a}: mu .

.
3
33...:
i‘

:- LYH

3..)

“E
r» . p

at.

a.“
:7.
d,

HuT-tl . rw
:. 53$»: vamr

13.5.3

1 u...
“ Wm.“
A ~
.r

5
:0.

at}:

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A Cross-National Comparative Study of Police:
Criminal Investigative Policies and Practices
in the U.S. and South Korea

presented by

Yung Hyeock Lee

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

PhD degree in SSC Wi U"! a

concentration in Criminal Justice

 

 

 

Major professor

13316 \),/€7 12'5'élr1191L_—

 

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

0-12771

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earIier due date if requested.

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
NOV 0 8 2335
651805 Yﬂ‘l 6'11

 

We"? 8 27105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65~p.15

 

 

A CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLICE:
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
IN THE US AND SOUTH KOREA
By

Yung Hyeock Lee

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School of Criminal Justice

2002

ABSTRACT
A CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLICE:
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
IN THE US. AND SOUTH KOREA
BY

Yung Hyeock Lee

Comparing the police investigative process and its effectiveness between
countries requires an understanding of macro level police environments, such as
national cultures and legal traditions, in terms of handling crime. The rural and
urban community characteristic is an important controlling variable for the cross-
national comparison. Since detective work is embedded and intertwined with the
complex web Of social systems such as macrosystem (nation-state), exosystem
(community), mesosystem (organization), and microsystem (a detective) police
investigative activities and outcomes may be understood as a form Of joint
production between these social systems.

Although the bulk of research on policing in the past three decades has
been conducted in the US, most of this has focused on urban settings and on
the police patrol and service functions. Police investigation activities, even
though they are important aspects of police work, have not received serious
attention from researchers. Furthermore, the attention that researchers have
given to police investigation function has been country speciﬁc. There is no
research that has explored differences in the police investigative policies and

practices between countries. Thus, this study is the ﬁrst empirical research on

systematic comparison of police investigation processes both within and between
naﬁons.

National mail surveys of representative samples of law enforcement
agencies in the US. (n=1,746) and South Korea (n=223) have been conducted.
Using the survey results, this study compares police investigative policies and
practices between the US. and South Korea. Overall, this study reveals that; 1)
there were more differences than similarities in police investigative policies
between the US. and South Korea; 2) the inﬂuence of rural/urban areas on
police investigation practices appeared to be greater in the US than in South
Korea; and 3) certain organizational characteristics—those operating within an
“enforcement” orientation—were effective, but that other styles Of policing—
especially those with a more “libertarian” orientation—tended to be
counterproductive to clearing cases, in both nations, although this pattern was
more conspicuous in the US. than in South Korea. This study concludes that
although solving crimes represent the central mission Of police investigators
across countries, differences of national contexts and local ways of life have a
profound inﬂuence on police criminal investigation practices and policies, in turn,

having a direct impact on case resolutions.

Copyright by
Yung Hyeock Lee
2002

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all 1,746 American and 223
South Korean police organizations that participated in the national surveys.

Particular gratitude is given to Dr. Frank Horvath, my major professor and
chair of dissertation committee, for the intellectual stimulation, concise guidance,
and friendship he offered over the past several years. Working with him has
become a valuable asset.

I would like to acknowledge the support of my dissertation committee; Dr.
David L. Carter has provided me with perspectives emphasizing the link between
practice and theory in criminal justice; due to my interaction with Dr. Steve Gold, I
could explore sociological arenas and still have momentum to search for inquires
of sociology; Dr. Robert Griffore has taught me how to understand human
behaviors from a ecological point of view.

In addition to the chair and committee, I am indebted to Dr. Vincent
Hoffman and the professor, Robert Meesig, who gave me informal guidance and
wise counsel throughout my graduate program. Their expertise and generous
assistance have always been helpful to me.

Also, my appreciation is expressed to Mr. Mark VerNooy, who sincerely
provided some of the editorial work in this research. To South Korean Ofﬁcers,
who helped the translation and administration of the survey, my deep
appreciation is expressed; they are Gyung-Sik Park, Ju-Lak Lee, and Sang-

Uoong Park.

Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents, Tae-
Wan Lee and Young-Ja Lee. Without their understanding and support of my
decision to pursue an academic career, I would not be able to continue toward

the ﬁnal chapter not only in this research but also in my doctoral program.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ x

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................... 1
Research Questions ....................................................................................... 5
Importance Of a Comparative Study ............................................................... 7
Importance of Police Investigation ................................................................ 10
Current Status of Cross-National Police Investigation Research .................. 17.

A Brief Overview of the South Korean Police and Criminal Justice System .19

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 26
Conceptualization of Police Criminal Investigation ....................................... 27
Organizational Properties for Police Criminal Investigations ........................ 31
Enforcement Oriented Properties ................................................................. 34
Liberal Policing Oriented Properties ............................................................. 41

CHAPTER THREE

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMPARISON ......................................... 47
Police Investigation and Social Environments .............................................. 48
Inﬂuence of Macro-System on the Police: A Comparative Persepective ...... 51
Inﬂuence of the Rural/Urban (Exo-System) Distinction ................................ 66
Summary ...................................................................................................... 72

CHAPTER FOUR

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 73
Propositions and Hypothesis ........................................................................ 73
Survey Method ............................................................................................. 78
Survey Population and Sampling Design ..................................................... 79
Development of Survey Instrument .............................................................. 80
Data Collection Process ............................................................................... 81
Other Data Sources ...................................................................................... 83
Measurement in the Study ............................................................................ 84

CHAPTER FIVE

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...................................................................... 91
Sample Characteristics in the Study ............................................................. 91
Comparison Of Investigative Outcome .......................................................... 94
An Investigator Focused Comparison .......................................................... 97

vii

Organization Focused Comparison ............................................................ 101

Rural/Urban Areas Focused Comparison ................................................... 115
Evaluative comparison on the Organizational Properties ........................... 118
CHAPTER SIX
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................. 125
Inﬂuence of Macro-System on Police Investigation in the US. and South
Korea ......................................................................................................... 127
Inﬂuence of Exo-System on Police Investigation in the US. and South Korea
................................................................................................................... 144
Assessment of Police Organizational Properties in Clearing Cases in the US
and South Korea ........................................................................................ 149
Summary and Conclusion .......................................................................... 158
APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 162
APPENDIX A . .................................................................................................. 163
APPENDIX B . .................................................................................................. 187
APPENDIX C . .................................................................................................. 188
APPENDIX D . .................................................................................................. 191
BIBLOGRPHY ................................................................................................... 195

Vili

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Mean Clearance Rate and Organizational Investigative Efﬁciency and
Mean Scale Scores on Various Organizational Properties in Rural/Urban
Police Agencies in the US. ......................................................................... 116

Table 2. Mean Clearance Rate and Organizational Investigative Efﬁciency and
Mean Scale Scores on Various Organizational Properties in Rural/Urban
Police Agencies in South Korea .................................................................. 116

Table 3. Chi-Square Test for Organizational Properties by Rural/Urban Areas in
the US. ....................................................................................................... 117

Table 4. Chi-Square Test for Organizational Properties by Rural/Urban Areas in
South Korea ................................................................................................ 118

Table 5. Regression Results of Cleared Crime against Person on Police
Organizational Properties in the US. and South Korea .............................. 121

Table 6. Regression Results of Cleared Crime against Property on Police
Organizational Properties in the US. and South Korea .............................. 122

Table 7. Summary of Results 1: Descriptive Comparison Between the Nations
.................................................................................................................... 123

Table 8. Summary of Results 2: Comparison of Rural/Urban Areas Within the
Nations: A Cross-national Perspective ........................................................ 123

Table 9. Summary Of Results 3: Evaluative Comparison Of Police Policies

Between the Nations ................................................................................... 124

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by
Geographic Location ..................................................................................... 92
Figure 2. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by
Departmental Size ......................................................................................... 93
Figure 3. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by
POpulation Size in Jurisdiction ...................................................................... 94
Figure 4. Average Clearance Rates in the US and South Korea for Four Crimes
...................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 5. Organizational Investigative Efﬁciency in the US and South Korea for
Four Crimes .................................................................................................. 96
Figure 6. Percentage of Police Agencies who Perceive Large Legal Problems in
the US and South Korea by Investigation-related Activities ........................ 97
Figure 7. Percentage of Police Agencies who Always Use Education and
Experience as Selection Criteria in the US. and South Korea for Investigator
and Investigator’s Supervisor ........................................................................ 98
Figure 8. Percentage Of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by
Importance of Clearance Rates as a Performance Evaluation ...................... 99
Figure 9. Percentage Of Police Agencies in the US. who are Legally Required to
Audio/visually Record Interrogations and those who Rountinely do that ..... 100
Figure 10. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea who have

Police Unions .............................................................................................. 101

Figure 11. Percentage of Police Agencies who use Case Screening Method in
the US. and South Korea ........................................................................... 102
Figure 12. Percentage of Police Agencies who have Cold Case Unit, Percentage
of Cold Cases which were cleared the previous year, and the Number of
Assigned Investigators to Cold Case Unit in the US. and South Korea ...... 103
Figure 13. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by Cold
Case Unit for Crime Type ............................................................................ 104
Figure 14. Percentage Of Police Agencies in the US and South Korea who
Involved Task Forces during the past 12 months ........................................ 105
Figure 15. Percentage Of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by
Investigation Task Force Types .................................................................. 106
Figure 16. Percentage of Prosecutor's Offices who appear to have their Own
Investigators and Percentage Of Police Agencies who Assign their
Investigators to Prosecutor’s Ofﬁce in the US. and South Korea ............... 107
Figure 17. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea who have
Regular Relationship with and Always Consult Prosecutor's Ofﬁce Prior to an
Arrest by Crime Type .................................................................................. 108
Figure 18. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by Type
Of Relational Problems with Prosecutor's Ofﬁce ......................................... 109
Figure 19. Percentage Of Police Agencies in the US. by Use of A.F.I.S. Service
.................................................................................................................... 110
Figure 20. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US and South Korea by

Integration Of Community Policing into Detective Work ............................... 111

xi

Figure 21. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea who
assign Investigators to the Field .................................................................. 112
Figure 22. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by
Perceived Problems with the Public ............................................................ 113
Figure 23. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by

Perceived Turn-Around Time for Crime Lab Service ................................... 114

xii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem

A cross-national comparison of the effectiveness Of the police investigative
policies and practices requires an understanding of the macro level of these
police environments, their relationships to national cultures and legal traditions,
and their traditional modes of responding to crime. The differences in this regard
between rural and urban communities represent an especially important
controlling variable for a cross-national comparison. Even though solving crimes
represent the central mission of police investigators across countries, differences
of national culture and local ways of life may have a profound inﬂuence on police
criminal investigation practices and policies, in turn, having a direct impact on
case resolutions. As police work is embedded in and intertwined with a complex
web of social systems—such as nation-states (macrosystems), local
communities (exosystems), organizations (mesosystems), and an investigator
(microsystems)—police investigative activities and outcomes must be understood
as a form of joint production between these social systems (Bronfenbrenner,
1979; Ericson, 1981, p.5).

In the US, surprisingly, only about 20% of reported part I crimes are
cleared as a result Of police investigation, whereas in South Korea the ﬁgure
stands at 95 %. Within the US, urban police departments have lower average
crime solution rates (18.5%) than their rural counterparts (22.9%) (Weisheit,

Wells, 8 Falcone, 1994). It is important to ask, therefore: What accounts,

generally speaking, for police investigative this effectiveness. More importantly,
we also need to consider what is the best way to measure and evaluate the
criminal investigative effectiveness of police forces.

Traditionally, assessment of police performance has reﬂected the crime-
control mandate of individual police organizations. The Uniform Crime Report
(UCR) in the US. and the Police White Paper in South Korea provide reported
crime and clearance statistics at the individual agency level. These clearance
rates are frequently used as an indicator Of police investigation effectiveness.
The clearance rates in both countries are ofﬁcially deﬁned as the ratio between
the number of cases cleared either by the arrest of an offender or by an
exceptional clearance in a period of time and the number of crimes reported to
the police. When police identify an Offender, obtain sufﬁcient evidence to formally
charge the Offender, and take him/her into custody, crimes can be cleared.
Additionally, crimes can be cleared for “exceptional” reasons beyond police
control that precludes the arrest of the offender (US. Department of Justice,
1999b)

But police clearance statistics have signiﬁcant ﬂaws in measuring police
investigative effectiveness, primarily because the rate is unnecessarily affected
by its denominator. This means, ﬁrstly, that the ratio is largely inﬂuenced by the
public's decision to report crimes. In fact, without a public accusation, deviant
behavior results only in gossip; “enforcement occurs when someone blows the
whistle” (Becker, 1963, p.122). In other words, the victim’s age, racial

composition, educational attainment of victims within the community, and public

conﬁdence in the police greatly inﬂuence the number of crimes known to law
enforcement, which is the denominator in clearance rates. The “subculture of
violence" thesis may also explain the number of crimes constructed and reported
to the police. Since different segments of society differ in the decision of crime
reporting to the police, such variability in the form of denominator for computing
the clearance rates serves to undermine reliability. Clearance rates may simply
vary by jurisdiction not because of the variances in investigative effectiveness
itself but because Of demographic factors and their interactions in a given
community. That may be why Cordner’s (1989) examination of UCR clearance
rates in agencies in the state of Maryland found that neither agency size nor
crime workload were correlated with police investigative effectiveness, but that
region and crime mix were. Similarly, this conceptual error about clearance rates
may have led the Rand study to conclude that different police organizational
conﬁgurations and stafﬁng have no inﬂuence on the clearance rates; they found
that only the size of department, geographic location and workload are major
determinants of crime solving rates (Greenwood, Chaiken, & Petersilia, 1977).
Secondly, crime recording represents an ofﬁcial conﬁrmation of third party
involvement in resolving conﬂict between two parties (Black, 1998). This means
that police recording behavior is affected by social relations between the suspect
and victim, the desires of the complainant, and the cultural/political environment
in which the agency is embedded. The production of clearance rates, thus,
becomes a composite indicator of social facts that represent the negotiation

between ofﬁcer, Offender, and victim, the social signals drawn from interaction

among actors (Manning, 1997), or social distance between witness, perpetrator,
and victim (Black, 1980). In a region where “dc-policing” is preferred by both the
police and public, the number Of reported crimes to police may be much less.

Police malfeasance may be another example which can affect police
acceptance of reported crime. When a Chief or mayor wants to look good with
some numbers, and demonstrate that police are doing something and, ofﬁcers
can attempt to record crimes as ofﬁcially accepted ones only if the cases can be
easily solved by the police. Again, the denominator of clearance rates is
inﬂuenced by the interaction between police and public.

Thirdly, with respect to the validity of clearance rates, inadequacy is easily
noticed. For example, when ten robberies are reported this year but twelve are
cleared, a police organization produces a robbery clearance rate of 120 percent.
It becomes possible for the clearance rate to exceed a maximum value of 100
percent in the data, because it does not count for annual changes; some cases
cleared in one year can be carried over to another year. Neglecting to consider
the size of police personnel is also a threat to the validity of clearance rate. When
ten robberies are reported and all are cleared by the department with ﬁve police
personnel, the clearance rate is 100 percent. However, it is also possible for ten
robberies to be reported and all ten to be cleared by the department with ﬁve
hundred police personnel. Although the two departments have the same
clearance rate, 100 percent, the effectiveness is not the same, because the
number of police ofﬁcers in each organization is different. Furthermore, it can not

capture the patrol Ofﬁcer and detective’s effectiveness separately.

All these problems are primarily related to the simple fact that clearance
rates are deﬁned as the number of cases cleared in a period Of time divided by
the number of crimes reported to the police. In other words, the ratio can be
greatly affected by the quantity and seriousness Of crimes reported to the police.
This feature unnecessarily inﬂuences the ratio without representing a meaningful
police investigative productivity. Also, the clearance rates themselves do not tell
anything about the extent to which police carry out their investigative activity
within legal boundaries.

There are alternative ways to measure police investigative effectiveness.
One is to use-the number of cases cleared in a period of time, holding total
number of police ofﬁcers in an organization constant. This indicator may help us
create a better measure of productivity of police investigation because it does
account for the number of Ofﬁcers in an organization. The other is to measure
another side of police investigative effectiveness: the degrees to which a number
Of legal issues that create problems for police investigations. It may be true that
the more legal problems police organizations have as a result of conducting
criminal investigations, the lower the level Of investigative effectiveness. When
police organizational policies and practices pose formidable legal problems, their
investigative effectiveness becomes lessened.

Research Questions

If these alternative ways of measurement are legitimate for police

investigative effectiveness, what can account for the investigative effectiveness?

Are they related to organizational characteristics including organizational policies,

management strategies, relationships with other institutions, or geographic
location? From a cross-national comparative perspective, do police
organizational characteristics account for differences in investigative
effectiveness in the US and South Korea? With respect to the variances of
investigative organizational policies within a nation, is rural and urban location an
important factor? Or do the police use uniform and similar methods throughout
the countries? What are the differences and similarities of the police investigation
process between and within the nations? Are police criminal investigation policies
and practices inﬂuenced by national culture? What is the extent Of the
relationship between police polices and investigative outcomes in the US and
South Korea? All these theoretically important as well as practically valuable
questions remain unanswered, in spite Of enormous policing related research
efforts in the US. over the past three decades. Much attention has been paid
only to the area of patrol/service function in urban contexts. Little is known about
the police investigation process, and almost nothing is reported regarding rural
police departments' criminal investigation. Moreover, no research has been
conducted with the comparative perspective of not only within-national but also
cross-national variations Of detective work.

Thus, this study will be the ﬁrst empirical research on systematic
comparison of police investigation processes both within and between nations.
The ﬁrst goal of this study is to provide national representative descriptions Of
major police investigative policies and practices in the US. and South Korea for

a cross-national comparison. The second is to examine whether there are

differences in police investigative processes within the US and South Korea in
terms of rural/urban contexts. The third is to evaluate what police organizational
characteristics and efforts do work or do not work for clearing more crimes in the
American and South Korean contexts, respectively.
Importance of a Comparative Study

a. Understanding the need for cooperation in a global community

National borders have become more ﬂuids as a result of trade agreements
and the speed and ease of modern travel and communication. The Internet is
perhaps the single most important new tool to break restraints on the transit of
goods, people, and information. Airplanes can cover most of the world within a
day. As advantageous as these advancements may be for businesses, criminals
beneﬁt as well. The speed at which these transactions occur Often allows
criminals to get away from investigators before they can Obtain arrest warrants.
Terrorists also maintain their own high tech networks in numerous countries.
Illegal activities may take place on a scale that is well beyond the capacity of a
single agency to handle them.

Transnational and international crimes occur when organized criminals are
based in one country but operate in more than one country (Bossard, 1990).
Cars are stolen in Western Europe, for example, and driven into Poland with the
assistance Of corrupt border Ofﬁcials, then trans-shipped to North Africa where
faincated certiﬁcates of origin are issued for sale throughout Japan and the
Mideast (Carter, 1994). Cars are also stolen in Texas, for example, and driven to

Mexico where they are sold to predetermined buyers (Resendiz & Neal, 2000). In

these instances, crime becomes transnational. Money laundering (McCormick &
Stekloff, 2000), nuclear material smuggling (Williams & Woessner, 1996),
terrorism (Kash, 1995), international art theft (Margules, 1992), trafﬁcking in
human organs (Chang, 1995) are other illustrations of global criminality. Nation-
states are truly being challenged by non-state actors, and this can result in
severe ruptures Of civil society (Lupsha, 1996). Cooperation among national
control bodies is vital since the police of a single nation have little chance of
success in controlling international criminal activity (Das & Kratcoski, 1999).

As never before, law-enforcement Ofﬁcers need to develop corroborative
networks and be ready to operate crime control missions in almost any
jurisdiction of the world (Cutler, 1999). Whether they use informal police-tO-police
assistance, more formal procedures, or mutual communicative technology, law
enforcement Ofﬁcers must become familiar with the country’s societal values,
culture, and human sentiments, which are, in fact, represented in the practices
and policies of law enforcement agencies. This mutual understanding can
promote better cooperation among law enforcement agencies in a global
community and eventually bring trans- or international criminals to justice more
effectively.

Recently, the U.S.- South Korean Extradition Treaty has taken effect and
the FBI has appointed a Korean-American agent as an attache at the US
Embassy in Seoul to help facilitate cooperation with South Korean investigative
authorities in controlling transnational or international crime. In addition, the two

countries are currently negotiating the revision of SOFA (Status Of Forces

Agreement) because, when American soldiers committed crimes against South
Korean nationals, South Korean law enforcement was not granted criminal
jurisdiction over these Americans until the time Of conviction. From the South
Korean perspective, many American soldiers were treated too Ieniently or the
case was not handled effectively, despite the level of seriousness surrounding
the issue. Americans tend to distrust South Korean law enforcement practices
and policies. Although the two sides have just reached a temporary agreement
that South Korean law enforcement agencies will take custody Of US. criminal
suspects at the time of indictment with the accused being assured full legal
rights, they reportedly still differ concerning which types of crime would be
included in this category and how to guarantee the legal rights of the accused.

In short, the cross-national assessment of law enforcement agencies’
investigative practices and polices may be an important stepping-stone to putting
corroborative transnational and international crime control efforts into place, as
well as for reaching full agreement between the two countries. This means that
identiﬁcation and better understanding of the differences and similarities in police
investigation process between the two nations will play a pivotal role in
developing both practical and thoretical implications for the administration of
criminal justice.

b. Developing policy alternatives

There are all sorts of variations in the way police are organized and the
way in which police policy is implemented. In the absence of comparative

studies, it is sometimes difﬁcult to ﬁnd alternatives for local problems.

Comparative, cross-national studies can take advantage Of the vast living
laboratory Of naturally occurring experiments in police policies and practices. For
example, South Korean police could learn the pros and cons Of American police
decentralization, case screening method, styles of management, strict application
of the rule Of law, and prosecutor relationships. American police could also learn
the advantages and disadvantages of close supervision Of the South Korean
police, hierarchical rank structure, police box (mini-station), competition among
ofﬁcers, national identiﬁcation system, and informal interactions with the public,
and “all case resolution policy.” In short, in the absence Of cross-national
approaches, pOssibiIities for the development of alternative police policies are
quite limited.

c. Advancement of theory

Another advantage resulting from a comparative framework in police work
is the yield of factors that shape policing enabling us to escalate study of police
from a technical specialty into a general theoretical formulation. Police work,
more speciﬁcally detective work, is generally characterized by third party conﬂict-
resolution activity. The rate Of conﬂict resolution can be explained by the
characteristics of the system, such as individualistic vs. collectivistic culture,
heterogeneous vs. homogeneous societal structure, adversary vs. compliance
traditions, and participative vs. authoritarian decision making processes.
Importance of Police Investigatiﬂ

a. Essential means for goal achievement in criminal justice

10

Four goals of criminal justice are generally agreed upon. One is to inﬂict
punishment on criminal Offenders on the grounds that they deserve the sanction
or are to blame for their conduct. Next is the dissuasion of offenders and the
general public from criminal behavior, by showing that the cost of committing
crime is sufﬁciently high. Third, the imprisonment Of Offenders is seen as
essential to preventing additional crime in the community. Finally, another goal Of
criminal justice is to cure Offenders through treatment programs so that they can
be successfully readmitted to society. These criminal justice goals are referred to
as retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. However, unless
police can identify and bring Offenders to justice through the criminal investigation
process, none Of these criminal justice goals can be achieved. Without the
apprehension of offenders, the "eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth” philosophy of
retributive justice remains unfulﬁlled. Only a slight chance Of crime detection may
not promote a signiﬁcant deterrence effect either, because, overall, there is little
probability of punishment. Even correctional intervention, such as in the form of
rehabilitation programs, can only be available to offenders after they are
identiﬁed, arrested, and brought to justice by police criminal investigation. Police
criminal investigations, therefore, are fundamental for achieving the ends Of
criminal justice.

b. Gateway function to Criminal Justice
Police investigators are largely in control of the case intake process and
exert substantial control over the criminal justice system. Police investigations

have a direct impact on the workload of forensic crime laboratories, for example,

11

because the police decide what and how much evidence is collected and sent to
labs for analysis. It is also the police investigation that provides the bulk Of the
information needed for prosecution. The quality Of detective work greatly
Inﬂuences prosecutorial positions, especially plea negotiations (Horvath & Lee,
2002, unpublished raw data). Police investigation also has a profound inﬂuence
on the workload and activities of the court system. Empirical research has shown
that the presence Of forensic evidence collected by police investigators in court
has been found to increase both the likelihood and length of incarceration
(Peterson, Mihajlovic, & Gilliland, 1984; Peterson, Ryan, Houlden, & Mihajlovic,
1987). Many legal issues generated in court are raised by the investigative
activities of the police. This gateway function to other component of criminal
justices is one of the reasons why police criminal investigation is especially
important.

c. Root source of criminal justice errors

The analogy of major errors in statistics can help us to understand the
importance of the function of the police criminal investigation. Type I errors refer
to falsely rejecting a null hypothesis that is, in fact, true, and Type II errors are
deﬁned as failing to reject a null that is, in fact, false. The former can be called
‘false positive,” the latter “false negative’.

This categorization of errors into two types helps us to understand how
errors are .made in the criminal justice system that result from the investigative
processes of the police. Wrongful decisions are made, for example, through a

suspect’s false confession induced by a police investigator, inaccurate memory

12

of witness, fraudulent forensic science, prosecutorial malpractice, or judge and
juror misperception of the presentation of evidence. In fact, many cases of
wrongful conviction are blamed on the shoddy or improper investigative practices
of the police (Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2001). When a person is wrongfully
convicted due to incorrect investigative decisions, this represents a typical
example of a Type I error. In fact, faulty eyewitness testimony often leads the
police to arrest the wrong suspect. Also, when victims and witnesses are afraid of
the possibility of retribution at the hands of the Offender, they may provide false
names and addresses. This inaccurate and unreliable information radically
attenuates the'ability of the police to make correct decisions and eventually leads
to Type II errors.

Type II errors are also common in the police criminal investigation
process. When the criminal case does not end up with conviction despite the
person’s factual guilt, it generates a Type II error. In the US, at least 50% of the
serious crimes committed are never reported to the police (Cole & Smith, 1996).
Citizen non-reporting blocks the police from information about the distribution Of
crime, and thus individual offenders go free without intervention from the "long
arm Of the law" (Skogan & Antunes, 1979), this is the primary phase where the
Type II error occurs. Furthermore, only about 20% Of reported crimes are solved
by the police in the US; in the remaining 80% of the cases the guilty party goes
free; this means that the Type II error occurs chronically. Finally, a Type II error

also occurs when prosecutors allow the Offender to go free by dropping certain

13

cases that have been processed by the police, even though, in some cases, the
party is guilty.

The sources of errors that jeopardize the administration of the criminal
justice system are deeply rooted in the phase of police criminal investigation.
Both miscarriages of justice (Type I error) and case attrition (Type II error) occur
during the police investigation process.

(I. Social integration function

The sociological literature has posited that deviance and crime are
produced by rules, societal reactions, and a transformation of self (Becker, 1963;
Erikson, 1966.; Goffman, 1963), and serve a socially integrative function
(Durkhiem, 1964; Erikson, 1966). In the legal system, social integration is mainly
implemented through government action on the part of representative agents. It
is the patrol ofﬁcer and investigator who primarily applies the rules that deﬁne
criminal acts, representing society’s Ofﬁcial response to crime. The fundamental
framework Of “informational connectedness” is built into the police investigation
process. When investigators decide not to conduct a follow-up investigation, or to
categorize a case as “unfounded,” or to re-interpret it, or even to withhold
exculpatory evidence from the defense, there is little chance for reexamination of
what investigators have made of the case (Ericson, 1981). The judge commonly
approves the warrants, release, and bail conditions that are requested by
detectives. Police investigators enable or disable other components in the
criminal justice system that serve to recognize the case and the suspect’s

personal identity for purposes Of social control.

14

Police investigators construct a suspects’ crime related past by gathering
information in narratives or dossiers. This documentation of suspects’ personal
identities is carried out and stored in ﬁles by patrol Ofﬁcers and investigators
(Wheeler, 1976). In general, through this process, suspect identities, regardless
whether adults or juvenile, are constructed and transformed into “spoiled
identities” or “master status,” resulting in a criminal or negative self-image
(Goffman, 1963). These roles and functions Of police investigation may be
necessary for the successful integration Of society, including stigmatizing deviant
segments of society.

However, this “dramatization of evil,” Ofﬁcially labeling someone as a
delinquent, can inﬂuence the person tO become even more delinquent, a fully
criminal person (Tannenbaum, 1938). A drastic change takes place in the
suspect’s public identity. When police investigators detect the suspect’s identity
and initiate a criminal investigation, the suspect’s primary deviance (Lemert,
1967) or secret deviance (Becker, 1963, p.20) become known to others, and the
deviance is no longer secret. By the time the suspect is convicted, “pre-stigma
acquaintances,” including relatives and Old friends, may have come to see him
differently (Goffman, 1963). After incarceration, the person can have intimate
contact with other inmates and they will be his or her “post-stigma
acquaintances." Thus, police criminal investigation results in stigmatization of
people either as delinquents or criminals. It is police investigators who are
responsible for this labeling in the ﬁrst place in a criminal justice system; they

represent the “societal reaction” to deviance as a front-end social control agents.

15

They notice other's “secrete deviant” and transform it to the “pure deviant;"
although they are sometimes guilty of false accusation (Becker, 1963, p.20).

e. Exemplary area for multidisciplinary approaches in Criminal Justice

Research into police criminal investigation needs to avail itself of the
resources of multidisciplinary social science for the advancement Of criminal
justice/criminology knowledge. Sociological thinking, for example, can be used
for explaining a police criminal investigation process as a subgroup interaction
that aims at constructing a suspect’s past. Participant interaction, including
police, prosecutors, forensic scientists, and public, all with different backgrounds
and purposes, and often different subcultures, may provide highly relevant topics
for sociological research.

Key concepts and research ﬁndings drawn from psychology can also
serve as the primary framework for the study of microelements Of police criminal
investigation processes. Some examples are psychological experiments
concerning the accuracy of witness’s memories, the suspect’s false confession
produced in some contexts, detective’s line-up methods, juror perceptions of
forensic expert presentation of scientiﬁc evidence, and the forensic proﬁling of a
criminals. It is obvious that a police criminal investigation is carried out on a legal
basis. Court decisions inﬂuence investigative practices and admissibility of
evidence is dependent upon legal criteria; legal studies, therefore, are a
necessary discipline in understanding police criminal investigation processes.

