Computer Evidence Recovery (CER) Systems in All Crime Laboratories

Computer Evidence Recovery (CER) is indeed presenting itself  quite increasingly, to say the least  as an essential part and inherent feature of the procedures and protocols of crime investigation. In a world characterized by high preponderance and commonplace dependency to Information Technology, there is no doubt that crime investigation must include protocols that are able to penetrate pertinent embedded encryption, language, data or other relevant recorded information which construct leads to solve criminal activities. It is therefore necessary that criminal justice agencies  specifically those at the forefront of crime-scene investigation  must commence setting up computer evidence recovery systems in, ideally, all crime laboratories.

To be able to setup computer evidence recovery in all crime laboratories may prove to be a little too bearing, considering the high cost which such technologies may require of the local or Federal government. This is because in employing an adequate use of computer evidence recovery systems, there are at least three immediate cost-impinging considerations which must be ponderously deemed first, the acquisition the technology itself is costly second, the regular maintenance of such technologies may require a portion of crime laboratories annual budget be set aside for such purpose and third, the training of competent professionals to run the technology in close collaboration with field-investigators may require additional provisions to defray both continuing training and additional staff.

But these considerations, it must be argued, are the high price which a community pays for the relative security which must be maintained, especially in our times when criminal acts can be done using the facets of Information Technology. Firstly, one must consider with thoughtfulness that the number of criminal activities which are either facilitated by or executed using Information Technology is fast increasing. Bartol  Bartol contend that computer evidence recovery can be employed to assist the investigation of financial fraud, embezzlement, sexual harassment, child pornography, program vandalism, identity theft, document forgery, software piracy, narcotics trafficking, and money laundering (2004, p. 7). The list could go on further and farther as the years go by. The point in contention here is that, where there is an increasing incidence of computer-technology criminal activities, it is but imperative that counter-measures must be drafted using the same technology to either impede felons from committing heinous crimes or punish them for committing the same.

Secondly, unlike ordinary crimes, computer-facilitated criminal activities have no boundaries they can rarely be defined by geographical jurisdiction which is atypical of normal crime-scene investigation. According to Bennett and Hess, the Internet (can allow) criminals on the one side of the planet to wreak e-havoc on computer user and business on the other side of the planet, throwing an immense jurisdictional complications for crime-scene investigation (2007, p. 504). It is therefore imperative that, inasmuch as criminal acts using Information Technology is ubiquitous, the Federal or local government must be able to finance computer evidence recovery systems in all crime laboratories to facilitate the prosecution of felons.

The case of David Brown  an expert in Computer Evidence Recovery in as early as the 1980s  is of relative importance to the arguments presented. According to the story, Brown convinced his daughter Cinnamon to shoot her mother. And it would appear that the case, which would stretch up until 1990 when Cinnamon admitted the role of his father David in the murder of her mother, was chiefly about Davids desire to accrue almost 85,000 in insurance following his wifes death (Pinsky, 1992). I believe that this case, more than anything else, lends merits to the arguments presented above for if experts in Computer Evidence Recovery can perpetuate crimes of which they are abreast, then criminal justice agencies must all the more exhaust all means necessary to prevent such crimes of similar nature be done especially in this time.


Post a Comment