“Since intelligence analysis is conducted by human beings, fundamental flaws in the analysis are inevitable”. The following essay discusses this view in relation to intelligent officers and law enforcement agents such as the police.
Generally, societies have their unique ways of differentiating individuals with certain competencies for intelligence analysis. However, due to social factors that closely interlink humans in the entire community, obtaining intelligence analysis with no biases presents a daunting task and the greatest challenge even to the most competent intelligence professionals. A case in point refers to incidences of intelligent investigations conducted by police officers.
While such professionals inhabit natural abilities of credence such as honesty and integrity, they still carry out investigations based on criminal offenses committed by humans. In addition, the officers entrusted with true finding missions often act on orders issued by their seniors whose opinion greatly influences the entire process. Partly because the investigators in cases such as organized crimes in money laundering, human and drug trafficking do not wish to sacrifice the funding from authorizes with vested interests in the resulting conclusions (White, 1987, p. 57)
Ideally, obtaining a flawed analysis from biased findings is almost impossible. In the process of intelligent investigations and associated analysis, the human observers use facilities made by fellow humans. While humans themselves are prone to making certain errors of omission, the Biasness of the analysis runs deep into the natural human compositions embedded in people’s history and social developments. When people use their minds to draw conclusions in analyses of intelligent investigations, distinguishing personal opinions from the manipulations of facts in any model used leaves lots of doubts that characterize a flawed understanding of the verdict presented (Peterson, 1986, p. 3).
Strategic intelligence plays a critical role in directing efforts of data analysis with the aid of available resources. However, the level of intelligence analysis acquires some flaws from the models employed which often carry biases capable of turning data interpretation into some sort of fallacies. Consequently, limited resources available for criminal investigations compound the flaws inherent in intelligence analysis conducted by humans as they compromise on and sympathize with the investigation and interpretation processes (Hall, 1999, p.41).
In so far as strategies of analysis are a concern, intelligent guided policing may lack the credibility of effective information interpretation in law enforcement. The characteristic hierarchy of information handling by various officers in drawing concise conclusions from gathered information often presents various discrepancies because of inappropriate coordination of actions in between the different departments (Godfrey & Don, 1971, p.11).
Only in rare occasions does intelligence analysis admit the weakness of the resulting conclusion from the details of observations. Hence, the idea of avoiding flaws in the analysis conducted by fallible humans becomes elusive. Moreover, it usually takes a very long time to reconcile ambiguous gaps resulting in suspicions about the credibility of the analysis in the views of different societal groups (Sparrow, 1991, p. 256).
In a society where people view law enforcement officers as potential adversaries, the culmination of modern criminals into entrepreneurs defies the general approaches to intelligence analyses. Therefore, in the absence of a multidimensional approach that integrates various facets of high skilled intelligent forces, the process is bound to flaws. In this case, the analysis must seek to capture different competing views evident in the details of each inquiry (Peterson, 1994, p. 24).
Nonetheless, obtaining a flawless process in intelligence analysis is still far from reality. Before some verdict, the analyst must consider the long-term consequences of the resulting conclusions with a human attitude.
Reference List
Godfrey, E. & Don, R. (1971). Basic Elements of Intelligence. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
Hall, R. (1999).Intelligence-Led Policing and the Role of the Analyst, International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts (IALEIA) Journal. August 1999, 12(2) 39-46.
Peterson, M. B. (1994). Applications in Criminal Analysis: A Sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
Peterson, M. B. (1998).Joining the Debate: Product Vs Process. International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts (IALEIA) Journal, 11(1), 1-13.
Sparrow, M.K.(1991). Network Vulnerabilities and Strategic Intelligence in Law Enforcement. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 5(3), 255-274.
White, R.K. (1986). Empathy as a Tool of Intelligence. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 11(1)57-75.