Of course, because police criminal investigation practice is embedded in a

police organization, the discipline Of public administration and organizational

16

theory, the management of personnel, and measurement Of productivity are all
indispensable for an understanding of a police criminal investigation. Also, as an
arm Of government, local as well as national, political ideology and democratic
values may inﬂuence police practices and policies in solving crimes within given
political contexts; accordingly, political science can also make profound
contributions to our interdisciplinary knowledge regarding the nature of a police
criminal investigation.

The principles of natural science (biology, chemistry, pathology, medicine,
etc) are also used as tools of the investigative process. Forensic science is an
especially impOrtant ﬁeld for the advancement of police investigation. Finally,
mass media study focusing on popular culture, such as detective movies and
prime time cop shows on TV, and on news content, serve to inform how the
media construct accounts Of police criminal investigation processes. The study of
media’s role may help to pinpoint and highlight differences between theoretical or
virtual detective work on the one hand, and actual detective work on the other,
providing a more accurate picture of the crime solving process. Thus, a study of
police criminal investigation processes is one of the most critical ﬁelds in criminal
justice, especially through the vibrant interplay Of multidisciplinary approaches.
Current Status of Cross-National Police Investigation Research

In spite of the above importance and the facts that many themes worthy of
research could have been catalogued and studied by social scientists, the topic
of police investigations seems to have been neglected by researchers. Prior to

the 19703, virtually no research had been carried out in this regard. Much Of what

17

we know about the police criminal investigation process comes from a Rand
Report (Greenwood, Chaiken, 8 Petersilia, 1977) and several ﬁeld studies
completed during the 19703 and early 1980s (Sanders, 1977; Ericson, 1981).
Until the recent national study Of police policies and practices regarding criminal
investigation, carried out by Horvath & Meesig (2001 ), assisted by the author, the
scope and amount Of research on investigation was limited and slim indeed,
especially when one takes into consideration the related studies on patrol/service
functions. Since little scientiﬁc attention has been paid to the area of police
criminal investigation, unfortunately, we know very little about how police manage
their criminal investigations, or understand what type Of investigative policies and
practices really work and what do not for solving more crimes. When one
examines the published articles in the major policing, criminal justice, and
criminology journals, less than 2% of research articles are devoted to the issue of
police investigation (Horvath, Lee, 8 Meesig, 2001, unpublished raw data).
Almost no research attention has been paid to an empirical study of cross-
national comparisons of police investigation, although international and
transnational law enforcement cooperation is in great demand. Clearly, ﬁndings
from the US may not be generalizable to the contexts Of other nations. Knowing
how police in other nations handle crime-solving mandates can not only assist in
developing criminal justice policy alternatives but can also make contributions to
theoretical advancement. But, unfortunately, cross-national comparative research
interests are undeveloped and there have been little progress in comparative

criminal justice courses over the past few decades (Cordner, Dammer, 8

18

Horvath, 2001). Even in international comparative journals, whose scope is
mainly in comparative criminal justice issues, less than 10 % of the total articles
focused on comparative theoretical analysis explicitly using two or more
countries (Evans, Lagrange, & Willis, 1996).

A Brief Overview of the South Korean Police and Criminal Justice System

Since very little documentation about South Korean police and criminal
justice system has been made in English, and investigative work Of police
department is closely connected to all other issues related to policing, this
subsection is devoted to providing a brief overview of the South Korean society
and the most. current information about its criminal justice agencies. The
information in this subsection is drawn from a variety of sources, such as
agencies’ Internet web pages, government documents, public information, and
personal Observation of South Korean police.

South Korea, ofﬁcially known as the Republic of Korea, is located in
northeastern Asia. It is bordered on the south by the Korean Straight, separating
it from Japan, on the north by North Korea, on the east by the East Sea, and on
the west by the Yellow Sea. The total land area of the Korean Peninsula is
220,847 square kilometers; approximately 98,477 square kilometers constitute
the territory of South Korea. Koreans are a homogeneous people who have their
own language, the alphabet for which was invented by King Sejong in the 15th
century. The total population of South Korea is 47.9 million as of 2001. Forty nine
percent of the South Korean people are Christian, 47 % are Buddhist, 3 % are

Confucianist, and 1 % have other beliefs. The GDP per capita is 16,100 dollars,

19

and major economic industries are electronics, automobile production,
chemicals, shipbuilding, steel, and textiles.

South Korea has a tripartite system Of government consisting of the
executive branch, legislature, and judiciary. The presidential candidate winning a
simple majority is elected and serves a single ﬁve-year term. The members Of
parliament are elected for four-year terms. Of the 273 seats, 227 are the result of
general elections and 46 are appointed by political parties. The Judiciary consists
of three levels of courts: the Supreme Court, High Courts, and District Courts.
There are also special courts such as Patent Court, Family Court, and
Administrative Court. In general, the South Korean legal system contains
elements of Common Law traditions and includes both inquisitorial and
adversarial aspects Of the administration of criminal justice. Explicitly written legal
codes are the primary sources of reference for criminal procedures. However,
legal culture in South Korea often takes on a traditional nature by resolving
conﬂicts informally through coordination or conciliation. The public prosecutor’s
ofﬁce is attached to the Ministry of Justice, which is one of the 22 Ministries in the
Executive branch. It consists Of the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Ofﬁce, ﬁve High
Public Prosecutor’s Ofﬁces, twelve District Public Prosecutor’s Ofﬁces and their
branches. The two-year term of the Prosecutor General, who is the head of the
Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Ofﬁce, is guaranteed by law. However, many
scandals in recent years have tainted the prosecutors’ Ofﬁce, who has received
the blame for political bias in handling several cases in which politicians were

involved. The total number Of prosecutors is about 1,190 as of 2000. The

20

Corrections Bureau, under the Ministry of Justice, has 12,300 staff members at
43 correctional facilities. The total number Of inmates is 61,457, that is, 130 per
100,000 members of the population. The age of criminal responsibility is 14. For
those under age 18, capital punishment and life imprisonment are not allowed.
Although capital punishment can be imposed for 16 types of crimes, those on
death row are typically murderers. The method of execution is hanging. The rate
for murder, robbery, rape, and theft in 2000 was 2.0, 11.4, 14.3, and 362.2 per
100,000, respectively.

The South Korean police system consists of one National Police Force,
which is organized within a national headquarters, 14 provincial police
headquarters, and police supporting institutions including the National Police
College, the Police Training Academy, the Central Police Training School, and
the National Police Hospital. Each provincial police headquarters is composed Of
several bureaus such as administration 8 planning, crime prevention, criminal
investigation, public security 8 trafﬁc, intelligence, and national security, and
responsible for the command of police stations in that provincial jurisdiction. Also,
each police station is composed of several units comparable to the above
bureaus, and an average Of 15 police branch ofﬁces (boxes), which are ﬁrst-line
organizations for patrolling and crime prevention activity in a community. The
total number Of police stations and police boxes are 230 and 2,912, respectively.
As Of 2001, the strength Of the South Korean Police Force was 146,711; 90,669
are police Ofﬁcers, 50,609 are auxiliary riot control personnel who substitute

police service for military duty, and 5,433 are civilian employees. Of the police

21

ofﬁcers, about 43 % are assigned to the police boxes. Female ofﬁcers make up
only 2.0 % of South Korean Ofﬁcers. The head of the National Police Force is the
Commissioner General, who is appointed by the President Of South Korea. The
bottom police rank is that of patrol Ofﬁcer; they are selected on the basis Of a civil
service exam. Some police personnel who graduate from the National Police
College or Police Training Academy begin their career at the rank of Inspector.
The 11 rank structure from the bottom to the top in the South Korean Police
Force is as follows; Patrol Ofﬁcer, Senior Patrol Ofﬁcer, Assistant Inspector,
Inspector, Senior Inspector, Superintendent, Senior Superintendent,
Superintendent. General, Senior Superintendent General, Chief Superintendent
General, and Commissioner General. In principle, the head Of a provincial police
headquarters, police station, and police box, is a Senior Superintendent General,
Senior Superintendent, and Inspector, respectively. Those with the rank Of
Inspector and above are considered to be executive ofﬁcers; they comprise only
about 13.5% of the Ofﬁcer corp. They have extensive administrative power in
decision-making concerning police practices. Several civil service exams are
used for the selection process for advancing in rank from patrol Ofﬁcer up to
inspector. Someone who has passed the bar exam or high-ranking civil service
exam can be appointed at the rank of superintendent. After a certain number of
required years Of service at each rank, Ofﬁcers are eligible for promotions through
either a promotion exam or supervisors’ rating and recommendations.

With respect to the role of the police, the Performance of Police Functions

Act, which was enacted in 1953, describes what South Korean police ofﬁcially

22

do. The ﬁve major functions are to: 1) prevent and investigate crimes; 2) provide
guard service for high government ofﬁcials and counteract espionage activity; 3)
collect, process, and provide information regarding public safety and security; 4)
control trafﬁc; and 5) maintain public peace and order. The act also regulates
police use Of force including weapons, tear gas, and equipment. In general,
police use of ﬁrearms is minimally allowed even when it is necessary, and it
should not be overused. According to the act, it can be justiﬁed when it is the
only means to apprehend a criminal or stop an escape, using ofﬁcers’ reasonable
judgement Of the situation. About 300 cases of police use of ﬁrearms are
reported annually. Since gun ownership in South Korea is not generally permitted
for the public, and even when permitted its usage is closely regulated by the
police, very few gun- related crimes occur. Most gunshot wounds are accidents
rather than crime related.

Over the past two years, South Korean police have tried to reform their
organization under the motto of self-regulation, creativity, and responsibility. In
fact, the major problems that the South Korean police have suffered are
characterized by the low economic status of Ofﬁcers, authoritative organizational
culture, the oppressive image of police corruption, and poor public relations
(Korean National Police Agency, 2000). The primary goals of police reform have
been not only to provide ofﬁcers with job satisfaction but also produce custom-
oriented, high quality service for citizen satisfaction. The major examples of
reform efforts have been: 1) the establishment of 3 shifts a day for patrol Ofﬁcers,

2) securing salary increases, 3) eliminating former internal affairs ofﬁces’

23

investigative documents so as to boost morale, 4) controlling demonstrations or
riots without the use of tear gas, 5) changing from regulation-oriented to
guidance-oriented trafﬁc control, 6) the campaign Of being kind, using friendly
looking police symbols, and 7) a variety of police-community public meetings.

For those who wish to ﬁle complaints concerning police practice, including
case dispositions, each provincial headquarters and police station has Opened a
separate unit to review the reported complaint and take necessary action within
24 hours. The public can make a complaint through e-mail, fax, phone, mail or
visit to the unit. The head of the unit is usually a superintendent whose ethical
reputation is cOnsidered to be the highest in the organization.

The amount of time and form Of training varies depending on the nature Of
the police education program. In general, candidates for police executive
positions or executive ofﬁcers are educated in the National Police College, and
candidates for non-executive positions are trained in the Central Training School.
The Police Training Academy educates both executive and non-executive groups
of candidates and Ofﬁcers. Before and after promotion, Ofﬁcers are required to
undergo classroom training. The National Police College provides four years of
an undergraduate program for high school graduates who pass the college
entrance exam and will become candidates for Inspector positions upon
graduation from college. The College also educates ofﬁcers at the rank of senior
inspector, superintendent, and senior superintendent. The Police Training
Academy educates the candidate for one year for an Inspector position. Most of

them already have undergraduate degrees from other universities.

24

For the rank-and-ﬂle Ofﬁcers, the Police Training Academy has various
training courses such as trafﬁc control practice, crime prevention, intelligence
practice, computer crime, international crime investigation, and riot control. The
Central Training Police School trains new police cadets for the rank of patrol
Ofﬁcer and auxiliary riot control personnel for six months. Annually, about 10
Ofﬁcers are selected for 2-year Master’s program in foreign universities and 6-
month training programs in foreign training institutions for Ofﬁcers.

Empirical research on policing and police organizations is somewhat rare
in South Korea. It may be explained by the fact that, until 1997, there was only
one university-which had an undergraduate program of police administration
(DongGuk University), except for the National Police College. Furthermore, the
demand for research on police work was weak among not only police
practitioners but also the scholars. Although approximately 70 universities have
Opened the undergraduate program of policing over the past several years, most
of them are teaching-oriented institutions concentrated on helping students to
pass the civil exams for being an ofﬁcer. Moreover, the majority of faculties are
not familiar with social science research methods. The published policing related
articles, which are found in their university’s annual collection of theses, do not
usually contain methodology, data analysis, and research ﬁndings. Instead, their
approach is often suggestive argument based upon only anecdotal information.
Thus, despite the current need for the use of research-based knowledge
regarding policing and police organization in South Korean, it is not easy to

locate researchers who have conducted empirical studies of police work.

25

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

In spite Of the importance of police criminal investigations as described in
the previous chapter, little scientiﬁc attention has been paid to the area of police
criminal investigative processes; thus, we do not know much about how police
manage their criminal investigations, nor do we understand what type of
investigative policies and practices really work to enhance police investigative
effectiveness, and what do not.

With respect to police criminal investigation effectiveness, two competing
schemes of underlying values in the processing of criminal cases need to be
taken into consideration: “crime control” and “due process.” As Herbert Packer
(1968) proposed, the “due process” model insists on the prevention and
elimination of mistakes to the extent possible, while the “crime control” model,
accepts error rates and put an emphasis on the goal of repressing crime because
they believe that too many guilty people are escaping. These competing values
in the models implies that the administration of justice often struggles to strike a
balance between meeting the needs of society at the same time that individual
rights are protected. This means that an increase in system efﬁciency does not
necessarily invite legal sufﬁciency, but police policies that have some oppressive
mode may be effective at solving crimes.

In this chapter, after police criminal investigation is deﬁned, literatures
concerning major polices and practices in the police criminal investigation
process will be reviewed. An attempt to typify those policies will be made working

with the categories of enforcement vs. libertarian oriented policing insofar as they

26

are effective in solving crimes. Possible explanations of why some investigative
practices and policies are more or less effective than others will be also provided.
Conceptualization of Police Criminal Investigation

Police criminal investigation is a process which can be broadly deﬁned as
the information gathering efforts by law enforcement to construct a suspect’s
crime related past, using the intelligence produced by many participants in the
criminal justice system (Meesig, Lee, 8 Horvath, in press). Major participants in
the ﬁeld of crime investigations are victims, suspects, witnesses, patrol ofﬁcers,
informants, detectives, supervisors, forensic scientists, prosecutors, and crime
reporters. Their interactions and relationships make up the police criminal
investigation process. The police play an especially key role in the collection and
use of information to solve crimes, although crimes are difﬁcult to solve unless
the victims can supply adequate information to an ofﬁcer who responds
immediately (Greenwood, Chaiken, 8 Petersilia, 1977).

A police criminal investigation usually begins with the public’s decision to
report a crime to the police; it is then subject to a prosecutor’s legal evaluation,
and eventually culminates in the court’s judgement. Through the interaction
between police and other participants in this process, “crime” information is
produced, processed, stored, and later retrieved, in the process of determining
the “truth.” Since the criminal investigation process has the competing goals of
“crime control” and “due process” (Packer, 1968), it Often struggles to strike a
balance between protecting society, on the one hand, and individual rights on the

other. Under the Anglo-American legal system, it is often seen as necessary to

27

let a party that is presumed guilty go free rather than deprive that person’s liberty.
By contrast, nations with an inquisitorial legal system will tend to attach greater
importance to a determination of factual rather than legal guilt.

Except for proactive investigation such as undercover work (Marx, 1988),
it is the crime-reporting behavior of the public that usually opens the door to a
police criminal investigation. Many crimes go largely unnoticed without the
decision by the public to report the crime and by the police to record it. According
to the National Crime Victimization Survey, in the US, only 36 % of all the
crimes are reported and the ﬁgure is even lower for South Korea. This is a
product Of different social contexts. In South Korea, people tend to prefer to
resolve conﬂicts informally and the police often fail to Ofﬁcially record all reported
crimes. Public crime-reporting behavior and police crime recording practices may
also vary between rural and urban areas within both nations.

After both public and police determine to handle the criminal incident
Ofﬁcially through reporting and recording, a considerable number of cases may
not be investigated when police organization uses formal case screening
methods, which put aside unsolvable cases, taking into account availability of
suspect’s name, witnesses, and evidence. Even when police decide to conduct a
follow-up investigation, their scope and motivation of investigation may vary by
cases’ social status. The cases which receive more media attention may be more
likely to make detective efforts available to them. The effort that police, forensic
scientists, and prosecutors, put into generating evidence by investigation is not

constant across cases (Sanders, 1977; Black, 1980). The police Often treat some

28

cases as "big" and investigate them in considerable detail (Ericson, 1981 ). Those
cases often involve a media celebrity, high proﬁle person, or political leader in a
community. When socially respectable people of high economic status are
victimized, detectives are more likely to "seek physical evidence such as
ﬁngerprints, tire tracks, and hair samples at the scene of the crime, interview
large numbers Of potential witnesses and informants, and conduct extensive
interrogations, polygraph ("lie detector") test" (Black 1980). For ordinary cases
are against ordinary citizens, less dramatic investigative efforts may be allotted
(Cooney, 1994).

To make detective efforts more effective both from a legal point of view
and in terms of quantity of cases resolved, police organizations employ a variety
of policies and practices. Police may improve their performance, for example,
through effective selection criteria and processes when choosing ofﬁcers who
become investigators (Cohen 8 Chaiken, 1987). Investigator training, case
management by immediate supervisors, recording of interrogation of suspects,
team policing, and the use of task forces, may also have a great impact on the
level Of success of police criminal investigations. Although some research in the
19705 concluded that differences in training, stafﬁng, and workloads in police
organization have little effect on crime, arrest, or clearance rates (Greenwood,
Chaiken, 8 Petersilia, 1977), recent improvement of police education,
management strategy, and physical evidence processing capabilities may lead to

an improvement in the overall effectiveness of police investigations.

29

One important characteristic of police criminal investigation is the police
organization’s relational nature with other organizations such as prosecutor’s
Ofﬁce and crime lab. In processing criminal cases, a police investigator frequently
interacts with prosecutor. The quality Of police work determines, to a
considerable extent, what the prosecutors are able to do with those whom the
police arrest since police investigative activities provide the bulk of information
used for prosecution. Cases investigated by the police are often dropped by the
prosecutor’s ofﬁce when witnesses are classiﬁed as uncooperative or evidence is
deemed insufﬁcient. Since the immediate goals and tasks of the police and
prosecutor ofﬁces are quite different, they may view the process of ﬁling charges
quite differently. The police criteria of "probable cause," for example, may be
seen as insufﬁcient for the prosecutor, who applies criteria based on the concept
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, it is not surprising that a
prosecutor's review of police reports tends to weed out weak cases.

With respect to interaction between the police and their crime labs,
unfortunately, there is often a lack of communication and collaboration in the
processing of physical evidence. Although forensic science technology has made
great advances over the past few decades, putting this technology to work is still
the responsibility of police investigators. Because police themselves ”not only
determine what evidence the scientist examines, but also limit the types Of
analyses that may be performed on the evidence and the types of questions to
which the scientist may seek answers“ (Peterson, Mihajlovic, 8 Gilliland, 1986),

the forensic scientist’s role in processing evidence is limited. However, the value

30

of physical evidence rests on the detective's or forensic scientist’s ability to
"interpret" it. This means that physical evidence must be connected to a criminal
act by interpreting it within the context of the crime (Horvath 8 Meesig, 1996).
This linkage between a piece of physical evidence and a criminal act needs to be
co-determined by both police investigators and forensic scientists.

In short, police criminal investigations are information processing activities
that transpire through interaction between police and other related participants in
the administration of justice that are designed to determine the legal truth
involved in each case. In this process, some policies are designed to solve more
crimes, others to serve other police functions.

Organizational Properties for Police Criminal lnvesﬁqations

In police criminal investigation process, an emphasis of some policies may
serve to enhance investigative efﬁciency, other policies may be directed towards
other policing goals, such as protection of individual rights or community
satisfaction.

According to Wilson (1968), the inter-organizational variations of arrest
rates for larceny, juvenile, public intoxication, disorder, and assault are related to
police department styles such as legalistic, watchman, and service styles. He
also posited that the legalistic police organizations are generally characterized by
strict and aggressive law enforcement, a number of special squads, high degrees
of bureaucratization, and further detachment from the communities in which they
Operate. In contrast, watchman and service style police departments have fewer

specialized units, informal interventions through conciliation, fewer incentives to

31

reward ofﬁcer performance, small agency size, and are more dependent on the
communities they serve. In short, the “legalistic style“ of policing is characterized
by a stricter adherence to criminal law, while the “service/watchman styles” Of
policing trumpet a less confrontational philosophy.

Because the nature of police investigation is to enforce the criminal law by
identifying and arresting offenders with some level of restraint Of public, the
“liberal policing oriented properties,” which are, in fact, designed to control those
police activities, may not be effective in solving crimes. Rather, the “liberal
policing oriented properties” may be counterproductive to clearing more cases.
And enforcement-oriented characteristics, on the other hand, may be
advantageous to organizational productivity of criminal investigation.

Contrary to the research conclusions of the Rand study (Greenwood et al.,
1977), this study seeks to demonstrate the way in which organizational
properties do have an effect on the level of effectiveness of police criminal
investigations. Interestingly, the Rand study reported that police organizational
policies and practices do not have a signiﬁcant effect on investigative outcomes
(Greenwood, Chaiken 8 Petersilia, 1977). This observation is, however, contrary
to the bulk of other research concerned with police organizations that does
indicate that the characteristics of police organizations play important roles in
shaping department output and performance. Many studies have shown that
police functions are greatly inﬂuenced by organizational characteristics, including
processes, policies, design, management, subculture, agency size, legal

constraints, relationship with the public, and jurisdictional location (Skolnick,

32

1994; Herbert, 1998; Ostrom, Parks, 8 Whitaker, 1978; Sherman, 1980; Eck,
1983 ; Maguire, Kuhns, Uchida, 8 Cox, 1997; Weisheit 8 Donnermeyer, 2000).

Also, ethnographic studies of detective work in Canada and Japan have
observed that police investigations are greatly inﬂuenced by the organization of
their working environment. Ericson (1981) described detective work in Canada as
the routine gathering and the manipulation of information, people, and rules in
order to produce desired outcomes. He stressed that, in order to understand
police criminal investigations, an analysis of organization is necessary because
detectives use organizational “recipes” or rules, which makes their work more or
less predictable. In Japan, Miyazawa (1992) reported that detectives are greatly
preoccupied with case clearance statistics, and that there is a considerable
amount Of competition between them to solve crimes. He explained that the
internal reward system of the Japanese police organizations encourages internal
pressure for higher productivity.

In short, most of the literature on policing is in agreement that organization
of police departments plays a critical role in their activities and outputs, and that
organizational policies are developed in accordance with a department’s
adaptation to a given environment. Some police organizations may emphasize
the importance of patrol/service functions, while others tend to more ﬁrmly
embrace principles/goals of efﬁciency of the law enforcement function. In this
study, Wilson’s typology of a police organization serves as a basic framework for
an assessment of police investigative effectiveness. The relationship of police

organizations with other criminal justice agencies is included in the concept of

33

“enforcement-oriented properties” and/or “liberal policing oriented properties,”
because criminal investigations Often require interaction and cooperation among
many criminal justice organizations. Thus, these conceptual ideas can be used to
explain police departments’ criminal investigative effectiveness in the US. and
South Korea.
Enforcement Oriented Properties

3. Clearance rates as a performance indicator

Clearance rates are deﬁned as the number of cases resolved by the arrest
of an Offender or by an exceptional resolution in a period Of time divided by the
number of crimes reported to the police. When police departments place a high
value on Clearance rates, with an internal control system that rewards Ofﬁcers
who distinguish themselves in their investigative practice and performance, this
tends to lead to a higher percentage of crimes being solved (Miyazawa, 1992;
Simon, 1991). In South Korea, clearance rates are used to monitor the
performance of detectives, as in Japan (Miyazawa, 1992). Sanders (1977) and
Simon (1991) have observed that there is also pressure on and competition
among individual American investigators and investigative units to improve their
record at solving crimes. As Black (1970) has argued, “rates” are “social facts”
like other social statistics. This implies that a department’s emphasis on
clearance rates may represent the level of its determination to solve crimes. As
Miyazawa (1992) found with respect to Japan, pressure from supervisors and the
organization in general heightens investigators” motivation to improve clearance

statistics, even employing somewhat more aggressive tactics towards that end.

34

Although this standard of efﬁciency tends to undermine the due process of law
and sometimes basic standards of justice (Skolnick, 1994), it may have a positive
inﬂuence on the number Of crimes that are solved.

b. Cold case unit

It is true that the ﬁrst 48 to 72 hours are critical to solving a serious crime
(Eck, 1983; Keppel 8 Weis, 1994). If criminal cases are not solved within 48
hours, the chance of being solved drop greatly (Eck, 1992). However, by
establishing a squad to work exclusively on unsolved cases, police agencies may
be able to identify new leads and additional witness. Since the unit usually is
composed Of veteran detectives in a police organization (Regini, 1997) and
reactivates Old investigation with modern forensic capabilities, it may contribute
to overall organizational productivity of criminal investigation. Especially when a
unit of investigators is concentrated only on unsolved cases, effectiveness Of the
unit may increase.

0. Detachment from the public

The more police perceive that they have problems in their relationship with
the public, such as public mistrust and problems with the media, the greater the
social distance between police and public. The consequences of this police
isolation or cynical sentiments may not necessarily have a negative inﬂuence on,
at least, police criminal investigative productivity. Manning (1997, p.113) points
out that: “If police action is thought to require the occasional or regular
harassment and surveillance of some groups, maintaining distance from these

segments of society should be of assistance when police are required to act

35

against them.” Radelet 8 Carter (1994, p.189) have argued that a certain degree
Of cynicism is desirable for police Ofﬁcers because they need to question
suspicious actions and not be gullible. In fact, in order to achieve higher
productivity at solving crimes, greater amounts of investigative citizen/police
encounters are necessary, encounters that Often involve arrest-oriented
dispositions and action. Thus, a certain level of distance between police and the
public may result in higher levels of organizational productivity of criminal
investigation.

According to Wilson (1968), police departments that adhere to a legalistic
style characterized by strict and aggressive law enforcement, are relatively
independent from the community in which they operate. When such
organizational properties in a police department are dominant, it may result in
employing somewhat aggressive “normative orders" (Herbert, 1998).

d. Case screening method

Police departments that use the case screening method defend its
implementation as an efﬁcient use of detective resources in accordance with the
mission of law enforcement, and believe that it can be helpful for making police
investigations more productive. The formalized case screening method is a
technique which uses different case factors and criteria related to case solvability
to determine whether a case should be pursued or screened out (Eck, 1979).
Although case screening may be common among American police departments,
the South Korean police have a “all crime solving policy,” and the police are not

allowed to screen out any cases.

36

One of the rationales behind the method in the US. is that, unless
witnesses, physical evidence, or other elements that are generally needed to
help solve a case, the chances of solving the crime are very low; thus, it is much
wiser not to pursue the investigation, thereby wasting precious investigative
resources. American police authorities tend to hold the view that attempting to
please every citizen will have a negative impact on investigative efforts overall,
which could instead be focused on the clearing of cases where crimes are clearly
solvable.

According to Eck (1983), the “Whodunit” case lacking solvability factors
can not be eaSily cleared with reasonable detective efforts. However, Bizzack
(1991) contended that when a large number of cases referred to investigators are
not actively followed up, and are screened out from any further investigation,
some citizens may be disappointed because nothing was done on their case.
The focus of this policy is geared toward the law enforcement purpose only
concentrating on the efﬁciency of detective efforts. Although this method may
raise questions of fairness in solving crimes, when many cases reported and
recorded are completely excluded from investigation and end up with nothing, it
may be effective, at least, in solving a greater number Of crimes.

e. Ownership of A.F.I.S.

Ericson 8 Haggerty (1997) have deﬁned modern police functions as the
collection, analysis and processing of crime-related information. With respect to
collecting and processing physical evidence, the Rand study (1977)

recommended that the allocation of greater resources to the processing

37

capabilities of the department can result in more identiﬁcations of criminal
Offenders. This suggestion was based on the observation that the vast majority Of
ﬁngerprints taken were simply stored and never used, as a result of under-
developed technology. Although a “cold search,” the laborious process of
manually matching prints to those on ﬁnger print cards, has long been a common
method in small department; it is nearly impossible in large departments with
large collections Of ﬁngerprints. Over the past three decades, however, great
advances have been made in the areas of forensic science, communications,
and technology, which help the police to Operate more effectively. When crime
related information is made available to police investigators in a computerized
and easily accessible manner, the value of the information collected by various
individual elements in a police agency may be greatly enhanced. The A.F.I.S. is
of great help in identifying criminal offenders and solving crimes since it is
capable Of automatically looking for matches between latent and actual prints.

f. Team policing approach

Block 8 Bell (1976) refer to team policing as “decentralized investigative
work.” This entails detectives being assigned at the neighborhood level, forming
area teams that take responsibility for investigative and patrol duties around the
clock. There is a fairly clear division Of work between patrol Ofﬁcers and
investigators in South Korea; nevertheless, some departments assign
investigators to area locations, and, thus, they interact and share information

about the area with patrol ofﬁcers. South Korean detectives Often use the phone

38

and fax machines, and obtain crime-related information from patrol ofﬁcers in
police boxes which cover their assigned areas.

This type of police organization is very similar to liberal policing programs
such as community policing, in the sense that both focuses on decentralizing
organizational structures based on the neighborhood level. According to
Sherman, Milton, 8 Kelly (1973) and Walker (1993), team policing seeks to
improve crime ﬁghting through more effective police organization and a better
relationship with the neighborhood. Walker (1993) stresses the importance of the
fact that team policing represents a means to an end for improving criminal law
enforcement by. facilitating and enhancing the ﬂow of valuable information into a
department. If team policing does indeed represent a “crime attack model,” rather
than a “community service model,” it may be effective in solving more crimes.

g. Task forces with other agencies

The underlying premise of a task force is that increasing a department’s
relational properties through cross-jurisdictional communication and cooperation
may increase investigative productivity. While illegal drug trafﬁcking is the most
frequent target in the US, task forces are also used to handle other types Of
crime problems. Especially when the efforts of single departments are quite
limited, the use of investigative task forces involving more than one agency is
seen as highly effective at solving crimes. Well coordinated cooperation between
law enforcement agencies is Often able to overcome jurisdictional limitations,

result in greater efﬁciency. Smith, Novak, Frank, 8 Travis III (2000), for example,

39

found that the membership in a drug task force was effective in enhancing
enforcement productivity.

