In their first response, Rand recommended that patrol officers ought to be in an investigatory role. They were supposed to conduct preliminary investigations of crime and other felonies. According to Rand, this was supposed to provide an adequate basis for case screening and also to ensure that there were no redundant  cases where an investigator was to repeat the same process (Lyman, 2013). The report alluded that preliminary investigations would ensure closure of most cases. According to their prior research, it found that only three percent of cases involving investigative team was solved.

In addition, Rand shows that less than half of all arrests made were  successful in conviction. In this respect, Rand suggested that,  further to post-arrest investigation, the prosecutor handling the given case should personally coordinate all the activities relating to it.  He also pointed out that the prosecutor should  be allowed to offer guidance in the process.The exercises’ intention was to ensure that a higher percentage of arrests were tried, and possible convictions  are successfully made (Lyman, 2013).

My Opinion.

Rand’s allusions were valid. Training patrol officers to carry out preliminary investigation would mean correct collection of facts and witnesses before they get tampered with, and hence more credibility in a court of law.

Prosecutor’s major involvement in the investigatory process helps in giving the investigation exercise an objective kind of way of thinking. Amid an investigation, a prosecutor comprehends what avenues he or she might want to seek. This initiative increases the chances of a criminal investigation being a success.

References

Lyman, M. D. (2013). Criminal Investigation: The Art and the Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Limited.