for "nyanya" only

Introduction

Since the adaptation of English criminology methods, America has continued to forge forward with an ever-changing outlook on methods to stay at the forefront of ways to improve crime-fighting techniques. Some methods have found their way into the era of technology, while others are still being explored as of a result of humanitarian necessity, and their social implications to society. This evolution of crime fighting has seen whistles previously used as a method to signal for help by law enforcement replaced by the cell phone, and hand held radio. Walking the beat is still a viable source of good police work to combat problem on the street, but the automobile equipped with the latest technology has replaced that. In this technology driven society law enforcement has continued to keep up with various trending methods in their zeal to reduce crime. In their efforts to do so as they have been faced with issue concerning the rights of the citizens with implementing there new tools to be used on the fight against crimes. Just as the Quakers in previous years were concerned about the rights of criminals or their treatment when they were under the jurisdiction of law enforcement, groups have been formed to protect the rights of citizens against the issuance of the new technology and their implications on society.

Future Direction of Crime Fighting and its Social Policy Implications

The future direction of crime fighting will continue in the direction of technology based driven programs. Surveillance drones are one small piece of technology being tested as a future device for fighting crime. Drones allow surveillance in areas that can be considered dangerous, or had to reach. They allow minimal risk or harm to law enforcement and they can cover more ground, which decreases the amount of manpower needed for one job. Biometrics and pattern recognition will continue to be explored as a future use for the fight against crime in areas of terrorist, and terrorism. Biometrics is the science of identifying individuals by distinguishing specific human characteristics such as, eye color and handprints. Using this future technology for identifying individuals entering into countries under false pretenses for the purpose of doing harm can be instrumental in fighting crime.

The social implications of some of the future forms of fighting crimes will not be met with open arms. Society will continue to expect new innovations in the fight against crime, but will not accept some of the invasive methods that they have to incur to get protection. American Civil Liberty groups will seek to challenge these invasive methods, and meanings behind the need for new technology such as drones, biometrics, and other types of surveillance that may invade the privacy of normal citizens. Law enforcements ability to infiltrate current technological use such as social media, cell phone records, and computer information has also met with litigation on the grounds of being invasive. Some or all of these technological devices are so new to the social public, that the privacy laws have not been developed to keep in standing with current laws that exist for the protection of privacy.

The overall effort in the future of fighting crime will be technology driven. Criminals are also using the latest in technology to develop new crimes. As technology, and the devices that drive them get more sophisticated, new crimes are develop to work in tandem with them. The overall effort of the future in crime fighting is reduction of crime, and risk to the public, men, and women of law enforcement.

Evolution of Crime

“The Global Futures Partnership (GFP) is a strategic “think and do tank” that undertakes unclassified global outreach for CIA and other Intelligence Community elements on the most important issues facing the intelligence community today and in coming years. It conceptualizes and implements interdisciplinary and multi-organizational projects on key intelligence issues with leading thinkers from academia, business, strategy, and intelligence consultants.” According the C.I.A (2011). In the old days, the best an officer could hope for was to witness a crime or to have a witness to the crime. This made it difficult because they would often not be able to describe a person with accuracy and a police sketch artist could only sketch what the person remembered so this was often wrong. Now a days there is cameras, cybercrime detectives, terrorism and counterterrorism studies, radicalization, illicit trafficking, proliferation, foresight and warning, practice and organization of intelligence, social networks, genocide prevention, pandemics, environment and resource challenges, and finally failed and failing states. In the past none of these resources or techniques were employed they have evolved as social policy and international groups have help set the standards for modern day policing.

Civil Liberties are They Being Violated?

Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has sought to enhance security, necessitating a recalibration of the balance between security and civil liberties. Many of the measures taken have proven crucial to law enforcement's ability to combat terrorism. However, the effort to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they require to prevent terrorism has often come into conflict with the need to protect Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. The problem with progressive policing is that some people feel in order to use the tactics that their civil liberties and Constitutional rights are being violated. For instance, big brother watches us through cameras, our computers, recording our telephone calls, and reading our text messages. Although this has made catching the bad guy easier for police, what price do we as citizens have to pay? Some people feel that they are taking this too far. Big Brother, the use of GPS to track your every move, and surveillance drones spying on American soil. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any rights. These evolving technologies have changed national and international policymaking.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act

Since 911, our nation has seen a tremendous change in policing and the government’s rights to protect us against terrorism. Activists against the government taking away our Constitutional Rights are in an uproar ever since September 11, 2001. First I want to address the changes that have occurred in policy and international policy. Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI or government rights that they did not have before. Under section 215 the FBI can order any person or agency to turn over tangible things as long as the FBI determines that the order is for an authorized investigation. (The idea is to protect against international terrorism or intelligence activities). The FBI’s power to spy on ordinary people in the United States has reached a Big Brother capacity now.