In South Korea, law enforcement agencies are nationally organized and
under central control. This uniform and strict chain of command may make it
easier to coordinate investigative operations. Yet, even though there is high
centralization, there is still high level Of competition between individual
departments and amongst individual ofﬁcers that hinders effective cooperation,
because they have interests in promoting themselves to gain promotion. This is
common in Asian countries such as in Japan (Miyazawa, 1992). The excessive
competition can sometimes turn out to be a major factor resulting in the failure to
catch criminals in South Korea.

h. Crime laboratory service

Crime laboratories in general assist and support criminal investigation by
applying scientiﬁc principles to the area of legal process and search for the truth
(Peterson, Mihajlovic, 8 Bedrosian, 1985). When law enforcement can
collaborate with forensic science, the administration of justice is able to complete
the quest for accuracy and fairness. To the police, crime laboratory’s forensic
services are supportive tools to establish the case, and prosecutors also need
them to present in court (Peterson, Mihajlovic, 8 Gilliland, 1984).

With respect to laboratory caseloads in the US, Peterson (1985) found
that drug and ﬁngerprints made up 60-80% (Peterson et al., 1985). Horvath 8
Meesig (1996) reported that “physical evidence is not collected in most cases

investigated by the police; when it is collected, much of it is not scientiﬁcally

4O

analyzed; and when it is analyzed, it is used not to promote investigative
efﬁciency, but rather to bolster prosecutorial proceedings”. The weight of
importance of forensic evidence may vary according to the stage of investigation.
This may be due to the fact that most crimes are solved through testimonial
evidence such as confession and eyewitnesses’ accounts. Thus, crime lab
service may not have much inﬂuence on police investigative productivity, as to
the degree that people assume (Horvath 8 Meesig, 1996).
l__iberal Policing Oriented Properties

3. Community policing

Over the past two decades, community policing has emerged as the
dominant strategy of American policing. Although scholars have yet to agree on a
singular deﬁnition, Mastrofski, Worden, 8 Snipes (1995) summarized community
policing according to three basic elements. The ﬁrst is the “broken window”
approach, as developed by Wilson 8 Kelling (1982). Here, the focus is on a
reduction of disorder and the reinforcement of the community’s own informal
control mechanisms (Wilson 8 Kelling, 1982). The second aspect is to build a
community approach that is oriented towards preventive police activity and victim
assistance efforts (Trojanowicz 8 Bucqueroux, 1994). The third aspect involves
Goldstein’s problem oriented approach, according to which the primary function
of the police is to ﬁnd solutions to community problems (Goldstein, 1979).

The common ground with these approaches is that handling disorder
becomes the central police mandate. In other words, police are expected to look

further than the immediate reasons for crime and identify the underlying causes

41

of community problems that result in crime (Goldstein, 1979). This community
policing movement can be integrated into investigation by prioritizing cases
based on local area problems or by working with citizens on community outreach.
As emphasized by Walker (1993), however, the objectives of community policing
“explicitly reject the crime attack model” and this non-law-enforcement function
may very well not have a direct, positive inﬂuence on organizational productivity
of criminal investigation.

b. Recording of police-suspect interrogation

Bedau 8 Radelet (1987) found that false confessions lead to wrongful
convictions primarily by police misconduct. Leo 8 Ofshe (1998) also identiﬁed
that the wrongful arrest, prosecution, conviction, and incarceration of the
innocent is initially led by police-induced false confessions. To prevent
deprivation of the innocents’ liberty from miscarriages of justice, Leo 8 Ofshe
(1998) proposed that police should be required to video- or audio- record the
entire police interrogation. According to them, the existence of records of the
custodial interrogations can create an object record of process so that police,
prosecutors, defense lawyer, judges, and juries can review at any time. Although
the use Of videotaping in criminal interrogations was not empirically examined,
the Police Executive Research Forum’s preliminary report (Geller, 1993) noted
that police believe that videotaping has contributed to improvements in
interrogation, primarily because of better preparation by investigators who are
aware that their interrogation technique will be viewed by not only their

supervisors but also those outside the police, and, thus, fewer allegations of

42

coercion are made by defense attorney. However, the report also indicated that
some agencies worried that taping would discourage certain effective
interrogation tactics. Thus, the requirement Of recording interrogations may inhibit
high organizational productivity Of criminal investigation.

c. Collective bargaining unit for investigators

American labor law and American practices of police management make
unions essential to police organizations in the US (Kleismet, 1989). Although
unionism has decreased in the private sector, it is increasing in the public sector
in the US. (Freeman, 1986). According to a LEMAS survey, about three-fourths
of municipal police departments and half Of all sheriffs’ departments are
unionized. Carter 8 Sapp (1992) reported that negotiations between law
enforcement management and labor have counterbalanced each other over the
past decade and have approached a level of homeostasis (Carter 8 Sapp, 1992).

Since important police organizational issues concerning wages, working
hours, grievance procedures, and other conditions of employment are subject to
collective bargaining, the presence of a union may exert an enormous inﬂuence
on police organizational culture and policing services. Walker (1999) noted that
police unions have improved ofﬁcers' salaries and beneﬁts and diminished the
power of police chiefs, but unions have often Opposed organizational changes
that would result in better public relations and hindered the implementation Of
community policing programs. According to case studies by Magenau 8 Hunt
(1989), police unions have attempted to secure greater authority through the

authorization to carry weapons and the use of deadly force for rank and ﬁle

43

police Ofﬁcers. With respect to the relationship between police unionization and
productivity, Feuille, Hendricks, 8 Delaney (1983) found that police unionization
was positively linked to decreasing crime rates but had no relationship to
clearance rates. If the presence of a police union increases the political power of
rank and ﬁle ofﬁcers, who are given greater powers, then organizational
productivity of criminal investigation would likely decrease, as a result of loose
supervision Of investigators.

(1. Education requirements as investigator selection criteria

Whether or not college-educated police ofﬁcers perform better than those
without a college degree has been a long-standing debate in the study Of law
enforcement agencies (Carter, Sapp, 8 Stephens, 1989; Buerger, 1998). In 1967,
the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
recommended that police ofﬁcers earn college credits: “The idea that police
ofﬁcers should be college educated has become a cornerstone of the movement
to professionalize the police since ﬁrst suggested by August Vollmer" (Sherman,
1978). Carter et al. (1989) stated that the beneﬁt of a college education is to
provide ofﬁcers with the ability to handle ambiguous situations with greater
creativity. Shernock (1992) found that college-educated Ofﬁcers tend to be less
authoritative and less cynical. The question here, however, is to what extent
college education can contribute to Ofﬁcers’ abilities to solve crimes. Because
they may be relatively more oriented towards the police service style philosophy
than more oppressive forms of law enforcement, a higher level of education may

actually decrease organizational productivity of criminal investigation.

e. Prosecutor relationship

Greenberg 8 Wasserman (1979) and Regan, Nalley, 8 White (1979))
have indicated that many police agencies and prosecutor’s ofﬁces ﬁnd it difﬁcult
to work together on a long-term basis in prosecuting crimes, because each has
different professional perspectives concerning criminal investigations. Police use
the “probable cause” principle for investigative criterion, whereas prosecutors use
the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt” for evaluating investigative activity.
How frequently and closely they work together may affect the ability of police to
solve crimes, because one of the roles Of prosecutors is that of an “overseer of
the police,” prOSecutors’ priorities may reinforce their relationship with the police
for better or for worse.

The Rand study reported that key evidentiary facts, which enable the
prosecutor to Obtain a conviction, are not consistently and thoroughly
documented by many police investigators. The police failure to thoroughly
document cases Often results in a higher case dismissal rate and a weaker plea
bargaining position for prosecutors in the US. (Greenwood 8 Petersilia, 1975,
pp. vii, ix). TO address this problem and exert greater control over police
investigations, the Rand study suggested that agencies “place post-arrest (i.e.,
suspects in custody) investigations under the authority of the prosecutor"
(Greenwood 8 Petersilia, 1975, p. xii). Interestingly, South Korean police
investigations are always conducted under the supervision of the prosecutor, as

the Rand study (Greenwood 8 Petersilia, 1975) recommended.

45

The South Korean prosecutor has legal and formal responsibility for
criminal investigation from initiation to Ofﬁcial closure of a case, and the police
are seen as a subordinate agency that assists the prosecutor. South Korean
prosecutors Often become highly concerned over police misconduct, especially
when this may make it difﬁcult tO successfully prosecute a case, as a result of a
failure of the police adequately to protect a suspect’s legal rights, or the lack Of
awareness on the part of police of how to apply the principles Of criminal law,
especially when prosecutors do not play an active role in supervising police
investigations. However, South Korean police investigators of today do not want
tO feel inferior to and controlled by prosecutors; the police think that they are
sufﬁciently well trained and that there is no reason why their investigations

should be supervised by prosecutors.

46

CHAPTER THREE
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMPARISON

In order to understand the similarities and differences between the US.
and South Korea with respect to police criminal investigations a systematic,
conceptual framework is necessary. Unfortunately, however, there is little that
could appropriately be referred to as theory in criminal justice (Bernard 8 Engel,
2001). Few attempts have been made to develop systematic theories in the ﬁeld
of criminal justice (Hagan, 1989). An effort is made in this study, therefore, to
develop a criminal justice theory by synthesizing Bronfenbreuner's human
ecological model, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, and classical sociology theory
with respect to rural/urban areas. An integration of these theoretical perspective
serves as a basis for comparing and contrasting police investigations in these
two nations. Although the theoretical model in this study is designed to explain
the organizational levels of police criminal investigative effectiveness in these two
countries, it can also be utilized for comparing other criminal justice agencies in
the two countries, including the prosecutor’s ofﬁce, the court, and correctional
facilities. As Benard and Engel (2001) have suggested, a construction of criminal
justice theory should focus on one type Of dependent variable such as the
individual, organizational, or aggregate level of societal characteristics. Then,
explanatory variables should be able to conceptually encompass criminal justice
system components (Bernard 8 Engel, 2001 ).

This section will examine how police organizations and police criminal

investigative policies are inﬂuenced by their social environments, such as the

47

national culture (macro-system) and the characteristics of rural/urban community
(exo-system).
Police Investigation and Social Environments

The human ecologist Bronfenbrenner has outlined four environments that
pertain to the individual, based on the idea of interaction between the organism
and the external world: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem. He sees the human ecological system as representing the mutual
accommodation between person and environment. And, his model takes into
consideration the way in which the process is affected by the larger context in
which these environments or settings are embedded (Bronfenbrenner, 1993).
This kind of holistic viewpoint emphasizes the conﬁgurations which surround
individual development (Barker, 1978). Although this idea was initially developed
to understand how children’s surroundings affect their behavior and
development, the ecosystem model can also prove to be a valuable tool for
assessing the signiﬁcance of a detective’s working environment. Because this
model constructs a complex picture Of a person’s environment, it helps to
illuminate how detectives are embedded in national and community frameworks
through their organizational performance in working to solve crimes. This
framework provides a conceptualization of the environments that inﬂuence
detective work, taking into account important social environmental factors that
transcend the immediate context of detectives as well police investigative

practices in general.

48

According to this human ecosystem model, the microsystem refers to the
immediate environment in which a person's dyadic proximal processes take
place. It involves the roles, activities, and interpersonal relations experienced by
a person in a particular face-to-face setting: the particular physical, social, and
symbolic features that invite, permit, or inhibit, engagement of more complex
interactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22; 1993, p.15). Detective work is Often
described as a clerical business (Klockars, 1980; Ericson 8 Haggerty, 1997) and
it does, in fact, take place on a face-tO-face basis (Greenwood et al., 1977; Eck,
1983). Police investigators' primary production is typically a written account of a
particular caseClearance. Almost one half of a detective’s time is spent in the
ofﬁce (Ericson, 1981, p. 45). Media depictions Of a detective as a brilliant ofﬁcer
who solves crimes through superior intuition, acute intellectual reasoning powers,
or remarkable physical activity are not generally accurate. One of the typical
examples of a microsystem for a detective is the setting of interrogating a
suspect or interviewing victims and witnesses. The degree of importance
ascribed to the crime resolution rate as a performance appraisal by a detective's
supervisor is another example of an investigator’s microsystem. Also,
departmental policies which are directly related to an individual investigator’s
status and interests, such as certain requirements for becoming an investigator
or those that involve union protection are other examples of microsystems.

According to this model, the ﬁrst phase beyond the setting of the person’s
immediate behavior is the mesosystem, which represents the linkage between

two or more microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.25). For instance, an

49

interconnection between police departments through the development of a
taskforce is a mesosystem for a detective. An indirect link between a police
organization and a crime laboratory taking place through an evidence technician
represents another mesosystem for a detective. Also, an inter-setting between
patrol and detective units, the level Of collaboration between a police department
and the community, or the relationship between an entire police department and
the prosecutor’s Ofﬁce also represent mesosystem environments. These kinds Of
organizational interactions in the police investigation process have synergistic
effects and inﬂuence a detective in his/her handling of crimes.

The next phase, outside the mesosystem, is referred to as an exosystem,
comprising a setting in which a person is not an active participant, but, by or
through which he or she is still affected (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.25). This
system encompasses the linkage and processes that take place between two or
more settings. A given individual is not located within only one setting; rather,
events occur that inﬂuence processes that have an impact on the immediate
setting in which the person is located (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 227). A local
ethos is one example of a mesosystem for a police investigator. Rural/urban
settings, in particular, may have a great inﬂuence on the contexts in which a
detective is located. Supreme Court rulings or legislative actions that inﬂuence a
detective’s investigative activity are other examples of detective’s mesosystems.
Although aidetective is neither an active participant in forming a local mentality
nor an important actor in the rule making process, these surrounding conditions

have a signiﬁcant impact on detective work. In this study, one of the focuses is on

50

the rural/urban distinction as it applies to the environment in which police
investigation takes place.

Finally, the most remote source of inﬂuence on a person’s immediate
environment is the macrosystem, which is characterized by the beliefs, ideology,
political system, and societal values Of a given culture (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p.
26). A social system is composed of people and the nature of their association
over time (Martin 8 O'connor, 1989, p.38). Members of a social system create
and share experiences, viewpoints, goals, cultures, and collective memories. In a
non-cohesive social system, the component parts and subsystems are only
weakly interrelated, retaining a high measure of independence. In contrast, a
highly cohesive system facilitates integration and compliance among its
members. The American social environment or system, for example, is
characterized by a great deal of ethnic heterogeneity, adversarial traditions,
individualistic customs, and a low level of social networking whereas South
Korean society, in contrast, is very homogeneous, stresses the virtue of
compliance, tends towards group oriented values, and has a high level of social
networking.
lgﬂuLence of Macro-System on me Police: A Comparative Persgegﬂe

One Of the major prominent frameworks used over the past couple of
decades for understanding culture has been Hofstede's (19803) typology of
cultural dimensions. This typology provides a rationale for cross-cultural
comparisons. Hofstede deﬁned culture as the "collective mental programming”

which distinguishes one society from another. His original work described four

51

cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty
avoidance, and masculinity/femininity. According to his map of cultural
dimensions, relative to South Korea, the US is lower in power distance, more
individualistic, lower in uncertainty avoidance, and more masculine. These
characteristics of national cultures inﬂuence police organization and practices,
including criminal investigations.

a. Inﬂuence of “power distance”

Power distance in Hofstede's typology involves the extent to which people
tend to accept unequal distributions of power in society and organizations. Large
power distance countries are more tolerant of hierarchical and centralized
leadership structures than small power distance countries. Subordinates are
afraid to disagree with superiors when the degree Of power distance is vast; but,
when it is minimal, "subordinates will quite readily approach and contradict their
bosses” (Hofstede, 1991 ). The culture of small power distance in the US. results
in a certain level of fragmentation of police forces, with executive Ofﬁcers
exercising only limited authority over lower ranking ofﬁcers, and a horizontal
relationship between police and the prosecutor’s Ofﬁce. By contrast, the culture of
large power distance in South Korea helps to explain the centralized, hierarchical
features of police organizations, authoritarian styles of leadership, and vertical
interactions between the police and the prosecutor's ofﬁce.

In South Korea, all police organizations and Ofﬁcials are centralized and
located within a strict pyramid structure with rigid superior-subordinate

relationships, which are divided by eleven ranks, from the General Commissioner

52

at Korean National Police Headquarters down to the patrolman on the beat in
local areas. There is a one-way, downward, direction of communication in the
form of orders, which emphasizes the authoritarian nature Of the organization.
Although provincial police directors supervise and control the police stations in
their jurisdictions, they cannot move or assign duties to police Chiefs. In principle,
the General Commissioner in the Korean National Police headquarters makes
every rule and policy, and local police agencies are quick to implement them and
they do so in uniform ways. In contrast, American law enforcement is highly
diversiﬁed, with a fragmented nature. The state police have no authority over
local police departments. The rank of police Chief in a local area does not mean
that the rank is lower than that of the Commissioner of the state police; there are
no hierarchies or vertical relationships between police organizations. More than
18,000 law enforcement agencies have their own polices and procedures under
autonomous command, uncoordinated by any centralized institution. In fact this
non-cohesive character even makes it difﬁcult to count the number of police in
the US (Bayley, 1992, p.512; Geller 8 Morris, 1992, p.245; Maguire 8 Snipes,
1998). Unfortunately, one result of this degree of local autonomy among US.
police forces is an occasional lack of effective communication, which sometimes
causes problems. The events of Sept. 11 reveal certain problems involved in the
lack of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement agencies in terms
of distributing critical information quickly. Because Of bureaucratic and
technological barriers between law enforcement agencies, information sharing is

sometimes blocked. When new alerts concerning terrorist threats were issued by

53

the FBI. in the wake of Sept. 11, they were not effectively distributed to local
police in the US; generally speaking, local police found out about these alerts
through the national news media, such as CNN, rather than from the federal
government. Taking into consideration the quintessential aspects of police
criminal investigations—information-collection, -process, and -production, the
relatively uncoordinated structure of American police forces may be
disadvantageous for catching criminals and taking prompt action against crime,
especially when crime occurs across various jurisdictions. In contrast, a country
with a highly centralized police system such as South Korea has the advantage
Of being able. to share and distribute critical information more efﬁciently,
throughout the entire country, being quick to respond to emergent situations on a
national level.

The cultural tradition of large power distance and acceptance of
hierarchical relations in an organization do not allow a detective to use much
individual discretion in the handling of a case. The responsibility for decision-
making is delegated to supervisors, not ofﬁcers. Ofﬁcial rules and regulations in
South Korean police departments prohibit lower ranking ofﬁcers from making
particular decisions. Thus, police investigators need to call and get approval from
a superior before taking almost any action with respect to a suspect, witness,
informant, or other criminal justice agent. Organizational custom and practice
also requires that higher-ranking ofﬁcers be summoned to the ﬁeld in certain
speciﬁc situations. Regarding the management style Of police chiefs in South

Korea, the authoritarian style of leadership is quickly noted. Police chiefs usually

54

manage a department by frequently summoning subordinates to their ofﬁces,
without delegating authority to those subordinates. All power is centralized in the
police chief of the organization. A lower ranking ofﬁcer in a unit prepares police
project plans in a mechanical way, which expresses the ideas of his/her
superiors. Some of this may be attributable to the fact that the South Korean
police force tends to attract authoritarian personality types and they have
internalized a “working personality” as their career has developed over the years,
as many American police have done (Lee, 1997; Niederhoffer, 1967; Skolnick,
1994). However, the culture of large power distance may have had a major
impact on the development of South Korean management styles.

A large power distance culture like that of South Korean results in the
police making a rigid distinction between two types Of ranks: commissioned and
non-commissioned Ofﬁcers. In the US. “every Ofﬁcer Of rank must serve an
apprenticeship as a patrol ofﬁcer” and usually “one can not join a local police
department as a Iieutenant” (Skolnick, 1994, p.43). In contrast, some Ofﬁcers in
South Korea who graduate from the National Police College or pass a high-level
civil exam can begin their career as a lieutenant. They are Often considered to be
“elite” members of the organization. One problem with this type Of elite-oriented
organization, however, is that it produces divisions between supervisors and
lower ranking Ofﬁcers because the majority of the “elite” have never experienced
work directly on the street, face to face with the everyday public. Subscribing to
the ”rule of elite values,” South Korean police work in accordancewith executive

ideas.

55

b. Inﬂuence of “individualism/collectivism"

The individualism/collectivism dimension refers to the way in which
cultures tend to emphasize the importance or priority Of the individual vs. the
collectivity. In collectivistic culture such as South Korea, in-group goals are more
highly valued than personal goals, deviations from norms tend not to be
tolerated, and people are more concerned with how their actions have an effect
on the group or society in question. Group harmony or consciousness is so
strongly emphasized in a South Korean police organization that it is one of the
most popular mottoes—even framed and put it on the wall. Although group
harmony is also seen as important in American police management systems, it is
not seen as uniquely crucial as it is for South Korean police.

In the US, where individualistic culture prevails, the self-identity Of an
ofﬁcer is less bounded by group motifs or elements. In-group goals do not have
the primacy over individual goals that they do in South Korea. American Ofﬁcers
may think they are “only doing their job" and are expected to show neither ﬁlial
piety nor a sense of total loyalty to a police organization. Furthermore, individual
ofﬁcers’ interests, including salaries, promotion, and overtime pay, can even be
administratively protected by police unions in the US, even though this may
conﬂict with the goals of police hierarchies. In. contrast, Ofﬁcers in South Korea
are expected to fully commit themselves to an organization, in a total fashion. A
police investigator must carry out his/her investigation even in the absence of
overtime pay. When a certain case requires the use of a large amount Of police

personnel for ﬁeld interrogations or ﬁeld search to gather evidence, all ofﬁcers in

56

the department, regardless of whether they are criminal investigators or not, fulﬁll
the mission collectively in the interests Of the police organization. Police Ofﬁcers
in South Korea also share radio communication collectively, with all ofﬁcers
required tO listen in on what is happening within their jurisdiction. Their ofﬁces—
crime prevention, intelligence, security, and investigative units—are often ﬁlled,
therefore, with discourse from the police radio. Neither is this collective
communicative radio system necessarily a one-party-tO-another channel.
Sometimes, an ofﬁcer must wait until no party is attempting to join the
communication. “Signals" (crime events), therefore, with their decoding and
encoding processes, can either “amplify or suppress the original signals”
(Manning, 1997) which are shared collectively by all members in the
organization.

American Ofﬁcers generally eat alone or in very small groups whereas
South Korean patrol Ofﬁcers have meals together in the “police box” where they
work and live collectively. There are frequent informal and formal group meetings
for ofﬁcers in South Korea. Some are for investigators only and others are for all
ofﬁcers in a department. Even for an informal meeting at a restaurant, all
members are expected to show up. A previous engagement is never seen as a
valid excuse in the South Korean context.

Collectivistic and individualistic cultures inﬂuence the settings of police
training in South Korea and the US, respectively. The police in South Korea use
tightly-controlled training methods in a closed environment suffused with

collectivistic culture, whereas training in the US. is largely a function of individual

57

department policy and the department has little control over course content in
independent educational institutions (Fairchild, 1989). South Korean police
investigators, however, in general, receive training before and after promotions at
the National Police Training Academy where they remain at the institution for a
number of weeks; usually, four ofﬁcers share a room. In this training setting,
detectivesare encouraged to share their previous investigative experience. In
America, several Ofﬁcers sharing the same living room for weeks on end as part
of their training is virtually unheard of.

This distinction between individualism and collectivism is also present with
respect to ofﬁcers being sanctioned by their respective law enforcement
agencies in the US. and South Korea. American ofﬁcers, for instance, are
individually liable for any substantiated claims made against them. Municipalities,
police departments, and individual police ofﬁcials are not generally held liable for
the misconduct Of employees or subordinates if the police department in question
, has a written policy concerning the practice and documentation of having trained
the ofﬁcers in the enforcement of that policy. In fact, the use Of civil litigation
against individual Ofﬁcers in the US. serves as an effective deterrent for those
who have a tendency to be irresponsible and/or brutal. In South Korea, a suit
alleging police misconduct, such as abuse of authority and/or occupational
deviance, is ﬁled against the government, and, ofﬁcially, the government is liable,
not the individual ofﬁcer. In the case of an organizational sanction of individual
ofﬁcers, several immediate supervisors within the same line Of command are also

collectively sanctioned.

58

The ‘in-group’ is very important in a collectivistic society and a person is
deﬁned by the in-groups to which he or she belongs (Triandis, 1988). In the case
of investigator selection, in South Korea, the collectivistic features of group-
based status are more important than those involving individual merit. In the
US, however, irrespective of whether a police organization tends to have an
unstructured, semi-structured, structured, or highly-structured style, they all place
great emphasis on the ability Of individual Ofﬁcers to interview, interrogate, and
arrest (Cohen 8 Chaiken, 1987). The selection criterion for Ofﬁcers in South
Korean is based in part on collectivistic concept of family, alumni, and
regionalism. Alumni, referring to the relative importance Of the schools one has
attended, and regionalism, identifying one’s hometown, both play signiﬁcant roles
in the selection process. Although appointments to police Chief in the US. are
frequently made in accordance with partisan political interests, alumni and
regional-based associations have much less effect on the process than is the
cased in South Korea. To cite another example of this cultural difference or
distinction, suspect confession rates in the two nations suggest that South
Korean Confutionistic cultures may promote suspects telling the truth by and the
adversarial American system may incline the suspect in the other direction.

This in-group oriented collectivism is also related to police corruption or
occupational deviance in South Korea (Barker 8 Carter, 1994). The processes in
which corruption occurs are somewhat different than those in America. For
example, when opening and operating establishments that serve liquor, Offer the

opportunity for gambling, or other businesses which require regular inspections

59

by the police, the owners use the connections of family, alumni, or region to
obtain favorable consideration from ofﬁcers. They prefer to have a favorable
connection with, if possible, detectives, because police investigators are seen as
their assets when they are in trouble. In other words, those who are susceptible
to a violation of law expect detectives to handle cases favorably on their behalf if
they have the right connections with the police criminal investigators with respect
to family, alumni, or region. These people are usually able to locate an inﬂuential
person close to an ofﬁcer that has the authority to sanction or tolerate such
matters as after-hours drinking, double-parking, or encourage or solicit tips
concerning an. investigation. The money involved, referred to as “rice-cake
expenses,” is regularly handed over on major national holidays through or
facilitated by “linchpins.” A linchpin functions as an intermediary between corrupt
police and those who need their assistance. Sometimes, even police
investigators themselves become linchpins. In South Korea, these illicit payments
are seen as a social courtesy unless the amount exceeds socially acceptable
levels in relation to ofﬁcial duties. In many cases, it is not easy to determine what
represents a questionable payment or permissible custom and what does not.
Police corruption in the US. is not so focused on a key person who is associated
with the would-be or alleged offender’s family, alumni, or region. Yet, these
dynamics are very frequent occurrences in police criminal investigations in South
Korea. As a result, the police ofﬁcers that are the most vulnerable to involvement
with corruptive practice are often themselves criminal investigators in South

Korea.

60

0. Inﬂuence of “uncertainty avoidance”

The uncertainty avoidance dimension involves "the extent to which the
members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations”
(Hofstede 1991, p. 113). Individuals in countries low in uncertainty avoidance are
relatively comfortable with ambiguity and are tolerant of others' behaviors and
opinions. Where uncertainty avoidance is high, employees are more likely to feel
that clearly deﬁned rules are needed and that they should not be broken
(Hofstede 1991, p. 112).

American police practices can be seen as “situationally justiﬁed” actions
rather than bureaucratically controlled responses, since the police must juggle
many contradictory and conﬂicting public expectations at the same time
(Manning, 1997, p.131). In the American culture of low uncertainty avoidance,
ofﬁcers have a relatively high degree of discretionary decision-making power.
On-the-job experience, rather than an ofﬁcial code of police behavior, often
serves to guide the decisions of American police ofﬁcers. As an American police
scholar observed, “discretion increases as one moves down the organizational
hierarchy” (Wilson, 1968), which is most certainly not the case in the South
Korean policing context. South Korean police have a written “Police Performance
Act” regarding the scope, type, and limitation of police discretion, which is
designed to prevent the questionable use of Ofﬁcer discretion involving uncertain
consequences. Due to a very detailed law code and strict interpretation by the

courts and the police organization itself, South Korean police generally rigidly

61

adhere to the rules and regulations of the law, anxious to avoid the uncertainties
involved in the use of discretion.

One of the ways to overcome uncertainty is to plan carefully, because it
can minimize uncertainty when an organization ﬁnds itself in an unpredictable
situation (Thurston 1983). Some studies of organization in Germany have shown
planning to be related to success, whereas studies in Anglo-American contexts
often ﬁnd planning to be of little use, even questioning its usefulness (Robinson
and Pearce 1984; Lyle et al.1995). This may means that a higher level of
uncertainty avoidance in Germany makes planning more culturally appropriate
and viable while planning in the American context may be less successful due to
the culture of low uncertainty avoidance.

The “community policing” idea in the US. has become increasingly
popular over the past two decades despite the criticisms that 1) it is not clear
whether it represents “rhetoric or reality” (Greene 8 Mastrofski, 1988); 2) the
concept is so vague that its circumlocution can easily mystify police coercive
function (Klockars, 1991); and 3) it “seeks to be all things to all people.” The
reason for the concept’s popularity may be related to the American culture of low
uncertainty avoidance, which allows for a great deal of toleration of vagueness.
Although the South Korean police do not refer to their service oriented police
mission as “community policing,” they clearly ascribe to a similar philosophy. For
the South Korean police, or any Asian police force for that matter, the philosophy
of community policing does not sound especially innovative, at least as testiﬁed

to by South Korean ofﬁcers in a criminal justice master’s program in the US. For

62

Asian ofﬁcers, the idea of community policing represents common sense and it is
neither novel nor vague, as it tends to be in the American context.

For South Korean ofﬁcers, community policing is laid out in speciﬁc written
plans with speciﬁc time periods for each and every police task and supported by
a variety of planning strategies. The written plan is circulated, reviewed
throughout the organizational hierarchy, and then implemented during a speciﬁed
period of time. Then, another plan is prepared for the next speciﬁc period or
stage of police activity.

Police criminal investigations are very well planned in South Korea on the
basis of intelligence collected by police personnel. Criminal investigations in
South Korea are not reactive, or dependent upon public reporting, as tends to be
the case in America. The South Korean police are more likely identify criminal
activities and proactively conduct investigations even in the absence Of a case
having been reported. Their targeted crimes vary according to speciﬁed plans,
especially with respect to organize and white-collar crime.

