Future directions in the investigation of crime*
| DOI | 10.1177/000486908301600402 |
| Date | 01 December 1983 |
| Published date | 01 December 1983 |
| Author | Duncan Chappell |
| Subject Matter | Original Article |
196 (1983) 16
ANZJ
CRIM
FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN THE INVESTIGATION
OF CRIME*
Duncan Chappell**
It
was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in a public place or within range
of a telescreen.
The
smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety,
ahabit of muttering to yourself -anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having
something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when
a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in
Newspeak: facecrime, it was called. (Orwell 1949:54)
When speculating in 1983 about the future, and especially the directions we are
likely to follow in pursuit of the investigation of crime, it seems rather appropriate
to commence with a brief recitation of one of George Orwell's visions of the year
1984. Orwell's chilling notion of citizens being subjected to constant surveillance by
"telescreens" to detect "improper expressions", while fictional, is still disturbingly
close to certain real life, situations in contemporary society. Current and widely
available technology already allows few of our public or private activities to remain
immune from scrutiny by determined surveillors. Although also a fictional account,
the recent film, The Conversation, starring Gene Hackman in the role of a
professional eavesdropper, dramatically illustrates the surreptitious methods
presently in use to gather information from unsuspecting persons. Electronic
surveillance techniques, in company with wiretapping, are now standard
investigative tools used by police agencies as well as private companies and
individuals (Krajick, 1983).
The impact of these and
other
forms of technology upon the future investigation
of crime, and upon our civil liberties, is potentially profound. However, in this
paper
it is not proposed to devote major attention to this technology
per
se but
rather
to examine two general questions which are intimately concerned with its
future use, namely, who willhave the principal responsibility for investigating crime
in succeeding years, and how will we select and train crime investigators?
Asearch for some possible answers to these questions appears justified at a time
when, in this country, aNational Crimes Commission is in the process of being
established in response to widely expressed criticisms of traditional police
capabilities to investigate complex criminal activities, and a major piece of
legislation, awaiting federal parliamentary approval, proposes sweeping revisions to
police powers in the field of criminal investigation. IThese Australian developments
have been matched by similar actions in other common law jurisdictions, including
Canada, where reforms are currently being considered of police investigative
*Keynote address presented to the Criminology Section,
ANZAAS
Congress, Perth, Western
Australia, May 16 1983.
** Professor and Chair,
Department
of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia,
Canada.
To continue reading
Request your trial