The FBI no longer needs probable cause, nor reasonable grounds to believe that the person or persons or agency whose records it seeks is in fact engaged in criminal activity. The FBI doesn’t even have to have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. The FBI or government can spy on a person for whatever reason they want. Maybe they don’t like the web sites a person goes to, or the books they read, etc. For example, I was doing some investigations on Secret Societies and the Illuminati for almost a year straight. One night I was out on the front porch and saw two drones land across the street and they were clearly doing surveillance on my home. I realize that some people might say that this is a conspiracy theory, however, I personally saw them and the government has already admitted to using drones to spy on the American people. I have nothing to hide, but I have to admit that I felt my privacy had been invaded, and it was scary. Under section 215 the government is prohibited from disclosing the fact that they are watching someone and that the persons privacy has been compromised. We do know that they keep track of our text messages, the web sites we visit, our phone calls, they read our emails, and keep track of the books we read. Even in the grocery store the government can monitor what we eat, what we buy on our credit cards, and what we pay through our checking accounts.

Is Section 215 Constitutional?

Is the Patriot Act Section 215 Constitutional? Was the government behind 911, to show just cause to implement these procedures, and take away our rights? This is the issue that has divided our nation for nearly 13 years. Before 911 the government could not effect a search warrant without showing probable cause that a person was going to commit a crime or did commit a crime and even then it was left up to a judge to decide.

The argument is that the Patriot Act is a violation of the Forth Amendment and is more egregious by the fact that Section 215 might be used to obtain information about the exercise of the First Amendment rights. For example, say they didn’t want people looking up information about a certain subject, the FBI could invoke Section 215 to require Google to release all records of an individual, their emails and the sites on the internet they visit. The FBI can use Section 215 to obtain medical or employment records of an individual. The final argument that some present is the provision violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by failing to require that those who are the subject of Section 215 orders be told that their privacy has been compromised.

Does the Government Need These Powers?

The government already has the authority to prosecute anyone whom they have probable cause to believe has committed or is planning to commit a crime. The government has the authority to engage in surveillance of anyone whom they believe is a foreign power or a government spy. Now that Section 215 is in place, the controversial issue of taking away our liberty and privacy but isn’t likely to get us any security in return. “This has created profound chilling effects on public attitudes, since the government can let loose on the American public with no consequences to them. In my opinion this is one of the worse things the government can do Americans already a huge distrust in them and this has created a wider division between the American people and the United States government.” According to the Transparency Project. (2014).

 When looking at the future of crime investigation and prevention, one cannot ignore the impact DNA, (Deoxyribonucleic acid) has made to solving crimes over the last approximately 30 years. In the late 1980’s the federal government established a DNA registry used to track offenders, called NDIS, National DNA Index System (Schmalleger, Chapter 13,  2012). This system allowed investigators to compare DNA to individuals who have already been arrested for a crime. In addition, it allowed investigators to put together profiles when there was no suspect to which they could compare the DNA. Over the years this has helped stop murders, rapist and other violent felons as well as exonerate innocent individuals. Currently, all fifty states have programs that require mandatory DNA collection for certain felons. (Schmalleger, Chapter 13,  2012). The system has grown tremendously and the future DNA is to increase the education in order to reduce human error. In addition, while it is very beneficial to solving crimes, it is also time consuming and currently there is a large backlog of DNA to be run. In order to continue to implement and increase this technology there are federal programs that are designed to help clear the backlog. DNA testing is also progressing to incorporate all felons, both ones that are incarcerated and ones who are not in custody such a parolees. This advancement will help to solve many cold cases that were previously unsolvable. Technology is improving the way investigators solve crimes and it will only increase as time progresses.

Law enforcement has changed and evolved over the years. What once was impossible and improbable has become standard practices in investigating criminal activities. For instance, the increased use of biometrics. Biometrics is technology that uses certain body features to identify a person. (Biometrics, 1998). This includes fingerprints, hand geometry, signature scanning, voice scanning, facial scanning, keystroke scanning, and iris and retinal scanning (Gibbs, 2010, p. 16). This type of technology has the potential to bring law enforcement to a whole new level, although all aspects are not yet fully implemented now due to cost and insufficient studies. Some portions however have become regular practice for law enforcement. Finger Prints are taken when a person is taken into custody to help monitor and track a person over the course of their criminal history. This technology has allowed law enforcement to track individuals who might not have been caught at the time of a crime, but have been brought in for something unrelated. This is especially helpful with regards to interstate crime. For instance if a person commits a crime in Washington and then moves and commits another crime in Texas, in the past because fingerprints were not always taken and not digital agencies had no way of connecting the two offenses. In addition, biometrics are now being used in airports. When walking through the airport they now have machines that analyze a person’s smell for evidence of explosives or explosive making materials. This is something that can help law enforcement keep many people safe and save many lives. The evolution of technology in the realm of law enforcement has helped law enforcement to evolve with the different types or criminal attacks. Biometrics has also helped with protecting important technology. Often, it is easy to think of the implementation of biometrics only when it comes to taking fingerprints and active crime scenes, but they can also help law enforcement that help to fight security attacks via hackers. Hackers thrive on compromising passwords, firewalls and utilizing spyware. It is not uncommon to hear of a security breach that has come through someone getting past a firewall. But with the increasing use of biometrics, it is making it increasing more difficult to hack secured systems. For instance, there is often the use of fingerprints in combination with retina scans to ensure the proper person is the only person gaining access to certain information. In 2004, “the Federal Trade Commission received 500,000 complaints about fraud and identity theft. Losses exceeded $437 million” (Middlemiss, 2004, p. 1). This goes to show there is a major security breach when it comes to people using the computer to transmit personal information. Biometrics can help to cut this number and prevent the over 4 million dollar loss of personal assets.