Analyzing police work on the basis of written assignments, such as‘an
organization’s descriptions of patrols and investigations, can also provide
characteristics for cross-national comparison (Bayley, 1985). Labor divisions and
the nature of specialization within police organizations may also be inﬂuenced by
the characteristics of national culture. In South Korea, there is a clear distinction
between patrol Ofﬁcers and investigators in the process of criminal investigation,
whereas with police crime solving activity in the US, there tends to be more

overlap between the functions of patrol ofﬁcer and investigator. This may also be

63

related to the high level of toleration for uncertainty in the US, and the clear
separation of investigative roles in South Korea may be a product of the low level
of toleration for uncertainty of Korean culture.

In South Korea, all crimes are investigated by detectives. Most of
investigation related activities are exclusively assigned to them. Even the
misdemeanors reported by patrol ofﬁcers are immediately handed over to
investigators. In other words, South Korean investigators conduct the entire
investigation from the beginning, and are entirely responsible for preparing cases
for prosecution. By contrast, in the US, patrol ofﬁcers play an important role in
the process; they respond ﬁrst to the crime scene, interview people, collect
evidence, make arrests, and even resolve cases (Skogan 8 Antunes, 1979).
American patrol ofﬁcers are typically involved in numerous investigative activities.

d. Inﬂuence of “masculinity/femininity”

The masculinity/femininity dimension distinguishes between cultures that
emphasize stereotypically ‘masculine’ traits, such as assertiveness and
dominance, and cultures that emphasize stereotypically ”feminine" traits, such as
a concern for relationships and the quality of life. Masculine cultures are more
likely than feminine cultures to use force. When on duty, most South Korean
police are not armed, while all American police are armed and they rely more on
the use of force. Even many scholars deﬁne the main function of American police
in terms of the use of force—particularly deadly force (Bittner, 1970). Many
factors, of course, help to account for the tendency of American ofﬁcers to use

physical force: ofﬁcers’ individual characteristics, situational factors,

64

organizational/administrative philosophy and policies (Fyfe, 1988), and
community demography (Jacobs 8 Britt, 1979). Nevertheless, the strongest
reason behind the use of force may be rooted in the culture of masculinity of the
American police, characterized by assertiveness and dominance. In contrast,
South Korean police tend to ﬁnd ways to avoid the use of force. They Often
employ “facework” by negotiating with the public, facilitating compromises
between two parties, or even invoking a suspect’s repentance. Furthermore, out
of consideration for what they see as their long-term relationship with their
clientele, ofﬁcers in South Korea tend to use “high context” messages
characterized by indirectness, implicitness, and nonverbal expression (Hall,
1976). This means that South Korean police are very reluctant to use force
without careful consideration, even when circumstance may require it; never, for
example, would they use the kind of excessive force represented by the 41
bullets ﬁred by New York police ofﬁcers into the body of Amadou Diallo.

Typically feminine traits involving caring for others are even represented in
South Korean criminal investigation processes. They have no ofﬁcial case
screening methods and maintain an “all case resolution policy.” This helps to
enable South Korean investigators to effectively respond to the concerns of
victims, appeasing them through the development of an appropriate “beside
manner" (Wilson, 1968, p.25). Victims tend to evaluate detective performance
highly when there is a certain degree of investigative effort (Brandl 8 Horvath,
1991). South Korean ofﬁcers tend to see their work as a moral obligation and

strive to achieve understandings that serve to mitigate the human suffering

65

involved (Muir, 1977), especially as a result of their “all case resolution policy." In
contrast, the American incorporation of the solvability factor may tend to leave a
victim with the perception that “a serious matter is being lightly dismissed”
(Wilson, 1968, p.25) and that the police are callous. Case screening methods in
the US. are inﬂuenced by cultural motifs which emphasize efﬁciency in solving
crimes rather than caring for the victim.
Inﬂuence of the Rural/Urban (Exo-Svstem) Distinction

In general, crime is less frequent in rural than in urban areas, even though
the police are not always as well equipped for crime control duties as a result of a
smaller tax base and fewer resources. Given that over half of the police
departments in the US. are small, with less than 10 sworn, full-time police
personnel (Crank, 1990) and located in non-urban areas, and that many areas in
South Korea are surrounded by farming environments, the distinction between
rural and urban areas is of critical importance to the critical analysis of both
policing environments. Donnennyer (1994) suggests that rural departments have
less divisions according to specialization and tend not to recognize crime and
other problems as immediately as their urban counterparts. Weisheit, Wells, 8
Falcone, (1994) have found that, in rural communities, police, offender, and
victim are more likely to know each other, and have long-term personal
interactions. On the one hand, this characteristic of “density of acquaintanceship”
(Freudenburg, 1986) may help police solve more crimes since there is little
anonymity in the community, everyone tends to know who does what, and police

can easily use this information for investigation purpose. However, on the other

66

hand, other characteristics of rural communities, such as mistrust of government,
reluctance to seek outside assistance, and de—policing tendencies may result in
an under-reporting of crimes (Black, 1980), which clearly do not contribute to
police investigation productivity. Informal traditions of social control in a
community do not encourage bringing many cases to police attention. With a low
level of reported crime for police to solve, a rural department’s crime solving
productivity may not be as high as that of their urban counterparts.

a. Inﬂuence of human association in rural/urban areas on police

As Durkheim (1964) posited, one of the most distinctive aspects of rural
society is its Subcultural settings, produced by “mechanical solidarity” which
determines and regulates collective identities. The consciences and actions of
people in rural areas are more restrained by the rest of community than in urban
areas. And this tradition of strong social bonding in rural areas, which is hard to
find in urban areas, may account for a less detachment between police and the
public, as well as less social conﬂict between police and prosecutor. In urban
areas, on the other hand, these Gemeinshaft-like relationships may be lacking.
Freudenburg (1986) suggested that the population growth involved in urban
areas has a negative inﬂuences on social density in terms of acquaintanceship,
with closer physical contact but greater social distance as population growth
increases. As Simmel (1950) has poetically suggested, men in metropolitan
areas are free, but under certain circumstances they feel lonely and lost in the
crowd. As he sees it, intimate relations in urban areas, including friendship in the

true sense, are relatively weak, and a lie or secret is more bearable and

67

prevalent; in contrast, in the small social circles of rural society, friendship,
dependence, loyalty, and conﬁdence are more prevalent and highly valued.

Clearly, this rural/urban distinction has an impact on the relationship
between police and community. People in urban areas, especially poor minority
and immigrant groups, feel more distant from law enforcement agencies because
of the perception that the police do not treat them equally (Erez, 1984; Carter,
1985). Police in urban areas also may perceive, more than their rural
counterparts, that they have problems with public relationships, due to the social
stress produced by negative interactions (Kroes, 1985; Violanti 8 Aron, 1995).
And, this social distance between police and the public leads to police cynical
sentiments (Niederhoffer, 1967). In short, the detachment of the police from the
community is more pronounced in urban as opposed to rural areas.

The distinction between rural/urban areas may also play an inﬂuential role
in the relationship between the police and the prosecutor’s ofﬁce. In other words,
the multiple subcultures and perspectives that exist in urban areas may result in
greater friction between the two institutions, since Gemeinshaft-like, intimate
human relations are generally lacking or less pronounced. In small rural towns,
the prosecutor, lawyer, and police investigator often get together in a restaurant
as friends and talk about the case in a relatively informal way (Cordner, 1989).
This kind of intimate setting naturally allows them to share their views and
maintain clOser relationships than their urban counterparts.

b. Rationality and investigation management

68

As Weber theorized, formal rationality and its locus in bureaucracy may
increasingly come to dominate modern society (Weber, 1951; Weber, 1958b),
and this degree of rationalization is one of the key factors which serve to
distinguish rural from urban society. The tendency towards rationale, formality,
and bureaucracy, are all stronger in urban than in rural contexts. Customs, which
are not derived from calculations or objective criterion, may exert a much
stronger inﬂuence over the social process in rural than in urban settings. In urban
areas, “instrumental rationality” is more prevalent and “affectural” social action is
weaker. Weber argues that the progressive rationalization of social life is
associated with. the development of bureaucracies with specialized functions and
trained personnel. This implies that, in urban settings, police organizations may
be more likely to behave rationally than do their rural counterparts. Case
screening practices may be more prevalent in urban areas, for example, as a
result of this focus on rationality, the efﬁciency of detective efforts rather than the
appeasement of the victim. The rationality of urban areas is often expressed by
statiStics, and one of the most frequently used statistics for police is the
clearance rate. Since the highly bureaucratic police structure of urban areas
demands a more tangible return with respect to police efﬁciency, clearance rates
are more frequently used as a performance criterion than in rural areas. Although
intangible police work, such as the ofﬁcer’s relationship with the public, is
important and leads to a reduction in crime, it can not be easily measured or
used to statistically demonstrate police efﬁciency. In rural contexts, therefore, the

emphasis of performance evaluation may not be on clearance rates.

69

As suggested previously, the common ground among various community-
policing programs is police formal accountability to their communities.
Community-policing programs represent “formal” strategies with “formal"
accountability throughout the organization. In smaller communities, the
establishment of a community-policing program may be seen by police ofﬁcials
as unnecessary for public safety as well as impractical, because rural police
organizations may rely instead on traditional, informal, social control
mechanisms. (Cardarelli, McDevitt, 8 Baum, 1998). Thus, a community-policing
program may be seen as more appropriate in urban as Opposed to rural areas.
Rationality, therefore, can be seen to play a more central role in urban criminal
justice organizations than in their rural counterparts (Myers 8 Talarico, 1986).

c. Economy and forensic science

Weber (1958a) posited that the essence of a cities character is the
market, where goods and money are exchanged. For him, the versatility of trade
and commerce, rather than agriculture, represented the quintessential nature of
the city. Certainly, these economic characteristics help to shape perspectives
concerning the prevalence of crime. Weisheit 8 Donnenneyer (2000) noted that,
in rural areas, motor vehicle theft, shoplifting, or employee theft are relatively
infrequent. According to Weisheit, Falcone, 8 Wells (1996), when a crime is
reported in a rural area, it is more likely to be related to agricultural resources,
including the theft of farm chemicals; wildlife crimes such as poaching and arson
covering wild lands are also unique to rural areas. With respect to poverty rates,

in general, rural areas tend to have higher rates than urban areas (Garkovich,

7O

1991; Brown 8 Hirschl, 1995). Unemployment is also higher in rural areas
(Garkovich, 1989), and, while the cost of living is generally lower, there is less
opportunity to earn a living. This may encourage high levels of out-migration by
young skilled workers.

Rural police departments, therefore, may have comparatively fewer
resources, such as personnel and technical equipment, because the revenue
sources enjoyed by the city, produced by the market an vibrant entrepreneurial
activity are not as concentrated in rural as opposed to urban areas (Weber,
1958a). The comparative economic hardship of rural areas leads to a smaller tax
base and fewer resources and eventually effects the ﬁnancial resources available
to the police. Thus, rural police are not always well equipped for crime control
duties in terms of modern technology and expenditures per ofﬁcer. In fact, the
per ofﬁcer expenditure is $62,000 in urban areas as opposed to $31, 500 in rural
areas (Weisheit et al., 1996).

In rural areas with less economic revenue, police investigations may not
be supported by competent forensic scientists. In the case of rural arson
investigations of total burn, for example, the activity of sorting through the debris
to ﬁnd evidence of arson is often limited by lack of equipment. Clearly, the
utilization of scientiﬁc knowledge is favorably inﬂuenced by favorable economic
conditions (Weber, 1958b). In the presence of a shortage of resources, the
application of modern forensic science by law enforcement agencies tends to be
less prevelant. This implies that the weight of importance of forensic evidence

varies according to rural/urban economic distinctions. When the police

71

department can afford to have their own crime labs and a lab service is readily
available to police investigators, physical evidence is more likely to be collected
at the crime scene. With law enforcement unable to fully or effectively collaborate
with forensic science, criminal investigations are clearly hampered.
Summary

Police criminal investigation represents an information processing activity
that takes place through the interaction between police and other related
participants in the administration of criminal justice to determine legal truth. This
process is embedded in multi-layered social environments. In the American
social environment or system, police investigators function to resolve conﬂicts
according to American principles or characteristics. Similarly, the mission of the
South Korean police is determined by the principles and traditions of their own
social or cultural system. Within both nations, however, the rural/urban distinction
also may have an inﬂuence on police criminal investigation policies and
practices. Thus, the nature of detective work is largely determined by the
prevailing institutions and belief systems of the larger society - that is a national
culture and historical events -, and simultaneously inﬂuenced by the values of

rural and urban communities.

72

CHAPTER FOUR
METHODOLOGY

In this study, organizational pollicies and practices which have attributes of
Wilson’s “legalistic type” are referred to as “enforcement oriented properties.”
These enforcement oriented properties include the importance of clearance rates
as a performance indicator, use of cold case unit, detachment from the public,
case screening method, team policing approach, membership of task forces, and
ownership of the Automated Fingerprint Identiﬁcation System (A.F.I.S.) and
timely crime laboratory service. In contrast, the “service/watchman type” of
organizational policies, which tends to result in harnessing of the service of
symbolic police functions or the protection of individual rights even including
ofﬁcers themselves, are referred to as “liberal policing oriented properties" in this
study. These features are illustrated with such items as the community policing
program, requirement of recording of police-suspect interrogation, police union,
and education requirement for investigators and their supervisors, and intimate
relationship with prosecutor’ office.

Congruent with the concepts and issues identiﬁed in the literature reviews
in the chapter two and the qualitative contexts in the chapter three, the
propositions and hypothesis which are examined in this study are as follows:
Propositions and Hypothesis

a. Descriptive comparison between the countries

Proposition 1: Due to the differences of social environments such as
national culture between the US. and South Korea, the alternative measures of

police investigative effectiveness, including the productivity and the degree of

73

legal problem, would show that South Korean police have lower investigative
productivity and a higher degree of legal problems than American police,
although American police have lower clearance rates than South Korean police.

Proposition 2: Due to the differences of social environments such as
national culture between the US. and South Korea, American police are less
likely to emphasize the clearance rates as performance measurement, and be
detached from the public, than South Korean police.

Proposition 3: Due to the differences of social environments between the
US. and South Korea, South Korean police would be more willing to take
measures to solve crime as many as possible than American police, although
they may compromise individuals’ rights.

Proposition 4: Due to the differences of social environments such as
national culture between the US. and South Korea, South Korean police would
integrate more community policing principles into detective work than their
American counterparts.

Proposition 5: Due to the differences of social environments such as
national culture between the US. and South Korea, American police would less
frequently interact with prosecutor ofﬁce than South Korean police do with their
prosecutor ofﬁce. Also, American police would have a better relationship with
prosecutor ofﬁce than their South Korean counterparts.

Proposition 6: Due to the differences of social environments between the
US. and South Korea, South Korean police would be less satisﬁed with the

crime lab service than their American counterparts.

74

b. Comparison of rural/urban areas within the country

Hypothesis 1a: Urban police have lower clearance rates of crime against
person than their rural counterparts.

Hypothesis 1b: Urban police solve more crime against person per Ofﬁcer
than their rural counterparts.

Hypothesis 1c: Urban police tend to be further detached from the public
than their rural counterparts in solving crimes.

Hypothesis 1d: Urban police tend to less frequently interact with
prosecutor’s ofﬁce than their rural counterparts.

Hypothesis 1e: Urban police tend to have more signiﬁcant relational
problems with prosecutor’s office than their rural counterparts.

Hypothesis 1f: Urban police tend to have police union more than their
rural counterparts.

Hypothesis 19: Urban police tend to use case screening method more
than their rural counterparts.

Hypothesis 1h: Urban police are more likely to use community policing
approach in solving crimes than their rural counterparts.

Hypothesis 1i: Urban police are more likely to use team policing
approach in solving crimes than their rural counterparts.

Hypothesis 1]: Urban police are more likely to emphasize a clearance
rates as an important performance measurement for an investigator than their

rural counterparts.

75

Hypothesis 1k: Urban police tend to have their own A.F.I.S. more than
their rural counterparts.

c. Evaluative comparisons of organizational properties between the
countries

Hypothesis 2: Controlling for rural/urban areas and detectives’ workload,
police organizational properties inﬂuence the investigative effectiveness in the
US. and South Korea.

Inﬂuence of enforcement oriented properties

Hypothesis 2a-1: Police organization’s larger emphasis on clearance
rates leads to higher organizational productivity of criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 2a-2: The more police detach themselves from public, the
greater increase in organizational productivity of criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 2a-3: Police organizations with cold case unit are more likely
than organizations without it to have higher organizational productivity of criminal
invesﬁgaﬁon.

Hypothesis 2a-4: Police organizations using case screening method are
more likely than organizations not using the method to have higher organizational
productivity of criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 2a-5: Police organizations with their own A.F.I.S. are more
likely than organizations without it to have higher organizational productivity of

criminal investigation.

76

Hypothesis 2a-6: Police organizations with team policing approach are
more likely than organizations without it to have higher organizational productivity
of criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 2a-7: Police organizations with the membership of task force
are more likely than organizations without it to have higher organizational
productivity of criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 23-8: Police organizations with supportive timely crime lab
service are not different than organizations with non-timely service to have higher
organizational productivity of criminal investigation.

Inﬂuence of liberal policinq oriented properties

Hypothesis 2b-1: Police organizations integrating community policing into
investigative work are more likely to have lower organizational productivity of
criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 2b-2: Police organizations with the legal requirement of
recording of police-suspect interrogation are more likely than organizations
without it to have less organizational productivity of criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 26-3: Police organizations with collective bargaining units
represented by investigators are more likely than organizations without it to have
less organizational productivity of criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 2b-4: Police organizations’ larger educational requirement for
selection of investigator leads to less organizational productivity of criminal

investigation.

77

Hypothesis 2b-5: Police organizations” larger educational requirement for
selection of investigator’s supervisors leads to less organizational productivity of
criminal investigation.

Hypothesis 2b-6: Police organizations’ more frequent interaction with
prosecutor's ofﬁce leads to lower organizational productivity Of criminal
invesﬁgaﬁon.

Hypothesis 2b-7: The poorer police-prosecutor relationships lead to lower
organizational productivity of criminal investigation.

Survey Method

Due to the need for standard and common measurement of police
investigative practices and policies in two nations, this study is count upon the
same survey instrument used for both American and South Korean police
organizations. Before attempting to compare and contrast police institutions in
two nations and drawing any speciﬁc conclusions regarding these comparisons,
a standardized measurement tool is necessary. Especially considering the large
number of police departments in the U.S.nmore than 18,000 - a survey method
is more advantageous than others for national comparison and generalizability.
In South Korea, the number of police departments is not as enormous as their
American counterpart. However, the use of identical instruments and methods in
the different cultural, social, and legal context may be an effective solution for an
international comparison of police investigation processes. Thus, this study use
the data obtained through the mail survey of 3, 123 police departments in the

US. and its replicated survey of all police departments (n=230) in South Korea.

78

The American side of the survey was supported by Grant #98-IJ-CX-0057,
awarded to Horvath 8 Meesig in September 1998, by the National Institute of
Justice, Ofﬁce of Justice Programs, US. Department of Justice. The replicated
survey in South Korea was carried out through the administrative support from
the Korean National Police and author’s self funding.

Survey Population and Sampling Design

In the US, there are more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies.
Although most Of them carry out the general purpose functions, some agencies
only perform the special purpose functions including beach, port, railroad, transit,
causeway, housing, school, and university/college. The sampling frame of this
study consisted of 1997 LEMAS survey which include all state, county, and
municipal law enforcement agencies with 100 or more sworn employees, and a
systemic sampling of the agencies with 99 or less sworn employees. Because
American target population in this study is the law enforcement agencies which
have general purpose functions, but the sampling frame includes special purpose
agencies which do not match precisely this study’s population of interest, the
frame is culled to include only agencies which have general law enforcement
functions.

In South Korea, there are 10 provincial police headquarters, 230 police
departments, and about 3,000 police boxes which are attached to each police
department around the country. The South Korean target population in this study
is the law enforcement agencies which are administratively authorized as police

stations as of 1998. The sampling frame consisted of the 1998 police station list

79

published by Korean National Police. Because this sampling frame and the target
population is identical, a sampling design was not necessary.

Thus, the total sample of American police organizations includes general
purpose 3,123 law enforcement agencies. For the Korean sample, the number of
police organizations is 230, which is identical with its population.

Development ofirvev lnstrpment

For the American survey questionnaire, the Rand questionnaire survey
and another questionnaires used to survey Canadian police agencies provided
the basis for the development of the instrument (Chappell, Gordon, 8 Moore,
1982) Greenwood, Chaiken 8 Petersilia, 1977). Modiﬁcations and changes are
made to expand information concerning the ﬁve issue areas, including
investigators, patrol ofﬁcers, investigative management, investigative
effectiveness, and investigative support. During January 1998 through January
1999, a large number of draft versions of our data collection instrument were
developed. This development process was based on the extant literature review
and the ﬁeld experiences of researchers and members in the advisory group.
Question items also included new issues regarding investigative training, funding,
supervision, crime laboratory support, DNA analysis, and goals. From February
through May 1999, the draft instrument was pre-tested by investigators at four
county and municipal agencies in the mid-Michigan area. After discussion with
an informal advisory group of ﬁve active and retired senior level police ofﬁcials in
four mid-Michigan state, county and municipal agencies, changes were made as

appropriate to add some items and delete others. The ﬁnalized instrument was a

80

23-page questionnaire consisting of about 700 items. The instrument was
submitted to the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at
Michigan State University in May 1999; ﬁnal approval was granted in September
1999.

For the Korean version, items in the questionnaire were translated into
Korean by the author. The draft questionnaire was reviewed by several South
Korean investigators in order to make the meaning of translated items more
clearly understandable to the South Korean police. Through the numerous e-mail
exchanges and the conversations on international calls with several investigators
in South Korea, some items which did not ﬁt into South Korean contexts were
deleted, others which have functional equivalence of American items were
added. The author’s experience as police ofﬁcer in South Korea and the
experience of an intern in American police departments allowed the translation of
the questionnaire to provide the South Korean respondents with correct
meanings. The instrument was submitted to the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University in April 2000;
ﬁnal approval was granted in June 2, 2000.

Data Collection Process

For the collection of American data, the ﬁrst mailing took place in October
1999. Follow-up mailings of the questionnaires were made to non-respondents
in December 1999 and February 2000. Because a unit of analysis in the survey
project is an organization, the survey booklets were mailed to the chief law

enforcement administrator of the 3,123 agencies which have general purpose

81

functions in the sampling frame. Someone in the department who is well
acquainted with investigation process was asked to complete the enclosed
questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed, postage paid envelope.
Personal identifying information was not requested and police departments were
assured that the response would be reviewed only by the researchers. In the
envelope, NIJ transmittal letters were enclosed to urge police organizations to
respond. The response rate was 56%; 1,746 usable responses were received.

For the collection of Korean data, the coordination with the Korean
National Police Headquarters was made. The letter asking whether the Korean
National Police is willing to consider participation in the replicated survey was
mailed to General Commissioner of Korean National Police in January 2000.
They responded that KNP would provide full administrative support including
distribution and collection of the questionnaire through police internal mailing
service. Since South Korea has one national police system with eleven
Metropolitan Police Agencies, all major police documents, memos, and other
administrative paper are mailed from the headquarter through the internal mailing
system.

In order to coordinate the mailing of the questionnaires and their
collection, the author traveled to South Korea in June, 2001 and stayed until July,
2001. The translated survey booklets were mailed to 230 police stations in South
Korea through the police internal mailing system. The return address was the
police criminal investigation planing unit in Korean National Police headquarters

and one ofﬁcer was assigned to putting the returned envelopes in the speciﬁed

82

box. Personal identifying information was not requested and police departments
were assured that the response would be reviewed only by the author. In the
envelope, the General Commissioner transmittal letters were enclosed to urge
police organizations to respond. The police chief or detective captain in the
department was asked to complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it in
the self-addressed envelope. The response rate was 97%; 223 usable responses
were received. During the administration of the survey, several agencies made
telephonic inquiries regarding the questionnaire and the survey process. In
addition, they expressed their interests in knowing how American police
organizations might differently manage and conduct a criminal investigation.
@ﬂata Sources

American agency-level data regarding known offenses and clearances by
arrest for the responding agencies in this study were obtained by download from
the website of Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (US.
Department of Justice, 1999). The data had been compiled by the FBI and
contained data for seven Index crimes, and archived at www.icpsr.umich.edu.
The title of the data is Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: [United States]
Part 95: Offenses Known and Clearances by Arrest, 1997. The agency-level
information regarding total number of sworn police ofﬁcer were from LEMAS
survey data, which is also archived at the same web site.

The South Korean data which is comparable to the American ﬁgures were

obtained by the request for ofﬁcial statistics which are archived in computers in

83

Korean National Police headquarters. In addition, official criminal justice
information was drawn from the Korean Police White Paper.
Measurement in the Study

After the data were entered into Statistical Package for the Social Science
(SPSS), they were saved separately; one was American data set and the other
was South Korean. The identical variables were selected from the two data sets
for this study. However, the weekly working hours were not measured for the
American Police. For the South Korean police, union, case screening, and
ownership of A.F.I.S. related issues were not addressed in the questionnaire
because they have no such policies. In this study, investigators were deﬁned as
sworn and non-sworn ofﬁcers who generally wear civilian clothes and perform
primarily investigative duties, and the term is used synonymously with detective.

a. Police clearance rates

A clearance refers to the resolution of a crime either by the arrest of an
offender or by an exceptional clearance. The police clearance rates were
measured with total number of cleared case divided by total number of reported
cases.

b. Organizational efﬁciency of criminal investigation

The organizational efﬁciency of criminal investigation was operationalized
by dividing the total number of cleared cases by total number of sworn ofﬁcers in
a department.

c. Organizational productivity of criminal investigation

84

Two types of the productivity were measured; 1) organizational
productivity of crime against person and 2) organizational productivity of crime
against property. The former was operationalized by summing the total number
of cleared murder, rape, and robbery in a police organization. The latter was
operationalized by summing the total number of cleared burglary and larceny for
the American police. For the South Korean police, only the number of larceny
was included because they do not have the category of burglary. In South Korea,
the American legal concept of burglary is categorized as larceny.

d. Degree of legal problem during the conduct of investigation

This study measured the degree to which arrests, searches, coercion,
interview/interrogation, and corruption have posed legal problems during the
conduct of investigation in a police department during the past ﬁve years.
Response Options for each item were never=1, sometimes=2, usually=3, and
always=4.

e. Clearance rates as a performance indicator

The importance of the clearance rate as a measure of individual
investigator’s performance was measured by asking the question of how
important clearance rates are in judging individual investigator performances.
Response option were no importance=1, low importance=2, moderate
importance=3, and high importance=4.

f. Use of cold case unit

The use of cold case unit was measured as a dummy variable;

organizations were asked if they have any investigators who investigate old

85

unsolved crimes. Response option was either "yes” (1) or “no” (0). Also, the
percentage of cold case that were cleared and the number of investigators who
were assigned were measured.

9. Detachment from the public

The public detachment scale in this study was constructed by summing
the values for three items, which are conceptually related with each other, in the
survey instrument. They were 1) the degree to which poor public relations is a
problem which can impact the investigative functions in the agency; 2) the
degree to which poor relations with the media is a problem which can impact the
investigative functions in the agency; and 3) the degree to which public mistrust
of the police is a problem which can impact the investigative functions in the
agency. Response options for each item were never=1, sometimes=2, usually=3,
and always=4. After compiling, the resulting scale ranged from 3 to 12.

h. Case screening method

The use of case screening method was measured with a dummy variable;
organizations were asked if agency use case solvability factors to determine
whether cases will be assigned. Response option was either “yes” (1) or “no” (0).

i. Ownership of Automated Fingerprint lnfonnation System (A.F.I.S.)

The ownership of A.F.I.S. was measured with a dummy variable; Only
American police organizations were asked whether agency’s own A.F.I.S.
provide the service (yes=1, no=0). Also, this study measured whether agency
use a state administered A.F.I.S. (yes=1, no=0). and a federally administered

A.F.I.S. (yes=1, no=0). In South Korea, all adult actual ﬁngerprint is stored in a

86

national police ﬁle because they are required to do so in obtaining national
identiﬁcation card. Also, the police use a nationally administered A.F.I.S.

j. Team policing approach

In this study, team policing approach was categorized as the law
enforcement oriented property, and measured with a dummy variable;
organizations were asked if they assigned investigators to ﬁeld level units (yes=1,
no=0). Although the assignment of investigators to ﬁled does not necessarily
represent the original team policing model which are designed to cooperate with
patrol ofﬁcer, the area responsibility concept for investigators represents the
team policing ideas. ‘

k. Task forces with other agencies

The membership of task force was measured as a dummy variable
(paticipant=1, non-participant=0). This study also included the measurement of
what types of investigation task forces agency was involved in; response options
were; 1) drug-related (yes=1, no=0); 2) speciﬁc case type (yes=1, no=0); and 3)
speciﬁc case (yes=1, no=0).

l. Crime laboratory service

This study measured the extent to which crime laboratory services have
affected the police criminal investigation output by measuring the service tum-
around time. Agencies were asked how they would describe the average tum-
around time; timely=1, somewhat slow=2, veryslow=3, completely inadquate=4.

m. Community policing scale

87

The community policing scale in this study was constructed by summing
the values for three items in the survey instrument which this study used. They
are 1) the degree to which the task of community problem solving is carried out in
investigating serious crimes; 2) the degree to which cases are prioritized based
on local area problems in investigating serious crimes; and 3) the degree to
which investigators work with citizens on community outreach in investigating
serous crimes. Response options for each item were never=1, sometimes=2,
usually=3, and always=4. After compiling, the resulting scale ranges from 3 to 12.

n. Recording of police-suspect interrogation

The recording of police-suspect interrogation was measured as a dummy
variable. Response option was either “yes” (1) or “no" (0). Only American police
organizations were asked; 1) if agency is legally required to record of police-
suspect interrogation; 2) even if not legally required, whether agency routinely
recorded by either audio or visual means interrogation of suspects. South Korean
police were not asked this question because the practice of recording is
unknown.

0. Collective bargaining unit for investigators

The collective bargaining unit for investigators was measured with a
dummy variable; organizations were asked if investigators are represented by
one or more collective bargaining units. Response option was either “yes” (1) or
“no” (0). Only American police organizations were asked, because South Korean
police are not legally allowed to have police union.

p. Requirement for education as a selection criterion

88

Both investigators and their supervisors’ education requirement as a
selection criterion were measured; the use of education requirement scale was
never=1, sometimes=2, usually=3, and always=4.

q. Requirement for experience as a selection criterion

Both investigators and their supervisors' minimum number of years of
experience as a required selection criterion were measured; the scale was
never=1, sometimes=2, usually=3, and always=4.

r. Prosecutor relationship

The police organizational relationship with prosecutor’s ofﬁce in this study
was represented by measuring; 1) whether police have a regular and continuing
organizational relationship with prosecutor’s ofﬁce aside from that required for
warrants and arrest (yes=1, no=0); 2) whether prosecutor's ofﬁce have its own
investigative staff (yes=1, no=0), if so, whether they are assigned from police
(yes=1, no=0).

