Main Forums > The Roundtable
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
Go to full version