "good thing" in terms of crime-solving statistics.   To me, it suggests the idea that arresting people is the end game, regardless of ultimate conviction.

I realize he's generating "pointers" to people who've possibly commtted similar crimes, but somehow the line in that old movie rings a bell:  "Round up the usual suspects."

Terry, 230RN

MechAg94:
Seems to me all his system really does is indicate whether specific crimes may be related even if they are separated by a lot of time.  Since most of these will have different investigators, it makes sense that a detective a few years later may have no knowledge of a previous case.  Big caveat to me is it assumes the police reports and statistical information is accurate.  I am not really sure how that helps them solve the case.  It just alerts them that some of the crimes may not be random.

Talking about conviction rates, I was thinking the same thing.  How do they know the conviction rates back then were accurate.  Maybe it was all based on bite marks and hair follicle examination. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index