Also this study measured; 1) the extent to which local prosecutor’s ofﬁce is
consulted about an investigation prior to an arrest, other than for the purpose of
obtaining a warrant; 2) the degree to which an insufﬁcient advice, feedback,
notice, and interference is a problem. The ﬁrst question, the “consultation
frequency" scale was neveF1, sometimes=2, usually=3, always=4, and the
second question has the “problem” scale with none=1, slight=2, moderate=3,
Iarge=4.

8. Organizational workload and weekly working hours

89

The former was operationalized with the number of reported crimes per
investigator in an organization and the latter was measured by the average
weekly working hours per investigator within an organization. Only for the South
Korean police, the weekly working hours were asked.

t. Community characteristics (rural / urban)

The American rural characteristic of police organizational properties was
measured by the population size in a department jurisdiction; rural=1, with people
less than 50,000, and urban=0, with people 50,000 and more. In South Korean
contexts, majorities of police department have the population of 50, 000 and
more in a jurisdiction because the population size is an administrative
requirement for opening a police department. Since the population size in the
jurisdictions is not a good indicator of differentiating between rural and urban
characteristics of police organization in the South Korean contexts, the
government administrative criterion was used instead of the population size;
when police is located with “Goon” which represent the small unit of
administrative geographic boundary, the departments were coded as rural=1,
and larger unit such as “Si" and “Cu” were considered as urban and coded
urban=0. Thus, the coding scheme for two nations was so functionally equivalent

that the cross-national comparison could be served without severe problems.

90

CHAPTER FIVE
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

For the comparability of the data between two nations, 44 state agencies
were excluded from the total number of American respondents (N=1,746). Thus,
the percentage shown in the descriptive frequency analysis were calculated on
base values of 1,702 agencies for American results, and 223 respondents for
South Korean results, respectively. Percentages reported were rounded to the
nearest whole percent, and different number of respondents represent missing
value.

Descriptive frequency analysis was used to test Proposition 16. It was
analyzed and presented in the graph and chart format for the purpose of visual
comparisons. This method clearly demonstrates the cross-national comparative
aspect of organizational properties between the US. and South Korea.
Independent sample t-test, Chi-square test, and multiple regression were
employed for testing the hypotheses which were generated in the previous
chapter.

Sample Characteristics in the Study

Figure 1 shows the samples in this study were nationally represented in
terms of geographical locations, although police departments in south region of
the nations responded slightly more than departments in any other regions.
Eighteen percent of the American sample comprised of police departments in
Northeast, 30% in Midwest, 34% in South, and 17% in West. For the South

Korean sample, 29% of the respondents was made of police departments in the

91

regions of Seoul/Gungki (Northwest), 21% in ChungChung/GangWon (Mideast),

31% in YoungNam (Southeast), and 19% Honam (Southwest).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E3 Northeast Seoul/GungKi
Midwest ChungChung/GangWon
South YoungNam
CI West El HON am
US. South Korea

Figure 1. Percentage of Police Agencies in the US. and South Korea by
Geographic Location

Figure 2 illustrates the characteristics of police organization in two nations.
A majority of American police departments had small agency size, with the
number of ofﬁcers less than 100. Conversely, almost all of the police department
in South Korea had more than 100 ofﬁcers; only 1% of South Korean police
departments is small size, having fewer than 100 ofﬁcers. The number of
medium sized police departments was also almost three times greater in South

Korea than in the US. Twenty six percent of American police departments had

92

ofﬁcers between 100 and 400 ofﬁcers in the organization while 66% of South

Korean police had so.

 

U.S. South Korea

 

 

Small (1-99) CIMedium (100-399) Large (400+)I

 

Figure 2. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by
Departmental Size

Figure 3 shows that the size of departments’ jurisdictions in both nations
followed a similar pattern of agency size the above. Most American police
departments had small population in their jurisdiction, with less than 50,000
people, whereas only 13% of Korean police departments had that size in their
jurisdiction. In South Korea, the overwhelming majority was large cities with over
50,000 people in their jurisdiction; 87% of South Korean police had to work with

large population.

93

 

Iz-EIRura1 (1 -4,999)
DUrban (50,000+)

 

 

 

 

U.S. South Korea

Figure 3. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by
Population Size in Jurisdiction

Comparison of Investigative Outcome

As Figure 4 indicates, overall, South Korean police had much higher
clearance rates than their American counterparts, with murder, rape, and robbery
all over 95%. The larceny clearance rate in South Korea was 80%, but was still
three times higher than the American clearance rate. The average clearance
rates in the U.S. appear to be quite low; for murder and rape they were only
about 69% and 51%, respectively. Also, only 36 % of reported robbery was

solved in the U.S.

94

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

80

60 -
:15»:

40 - it"?
‘97}?

20 — a g

 

Murder Rape Robbery Larceny

 

ID U.S E] South Koreal

 

Figure 4. Average Clearance Rates in the U.S. and South Korea for Four crimes

Interestingly, however, the difference of police investigative efﬁciency in
murder, rape, and robbery, which is deﬁned by total number of the cases cleared
divided by total number of ofﬁcers, was negligible between the U.S. and South
Korea in Figure 5. More interestingly, for larceny, American police were at least
three times more efﬁcient than South Korean police. Another quite noticeable
subject is, contrary to general public expectation, that police in both nations
solved much less than one crime per each ofﬁcer with murder (.01), rape (.07),
and robbery (.14 in the U.S. and .05 In South Korea) in a year, although
American police appeared to be a bit more efﬁcient than their South Korean
counterpart. Only for larceny, each American ofﬁcer cleared more than 2 cases a

year. South Korean ofﬁcers did only .7 case annually.

95

 

2.5

 

 

1.5

 

 

 

 

0.5
001001 0-07 0-07 0“0.05

 

 

 

 

 

 

Murder Rape Robbery Larceny

 

 

 

IU.S E] South Korea

 

Figure 5. Organizational Investigative Efﬁciency in the U.S. and South Korea for
Four Crimes

Figure 6 indicates the degree to which American and South Korean police
perceive “large” legal problems while conducting a criminal investigation.
Interestingly, American police investigators did not perceive themselves as
having serious legal problems during investigations, with only .4% experiencing
legal problems with the use of informants, compared to 6% of South Korean
detectives. Also, only .5% of American police has encountered large legal
problems of while conducting a search, whereas 14% of Korean ofﬁcers have
suffered this difﬁculty. Almost no American police have had legal problems with
corruption, the use of covert listening devices, or coercion, but 20% of South

Korean police have legal difﬁculties with corruption, 22% with covert listening

96

devices, and 26% with coercion. Overall, South Korean ofﬁcers perceived much

greater legal problems during the course of an investigation.

6
Inform ant F

]14
Search E05

 

 

 

1‘

 

 

20

 

Corrupt 0.2

 

I 22
Covert

 

0.2

 

 

Coercion 0.2

 

 

 

 

 

0 10 20

 

U.S E] South Korea

 

 

 

Figure 6. Percentage of Police Agencies who Perceive Large Legal Problems in
the U.S. and South Korea by Investigation related Activities

An lnvestjgator Fogsed Comparison

3. Investigator selection

As Figure 7 illustrates, in both nations, experience was judged to be more
important than education in selection of investigators and their supervisors. The
use of a minimum number of years of experience was always used three times
higher than the use of education as a selection criterion. Only about 10% of
American agency always considered college education as necessary for
selecting an investigator and his/her supervisor, with experience being more

important, with 35 - 40 % of agency agreeing. For South Korean police, less

97

than10% of agencies indicated that education was always used as a
requirement, and about 30% responded that experience was more frequently
used.

Looking at education requirement for investigator in two nations, the
percentages were the same. In both nations, 10% of police departments always
required it in the selection of their investigators. But for investigators’ supervisors
in the U.S., it was almost twice as high as South Korea; 12% of American police
departments always used high education as an required selection criterion, while

only 5% in South Korean police did so.

 

U.S. U.S. South Korea South Korea
investigator supervisor investigator supervisor

 

IE1 Education IE Experiencej

 

Figure 7. Percentage of Police Agencies who Always Use Education and
Experience as Selection Criteria in the U.S. and South Korea for Investigator and
lnvestigator’s Supervisor

98

b. An investigator evaluation

The number of South Korean law enforcement agencies, which believe
that clearance rates are very important, was twice as high as their American
counterparts, as is evident in Figure 8. In the U.S. only 15% of law enforcement
agencies considered clearance rates as a highly important performance
measurement, while in South Korea 38% of law enforcement agencies held the
view that clearance rates are highly important as a measure of performance.
Almost no South Korean law enforcement agencies viewed clearance rates as

not important, while about 6% of American police believed so.

 

38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 a U.S.
20 CI South Korea

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High importance No importance

Figure 8. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by
Importance of Clearance Rates as a Performance Evaluation

99

c. Recording of interrogation

As to recording of police-suspect interrogations, 10% of American police
departments were legally required to do so, and 64% of American law
enforcement agencies routinely used audio or visual means. As the contrasting
feature is demonstrated in Figure 9, in South Korea, verbatim reports are made
by police interrogators. When the interrogation is ﬁnished, with suspect’s
signature on the report, it leads to be admissible in court when the suspect does

not deny any content in the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70 64
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 7/
0 A5;
U.S.
Legally required

 

 

Cl Routinely by audio/visual

 

Figure 9. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. who are Legally Required to
Audio/visually Record Interrogations and those who Routinely do that

100

d. Police union

As Figure 10 shows, 52% of police departments in the U.S. have a police
union, while unions for police ofﬁcers do not exist in South Korea. Very
contrastingly, South Korean police investigator’s weekly average working hours

was 80 hours, even without overtime payment.

 

U.S.
E] South Korea

 

 

 

 

U.S. South Korea

Figure 10. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea who have
Police Union

Organization Focused Comparison

a. Case screening method
It is shown in Figure 11 that about half of American police departments
used the case screening method. But this method is ofﬁcially unknown to South

Korean police.

101

 

U.S.
CI South Korea

 

 

 

 

U.S. South Korea

Figure 11. Percentage of Police Agencies who use Case Screening Method in
the U.S. and South Korea

Figure 12 shows the number of cold case units, assigned investigators,
and their effectiveness. Only about 13% of South Korean police departments had
a cold case unit. That number was more than twice as high in the U.S.; 37% of
American police departments had a cold case unit. However, those numbers
were reversed in the percentage cleared by the cold case unit; in the U.S., only
10% of the cold cases were cleared, while 37% of those cases were cleared in
South Korea. The number of investigators assigned to the unit in South Korea
was three times as high as the U.S.; 14 investigators were in the South Korean

unit and 4 in the American unit.

102

 

Cold case unit % cleared # of investigator

 

U.S CI South Korea

 

Figure 12. Percentage of Police Agencies who have Cold Cast Unit, Percentage
of Cold Case which were cleared previous year, and the Number of Assigned
Investigator to Cold Case in the U.S. and South Korea

Figure 13 also compares cold case unit types in the U.S. and South
Korea. About half of the American police departments had the cold case unit for
homicide only, while only 13% of South Korean police departments had it. In
South Korea, most cold case units (79%) were focused on any serious crime. It
was about twice as high as the number in the American police departments.
However, for the cold case unit for serious crime against person, the unit was

twice as high in the U.S. as in South Korea.

103

   

 

 

49

I Any serious crime B Any serious crime
Homicide only Homicide only

CI Serious person crime CI Serious person crime

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. South Korea

Figure 13. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by Cold
Case Unit for Crime Type

As Figure 14 shows, in South Korea, only one quarter of police agencies
has involved task forces while two third of the American police agencies have

joined investigation task forces during the past 12 months.

104

 

IU.S.
USouth Korea

 

 

 

 

U.S. South Korea

Figure 14. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea who
Involved Task Forces during the past 12 months

However, as Figure 15 compares investigation taskforce types in the U.S.
and South Korea, the number of American police departments with taskforce
membership was overwhelmingly dnJg-related (94%). It was about three times as
high as the number in South Korean police departments. In South Korea, most
taskforces were focused on speciﬁc cases such as a single murder (93%), with
the number of taskforce membership twice as high as their American
counterpart. For speciﬁc case type of taskforce, the membership was also twice

as high in South Korea as in the U.S.

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
29
Drug related ,,. .
-' , 94
Spegific crse 93
ex s1n e .. 1.... T
g 1 ~41
murder I.. ._.... .... ...-
Specifice case 61
type ‘,u. 532
0 20 40 60 80 100

 

 

 

U.S E South Korea

 

Figure 15. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by
Investigation Task forces Types

Regarding the relationship between police and prosecutor, more than two
third of South Korean prosecutor ofﬁce appear to have its own investigative staff.
And about half of them assigned their investigators to prosecutor ofﬁce as those
investigative staff assisting prosecutor's criminal investigations. In the U.S., 62 %
of the American responded police department reported that they have their own
investigative staff, but only 10 % of them indicated they are assigned from police
departments. As Figure 16 shows, the number of American police departments
which assigned their investigators to prosecutor’s Ofﬁce was much less than their

South Korean counterpart.

106

 

Prosecutor own staff Assigned from police

 

IE U.S E] South Korea

 

Figure 16. Percentage of Prosecutor’s ofﬁces who appear to have their Own
Investigators and Percentage of Police Agencies who Assign their Investigators
to Prosecutor’s Ofﬁce in the U.S. and South Korea

However, as is evident in Figure 17, American police departments
appeared to more frequently interact with prosecutor’s ofﬁce than their South
Korean counterpart in the process of criminal investigation. About 76% of police
departments in the U.S. had regular relations with prosecutor, whereas less than
half of South Korean police had such a relationship. Regarding homicide
consultation with prosecutor’s ofﬁce, American police interacted with it as twice
frequently as South Korean police did. Also, American police had slightly more

consultation with prosecutor’s ofﬁce than South Korean police regarding serious

107

personal and property crimes. In the homicide case, 51% of law enforcement
ofﬁcers in the U.S. indicated they always consult with prosecutor’s ofﬁce prior to
an arrest, compared with 27% in South Korea. Concerning serious personal
crimes, the ﬁgures are less divergent, with 21% of American ofﬁcers claiming
they always consult with the prosecutor, and 17% of South Korean ofﬁcers. In
cases of serious property crime, the numbers were almost identical, being 13%
of American ofﬁcers consulting with prosecutors, and 11% of South Korean

police agencies.

 

100

 

60—

 

40-

 

   

21
i 1 1
Regular M urder Person Property
relations crime crime

 

 

 

IE3 U.S E] South Korea]

 

Figure 17. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea who have
Regular Relationship with and who Always Consult with Prosecutor‘s Ofﬁce Prior
to an Arrest by Crime Type

108

In these interactions with the prosecutor’s ofﬁce, there were inevitably
problems in both nations, but they were interpreted more severely by South
Korean ofﬁcers. As Figure 18 demonstrates, the problem of insufﬁcient feedback
and insufﬁcient notice from prosecutor’s ofﬁce was approximately twice and three
times as high in South Korea, respectively, compared to the U.S. And most
noticeably, only 2% of American police departments recognized that their
criminal investigation was interfered with by prosecutor’s ofﬁce, while 13% of
Overall, South Korean police departments felt prosecutor’s interference with
police investigation. South Korean police perceived much more problems with

prosecutor’s ofﬁce than American police.

 

30 27

 

25

 

 

20

 

 

20

 

15 ‘3

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

4 5

J ,r.

Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient Interference
Feedback Notice Advice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S CI South Korea

 

 

 

Figure 18. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by Type
of Relational Problems with Prosecutor’s Ofﬁce

109

As shown in Figure 19, in the U.S., 83% of law enforcement agencies
used state A.F.I.S. service. Only 24% of law enforcement agencies had their own
A.F.I.S. service and 21% used federal AFIS service. In contrast, all South Korea
police use a national AFIS service. Because the print of the right thumb of all
adult in South Korea is required to placed on their national identiﬁcation card, the
ﬁngerprints are stored in a central computer data base in the Korean National

police headquarter.

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

 

U.S.

 

 

 

Own [:1 State Federal

 

Figure 19. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. by Use of A.F.I.S. Service

Interestingly, Figure 20 shows that overall community policing strategies
appeared to be used more often than in South Korea than in the U.S., although

their integration into detective work was not remarkable in both countries. Only

110

2% of both American and South Korea police worked always with citizens on
community outreach for solving crimes. Less than 10% of the law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and South Korea always solved community problems as
part of police criminal investigation. The most often used community policing
strategy in criminal investigation in both nations was the prioritization of cases

based on local area problem. It was higher in South Korea (30%) than in the U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(21%).
35
30
30
25 21
20 M
15
9
10 6
5 - .... .. r1 2 2
0 ._- I ' ‘ I [-31. a 1
Problem solving Prioritize local Community
area problem outreach

 

 

 

EUS. CI South Korea

 

Figure 20. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by
Integration of Community Policing into Detective Work

Also, Figure 21 shows that South Korean police assigned much more
investigators in the ﬁeld unit than their American counterparts. Twenty seven

percent of police departments in the U.S. assigned investigators to the ﬁeld,

111

while 60% of South Korean police departments did so. In South Korea, about
3,000 police box (police mini-station) is often used for assisting investigators’

activities in its jurisdiction.

70

 

60
60

 

50

 

 

 

 

 

40 HUS.

E] South Korea

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. South Korea

Figure 21. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea who
assign Investigators to the Field

In spite of this higher prevalence of community policing and team policing
approach in South Korea, Figure 22 demonstrates that South Korean police
perceived problems with the public much more than American police. Judging
public mistrust, almost all of South Korean police felt that the public does not
trust them, while about 58% of American police did so. For poor public relations,

also half of American police perceive they have a problem, while 71% of South

112

Korean police felt so. The different police perceptions toward the public almost
doubled regarding poor public relations; 44% of the American police believed
they have poor relationship with media, while 82% of South Korean police
department perceived so. Overall, American police ofﬁcers appeared not to think
they have as great a mistnist of the public, poor rapport with media, and a lack of

faith in the public's judgement as South Korean ofﬁcers.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

 

Public mistrust Poor relations Poor public
with media relation

 

U.S CI South Korea

 

Figure 22. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by
Perceived Problem with the Public

Figure 23 shows that a greater percentage of the police in the U. S., 24%.
reported a "timely" turn-around time for crime laboratory services than those in

South Korea, 12%. However, a larger proportion of police agencies in South

113

Korea, 72%, evaluated turn-around service in crime laboratories as "somewhat
slow" than those in the U.S., 49%. Such service in both countries was almost
equally considered completely inadequate, 3% in the U. S. and 1% in South
Korea. Overall, evaluation of support services for investigation is less than

positive in South Korean than those in the U.S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 l
24 12 16
24
49 72
Inadquate a: Inadquate
Very SIOW Very slow
ISomewhat slow ISomewhat slow
DTimely CITimely
U.S. South Korea

Figure 23. Percentage of Police Agencies in the U.S. and South Korea by
Perceived Turn-Around Time for Crime Lab Service

114

Rural/Urban Areas Focused Comparison

In order to test Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1h, and 1], a T-test was
conducted at the .05 statistical signiﬁcance level. The mean differences between
rural and urban areas were examined with respect to the organizational
properties. Since the theory of rural/urban characteristics can predict the
directions of the relationship, a one-tail test was used. Also, a Chi-square test
was used to examine whether or not police organizational properties, which were
measured with nominal variables, were dependent on rural/urban areas; they are
Hypothesis 1f, 10, ii, and 1k.

As the results of simple t-test shows in Table 1 and Table 2, American
police departments in rural and urban areas were statistically different from each
other except for community policing activities at the .05 signiﬁcance level. In
contrast, in South Korean contexts, not many police organizational properties
between rural and urban departments were as statically different as in American
contexts. Only regarding police investigative efﬁciency, which was deﬁned by
total number of cleared crime against person divided by total number of ofﬁcer in
a organization, and police detachment, South Korean urban police departments
had higher mean value than their rural counterparts.

Interestingly, in the both nations, although the rural departments had
higher clearance rates of crime against person than urban departments, the
mean value of investigative efﬁciency was the opposite; rural police appeared to
be less efﬁcient. As Table 1 shows, In the U.S., police departments in urban

areas viewed the clearance rates as an important measurement of performance

115

more seriously than the police department in rural areas. But they appeared to be
more signiﬁcantly detached from the public than their rural counterparts. Also,
they tended to less frequently interact with and to have, unexpectedly, less

serious problems with prosecutor’s ofﬁce than rural police departments.

Table 1. Mean Clearance Rate and Organizational Investigative Efﬁciency and
Mean Scale Scores on Various Organizational Properties in Rural/Urban Police
Agencies in the U.S.

 

 

Rural Urban t-value Sig
Clearance rates 45.8 35.4 7.22 .000
Cleared/ Ofﬁcers .16 .36 -13.68 .000
Detachment 4.7 4.9 -2.80 .005
Consultation-Prosecutor 2.8 2.4 7.74 .000
Problem-Prosecutor 1.9 1.8 2.02 .043
Community policing 6.9 6.9 .34 .734
Importance of cI rates 2.7 2.9 -4.87 .000

 

Table 2. Mean Clearance Rate and Organizational Investigative Efﬁciency and
Mean Scale Scores on Various Organizational Properties in Rural/Urban Police
Agencies in South Korea

 

 

Rural Urban t-value Sig
Clearance rates 93.5 88.6 1.75 .082
Cleared/ Ofﬁcers .08 .15 -10.29 .000
Detachment 6.45 7.14 -2.12 .036
Consultation-Prosecutor 2.27 2.10 .82 .413
Problem-Prosecutor 1.78 1.85 -.51 .610
Community policing 6.70 7.12 -1.72 .087
Importance of cl rates 3.25 3.31 -.74 .464

 

Similarly, Table 3 and shows that many police organizational properties in

the U.S. were statistically related to rural/urban areas at the .05 signiﬁcance

116

level. In South Korea, the team policing approach was statically associated with
the rural/urban areas as shown in Table 4. With respect to police union and case
screening method, a Chi-square test was not performed for the South Korean
data because police departments in South Korea do not have such policies. As
the Chi-square test in Table 3 indicates, American police organizational
properties, including case screening method, AFIS ownership, team policing
approach, and police unionism was signiﬁcantly dependent upon the rural/urban

characteristics of jurisdictions.

Table 3. Chi-Square Test for Organizational Properties by Rural/Urban Areas in

the U.S.

 

 

Rural Urban total
Police union“ Yes 387 312 699
47.5% 58.2% 51.7%
No 428 224 651
52.5% 41.8% 48.3%
Case screening* Yes 364 355 694
35.8% 66.2% 53.7%
No 653 181 664
64.2% 33.8% 46.3%
Team approach* Yes 153 197 350
18.9% 36.6% 25.9%
No 658 341 999
81.1% 63.4% 74.1%
AFIS ownership* Yes 62 228 284
7.5% 48.4% 22.4%
No 761 243 860
92.5% 51.6% 77.6%

 

*Signiﬁcant at (p < .05)

117

Table 4. Chi-Square Test for Organizational Properties by Rural/Urban Areas in
South Korea

 

 

Rural Urban total
Team approach* Yes 48 49 97
64.0% 36.6% 46.4%
No 27 85 1 12
36.0% 63.4% 53.6%

 

*Signiﬁcant at (p < .05)

Evaluative comparison on the Organizational Properties

In order to test Hypothesis 2 through Hypothesis 2b-7, a multiple
regression models were built for the American and South Korean data,
respectively. The rural/urban areas, organizational workload, and weekly working
hours were used as control variables. Since the weekly working hours in the U.S.
was not asked, it served as a control variable only for the South Korean data.
When the set of explanatory variables and police investigative effectiveness are
differently related in the United States and South Korea, the crucial variable
explaining this difference may be revealed. If the slope of the regression lines
differ from each other (U.S. and South Korea), the interpretation is shifted to the
level of social systems and social contexts in which police policies are
embedded.

In Table 5 and Table 6, the variables were grouped according to the type
of organizational properties which were addressed previously, and results from

the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression are presented. Table 5 presents the

118

results of the regression analysis explaining the variances of cleared crimes
against person and Table 6 indicates that of crime against property.

In order to assess the multicollinearity problem, several methods
employed. After converting a dependent variable to a natural logarithm, which
was total number of cleared crime against person and property, none of the
tolerance values was approached zero, nor was the variance inﬂation factor (VIF)
higher than 10. This meant that there was not a high degree of collinearity or
multicollinearity among the independent variables. Also, the proportion of
variances of coefﬁcients did not exceed the .90 threshold, indicating concerns
regarding muticollinearity were unwarranted. The Q-Q plot of the residuals also
showed the points falling on the straight line, indicating the residuals were
normally distributed, after the transformation of the data by using the natural log
in the regression model.

Thus, as Table 5 and Table 6 shows, the American regression model
explained 59.2% and 56.8% of the variability in the log of cleared crime against
person and property, respectively. The South Korean model explained the 66.8%
and 68.3% of those variations, respectively. In the American model for crime
against person in Table 5, all variables of “enforcement” type of organizational
properties, except for the timely crime lab service, had statistically signiﬁcant
positive effects, whereas most of the “liberal policing oriented” variables had
negative inﬂuences. In the South Korean model in Table 5, these dichotomous
patterns were not found. On the contrary, some “enforcement” oriented

properties showed negative directions and some “liberal” oriented properties

119

indicated positive directions, although they were not statistically signiﬁcant. In the
model of crime against property in Table 6, these features were also identiﬁed.

In both countries, the importance of clearance rates as a performance
evaluation led to clearing more cases. In other words, the emphasis on clearance
rates resulted in increase in the total number of cleared crimes against both
person and property, holding other factors constant. As Table 5 and Table 6
show, the education requirement for supervisors had negative inﬂuence on
clearing crime against person in the U.S. and crime against property in South
Korea.

For the American police, the cold case unit, the detachment from the
public, the use of case screening method, the ownership of A.F.I.S.,
implementation of team policing approach by assigning detective to ﬁeld, and the
department’s membership in task forces signiﬁcantly affected the increase in
clearing both crime against person and property. Regarding police-prosecutor
relations, Table 5 and Table 6 shows that the more police interacted with
prosecutor’s ofﬁce and the greater the perception of relational problems,
productivity of crime solving was more likely to be smaller. However, in South
Korea, the police-prosecutor relationship did not affect investigative outcome.

Interestingly, although they were not statistically signiﬁcant in the South
Korean models, the direction of Beta for weekly working hours in solving crime
against person (Beta=-.017) and property (Beta=-.048) indicates that the more
police investigators worked the less productive they were. The dichotomy of

rural/urban areas, in this study, was used as a controlling variable. In both

120

nations, when police department jurisdictions had rural characteristics, its effect

on productivity on solving crime was signiﬁcantly negative (Beta=-.454, Beta=-

.457 in the U.S. and Beta=-.637, Beta=-.744 in South Korea).

Table 5. Regression Results of Cleared Crime against Person on Police
Organizational Properties in the U.S. and South Korea

 

 

U.S. (N=713) Korea (N=1 19)
B Beta Sig B Beta Sig

Enforcement oriented properties

Importance of clearance rates .057 .053 .035 .087 .127 .024

Cold case unit .102 .065 .011 -.053 -.041 -.474

Detachment from the public .062 .125 .000 .026 .128 .021

Case screening method .131 .086 .001

A.F.I.S. ownership .328 .194 .000

Team policing approach .147 .086 .001 -.070 -.078 .162

Task forces .125 .072 .005 -.025 -.025 .668

Crime lab service .031 .017 .494 .084 -.061 .279
Liberal oriented properties

Community policing approach .008 .016 .538 .012 .043 .493

Requirement of recording -.116 -.044 .067

Collective bargaining -.050 -.033 .183

Edu, requirement-investigator -.035 -.043 .154 .013 .024 .706

Edu. requirement- supervisor -.051 -.065 .032 -.043 -.087 .182

Prosecutor consultation -.063 -.071 .004 .002 .005 .928

Prosecutor’s advice problem -.092 -.091 .000 .017 .037 .537
Organizational workload

Weekly working hours -.000 -.017 .766

Reported crime/investigator .001 .205 .000 .005 .174 .016
Rural/urban areas -.693 -.454 .000 -.595 -.637 .000
R-square value .592 .668
F value 61.880 .000 17.949 .000

 

121

Table 6. Regression Results of Cleared Crime against Property on Police
Organizational Properties in the U.S. and South Korea

 

 

U.S. (N=761) Korea (N=119)
B Beta Sig B Beta Sig

Enforcement oriented properties

Importance of clearance rates .066 .064 .010 .097 .134 .015

Cold case unit .077 .051 .044 -.017 -.012 .824

Detachment from the public .026 .056 .022 .019 .092 .087

Case screening method .129 .089 .001

A.F.I.S. ownership .210 .129 .000

Team policing approach .156 .095 .000 -.007 -.008 .884

Task forces .168 .104 .000 -.057 -.052 .351

Crime lab service -.016 -.009 .718 .028 -.061 .614
Liberal oriented properties

Community policing approach -.007 -.015 .563 .003 .011 .861

Requirement of recording -.106 -.043 .077

Collective bargaining -.045 -.031 .212

Edu. requirement-investigator -.065 -.085 .004 .031 .054 .375

Edu. requirement- supervisor .002 .002 .945 -.070 -.135 .031

Prosecutor consultation -.049 -.054 .029 -.017 -.038 .499

Prosecutor’s advice problem -.060 -.063 .011 .048 .097 .087
Organizational workload

Weekly working hours -.000 -.048 .380

Reported crime/investigator .001 .261 .000 .001 .027 .699
Rural/urban areas -.666 -.457 .000 -.734 -.744 .000
R-square value .568 .683
F value 59.662 .000 19.192 .000

 

The results of testing propositions and hypotheses in this chapter are

summarized in Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9.

