Abstract
Arson is the crime of threatening property and lives by use of fire, deliberately. The question that stirs the conscience of the public is why people cause harm by lighting fires deliberately. There are possible motives that lead to commission of Arson and homicides. They include; animosity, concealment of crime, profit, vandalism and political objectives. Heterogeneous and multiple factors that operate in any given circumstance limit the offenders’ classification. The victim support organization has done a research whose results shows that bereaved families need support from voluntary and statutory agencies as well as proper investigation of the crimes. They include; courts, social services and groups supporting victims voluntarily.
Introduction
According to (Williams, 1985), whenever there is an investigation regarding homicide or arson, research has shown that it is very important to consider ethical issues to come up with the best results as well as obtain the same kind of information in future. Studies have shown that, there exist a lot of ethical problems whenever officers are at the task of investigating a particular crime and studies are now geared towards the reduction of such problems to encourage the members of the community to cooperate more on the issues. Even when the victims of crime are caught and taken to court for prosecution, other problems arise if the officer who was investigating never did his work following ethical standards. Some of the issues are related directly to the professional standards followed during the investigation.
Ethical issues encountered
(Smith, 1997) found that, most of the agencies that are employed to research regarding crime end up complicating the issues already at hand. This leaves the victims in a desperate situation rather helping them to rehabilitate. The effect is also felt by the members of the community as they end up risking their lives especially when the information given by them and was meant to be in confidence, is disclosed. Such members may not be willing to cooperate with the investigators in future for fear of risking their life again. Other than investigating on the perpetrators of homicide, the investigators are equally supposed to organize for support the victims. This should be in terms of finance as well as giving them moral support as the primary goal should be taking care of the victims besides ensuring that, such act do not occur in future. Before investigation, the officers should explain to the respondent regarding the topics that he/she is going to investigate. This is important as it allows the respondent to organize their mind and this promotes achieving best results. If this chance is not created, victims as well as the respondents are likely to give wrong answers due to ignorance if not out of fear. Sometimes the officers in charge of the process use threats and force respondent to give false information that later fails to be substantiated during prosecution. There should be enough time as well as a friendly environment for all the parties involved in the investigation.
According (Toulmin, 2000), research has also shown that, most of the officers investigating on homicides and arson become biased in the process. This is due to several reasons such as race or tribe and therefore do not record the actual information on the ground. Such false evidence always fails to be proved and hits back of the officers in charge. Studies have revealed that, some investigator do not mind the status of the psychological wellbeing of the respondent who is likely to give incorrect information.
(Whitbeck, 1983) argued that, during the investigations, all the relevant participants should be invited but care must be taken not to force the attendance, regardless of whether they are audience or the actual respondents. After the results are collected, they need to be mixed up in an orderly way to enhance the anonymity of the participants. This helps in avoiding of situations where concerned persons are likely to engage into new violence when they discover those who committed the crimes. Another ethical issue needed to be addressed is the time taken by the officers to inform the members of the families of the victims about the situation at hand. During inquest hearings, most family members are left out rather than being allowed to attend in spite of the fact that, this is usually postponed until trial has been made in court. Any information that regards court hearing is supposed to be forwarded in good time to allow all the interested parties to have adequate preparation in advance. For cases of homicides and arson that are likely to take a very long time, it is ethical to have them being undertaken by those officers that are not retiring soon as some evidence requires actual presence of the investigating officers.
According to (Ross, 2001), whenever there is information to be passed from one party to the other, it should be done by the right person and at the right time and place. For example, even when information passed on is very urgent; it would be unethical to do it in a work place. Some investigating officers will just make a call to confirm whether their target is at place of his/her work and after that proceed to the place. This would indirectly interfere with right and freedoms of the respondents as well as the employer and all other concerned parties in the place.
Conclusion
Different methods are applicable for an effective investigation as long as they do not end up in incorrect conclusion by the officers. It is also important to ensure that the court has not been misled as this would cause the case to hit back on the investigator. False accusation may also cause trauma to some of the participant as well as the victims of homicides and arson. Bias should also not be given chances by the investigating officers in making statements for the prosecution in courts.
References
Williams. (1985): Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy: New York: Cambridge University Press pp65-71
Smith M. (1997): Teaching Criminal Justice Ethics: Anderson Publishing Co. pp105-121.
Toulmin S. (2000): Regaining the Ethics of Discretion: The Hastings Center Report pp31-39.
Whitbeck C. (1983): investigating crime: Blackwell synergy pp34-37
Ross D. (2001): The Right and the Good: Oxford: Oxford University Press pp45-49