122

Table 7. Summary of Results 1: Descriptive Comparison Between the Nations

 

Proposition

OJCﬂ-wad

Table 8. Summary of Results 2: Comparison of Rural/Urban Areas Within the

Result

Supponed
Supponed
Suppoded
Supponed
Supponed
Supponed

Nations: A Cross-national Perceptive

 

 

Hypothesis U.S. South Korea
1a Supponed Notsupponed
1b Supponed Supponed

1c Supponed Supponed

1d Supponed Notsupponed
1e Supported oppositely Not supported
1f Supponed -

1g Supponed -

1h NotSupponed Notsupponed
1i Supponed Supponed

1j Suppoﬂed Notsuppoﬂed
1k Supponed -

 

123

Table 9. Summary of Results 3: Evaluative Comparison of Police Policies
Between the Nations

 

 

Hypothesis U.S. South Korea

2 Supported Supported

2a-1 Supported Supported

2a-2 Supported Supported in person crime
23-3 Supported Not supported

2a-4 Supported -

2a-5 Supported -

23-6 Supported Not supported

2a-7 Supported Not supported

2a-8 Supported Supported

2b-1 Not supported Not supported

2b-2 Not supported -

2b-3 Not supported -

2b-4 Supported Not supported

2b-5 Supported in person crime Supported in property crime
2b-6 Supported Not supported

2b-7 Supported Not supported

 

124

CHAPTER SIX
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The study of police criminal investigation does not simply entail learning
about practical techniques to solve crime. Nor is it merely about analyzing legal
technicalities within the criminal law process. Rather, the primary concern is
studying how social control agents, especially police investigators, label and
resolve human conﬂict and how in each society they deﬁne and construe criminal
action. In certain Islamic nations, to offer an extreme example, the practice of
Christianity is a serious crime, and investigators in these nations apply certain
rules in order to bring a criminal case against the offender. Possession of a Bible
and Christianity-related materials and remarks serve as key evidence that the
‘crime' occurred (New York Times, Aug, 30, 2001, A22). In many Asian countries,
to cite another graphic example, the ‘crime’ of adultery receives a great deal of
public attention. Adultery is deﬁned according to criminal codes and cases are
ofﬁcially processed by detectives. These cases illustrate in especially graphic
ways how police criminal investigations are embedded in their environments,
inﬂuenced by national cultures, societal values, and the local ethos.

The purpose of this research was to compare police investigation
processes between the U.S. and South Korea. More speciﬁcally, this study
aimed at understanding how macro-system variables inﬂuence police
investigative policies and examined whether local ways of life, as a exo-system
variable, have signiﬁcant impact on police investigative practices both in

American and South Korean contexts. This research also sought to discover the

125

extent of the relationship between police practices and their effectiveness, such
as the number of cleared cases, in the two nations.

Overall, the results in this study showed that; 1) there were more
differences than similarities in police investigative practices between the U.S. and
South Korea; 2) the inﬂuence of rural/urban areas on police investigation
practices appeared to be greater in the U.S than in South Korea; and 3) certain
organizational characteristics—those operating within an “enforcement”
orientation—were effective, but that other styles of policing—especially those
with a more “libertarian” orientation—tended to be counterproductive to clearing
cases in both nations, although this pattern was more conspicuous in the U.S.
than in South Korea.

With the above research goals in mind, this chapter discusses the overall
ﬁndings, considering contextual differences of police investigative environments
in the U.S. and South Korea. Possible explanations for the differences in
investigative practices and outcomes between the two nations are offered in this
chapter. Although speciﬁc macrosystem environments, including a national
culture and historical events, were not quantitatively measured in this research,
the nation-state itself is necessarily a decisive context so that different national
regimes may represent their unique culture and history (Linda, 1996). In this
cross-national comparative research, the nations (the U.S. and South Korea)
were neither a unit of analysis nor object of study. Rather, the two nations are
“contexts” (Kohn, 1987; Scheuch, 1967) used as the vehicle for qualitatively

understanding how a police core mission—that is criminal investigation—is

126

carried out in different national contexts. In fact, one of the greatest difﬁculties in
cross-national comparative study may be the interpretation of the results (Kohn,
1987; Slomczynski, 1981). When one ﬁnds cross-national differences, it may not
be clear what crucial factors can account for the difference (Kohn, 1987). The
best strategy is to resort to system level variables such as national settings,
cultural patterns, and elements of contexts (Przeworski & Teune, 1970). Using
this process, a comparative study can be advantageous to the discovery of
theory from data (Glaser, 1967).

Since a conceptual tool for systematic comparisons and explanations of
police crime solving missions in this study was built mainly upon a human
ecological model, which emphasizes broader social contexts such as national
characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), one scope of discussion is primarily
focused on a macro variable. Due to the lack of previous research about police
organization and criminal investigation from a cross-cultural or comparative
perspective, especially about American and South Korean police, some
explanatory statements, when necessary, are based on the author’s observations
of and participation in American and South Korean police departments as an
intern and an criminal investigator, respectively.

Iﬂﬂgence of Macro-System on Police Investigation in the LLS. and South Korea

The detective's working environment is multifaceted and intertwined with
many components of societal behavior. As Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model
shows, not only the microsystems of a person (detective) but events or human

relations outside of the detective's immediate frame of reference represent

127

important social environments; these may be demarcated by national
(macrosystem) as well as rural/urban boundaries (exosystem). Macrosystem
environments, for example, a national culture and history, may go a long way in
accounting for differences between American and South Korean criminal
investigation processes.

As the descriptive results in this study revealed, South Korean police were
more likely to emphasize clearance rates as a performance measurement, to
focus large organizational efforts to solve crime, to integrate community policing
principles into detective work, and to have higher clearance rates than American
police. However, South Korean police were also more likely to have greater legal
problems during a criminal investigation and to be more detached from the public
than their American counterparts. Interestingly, South Korean investigative
productivity was not higher than American productivity. Concerning police-
prosecutor relationship, it was shown that South Korean police were less likely to
interact with the prosecutor and more likely to have relational problems than their
American counterparts, even though South Korean Criminal Process Law
requires frequent interactions through prosecutors’ close supervision of police
criminal investigations. Possible explanations, which can account for these
differences between the two nations, are suggested below.

a. Importance of clearing cases

It was shown that South Korean police supervisors put more emphasis on
clearance rates as a performance measurement than their American

counterparts. In South Korea, there may be extremely strong social and

128

organizational pressures exerted on the police to solve crime. When the police
fail to demonstrate their ability to catch criminals, The South Korean media are
severely critical. In speciﬁc instances, the media may focus on the police lack of
success until the crime is ﬁnally solved. In contrast, in the U.S., a low clearance
rate seems to be more easily accepted by the public, raising less social concern,
unless cases involve celebrities such as a sports star, an actor, a rich
businessman, or a politician. For police themselves, as this study showed, only a
small percentage of American departments considered clearance rates as a
highly important measurement of investigative performance while more than one
third of South Korean police did so. Also, in the case of forming a cold case unit,
American police assigned fewer investigators to the unit than the South Korean
police did. This may be because the localized nature of American law
enforcement agencies does not necessarily reﬂect on the police as a whole, so
that the inability of a given police department to solve a crime may not be
interpreted as a failure of the entire police system in the nation. In contrast to the
American context, one department's incompetence to solve crime in South Korea
is usually considered to be a weakness of the entire national police. When
clearance rates are below acceptable values, the South Korean police often
launch draconian campaigns, periodically sweeping up hundreds of suspicious
people for interrogation. Also, as this research showed, the South Korean police
have a policy of solving “all” crimes, whereas about half of American police
departments used formal case screening methods to exclude “unsolvable" cases

from investigation (Bizzack, 1991). What is more, it was shown that an emphasis

129

on cold case units in South Korea applied to any serious crime, while in America
such units tend to concentrate only on serious crimes against the person,
especially homicide. Clearly, South Korean police appear to put a greater priority
on their responsibility for catching criminals than American police do, perhaps
due to greater social and organizational pressures.

b. Selection and status of detective

It was shown that only a few agencies in both nations always required a
college education for their investigators or supervisors. Also, in both American
and South Korean police agencies, investigative experience was generally seen
as a more important criterion than education. But the reasons why education is
not seen as a critical matter may be different between the U.S. and South Korea.
In the U.S., the investigator is generally considered to be of a higher rank than a
patrol ofﬁcer (Cohen & Chaiken, 1987). In addition, American investigators are
considered to be an elite group in many, especially large, organizations and they
take great pride in this (Cohen & Chaiken, 1987). This comparatively high status
is reﬂected by the fact that they usually work during the day and wear a suit with
gentlemen's shoes.

In contrast, in South Korea, an investigator title is not a rank. Detective
work is regarded as the hardest assignment in an ofﬁcer's career. South Korean
Investigators also have to work night shifts. They are expected to wear casual
clothing and sport shoes in order to be able to run more quickly so as to catch
criminals at any time and in any location. Oftentimes, a certain level of ability in

the martial arts is seen as a requirement for a South Korean detective, and, on a

130

regular basis, a master of martial arts is recruited as a new criminal investigator.
Therefore, a formal, academic education is not necessarily seen as a
requirement for being selected as an investigator in South Korea. For the
American police, though, a detective has already attained an advanced rank;
only a minority of American police departments requires that an investigator have
a college education.

0. Community policing in detective work and public detachment

Due to the inﬂuence of American scholarship and research agencies like
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), many countries now share the concepts
and programs of “community policing." Indeed, some countries are even making
wholesale attempts to transplant American models of "community policing” or
variations on "broken windows" approaches (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).
Surprisingly, in was shown that integration of community policing strategies in
criminal investigation, such as prioritizing cases based on local area problems
and solving community problems as part of criminal investigation, were used
more in South Korea than in the U.S. Nonetheless, it was also revealed that
public mistrust, poor public relations, and poor rapport with media appeared to be
much greater in South Korea than in America. Why do South Korean police
appear to be more detached from the public although they seem to be very
familiar with and employ more of the concepts and the managerial language of
community policing than their American counterparts?

The answer may underscore the way in which motivations for

implementing community policing vary according to each nation's social

131

environment and national security considerations. Although South Korean police
have always upheld a community oriented model of policing, emphasizing
morality and peace in a community, grounded in six hundred years of Korean
Confucian philosophy, their version of “community policing” may be quite
different from that of their American counterparts. In other words, in the South
Korean context, community-policing activities have been misused, serving as
watchdog activity against political dissent. South Korean police even use pro-
police citizens to watch and listen for politically deviant groups' remarks and
behavior, including radical labor organizations, left-wing student associations,
and opposition political groups, as a part of national security matters. The focus
of South Korean community policing is on the interests of the police or
government themselves, not on public beneﬁt, as it is said to be in America.
Because the police in South Korea have been used for political purposes
throughout modern history, they retain a certain negative public image to this
day. Some of this is grounded in Korea’s history of imperial domination. During
the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945), Japan used its police force to
suppress the emancipation movement and to catch Korean political activists
(Cumings, 1997). Japanese police were extremely violent and severely harassed
the Korean people. The major role of the police investigator at that time was to
collect information about how South Korean people thought and what they
discussed (Yoon, 1990). After World War II and the Korean War, when a new
South Korean national regime was born, the police had to be the eyes and ears

of the government, to watch over the public, because of the continued threat of

132

terror and espionage activities by North Korea (Yoon, 1990). Throughout the
turbulent events leading to democratization in the 19803, the South Korean
police remained ﬁrmly on the side of government (Yoon, 1990). They used tens
of thousands of tear-gas canisters almost every day handling riots; this
aggressiveness resulted in a great deal of public disfavor (Oberdorfer, 1997).

The single most signiﬁcant event which resulted in distance between the
public and the police during the period of political turmoil in 19805 was the death
of a college student, a leader of a radical student organization, in a police
interrogation room. Since the student was suspected of a political crime, he was
interrogated by police ofﬁcers. When the student refused to confess, he was
tortured in a bathtub, resulting in his sudden death. The police falsely claimed
that the incident was an accident, caused by a chronic health problem and had
nothing to do with any police practice during the interrogation. However, a
forensic pathologist later testiﬁed that the cause of the death was directly related
to police torture.

These highly negative collective memories, throughout the history of the
police-public relationship, have left scars that are still visible in South Korea. This
is not to say, however, that the relationship of the American police with the
American public has never been beset by such problems. Community policing
efforts in the U.S. may have helped (Radelet & Carter 1994 ;Skogan 1994;
Trojanowicz 1978). There may be relatively little discrepancy between community
policing “on paper’ and “in action’ in the U.S., as compared to the South Korean

situation.

133

d. Police prosecutor relationships

This study found that a greater number of South Korean police
departments assigned investigators to the prosecutor‘s ofﬁce than was the case
in America. But it was shown that South Korean police appeared to less
frequently interact with the prosecutor’s ofﬁce than their American counterparts.
Also, South Korean police perceived larger problems with prosecutor's ofﬁce
than their American counterparts.

Unlike the U.S, South Korean prosecutor’s ofﬁces are not local agencies;
rather, they are part of a hierarchical national legal system. Prosecutors are not
elected ofﬁcials as in America. Nevertheless, American and South Korean
prosecutors may have in common a sense of almost unlimited discretion as to
whether a particular case should be dropped or prosecuted (Cole, 1970; Kades,
1997; Walker, 1 993).

However, many contextual contrasts can be noted with regard to the
relationships between police and prosecutor’s ofﬁce, which may account for the
different results in the U.S and South Korea. Unquestionably, South Korean
prosecutors” authority over police investigators is much greater than their
American counterparts. For instance, police investigators in South Korea are
legally obligated to report all cases to prosecutors whenever they begin or close
any criminal investigation. Furthermore, prosecutors in South Korea can
administratively order the Police Chief to replace detectives when it is necessary
for directing on—going criminal investigation. They can also order the police to

submit any investigation related documents to them and they have the authority

134

to reinvestigate all cases themselves, even cases that the police have already
closed. In addition, a verbatim report of interrogation made by a prosecutor has
much more evidentiary power than the report by police investigator. A verbatim
report, which is made by a police interrogator and signed by the suspect,
becomes admissible evidence in the courtroom only when the suspect does not
deny any of the report’s content. However, when a verbatim report of
interrogation is made by a prosecutor, it is admissible as evidence even in the
face of a suspect's denial of his/her confession or the veracity of any other
statement. South Korea’s “Criminal Process Law” goes so far as to specify that
every police criminal investigation should be placed under the authority of the
prosecutor.

Despite this great amount of power, however, South Korean prosecutors
are unable to do their work without the assistance of the police, because the total
number of prosecutors is only about 1,200. Without the full cooperation and
support from police investigators, the workload of the South Korean prosecutor
would quickly become entirely unmanageable. Therefore, a much greater
number of South Korean police departments (49%) were shown to assign
investigators to the prosecutors than their American counterparts (10%). In South
Korea, this practice is often requested by the prosecutor’s ofﬁce.

Interestingly, in spite of legal mandates and the larger number of police
investigators assigned to prosecutor's ofﬁces in South Korea, the interaction
between police and prosecutor’s ofﬁces appeared to be less frequent and the

degree of their relational problems seemed to be larger in South Korea. In

135

general, South Korean police investigators see themselves, to be blunt, as slaves
and the prosecutor as master, because they think that all investigative work is
done by the police alone but in return they receive only excessive bureaucracy
over their investigation from prosecutor’s ofﬁce. This police “emotional
landscape” may be attributed to the perception of “prosecutor intrusion on their
autonomy or turf” (Johnson, 2002). Indeed, in this study, it was shown that the
mentality of interference on “turf” among South Korean police investigators stood
in sharp contrast to that of their American counterparts. In the U.S., police and
prosecutor’s ofﬁces accept their different roles and interact under a much
different framework to achieve mutual professional goals, although some
conﬂicts exist (Jacoby, 1980). Also, American prosecutors, unlike South Korean
prosecutors, may tend not to behave as authoritative commanders; rather, they
may be only consultants. In South Korea, however, the vertical and authoritative
police-prosecutor relation that exists may make police perceive more problems
with prosecutor’s ofﬁce than their American counterparts. Perhaps this sentiment
discourages South Korean police from frequent interactions with prosecutor's
ofﬁce.

e. Legal problems and organizational efﬁciency

It was shown that South Korean police perceived more serious legal
problems during investigations than their American counterparts, although the
former had much higher clearance rates than their American counterparts. The
difference of police investigative efﬁciency in murder and rape, (deﬁned as the

total number of cases cleared divided by the total number of ofﬁcers) was found

136

to be negligible between the two nations. Interestingly, for robbery and larceny,
The South Korean police were three times less efﬁcient than American police.
Why do South Korean police appear to be less efﬁcient than American police in
clearing cases despite their much higher clearance rates than their American
counterparts? Why do South Korean police have greater legal problems than
American police? Possible answers can be suggested from the differences in
legal cultures and national security matters, which are, in fact, important macro-
system variables making clear distinctions between the U.S. and South Korea.

With regards to the low investigative efﬁciencies in South Korea, despite
the high clearance rates, four possible explanations can be suggested; police
agencies’ national security duty, little use of patrol ofﬁcers in criminal
investigation, excessive bureaucracy, and an “all crime” resolution policy.

Firstly, it may be true that different national security concerns were one of
the distinctions between the two nations before the event of September 11.
Americans have seldom experienced a sense of national insecurity from outside
invasion, Pearl Harbor and the event of September 11 being quite notable
exceptions. Geographically, the countries along the U.S. border, Canada and
Mexico, may be friendly; they have not militarily threatened the U.S. In contrast,
South Korea has long faced a highly tangible threat from North Korea. As a
result, The South Korean police are required to perform national security related
activities as one of the most important police mandates, as described even in the
South Korean Police Activity Law. This means that South Korean police often

have to divert their investigative resources to national security related activities.

137

In contrast, in the U.S., before the September 11 terrorist attack, police
ofﬁcers, especially criminal investigators, were able to concentrate on handling
day-to-day crime and quality-of-Iife-violations, rather than putting a high priority
on guardianship and intelligence processing. American police are now confronted
with a new era, in which it is necessary for them to be vigilant in new ways. Now,
many American police ﬁnd themselves confronted with brand new, never-before-
anticipated assignments, which, for the South Korean police, are common routine
activities. Indeed, as South Korean police investigators often had to serve a
national urgent need, for instance, to protect entrances to government buildings,
utility plants, and other potential targets, they could not devote their time
exclusively to criminal investigation as American police could. The additional
mandate of national security, demanded by the societal need to safeguard a
country's security, may negatively affect overall police investigative efﬁciencies in
South Korea.

Secondly, the role of South Korean patrol ofﬁcer in a criminal investigation
process may be related to low organizational efﬁciency. South Korean patrol
ofﬁcers do not become nearly as involved in solving crimes as their American
counterparts. The radio communication system of police departments is shared
by mobile detective teams in South Korea, ready to respond to violent crimes.
Even when patrol ofﬁcers arrive at a crime scene ﬁrst in South Korea, their role is
usually limited to activities that take place on the crime scene and is not
extended to further investigative activities. Unlike American police, South Korean

patrol ofﬁcers’ activities are primarily focused on foot patrols within the

138

jurisdiction of the police box (mini-station) to which they are assigned. Because
patrol ofﬁcers in South Korea seem to be relatively ‘underused,’ as compared to
their American counterparts, their contribution to clearing cases become smaller.
Thus, the overall investigative efﬁciency of South Korean police was lower than
their American counterparts. ’

Thirdly, one possible reason why South Korean investigators had low
levels of investigative efﬁciency, as compared to American police, may be related
to a great amount of additional organizational duties for South Korean
investigators. For instance, a number of cases which are reported directly from
the public to the prosecutor's ofﬁce or investigated by the prosecutor's ofﬁce itself
must also be handled by the police; police investigative workloads become
unexpectedly heavier as a result of this type of case assigned from the
prosecutor’s ofﬁce to the police. Oftentimes, South Korean detectives are seen
as working for or on behalf of the prosecutor's ofﬁce, at least relative to American
detectives. There are also frequent regular meetings between investigators and
their supervisors, every morning and evening, in order for supervisors to review
the progress of cases. Periodic ﬁeld interrogations, the transportation of fugitives
that have been arrested in other jurisdictions, and even secret service duty, all
tend to usurp South Korean detectives' working hours.

Although American detectives spend the majority of their time making
documentation of cases (Ericson, 1981;Greenwood, Chaiken, & Petersilia; 1977),
South Korean detectives' bureaucratic duty may be heavier than in America.

They have to document all investigative processes, from accepting reported

139

cases, and reporting every investigative activity when it occurs, to the
prosecutor's ofﬁce, to transcribing all of the questions and answers in a verbatim
report that takes place during an interrogation. Although this “precise justice” may
lead to higher conviction rates in later stages of criminal justice (Johnson, 2002),
at least with respect to investigative efﬁciency, making such dossiers in detail
may be an excessive burden and disadvantageous to performance.

Fourthly, South Korean police have a "solve all crimes policy." Cases are
not ofﬁcially ﬁltered by the police in South Korea as they are in the U.S. All cases
reported to the police must be eventually handed over to the prosecutor's ofﬁce,
regardless of whether or not the cases are solved. Only the prosecutor can judge
whether or not the investigative process should continue in any given case.
Conversely, as this study showed, about half of American law enforcement
agencies incorporate a "solvability factors" to help determine which cases to
pursue. South Korean police may tend to spend an enormous amount of time on
cases that are virtually unsolvable. These differences may account for relatively
lower investigative efﬁciency of the South Korean police even though their higher
clearance rates show greater effectiveness.

Criminal investigation is the collection and identiﬁcation of information
produced by the interaction between the police and public (Meesig, Lee, &
Horvath, in press). The ability of the police to collect and use information to
resolve crime is largely inﬂuenced by the priority and values embedded in a
police organization. Sometimes the police resort to aggressive tactics and

methods for obtaining information which are necessary to clear cases (Leo,

140

Leo, 1992). These may lead to accusations of police conduct that is harsh,
coercive or secretive; activities such as intrusive searches, interrogations and
special operations, though accepted practices may be questionable to some.
Hence, in a nation that places a greater priority on “crime control” than “due
process," (Packer, 1968) ofﬁcers, including detectives, may have more enabling
resources (Bayley 1991; Miyazawa, 1992), and, in fact, may produce greater
legal problems. (Miyazawa, 1992; Jones, 2002).

Because the most important function in the crime control model is to
discourage criminals, a high value is placed on system efﬁciency, rather than on
legal sufﬁciency (Packer, 1968); this may be true in South Korea. In contrast, In
the U.S., an emphasis of the criminal justice process may be placed more on the
legal protection of individual rights by restrictions on the activities of police (Pizzi,
1999; Rothwax, 1996). For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, especially the
Warren court era of the 19603, extended the “rights” of criminal suspects in a
number of pivotal decisions, such as Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and Miranda v.
Arizona (1966) (Cassell & Fowles, 1998). So, it may be true that the guiding
principle of the criminal investigation process is constructed differently according
to each national culture. In the American legal system, it may be preferable to let
the guilty go free rather than to deprive an individual of his/her rights. In contrast,
South Korea, which has an inquisitorial justice system, may emphasize more the
importance of the determination of factual than legal truth (Spader, 1999).

In South Korea, the interests of the nation, collectivity. may be seen as

more important than the interests of individuals (Hofstede, 1980), this is

141

fundamental to many Asian cultures and South Korea is no exception. Great
personal sacriﬁce is seen as fully justiﬁed in the interests of the nation or the
larger community. South Korean society may be more concerned with the
inability of police to catch criminals than the failure to protect an offender's
technical legal rights. Also, the inquisitorial legal value in South Korea may allow
law enforcement ofﬁcers as well as the general public to believe that offenders
should not be freed on legal technicalities. Subsequently, this legal culture may
produce a much higher degree of legal problems associated with criminal
investigations.

f. Structure of crime laboratory and A.F.I.S. service

In a reactive state, there is less intervention by the government and an
individual retains certain rights, which can sometimes present major barriers to
the achievement of a government's policy goals. Competitive advocacy with
respect to conﬂict between two parties is often seen as the best process for
uncovering legal truth in this environment. This kind of system is sometimes
referred to as an "entrepreneurial model of law“ and has its historical roots in the
accusatorial system (Black, 1980, p.52). In a proactive state, on the other hand, it
is generally believed that judicial control of the investigative process uncovers the
facts more effectively than party control or advocacy. Within this environment,
state judicial ofﬁcials, including detectives, prosecutors, and judges, work
together to insure the enforcement of state policies; the distinction between

judicial and executive powers often becomes blurred in the interests of attaining

142

the substantive results sought by the state. These contexts are referred to as a
"social-welfare model of law" (Black, 1980, p.53).

This study revealed that 24%, 83%, and 21% of American police used
their own, state-administered, and federal A.F.I.S. service, respectively, while all
South Korean police use a national A.F.I.S. service. This is because in South
Korea the justice system is considered to be primarily of an inquisitorial nature or
“social-welfare model of law.” In such systems, forensic science laboratory
services are often provided by large university-based medico-Iegal institutes or
separate national forensic laboratories (Havard, 1991), which assist the court in
determining both legal and factual ‘truth’. This kind of system is buttressed by the
belief that individuals may not know what is in their best interest; state ofﬁcials,
therefore, try to reach what is seen as an appropriate decision on behalf of
individuals (Black, 1980).

By contrast, in the United States, where the adversarial legal tradition or
"entrepreneurial model of law" is prevalent (Black, 1980; Kagan, 2001), crime
laboratories are commonly appended to police organizations. Private laboratory
services may also be used. Forensic services, though, are not uniformly
provided, which sometimes results in legal disputes between prosecution and
defense over forensic evidence (or the lack thereof) (Becker, 1997; Siegel, 1997;
Terrence; 2001).

As this study found, South Korean police were less satisﬁed with the crime
lab service in terms of tum-around time than their American counterparts. One

possible reason why South Korea’s crime lab service was generally perceived to

143

be inferior to its American counterpart may be related, at least in part, to its
centralized structure.

Crime laboratories in the U.S. provide services in a very decentralized
way, according to diverse local situations. Some forensic laboratories,
organizationally attached to local police departments, provide almost exclusive
services to the law enforcement agencies. Other laboratories, often those
afﬁliated with a state or federal organization, provide services to police agencies
unable to afford either their own laboratory or certain speciﬁc forensic
techniques.

In contrast, the South Korean police, a National police force, have one
centralized national crime laboratory system. That system and its services,
attached to the Ministry of the Interior in South Korea, is nationally administered
and managed. There is only one Central crime lab, with two branches, in South
Korea. Because the capacity for analyzing physical evidence in the two branch
labs is limited, most police departments in South Korea use the service of the
central crime lab located in Seoul. Since there is a heavily concentrated workload
at that lab, it fails to satisfy investigators, especially with respect to tum-around
time.

Inﬂuence of Exo-Svstem on Police Investigiﬁﬂin t_he U.S. and Sogh Korea

Sixty two million people live in American rural areas, which is 28% of the
American population (Conger, 1997). Also, over half of the police departments in
the U.S. are small, with less than 10 sworn full-time police personnel located in

non-urban areas (Crank, 1990).

144

Nonetheless, much scholarly attention and its focus have been
disproportionately placed on the large urban agencies. It is unclear whether the
rural-urban dimension is an essential variable for understanding police
organization. It may be true that modern technological advancements, including
the ready availability of mass media, easier mobility, and the homogenization of
peoples” lives in a current megapolis mass society (Marcuse, 1964; Vidich, 1968;
Miller, 1975) blur the clear distinctions. However, this does not mean that the
peculiarities of the urban way of life and rural characteristics have completely
vanished. In this study, an attempt was made to examine the extent to which
detective work within a nation reﬂects characteristics of local ways of life in the
U.S. and South Korea, respectively.

It was shown that both in the U.S. and South Korea, urban police cleared
more crime per ofﬁcer and appeared to be further detached from the public than
their rural counterparts. With respect to such police investigative practices as the
use of case screening methods, emphasis on clearance rates, team policing
approaches, and police unions, American urban police showed higher
prevalence than their rural counterparts. Regarding prosecutor consultation, rural
police were perceived to do so more frequently than their urban counterparts in
the U.S. Overall, these results conﬁrmed Tonnies’s (1957) idea of
“Gemeinschaft” and “Gesellschaft” and Weber’s (1958) idea of rationality as an
indicator of urbanization. They may have relevance to an understanding of police
investigative polices both in rural and urban areas. In addition, the ﬁnding

suggests that loosely coupled management styles, less formalized practices,

145

and/or the tendency to informal forms of conﬂict resolution of rural police may
have a negative inﬂuence on investigative efﬁciency.

It may be true that the typical urban attitude is “reserved,” meaning
indifference to others and to doing nothing about anything except when one’s
own business is interfered with (Simmel, 1950). For example, Kitty Genovese
was stabbed to death in Queens New York in 1964. This event was witnessed
by 38 people who failed to come to her aid; neighbors just ignored her horrifying
screams. Also, people in urban areas perceive more fear of crime than rural
residents do (Baumer, 1978; Smith & Huff, 1982), because rural reSidents see
their neighbors as trustworthy (Mullen and Donnermeyer, 1985). Generally, in
urban areas, there is less concern for neighbors, even though people are packed
together.

In contrast, there are high degrees of social density in rural communities.
People are more willing to step into others’ lives. In rural areas, even police,
offender, and victim have very intimate close relationships and frequent personal
interactions (Weisheit, Wells, & Falcone, 1994). Due to this characteristic of
“density of acquaintanceship” in rural communities, (Freudenburg, 1986; Ruback,
1993; Ruback & Menard, 2001), community policing activities may be
unnecessary and impractical to rural police, as compared to urban departments.

However, the less detachment and non-rationality in a rural setting may
not necessarily be a panacea for handling crimes. Police favoritism and
corruption is often noticed in rural areas (Shaman, 1974; Weisheit, Falcone, &

Wells, 1996). For example, battered women in mral areas view state troopers as

146

more effective than their local police in responding to their needs, since troopers
are less heavily invested in the “ol’ boys network” and they are less willing to
ignore domestic violence cases than local ofﬁcers (Websdale, 1998). As this
study showed, American urban police employ more rationalized forms of
strategies such as case screening methods, importance of clearance rates as a
performance evaluation, and team policing approaches. Perhaps, as a result of
this rationality, rather than relying on an informal mechanisms of social control
(Cardarelli, McDevitt, 8 Baum, 1998), urban police were found to have higher
organizational investigative efﬁciency than their rural counterparts.

Unexpectedly, one hypothesis was conversely supported; it was shown
that American rural police had more signiﬁcant relational problems with their
prosecutor’s ofﬁce than their urban counterparts. It was predicted that the
characteristics of intimate human relations in rural areas might result in less
friction between the police and the prosecutor’s ofﬁce; urban relations might
more likely be conﬂicting, rather than cooperative, compared to the rural
counterpart. Perhaps, this opposite result may be because the rural police,
especially in very serious crimes, may not be as experienced in handling such
events and may ﬁnd the prosecutor’s ofﬁce to be more controlling. However, no
apparent explanation can be suggested at this time; it needs further exploration.
Overall, the degree of rural/urban orientation inﬂuences greatly police criminal
investigative practices and polices. As an exosystem, rural/urban characteristics

are among the signiﬁcant variables which shape police organizational properties.

147

It should be pointed out the ﬁnding of rural/urban inﬂuence is somewhat
contradictory to Bayley’s proposition that variations in police work tend not to
occur within nations but between them. He posited that because national culture
is a factor which is common to all locations within a country, it determines police
work in a uniform manner across the country (Bayeley, 1985, pp.130-156). This
study conﬁrmed, as he argued, that national culture is an important predictor in
understanding the variations of detective work between the U.S. and South
Korea, although, at the same time, this study disconﬁrrned his proposition, by
ﬁnding that the way in which rural vs. urban location was also a fair1y signiﬁcant
determinant of police criminal investigative activities in both nations.

In addition, it was shown that variations of detective work in South Korea
were not as largely pronounced as in the U.S. For the South Korean police, there
were no differences between rural and urban departments with respect to the
emphasis on clearance rates, frequency of prosecutor consultation, and degree
of relational problems with prosecutor’s ofﬁce. One possible explanation which
may account for the differences in the two nations is the fact that South Korea
has a uniform and centralized police system, whereas the American police
system is an extremely diversiﬁed and localized one.

The United States and South Korea differ considerably with respect to the
organization of their police forces. One of the most peculiar features of American
law enforcement agencies may well be their level of decentralization; there are
more than 18,000 separate, autonomous police departments (Bureau of Justice

Statistics; 1996). In contrast, South Korea has one national police force with 230

148

police stations. The fragmented nature of American police forces and the
heterogeneous character of American society may account for large variations in
detective work. A country with a highly homogeneous society and centralized
police system such as South Korea maintains fairly similar practices and policies
throughout the country while being policed in a uniform manner. In fact, the
distinct rural-urban dichotomy in the U.S. and its relatively large inﬂuence on the
way in which American police carry out their criminal investigations may be one
example of the diversiﬁed nature of American society.
Assessment of Police Organizational Prog<e_rtjes in Clearing Cases in the U.S.
and South Korea

Contrary to the conclusions of the Rand study (Greenwood, Chaiken, &
Petersilia; 1977), which found organizational efforts and characteristics have little
effect on investigative outcomes, this study revealed that differences in
organizational policies and practices inﬂuence the number of cleared cases both
in the U.S. and South Korea. More importantly, this study also found that the
“enforcement” oriented properties were effective while the “liberal-policing”
oriented properties were ineffective in clearing cases; some were even
signiﬁcantly counterproductive. In the American context, it was shown that
enforcement oriented properties, including the emphasis on clearance rates,
detachment from the public, use of cold case units, case screening methods,
ownership of A.F.I.S., team policing approaches, and task force membership
were effective at clearing cases. However, liberal oriented properties such as the

educational requirement for selection of investigators and their supervisors,

149

frequent interaction with prosecutor's ofﬁce, and poor police-prosecutor
relationship were found to be counterproductive. In the South Korean context,
enforcement oriented properties such as emphasis on clearance rates and
detachment from the public were also effective, whereas liberal oriented
properties such as education requirements were found to be counterproductive.
These ﬁndings suggest that the “enforcement oriented property,” rather
than the “liberal policing oriented property" is more ﬁtted to the police crime
solving mission. This may be because the nature of detective work may be
composed of potential modes of oppression. Police investigators are usually
required to restrict someone’s freedom in the course of catching law-breakers.
Also, one of the ﬁnal products of police criminal investigations may be to "make
cases" using a variety of resources, even sometimes including hostile practices
(Ericson, 1981; Miyazawa, 1992). When the police implement practices intended
and designed to enhance the somewhat aggressive nature of investigative
activities, exclusively focusing on investigative output, this may help the police
clear more cases (Miyazawa, 1992). In contrast, when detective resources are
channeled into encouraging less assertive police behavior, this can, in fact, serve
to handicap the police in terms of investigative productivity. As the results of this
study revealed, highly quantitative measures of productivity necessitate more
"enforcement oriented" and less liberal service properties. All these ﬁndings are
not to suggest, though, that the “enforcement” oriented property is always more
desirable and effective than the liberal one. If the dependent variable here had

been something other than investigative effectiveness, for example, conviction

150

rates, victims’ perception, or the degree of protection of individual rights during an
investigation, the “liberal” orientation might have been shown to be more
effective. Only for quantitative organizational productivity of criminal investigation
is the enforcement property a valuable tool.

From a cross-national comparative perspective, it is important to note that
the “enforcement oriented properties," which have proved to be effective in the
U.S., have not necessarily worked well in South Korea. Interestingly, the “liberal
policing oriented properties” which have proved to be counterproductive in the
American context have not necessarily been negative in the South Korean
context. In other words, the dichotomous pattern of police investigative
effectiveness, identiﬁed in the U.S., did not appear to be the case in South
Korea.

This ﬁnding suggests that, the typology of enforcement vs. liberal oriented
properties, which are primarily drawn from Wilson (1968), may not mesh well with
the South Korean mission. It may be true that the category of legalistic,
watchman, and service policing style can not really be separated in the context of
South Korea. Throughout modern South Korean history, the police have had to
carefully watch over members of society to maintain order (“watchman style”), in
order to foster economic development and industrialization. Politically deviant
ways of life and thoughts were checked by the police and generally not allowed.
At the same time, the police have had to detect North Korean espionage activity,
enforcing not only criminal law but also national security related law (“legalistic

style”). In fact, these watchman and legalistic police policies and practices in

151

South Korea have eventually solved many community problems and could
enhance the quality of life (“service style”) by maintaining national security.
Therefore, it may not be easy to clearly predict which type of police practices and
policies are more closely related to either “enforcement” or “liberal” orientation
and to separately evaluate them in the South Korean context.

More speciﬁcally, this study found that a greater emphasis on clearance
rates leads to higher organizational productivity of criminal investigation both in
the U.S. and South Korea. In fact, the emphasis on clearance rates in an
organization as an appraisal of investigative performance may serve as a reward
for investigators and may motivate them to clear more cases in both the
American and Asian contexts (Miyazawa, 1992; Simon1991). A strong sense of
competition among investigators is often promoted by the emphasis on clearance
rates in a police organization (Miyazawa, 1992; Simon 1991), which
consequently may lead to clearing more cases. This is especially true in South
Korea. The most common strategy chosen by South Korean supervisors to boost
an individual investigator's clearance rate is to link it to his/her chance of
promotion. Promotion, in fact, is a matter of life and death for South Korean
ofﬁcers, because if ofﬁcers cannot get promoted in a certain period of time, they
are forced to retire. Thus, promotions are directly linked to family prestige and
pnde.

It was also shown in both nations that the greater perception of the
distance between police and public, the higher the levels of organizational

productivity of criminal investigation. This ﬁnding suggests that, in order to

152

increase police criminal investigative productivity, some level of detachment from
the public may be a "necessary evil." The organizational culture of “if we want to
make an omelet, we must break a few eggs” may result in more cases being
cleared but at some cost.

In this study, police who participate in an investigative task force have
been shown to be more effective at solving certain crimes than those without task
force membership. Such consolidated and coordinated multi-agency efforts may
greatly assist American police investigation. However, in the South Korean
context, task force membership did not have a signiﬁcantly positive inﬂuence on
solving crimes. To the contrary it was shown that the direction of inﬂuence was
negative. This may be because feverish competition among individual
investigators, investigative units, and police organizations is commonplace in
South Korea, and thus, the task forces may result in more conﬂict than
cooperation. South Korean investigators who are assigned to task forces are
sometimes even reluctant to share crime information because they wish to take
credit themselves (or for their unit, department, etc.) for solving a case in
quesﬁon.

With regard to community-policing activities in the criminal investigation
process, this study found that they have apparently not resulted in higher
organizational productivity, but the team policing approach by assignment of
investigators into ﬁeld level units has. The community policing program was
originally developed and designed to deal with broader quality of life issues,

incivility, community problems, or issues of psychological satisfaction (Goldstein.

153

1979; Trojanowicz & Bucquerous, 1994; Wilson 8 Kelling, 1982). It differs from
the team policing approach in a sense that the former aims at service for
community while the latter strongly concentrates on enforcement of criminal law
(Walker, 1993). The community policing program may not have been integrated
to be helpful in the actual resolution of crimes. Perhaps, “community problem
solving” detectives may be very rare (Eck, 1999). Thus, community policing
activities, including community problem solving, prioritization of cases based on
local area problems, and working with citizens on community outreach, might not
signiﬁcantly result in clearing more cases.

In contrast, the team policing approach by assignment of investigators into
field level units can enhance informational ﬂow to criminal investigators by
ﬂattening the organizational structure (Walker, 1993). Bringing police
investigators closer to the public with the intention of attacking crime may allow
police departments to obtain more crime-related information in assigned areas
(Walker, 1993). The signiﬁcant effectiveness of the team policing approach with
decentralized investigation suggests that the matter of organizational structure
may be one important determinant in organizational productivity.

Since the president’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice recommended in 1967 that police ofﬁcers earn college
credits (President’s Commission, 1967), one long-standing debate has been
about whether college-educated ofﬁcers perform better than those who do not
have a college degree (Carter, Sapp, Stephens, 1988; Grifﬁne 1980; Hudzik,

1978; Sherman & Blumberg, 1981). Because important tasks performed by

154

police investigators require effective communication skills (Bayley, 1994; Horvath
& Meesig, 1996), an education requirement can be suggested as a selection
criterion for police investigators (Cohen & Chaiken, 1987). When police
departments select detectives considering college education as a requirement,
their overall organizational investigative productivity may be affected.

It could be argued that, on the one hand, good detective work demands a
certain level of education so that ofﬁcers have an adequate understanding of the
legal applications and better judgements of human relations surrounding criminal
cases. Detectives who have a background of abstract thinking may perform
better than those who do not (Cohen & Chaiken, 1987). Due to the generally
rising levels of educational achievement in society, police departments may need
to raise investigator education requirements to keep pace with the public. Also,
higher education may allow ofﬁcers to better appreciate the role of police in a
democratic society (Worden, 1990). On the other hand, it could be argued that
experience is more important to an investigator than education, because a
detective is considered a craftsman or artist who is a master of interrogation and
other skills, something which must be Ieamed over time (Reppetto, 1978).
Experience may teach investigators what their most important operating goals
are and how to choose relevant tactics in the investigation process (Bayley &
Bittner, 1984).

In this study, it was shown that education requirements for investigators
and their supervisors have not been effective in raising number of crimes

cleared. In the American context, an education requirement for supervisors

155

appears to be counterproductive in solving crime against persons. Also, in the
South Korean context, an education requirement for supervisors was signiﬁcantly
detrimental to organizational productivity of investigation of crime against
property. Investigators with artistic qualities, yet little formal education, may
frequently be far more effective than a ‘weII-educated’ detective at the task of
solving crimes. This may be attributed to the frequently cited characteristics of
college-educated, a less authoritative and less cynical attitude (Shennock, 1992).
In other words, when detectives tend to be less oriented toward oppressive forms
of law enforcement, investigative productivity suffers.

With respect to police-prosecutor relationships, the two are expected to
work closely together. The prosecutor can assist police investigations by
providing legal advice and detectives can prepare the case for the prosecution.
But, what investigators actually do is routine case processing, spending most of
their time on administrative matters or post-arrest activities (Eck, 1983; Ericson,
1981; Greenwood, Chaiken, 8 Petersilia, 1977; Willman 8 Snortum, 1984).
Prosecutors usually want to obtain all the information they desire from police
investigative reports. This means that the failure of thorough documentation or
follow-up police investigative work often leads to higher case dismissal rates
(Greenwood, Chaiken, 8 Petersilia, 1977). The quality of documentation may
also inﬂuence the prosecutor's plea bargaining position or even sentencing
outcomes.

Interestingly, it was shown that, in the U.S., more frequent consultation

with a prosecutor’s ofﬁce did not necessarily translate into higher levels of police

156

investigative productivity. On the contrary, it was counterproductive to clearing
cases. This may be because the prosecutor’s standard of “beyond reasonable
doubt” tends to be different than the police criterion of “probable cause.” In other
words, more frequent consultation with the prosecutor’s ofﬁce may encourage
detectives to adopt its standards, which is not necessarily helpful for police in
clearing more cases.

Due to the pressure of incoming cases and the belief that the case will be
bargained rather than tried, the police are unwilling to use extra effort and time to
strengthen the case, although prosecutors expect police investigators to do so
(Greenwood, Chaiken, 8 Petersilia, 1977). Of course, with respect to the quality
of investigative outcomes, more frequent consultation with the prosecutor may be
critically important, but this study did not measure the quality of investigation,
only the quantity of cleared cases. Nevertheless, as this study showed, when
advice from the prosecutor’s ofﬁce is found to be insufﬁcient, police
investigations are unproductive. This suggests that when tension exists between
these two institutions criminal justice networks tend to fail and police crime
control functions are weakened (Wright, 1980)

In contrast, in the case of South Korea, police-prosecutor relations are not
generally found to have much effect on police output, although prosecutors have
legal and administrative authority to control and supervise police investigations.
Their day-to—day scope of supervising police investigations may be limited.
Because there are relatively few prosecutors in South Korea, they do not have

the time to review or even oversee each case. They have no choice but to rely on

157

police investigators. Thus, the police-prosecutor relationship does not exercise a
great deal of inﬂuence over levels of police productivity in the South Korean
context, as found here.

Summary and Conclusion

When compared to the American police, overall, the South Korean police
appear to be more obligated to have higher clearance rates than their American
counterparts; this allows them to meet collective expectations and social needs.
To achieve this goal, in addition to defending national security, the South Korean
police have had to employ an authoritative management style with close
supervision of ofﬁcers, using clearance rates as a prime performance
measurement. Because promotion is an extremely important matter to South
Korean ofﬁcers, they commit themselves to an organization by showing their
loyalty to their superiors. Also, as a result of their national culture and unique
social environment, South Korean police have had to develop a unique style,
even though this style does not necessarily promise either investigative efﬁciency
or quality of criminal investigation as a ﬁnal product.

This study, a cross-national comparison of the U.S. and South Korea, is
the ﬁrst to examine police investigative practices and their effectiveness. It
reveals that the criminal investigative process is greatly inﬂuenced by macro level
characteristics of the nation state. More differences than similarities in police
criminal investigation between the two nations were found. In addition, within a
country, variation in detective work was found, although it was more noticeable in

the U.S. than in South Korea.

158

Traditionally, the clearance rate has been used as an indicator of police
investigative effectiveness, but it does not necessarily reﬂect police
organizational effectiveness because it does not consider the number of ofﬁcers
in a given organization. In this study, the decision was made to ﬁnd an alternative
criterion for evaluation of police criminal investigative policies and practices, that
is organizational productivity. Using this criterion, this study found that the
“enforcement” oriented properties are effective at clearing cases whereas the
“liberal” oriented ones are counterproductive. Although the adoption of liberal
policing properties may provide the general public with some psychological
satisfaction and help to appease crime victims, or may protect individual rights,
this study has argued that it does not, generally speaking, result in greater
resolution of crime.

When law enforcement agencies become more aggressive in the
investigation of crime, putting emphasis on clearance rates, distancing
themselves from the public, and employing strategies such as cold case unit,
case screening methods, ﬁeld unit assignments, task forces, and their own
A.F.I.S. service, police organizations tend to have higher investigative
productivity. But, perhaps, paradoxically, this can lead to relatively higher
chances of a citizen making a complaint, general public inconvenience, or
ignoring civil rights. Some kind of trade off may be necessary here, between
enforcement efﬁciency, on the one hand, and legal protection for individuals or

police service function on the other (Packer 1968; Miyazawa 1992; Skolnick

159

1994,). The police, acting only with “passion,” lacking in “perspective,” may not
be desirable in a democratic society (Muir, 1977).

It may be true that each nation has competing schemes of underlying
values such as “crime control” and “due process” (Packer, 1968), and struggles
to strike a balance between maintaining communitarian needs and protecting
individual rights. For example, although the survey results in this study revealed
there were no serious legal problems while conducting criminal investigations in
the U.S., concerns of national security can compromise American legal values.
Nowadays, the American public is much more willing to tolerate signiﬁcant
restrictions on civil liberties and to give greater freedom to law enforcement
authority, including wiretapping telephones, examining people's lntemet activity,
and access to telephone records, because of the September 11 event (National
Public Radio, Kaiser Family Foundation, 8 Kennedy School of Government,
2001). This may be a good example of how macro level variables can inﬂuence
police criminal investigation in a broad manner.

There is no such thing as “American” mathematics or “Korean” biology,
whereas “American" sociology or “Korean” politics surely exists. This may imply
that a cross-national comparative study should take into consideration the
national contexts in which the research question is explored; some “idiographic,”
rather than “nomothetic,” approach may be necessary for comparative social
inquiry (Przeworski 8 Teune, 1970). Police work, especially detective work, is
multifaceted with social systems, such as shared values, collective memories,

historical events in a nation. In this study, many contextual macro level

160

differences of police investigative policies and practices between the U.S. and
South Korea were demonstrated for better understanding of police criminal
investigation process. Those included, for example, were the structure of police
and crime lab system, the social and organizational pressure to solve crime, the
status of detectives, the motivation for implementing community policing, the
nature of police-prosecutor relationship, national security duty, and the legal
value. These results in the U.S. and South Korea contribute to a better
understanding of and perhaps better cooperation in criminal investigation in the
two nations, a promising outcome in this era of a rapidly growing global

community.

161

APPENDICIES

162

APPENDIX A

Survey Questionnaire
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

.._ 0 .°. ltv I -W 0: ul ; 10:1' til -.I I - 0 ':0

Dear Chief Law Enforcement Administrator:

Policing has changed considerably in the past three decades. But there has been no large-scale evaluation of police detective work,
investigative efforts and how they relate to other developments in policing. This survey is the first national assessment of these issues.
Your agency has been selected for this research because you participated in the recent Law Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey conducted by the U. S. Department of Justice. The enclosed questionnaire supplements the
LEMAS data. Your participation is critical to ensure that both surveys are compatible.

IN RETURN FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION, you will be mailed a W of the key ﬁndings of the survey. In addition,
you will have access to an lntemet minim ( W ) dedicated to investigations research that will provide:

0 Updates on what other agencies are doing about investigations

0 Updates and summaries of the key survey ﬁndings

- News items related to police detective work and investigations

0 A site for posting and exchange of investigations-related information
- Summaries of hard-to-tind research on investigative work

- Email for quick responses to questions on research and related issues

Please have someone in your agency who is well acquainted with your investigation process complete the enclosed questionnaire and

return it in the self-addressed, postage paid envelope W of receipt. The questionnaire will require one hour to
complete. Your response is requested regardless of whether or not your agency conducts criminal investigations.

This research is supported by funding from the National Institute of Justice. It will lead to a comprehensive, nationally representative
4mm of the investigative response of the nation’s law enforcement agencies to the changing crime problem. It addresses major
WW, organizational changes, and personnel, management and performance issues.. It also assesses ways in which
agencres have m their investigative function to take advantage of community policing, technology and other new developments.
The results will identify ways to imam: agency investigative effectiveness. Questions about this study can be sent to the address
indicated in the box below. Thank you for your cooperation and the prompt retum of the questionnaire.

Frank Horvath, Ph.D., Professor

RETURN MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Tel: 5 I7/432-4658
TO. School of Criminal Justice Fax: 517/432-1787
' 122 Baker Hall E-mail: Wu
East M148324 WEB SITE: '

questions may to: .,
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48324 (tel: SI7/355-2180).
Copyright 0 I999

 

163

NATIONAL SURVEY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES:
THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS PROCESS

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: in this questionnaire we ask for information regarding the criminal investigation function of
law enforcement agencies in the U.S. Responses should be recorded on the questionnaire by circling a number, by placing an "X" in
the appropriate space, or by writing in a response.

SECTION I . INVESTIGATORS

V W \V \

- Generally wear We:
- Perform ' ’ ' v ' 'v
- Have specially designated IiLIL‘: such as “detective,” “investigator," “agent.” etc.

- May be mnascrs or supervisors who MW“:
W: W having mmmﬂmnnmn duties, such as crime scene or ’

laboratory technicians, legal staff, crime analysts, and intelligence or information Specialists.

..OCUO‘IOCOUOOCC‘OOOCIOOCIUOOOOOU0.0000...COCO...O...‘OCOOCCOUUCOCUCC..‘OOCCOCCCIOCCOOC.COO

1. Which term best describes your law enforcement agency? Mark (X) only one.

 

a. City ............................ [ ] d. State Agency (Highway Patrol) .......... [ ]
b. County ......................... [ j e. Township .................................. [ ]
c. State Agency (Police) ........ [ I f. Other - Specify:
2. Approximately how many square miles does your jurisdiction cover? ......... _ , _ __ _ , _ _ _
3. Does your agency employ ofﬁcers who are imagining, as deﬁned above?

a. Yes [ ] IF YES, go to Question 4.
b. No [ ] IF NO, skip to SECTION II on Page 9

4. How many investigators are there in your agency? (Includes investigators working
in areas such as internal affairs, homicide, burglary, juvenile, vice, narcotics, fraud, etc.)

Male _ _ __
Female _ _ _
TOTAL - _ _ __
a. Of the total number of investigators, how many are non-sworn? ................... __ __ _
b. Of the total number of investigators, how many are part-time? ........................ _ _ _
5. Are any investigators in your agency assigned to Headquarters? Yes [ I No II

a. IF YES, what kinds of cases do they gunning investigate?

(I) All cases, including minor cases (but uniformed officers do preliminary investigations) . 17.1 £29
(2) Only certain cases, such as major, complex or lengthy investigations ........................ I 2
(3) All cases, including minor cases, but within specific geographic areas ......................... I 2
(4) Only certain cases (major, complex, lengthy, etc.) but within specific geographic areas I 2

(5) Other - Specify:

 

164

6. Are any investigators in your agency assigned to field level units? ......................................... Yes [ I No [ ]

a. IF YES, please indicate which field levels.

Yes his
(1) District or precinct stations ......................................................... I 2
(2) Fixed neighborhood or community substations .. .. ................................ I 2
(3) Mobile neighborhood or community substations .................................... I 2

(4) Other locations - Specify:

 

b. What kinds of cases do field level investigators ggnmuy investigate?

is: I19
(I) All cases in their geographic work area (major and minor cases) I 2
(2) Only certain cases .................................................................... I 2

(3) Other - Specify:

 

7. What are the reasons that your agency has for organizing investigators and cases the way it does?

 

1’}! E9
a. To be more proactive in investigations .................................................................... I 2
b. To develop better community relations ..................................................................... l 2
c. To develop expertise in investigations .................................................................... l 2
d. To improve communication with or assist uniformed officers ......................................... l 2
e. To improve familiarity with criminals and crime patterns in the area ............................... l 2
f. To make more efficient use of personnel and resources ............................................... l 2
g. To solve/clear more crimes .................................................................. - ............. I 2
h. Other - Specify:
8. In your agency are investigators assigned to separate organizational units? ...................... Yes I ] No l l

a. IF YES, please list the names of the separate units and the number of investigators assigned (i.e., homicide, internal
affairs, juvenile, vice, narcotics, fraud, etc.). If there is not enough space, please continue on a separate piece of paper.
Please WW such as those involved in evidence collection or analysis.
crime analysis, etc. These units will be addressed later.

Name of Number of Name of Number of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16S

3

9. Does your agency have any investigators who investigate “cold cases” (old unsolved crimes)? Yes [ 1 No [ 1

a. IF YES:

(I) What is the approximate percentage of cold cases that were cleared in 1998? ....................... _ _ __'/.
(2) How many investigators are assigned cold cases? ....................................................... _ _ _
(3) Are investigators assigned cold cases on a permanent or temporary basis? Permanent [ 1 Temporary [ |

(4) How long have investigators been assigned cold cases in your agency?
Less than one year [ ] Between one and three years [ ] More than three years [ ]
(5) What types of cases are usually assigned?

Homicides only [ l Serious crimes against persons [ 1 Any serious crime I l

10. In your agency, how frequently do investigators W report to and/or coordinate with supervisors on routine

investigations? Mark (X) only one.
Daily [ | Weeklyl ] Monthly[ 1 Other I ]

11. Who are the immediate supervisors of streetolevel investigators in your agency?

 

X31 M
a. lnvestigator(s) assigned to headquarters ..................................................................... l 2
b. lnvestigator(s) assigned to ﬁeld unit(s) .................................................................... l 2
c. Uniformed ofﬁcer(s) assigned to headquarters ............................................................ l 2
d. Uniformed ofﬁcer(s) assigned to ﬁeld unit(s) ............................................................ l 2
e. Other - Specify:
12. For each of the items listed below, circle a response that most closely describes
what investigators do in your agency in investigating serious crimes.
a. Inks Lima: mm mm Aim
(1) Conduct undercover investigations ........................................ l 2 3 4
(2) Do community problem solving ........................................ l .. 2 3 4
(3) Process crime scenes for physical evidence .............................. l .. 2 3 ..... 4
(4) Prioritize cases based on local area problems ........................ l . 2 3 ..... 4
(5) Self-assign cases based on local problems .............................. I 2 3 ..... 4
(6) Work in pairs .............................................................. l . 2 3 ..... 4
b. W w‘
(1) In teams ........................................................................ l 2 3 4
(2) On decoy units. stakeouts. etc. .............................. l .2 3 ..... 4
(3) To analyze crime patterns .................................................... l 2 3 ..... 4
C-C '°| ”W.”
(1) Provide crime information to the public ................................... l . 2 3 . 4
(2) Receive at least 8 hours of community policing training ............. l . 2 3
(3) Regularly participate in comrhunity meetings ........................ . I . 2 3 4
(4) Use citizen volunteers to assist in investigations l . 2 3 ..... 4
(5) Work in teams with citizen groups ........................................ l . 2 3 ..... 4
(6) Work with citizens on community outreach ..... ...................... l . 2 3 . 4

166

13. Listed below are a number of criteria and processes that can be used to select
investigators. For each one, please indicate whether or not it is used in your agency.

a. Qmem’ ": Mixer Snmctrmcs’ mm Alan!
(1) Arrest record ................................................................ l 2 3 ..... 4
(2) Education requirements speciﬁcally for investigators ................. l .. 2 3 .. 4
(3) investigation skills ........................................ ' .............. l .. 2 3 4
(4) Minimum number of years of experience ........................... I .. 2 3 .. 4
(5) Personnel records (cornmendations, complaints, etc.) ................. l .. 2 3 .. 4
(6) Promotion to a certain grade level ....................................... I .. 2 3 .. 4
(7) Supervisor/staff ratings or evaluations ............................ I .. 2 3 .. 4

(8) Other - Specify:

 

 

b. . Em: Samarium manila am

(1) Civil service exam ........................................................ l 2 3 4

(2) Oral board interview ........................................................ l . 2 3 . 4

(3) Peer evaluation ............................................................. I .. 2 3 . 4 .
(4) Personal interview ........................................................ l . 2 3 . 4

(5) Tests (writing, verbal ability. etc.) ....................................... l 2 3 . 4

(6) Other - Specify:

14. In the past five years has your agency hired people from other agencies as investigators? ...... Yes [ I No I ' I

15. Does your agency policy currently permit the hiring of pe0ple from other agencies as investigators?

16. When a person is selected as an investigator, is helshe automatically entitled to any of the following?

 

 

X3: E9
a. Civil service status .............................................. l 2
b. Higher pay scale ................................................... l 2
c. Promotion in rank ................................................ l 2
d. Special allowances ............................................... l 2
e. Other — Specify:
17. In your agency are investigators represented by one or more collective bargaining units? ........ Yes I I No I I
a. [F YES, what areas are covered by collective bargaining contracts? In 119
(I) Amounts of overtime authorized .................................................................... l 2 A .
(2) Assignments ............................................................................................... l 2
(3) Changes in investigative unit structure .............................................................. . l 2
(4) Promotion ............................................................................................... l 2
’ (5) Purposes for which overtime is authorized ......................................................... l 2
(6) Salaries .................................................................................................... l 2
(7) Training ............................................................................................... I 2

(8) Other - Specify:

 

167

5

18. How many ranks for investigators are there In your agency?

One I I Two I I Three I I ' Four I I Five or more I I
19. Is a W required for W investigators? ....................................... Yes I I No I I
a. IF YES:
(1) Number of weeks of probation: ........................................................ _ _ (weeks)
(2) Who evaluates success in probation? XE Pin
(a) An investigator .................................................... l . 2
(b) An investigator who is a training ofﬁcer ...................... l . 2
(C) An investigator who is a supervisor ........................... l . 2
(d) A uniformed ofﬁcer ............................................... l . 2
(e) A uniformed ofﬁcer who is a training ofﬁcer ................ l . 2
(I) A uniformed ofﬁcer who is a supervisor ...................... l 2

(3) Other - Specify:

 

20. Are W investigators mm to undergo Wm

instruction on investigations within a speciﬁed period? ..................................................... Yes I I No I I

a. IF YES:
(I) Number of classroom training hours required: .................................... _ __ _ (hours)

b. What type of training? in his
(I) Crime type training (homicide, crimes against prOperty, drugs, etc.) .......................................... I . 2
(2) Investigative techniques (interviews/interrogations. crime scene management, etc.) l . 2
(3) Legal issues (arrest, search. court testimony. etc.) ................................................................. l . 2
(4) Management/administration (report writing. case management, data systems. etc.) .......................... l . 2

(5) Other - Specify:

 

c. Is any ofthe required training documented for liability purposes? Some I I Most I I All I I

21. Aside from new appointees, are investigators in your agency

 

Legging to undergo any W classroom investigations training? .................. Yes I I No I I
a. IF YES:

(I) How many investigators? ........................................... ' Some I I Must I I All I I

(2) How oﬁen? ........................................................ Monthly I I Annually I | Other I I .-

I

b. What type of training? Xe; E9

(1) Crime type training (homicide. crimes against property, drugs, etc.) ......................................... l 2

(2) Investigative techniques (interviews/interrogations, crime scene management. etc.) ........................ l 2

(3) Legal issues (arrest, search, court testimony. etc.) . ............................................................... I 2

(4) Management/administration (report writing, case management, data systems. etc.) ......................... I 2

(5) Other - Specify:

 

c. Is any of this training documented for liability purposes? ....... Some I I Most I I All I I

168

22. Approximately what proportion of all investigators in your agency has
received classroom investigative training in any of the areas listed below?

Crime type training (homicide. crimes against property, drugs. etc.) .......................

a.
b. Investigative techniques (interviews/interrogations, crime scene management, etc.)

9"

d. Management/administration (report writing, case management, data systems, etc.)

23. What does your agency authorize for investigators
who attend investigations training instruction?

a. Reirnburse all expenses ..........................................
b. Reimburse some expenses ................. ’ ........................
c. Time off .............................................................

d. Other - Specify:

Legal issues (arrest. search. court testimony, etc.) .............................................

 

24. Does your agency have a specific budget item that

reserves funding for W? ..........................................................

a. IF YES:
(I) About how much money is budgeted speciﬁcally for training investigators annually?

(Includes costs of materials. tuition, travel, per diem, etc., but NOT SALARIES) S__ ,

25. If classroom instruction on investigations is provided for investigators and/or
uniformed ofﬁcers, who does the training?

Educational institutions .....................

9‘.”

Federal agencies ...............................

In-house personnel ..........................

519

Other local agencies ..........................

e. Private organizations ..........................

E"

State agencies ...............................

Other - Specify:

°/.
___'/.
°/.
__°/.
1:: Ha
I .. 2
I 2
I 2
l NOI
Mast All
3 4
3 4
3‘ 4
3 4
3 4
3 4

 

26. Who provides the funding for investigations training in your agency?

lino: Same All
a. Agency budget ............................... 2 3 4
b. Statefunds ...... ‘ .................. I 2.. 3 4
c. State grants .................................... l . 2 .. 3 4
d. Federal funds ............................... 2 .. 3 4
e. Federal grants. ............................... 1 2 .. 3 4
f. Other - Specify:

 

169

7

27. To what degree has each of the factors listed below been a mbjnn regarding Mg of investigators?

 

Easter Hans Slight“ Madame Law.-
a. Excessive length of training ....................... l . 2 ....... 3 ....... 4

b. Ineffectiveness of training ............................ l ...... 2 ....... 3 4

c. Lack offunding .................... l ...... 2 ....... 3 4
d. Lack of management support ....................... l 2 .. 3

e. Lack of quality of training ............................ l ., ..... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4

f. Low individual motivation .......................... l 2 ....... 3 .. 4
g. Manpower shortage .................................. I 2 ....... 3 ....... 4
h. Non-availability of desired training .................. I ...... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4

i. Other - Specify:

28. Approximately what percentage of investigators in your agency has investigations experience at the levels indicated below
(not counting experience prior to becoming an investigator)?

a.
b.

.0

(1.

Three years or less ..........................................
At least 3 but less than 6 years ...............................
At least 6 but less than 10 years ..........................

Ten or more years ..........................................

29. In your agency are there any time limits on how long

investigators may serve in investigative positions?

IF YES, what positions do the time limits apply to?

All positions I I Only some positionsI I

What determines the time limits?

(1) Periodic rotation cycle according to agency policy

(2) Collective bargaining agreement ....................

(3) Other - Specify:

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

ooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooo

Only vice positions I I

X5: Est
................... l 2
l 2

 

30. \Vhat are some of the reasons why people most commonly leave investigative positions in your agency?

5999??

Does

Mania Woman Caramel:
Collective bargaining agreement .............. I . 2 ............ 3
Dislike of investigations work .................... I ............ 2 ............ 3
Improve promotion potential ................... I 2 ............ 3
Job stress ......................................... I ............ 2 ............ 3
Periodic rotation cycle ......................... l . 2 ............ 3
Retirement ......................................... I ............ 2 ............ 3
Other - Specify:

 

170

 

31. Listed below are a number of criteria and processes that can be used to select investigator supervisors (persons who
supervise investigators'on a daily basis). For each one, please indicate whether or not it is used in your agency.

 

' a. (2mm: Diem Samstimcs Alma:
(l) Arrest record .................................................................. I 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(2) Education requirements speciﬁcally for investigators ................... I .. 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(3) Investigation skills ......................................................... l 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(4) Minimum number of years of experience .............................. l ~2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(5) Personnel records (commendations, complaints, etc.) ................... l 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(6) Supervisor/staff ratings or evaluations ................................... l 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(7) Other - Specify: f

b. W: 5.3.2:: 5.9mm M11 Alan:
(1) Civil service exam ......................................................... l 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(2) Oral board interview ......................................................... l 2 ...... 3 . ..... 4
(3) Peer evaluation .............................................................. I 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(4) Personal interview ......................................................... l 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(5) Tests (writing, verbal ability, etc.) ........................................ l 2 ...... 3 ...... 4

(6) Other - Specify:

 

32. Once a decision is made to investigate a case, how is it assigned to an investigator?

a. By rotation ......................................................................... I ...... 3 ...... 4
b.. By size of investigator caseload ............................................. I 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
c. By the experience of the investigator ....................................... I 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
(1. By the personal characterisrics of the investigator .......................... I 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
e. ~ By the specialty of the investigator ............................................. l 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
f. Other - Specify:

 

33. Who most commonly makes the decision to assign cases to investigators?

 

1’s: E9
a. The investigators themselves decide ..................................................................... l 2
b. The immediate supervisor who is an investigator decides .............................................. l 2
c. The immediate supervisor who is a uniformed ofﬁcer decides ........ _ ................................ l 2
d. Other . Specify:
34. Are investigators routinely required to complete activity logs (written breakdown of
activities and/or amount of time spent on cases) to account for how their time is spent? .............. Yes I . I No I
a. IF YES: 1221].! Enid! M29311!
(I) How frequently? ................................................................ l ....... 2 ....... 3
(2) How often are they reviewed by a supervisor? .......................... l ....... 2 .. 3

171

 

9
35.. Agencies have different ways to evaluate Majors and mm.

For each item below, please indicate whether or not it is used in your agency.

Criteria Used Mil Used W
a. Analysis of unresolved cases ......................... l 2 “”“”“”“” l 2
b. Arrest statistics ......................................... l 2 ““‘“‘“””" l 2
c. Audit (review of randomly selected cases) l 2 ”“"""'““” l 2
d. Caseload statistics .................................... l 2 "”""”‘“‘” l 2

e. Clearance statistics .................................... l 2 "”“””““” l 2

f. Community policing related activities .............. l 2 "”"”’”““‘ l ....... 2
g. Conviction statistics .................................... I 2 ”““”””“" l 2
h. Crime pattern detection activities .................... l 2 “""“””"” I 2

i. Evidence collection/handling ......................... I 2 "““””""" l 2 V
j. Hot spot reduction activities .......................... l 2 “"““"”"” I 2
k. Incident reduction/prevention activities .............. l 2 “"‘”“”””' l 2

1. Peer review ................................. I 2 "“"“”“"” I ....... 2
m. Periodic caseload review ............................... l 2 ““““”""” I 2
n. Periodic written evaluation by supervisor l 2 “”“”””"“ l 2
0. Property recovered .................................... l 2 ”“”“”"”"‘ I 2
p. Prosecution statistics .................................... 1...... 2 "“"""”““ l 2

q Report writing ......................................... l 2 ”“’””““‘" l 2

r. Success in a major investigation ...................... l 2 ““"“”""” l 2

SECTION II - UNIFORMED OFFICERS

36. Which of the following investigative functions do uniformed ofﬁcers perform in your agency?

New Sometimes Avaaxs
........................................ l 3 4

a. Canvass areas for witnesses 2 .......

b. Collect physical evidence from crime scene ....................... l 2 ....... 3 4
c. Collect physical evidence from suspect .............................. I 2 ....... 3 4
(1 Conduct drug ﬁeld tests .............................. _. ............... I 2 ....... 3 ....... 4
e. Conduct records checks .............................................. l 2 3 4
f. Conduct surveillance .................................................... l 2 ....... 3 4
g. Conduct undercover activities .......................................... I 2 3 ....... 4
h. Coordinate investigations with prosecutors ......................... I 2 ....... 3 ....... 4
i. lnterrogate suspects .................................................... I 2 3 ....... 4
j. Interview suspects .................................................... I 2 ....... 3 ....... 4
k. Interview victims . ....................................................... l 2 ....... 3 4
l. Interview witnesses .................................... L ............... I 2 3 ....... 4
m. Notify investigation units .............................................. I 2 ....... 3 4
n. Secure crime scene ................................................... I 2 3 ....... 4
0. Submit evidence for forensic analysis .............................. l 2 ....... 3 ....... 4
p. Testifyincourt ......................................................... l 2 3 ....... 4

172

37. Within the past ﬁve years, has your agency attempted to

 

 

 

enhance the role of uniformed ofﬁcers in investigating crimes? ............................................. Yes I I No I I
a. IF YES, in what way(s)? XS! N9
(1) Investigators can refer cases back to ofﬁcers for follow-up investigation .................. l 2
(2) Ofﬁcers conduct complete follow-up investigation as part of a team ....................... l . 2
(3) Ofﬁcers conduct complete follow-up investigation unless complex case ................... l ' . 2
(4) Ofﬁcers conduct more investigation at scene prior to handing case to investigator l . 2
(5) Ofﬁcers temporarily assigned to an investigation unit as part of career development ...... I . 2
(6) Other - Specify:
b. Why did your agency try to enhance the uniformed ofﬁcer’s role in investigating crime?
(I) To assist in evaluating the work performance of uniformed ofﬁcers .......................... XI: 1129
(2) To clear more crimes ................................................................................... I .. 2
(3) To free investigators for major crime investigation ............................................. I 2
(4) To improve the morale of uniformed ofﬁcers ................................................... I . 2
(5) To improve the quality of reports passed to investigators ....................................... l .. 2
(6) To improve the relationship between uniformed ofﬁcers and investigators .................. l . 2
(7) To improve uniformed ofﬁcer awareness of the investigation process ....................... I . 2
(8) To meet budgetary constraints ........................................................................ I . 2
(9) To shorten case closure time ......................................................................... l . 2
(IO) Other - Specify:
38. Are uniformed officers wind to undergo glam
instruction on investigations after basic academy training? .................................................... Yes I I No I I
a. IF YES: i
(I) Number of classroom investigations mining hours required: ......... __ _ _ (hours)
(2) What types of investigations mining are provided? 1:; M
' g (a) Crime scene procedures I 2
(b) Court testimony .. ...................................... l . 2
(c) Evidence gathering ................................... l . 2
(d) Interview/interrogation ............................. I . 2
(e) Report writing .. ....................................... I . 2
(0 Other - Specify:
(3) Is any of the training documented for liability purposes? Some I I Most I I All I I
39. Are uniformed officers mg to undergo
any WM investigations training? ............................ '. ........................... Yes I I No I I
a. IF YES:
(I) How often? ............................................. Monthly I I Annually , I I Other I I
(2) How many ofﬁcers? ....................................... Some I I Most I I All I I
(3) Is any of the mining documented for liability purposes? Some I I Most I I All I I
10

173

ll

40. Does your agency have a MUS—DEE” item that reserves
funding formmﬁggﬁmjnmjngmmmmmm? ................................ YesI I No I I
a. IF YES, about how much money is budgeted speciﬁcally for mining uniformed ofﬁcers annually? .
(Includes costs of materials, tuition, travel, per diem, etc., but NOT SALARIES). S__ __ _ , _ _ _

41. Is the investigative performance of individual uniformed
officers evaluated separately in your agency? .............................................................. Yes I I No I I

SECTION III - INVESTIGATIVE MANAGEMENT

42. During the past 12 months have any investigators or uniformed ofﬁcers

in your agency been assigned to any WWW? .............................................. Yes I I No I I
a. is YES: , '
(I) How many investigation task forces involved just your agency? ............ __ __ _

(2) How many investigation task forces involved work with other agencies?

(3) If other agencies were involved, what types were they?

 

 

Yes No
(a) Local police agencies ................................................... l 2
(b) Sheriff agencies ......................................................... I 2 i
(c) State agencies ......................................................... I 2
(cl) Federal agencies ......................................................... I 2
(e) Other - Specify:
b. What types of single- and/or multi-agency W was your agency involved in?
1:1 110
(a) A speciﬁc case (ex: a single murder) ............................. I 2
(b) A speciﬁc case type (ex: a series of murders) ..................... II 2
_(c) Drug-related ............................................................. I 2
(d) Organized crirne~related ............................................. I 2
(e) Other - Specify:
43. Does your agency have civilians (non-sworn) assigned to investigative support tasks
(e.g., evidence collection, crime analysis/intelligence, polygraph, etc.)? .................................. Yes I | No I I
a. IF YES, how many? ............................................................. __ __ _(civilians)
44. Has your agency introduced any of the following investigative changes W?
[misﬁt Yes No
a. A crime analysis/intelligence function .................................................................... l 2
b. Centralization of investigation units .................................................................... l . 2
c. Decentralization of investigation units ..................................................................... I . 2
d. Formal case screening ............................................................... I ...................... l . 2
e. Improved management and monitoring of continuing investigations ................................. l . 2
f. Police/prosecutor liaison programs ................... I . 2
g. Responsibility for problem solving ......................................................................... I . 2
b. Other - Specify:

 

II

174

45. Listed below are a number of factors that can impact the investigative function.

For each factor, please indicate the degree to which it is a problem in your agency.

(I) Extensive uniformed officer role in investigations ......................
(2) Heavy administrative workload ......................................
(3) Heavy investigative workload ..................................................

(4) Heavy uniformed ofﬁcer supervisor workload ............................

(5) Heavy uniformed ofﬁcer overaIl workload ..................................

(6) Lack of accountability for investigations .................................

(7) Lack of group cohesion

(17) Poor investigation skills

IaxesugamLEactan

.......................................................

(8) Lack of investigative expertise ...............................................
(9) Lack of opportunity for promotion ............................................
(IO) Lateness of follow-up investigation .......................................
(I I) Low levels of experience .................................................
(12) Low uniformed ofﬁcer job satisfaction/morale ............................
(13) Not enough overtime for investigations .................................
(14) Not enough mining on investigations ....................................
. (IS) Poor communication between uniformed ofﬁcers .......................

' (16) Poor communication between uniformed officers and investigators

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

(I) Heavy administrative workload ................................................

(2) Heavy investigative workload ..................................................

(3) Heavy investigator supervisor workload ....................................

(4) Lack of accountability for investigations .................................

(5) Lack of group cohesion

.......................................................

(6) Lack of investigative expertise ..................................................

(7) Lack of Opportunity for promotion ............................................

(8) Lateness of follow-up investigation ..........................................

(9) Low levels of experience

.......................................................

(10) Low investigator job satisfaction/morale ................. T ...............
(l I) Not enough overtime for investigations .................................
(12) Not enough mining on investigations ............ . ........................
(13) Poor communication between investigators ............................

(14) Poor communication between investigators and uniformed ofﬁcers

(15) Poor investigation skills

EI'V'E

(1) Low arrest rates ...........

(2) Low clearance rates .....

(3) Low prosecution rates

(4) Low conviction rates .....

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

175

one-Igneo- . ooooooooo

: ' : ' : z :
U U U U U U U

U

0 I C O O

I C I C
u u u u u
I 2 i I 2

#bbbbﬁhhAbehb-th3E‘
Q

.......... 2 .. 3 4
.......... 2 .. .. 3 .. 4
.......... 2 3 4
.......... 2 .. 3 4

12

 

I 3
(Question #45 continued)

swimwear:

Nan: '

(1) Poor public relations ................................................................

(2) Poor relations with the media (newspapers, etc.) ............................... I ..
(3) Public mistrust of the police ..................................................... l .

(4) Unauthorized information leaks about investigations ............ f ............. I

(5) Other - Specify:

2 3

2 . 3 .. 4
2 3 .. 4
2 . 3 ......... 4

 

46. Listed below are a number of different goals that may be associated with the criminal investigation function. For each
goal, circle a number to indicate how important your agency considers it to be with regard to criminal investigations.

 

a. - ' I121]: 5.112111 ﬁlms. Lilli:
(l) Clearcases ......................................................... I 2 3 4
(2) Collect intelligence aboutother crimes ........................ l 2 3 4
(3) Convict suspects .................................................... I 2 3 4
(4) Investigate all crimes ............................................... l 2 3 4
(5) Investigate all serious crimes .................................... I ......... 2 ......... 3 .. . 4
(6) Prevent crime .................................................... I . 2 .. .. 3 .. . 4
(7) Prosecute suspects ............................................... l . 2 .. .. 3 .. . 4
(8) Protect victims and witnesses .................................... l . 2 .. .. 3 .. . 4
(9) Reduce crime ..................................................... l . 2 .. .. 3 .. . 4
(l0) Solve problems ................................................. I . 2.. .. 3 .. . 4
(II) Other-Specify:

b- cherﬁaala ﬂan: ' Modems. Lars:
(1) Citizen satisfaction .............................................. I . 2 .. 3 4
(2) Inform the conununity ......................................... I . 2 .. 3 .. . 4
(3) Maintain community support .................................... I . 2 .. 3 . 4
(4) Plan/implement crime prevention strategies .................... I 2 3 . 4
(5) Prevent crime. .................................................... I . 2 .. 3 . 4
(6) Protect the public ................................................. I . 2 .. 3 . 4
(7) Provide support/feedback to victims ......................... l . 2 .. 3 . 4
(8) Recover/realm pr0perty ......................................... I . 2 .. 3 . 4
(9) Secure justiceinthe community .............................. l . 2 .. . 3 .. . 4

(10) Other - Specify:

 

47. For follow-up investigation of unsolved crimes, does your agency use

mm to determine whether cases will be assigned?
a. IF YES: ‘

(I) Are the case solvability factors in writing?

(2) How strictly are they applied? .......................................
(3) What types ofcrimes are they used for? All types I I

I3

176

ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

YesI

YesI

StrictIyI I Moderatelyl I

I No I
I No I
Loosely I

 

Some types - Specify:

MademLLafss

 

14

48. What is the total number and percent of Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Index crimes reported and cleared by your
agency during W? If 1998 data is not available, please complete for the most recent year for
which the data is available and indicate that year here: 19 __ _. ‘

If you prefer, you may staple a copy of the data to the questionnaire rather than writing it below.

(1) Numhcuf (2) Bantam
Wagon Crimes Rimmed. ﬁnned
.a. Murder/non-negligent manslaughter __ _ _, _ _ _ __ __ _‘l.
b. Forcible rape ............................................... , _ __ _ ._ __ _'/s
c. Robbery ..................................................... , _ _ _ __ __ _‘/s
d. Aggravated assault ....................................... , __ _ _ _ __ _‘l.
e. Burglary .................................................... , __ _ __ __ __ _'/.
f. Larceny-theft _ _ ;__, _ _ __ _ _ _'/.
3. Motor vehicle theft ....................................... , _ _ _ _ __ __'/o I
h. Arson ...................................................... , __ __ _ _ __ __'/o
49. Does your agency have any innovative investigative programs or policies that are 4
showing enough success or promise that other agencies would be interested in them? ............ Yes I I No I I

a. IF YES, brieﬂy describe these programs in the categories listed below:
(1) Organizational:

 

(2) Personnel:

 

(3) Investigator Roles:

 

(4) Investigation Management:
(5) Records/Technology:

(6) Evidence Management:

 

 

 

(7) Investigative Effectiveness:

 

50. Does your agency have any plans for major changes in the
investigation function during the next one to three years? ................................................... Yes I I No I I

a. IF YES, briefly describe any planned changes in the categories listed below:
(1) Organizational:

 

(2) Personnel:

 

( 3) Investigator Roles:

 

(4) Investigation Management:
(5) Records/’I‘echnology:

(6) Evidence Management:

 

 

 

(7) Investigative Effectiveness:

 

 

51. In your agency how do investigators most commonly prepare their reports? ' 1

. XL: Pin
a. Handwritten! typed ...................................................................................................... l . . . 2
b. Tape recorded and then transcribed by investigator ............................................................... I . 2
c. Tape recorded and then mnscribed by others .................................................................... l . 2
d. Typed on computer for data base entry ............................................................................... l . 2
I4

177

 

15

52. How are investigation reports ﬁled in your agency?

Yes do

a. Filed manually ......... . ..................................................................................... I 2

b. Entered into a computer data base ........................................................................ I . 2

53. How are investigation reports monitored?

' - Yes tie

a. Interim reports required if case remains Open after a speciﬁed period of time ........................ l 2

b. Reports are reviewed by a supervisor before being ﬁled if no prosecutorial action is anticipated I . 2

Reports are reviewed by a supervisor if prosecutorial action is anticipated .......................... I . 2

d. Other - Specify:

 

54. How is the progress of investigations monitored? For each item below, indicate
if it is not monitored, or whether it is tracked manually or by computer.

Not
Mentioned
a. Complaint .................................................................... l ..........
. b. Case referred to investigations unit ......................................... I ..........
c. Investigator reports/efforts ................................................. I ..........
d. Laboratory analysis of evidence ......................................... l ..........
e. Referral to prosecutor .................................................... l ..........
f. Prosecutor disposition ... ................................................. l ..........
g. Court dmposition ........................................................... I ..........
55. In some jurisdictions recording ofpgﬂssﬂmnummmmng
is legally required. Is this true in your agency’s jurisdiction? ............................................ Yes I
a. IF YES, how are you required to record interviews?
(I) Only written recording (by stenographer, court reporter) is required ..........................
(2) Only audio is required ...............................................................................
(3) Both audio and visual recording is required .......................................................
56. In some jurisdictions recording ofmﬂmsmﬂnnmgatjms is
legally required. Is this true in your agency's jurisdiction? ................................................. Yes I
a. IF YES, how are you required to record interrogations?
' m
(I) Only written recording (by stenographer, court reporter) is required .......................... l ..
(2) Only audio is required ................................................................................
(3) Both audio and visual recording is required ........................................................
b. Have you had cases that were denied prosecution or which did not
go to trial because the required interrogation recording was not available? ....... Yes I
57. Even if not legally required, do your investigators routinely record by
audio or audio/visual means MW? ........................................................ Yes I

15

178

llllll

cos

3

3

3

3

3

3
INOI
Yes No
I...2
I 2
l 2
INOI
N9
.2
l.2
1.2
INOI
INOI

16.

58. Please indicate the extent to which victims are kept
apprised of investigations by your agency.

WWW”

a Notify victim of arrest of a suspect .......................................... 2 ............

b. Notify victim if case is cleared .......................................... I ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
c. Notify victim if a case is no longer actively investigated I ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
d. Notify victim of case prosecution status .............................. l ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
e. Notify victim of court disposition .................................... I ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4
f. Other - Specify:

 

59. Please indicate the extent to which each of the items listed below have W
W In your agency during the P3“ 5 years

Item Hans Slight Moderate Large
a. Arrests .................................................................... l ....... 2 3 4
b. Coercion .............................................................. I 2 3 4
c. Corruption .............................................................. l 2 3 4
d. Covert listening devices ............................................... I 2 3 4
e. Interview/interrogation .............................................. I 2 3 4
f. Relations with police unions ............................................ l ....... 2 3 4
g. Relations with the media .............................................. I 2 3 4
h. Searches ................................................................. I 2 3 4
i. Surveillance ............................................................... l 2 3 4
j. Sting operations ........................................... . .............. l 2 3 4
k. Undercover activities .................................................... I 2 3 4
I. Use of informants ....................................................... I ....... 2 3 4

m. Other - Specify:

 

60. What is the extent of your agency’s need for additional lunding in the areas listed below in order to lmnmv: I'nvesn'.°:II'V_e
effeeiixeness?

Item we Slight” Modemis ”Lira:
a. Equipment (e.g., vehicles, surveillance) ............................. l ....... 3
b. Evidence collection issues .......................................... I ....... 2 3 4
c. Evidence processing (e.g., crime labs, DNA analysis) .......... I ....... 2 3 4
d Funding for informants ....................................... '. ..... l ....... 2 3 4
e. Investigative Operations (e.g., task forces, stings) .................. I ....... 2 3 4
f. Personnel ............................................................. l ....... 2 3 4
3. Technology (e.g., computers, software) ............................ l ....... . 2 3 4
h. Training ............................................................. l ....... 2 3 4

i. . Other - Specify:

 

16

179

17
61. Does your agency meet malady with other criminal justice agencies

to share information regarding investigative activities? ...................................................... Yes I I N o I I
a. IF YES, what types of agencies? in an
(1) Local police agencies .............................................................................. I . 2
(2) Sheriff agencies ................................................................................... I . 2
(3) State agencies ................................................................................... l . 2
(4) Federal agencies ................................................................................... I . 2

(5) Other - Specify:

 

SECTION IV- INVESTIGATIVE EFFECTIVENESS

62. In your agency, how important are clearance rates in judging individual investigator performance?

No importance I I Low importance I I Moderate importance I I High importance I I

63. In your agency, how important are clearance rates in judging the overall performance of Investigative units?

Noimportancel I Low importancel I Moderate importancel I High importancel I

64. It has been shown'that in many police agencies in the U.S., clearance rates for serious crimes
have declined. Has your agency, in general, experienced such a decline Wm? Yes I I No I I

a. IF YES, in your agency’s experience, to what extent have the following items contributed to this decline?

(1) Changes in the role of investigators ......................................... l ....... 2 3 4
(2) Changes in the role of patrol ofﬁcers .......................................... I ....... 2 3 4
(3) Court rulings that restrict admissibility of evidence ......................... I ....... 2 3 4
(4) Court rulings that restrict police interrogation practice .................... l ....... 2 3 4
(5) Decline in work ethic of investigators ......................................... l ....... 2 3 4
(6) Evidence-related problems (collection, analysis, funding, etc.) .............. I ....... 2 3 4
(7) Implementation of community policing ......................................... l ....... 2 3 4
(8) Improper selection of investigators .............................................. I ....... 2 3 4
(9) Investigations are passed from one shift to another ......................... I ....... 2 3 4
(10) Lack of public help in police investigations ............................... I ....... 2 3 4
(I 1) Lack of time to investigate cases .............................................. I ....... 2 3 4
(12) Lack of victim cooperation ............................................... l ....... 2 3 4
(l3) Lack of witness cooperation ............ ‘. ...................................... l .. ..... 2 3 4
(l4) Not enough training for investigators .......................................... l ....... 2 3 4
(IS) Organizational changes in your agency ................................... l ....... 2 3 4
(16) Poor initial report preparation by patrol ofﬁcers ......................... l ....... 2 .3 4
(17) Poor patrol ofﬁcer/ detective relationship .................................. .. l ....... 2 3 4
(18) Prosecutors who are reluctant to accept cases .............................. l ....... 2 3 4
(l9) Technologyaelated problems (computerized data bases/ﬁles, etc.) i l ....... 2 3 4
(20) Too many crimes to investigate. .............................................. I 2 3 4

'17

180

 

I8

65. Even if your agency has not experienced a decline in clearance rates, for each of the items below please indicate the degree

66.

67.

to which you believe that doing these for investigators in your agency would help to improve clearance rates?

Bun Sans Shem Moderate Lars:
a. Assignment of investigators to work in pairs ............................................ l ...... 2 3 4
b. Better public relations ...................................................................... l ...... 2 3 .. 4
c. Closer supervision of investigative efforts ....................... i ...................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
d. Closer working relationships with uniformed Ofﬁcers ................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
e. Formal refresher mining .................................................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
f. Formal training upon appointment as investigator ..................................... l ...... 2 3 .. 4
g. Give patrol ofﬁcers more investigative responsibility ........... ' ........................ l ...... 2 3 .. 4
h. Give patrol ofﬁcers less investigative reSpOnsibility ................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
i. Further investigative specialization ......................................................... l ...... 2 3 .. 4
j. Improvements in evidence-related areas (collection, analysis, funding, etc.) ........ l ...... 2 3 .. 4
k. Improvements in technology-related areas (computerized data bases/ﬁles, etc.) I ...... 2 3 .. 4
l. Improvements in police/prosecutor relationships ......................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
m. Improvements in investigations management (case screening, reports, etc.) l ...... 2 3 .. 4
n. Increase in investigator manpower ..................................................... l I ...... 2 3 .. 4
o. More computerized investigative ﬁles .................................................... l ...... 2 3 .. 4
p More emphasis on clearance rates for evaluation ....................................... l ...... 2 3 .. 4
q. More frequent meetings among investigators ............................................. I ...... 2 3 .. 4
r. More time to work unsolved cases ......................................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
5. Organizational restructuring (decenmlization/centralization, etc.) .................... l ...... 2 3 .. 4
t. Reduction in investigator caseload .................................. ‘ ....................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
Does your local prosecutor’s ofﬁce have its own investigative stafl'.’ ......................................... Yes I I No I

a. IF YES, are any of the prosecutor’s investigators persons who are assigned from your agency? Mark (X) only one.

Yes, all oftheml I Yes, some of them I I None I

For each of the crime types listed below, indicate the extent to which a representative of your local prosecutor’ s office

would usually be consulted about an investigation prior to an arrest, W.

New Sometimeslisoallelm

 

a. Homicide ....................................................... 2 3. 4
b. Major drug case ......................................... 1 ...... 2 3 . 4
c. Multiple jurisdiction investigations ................... I ...... 2 3 . 4
d. Ofﬁcial misconductorcorruption I ...... 2 3 . 4
e.' Organizedcrime ......................................... I ...... 2 3 . 4
f. Serious personal crimes ............ I 4 ...... 2 3 .. 4
g. Serious prOperty crimes .............................. I ...... 2 3 .. 4
h. White collar crime .................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
i. Other-Specify:
I8

181

l

I9

68. For each of the crime types listed below, indicate the extent to which a representative of your local prosecutor's ofﬁce

would assist in an investigation after an arrest. mheuhantouheumoseotohtajmngmmm

 

a. Homicide ............................................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
b. Majordmg case .......................................................... I 2 3 .. 4
c. Multiple jurisdiction investigations ................................. l ...... 2 3 4
cl. Ofﬁcial misconduct or corruption .................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
e. Organized crime .......................................................... I ...... 2 3 .. 4
f. Serious personal crimes ................................................. I ...... 2 3 ...... 4
g. Serious property crimes .................................................. I ...... 2 3 .. 4.
h. White collar crime ..................................................... I ...... 2 ...... 3 .. 4
i. Other - Specify:
69. Does your agency have a regular and continuing organizational relationship with
your prosecutor’s ofﬁce aside from that required for warrants and arrests? ......................... Yes I I No I
a. IF YES, what type of relationship?
Yes No
(1) Your agency has a police/prosecutor liaison ofﬁce(r) .................................... I 2
(2) Prosecutors are available on a regular basis for case coordination and advice ...... l . 2
(3) Prosecutors are assigned to provide legal support on major investigations ' l . 2
(4) Prosecutors are assigned as part of investigation teams ............................... l . 2
(5) Regular periodic meetings are held with prosecutors .................................... l 2

(6) Other - Specify:

 

70. Consider each of the factors listed below and indicate the degree to which each
has been a problem in your agency’s relationship with your prosecutor’s ofﬁce.

19

Easter None Shem Moderate Lari:
a. Insufﬁcient advice regarding legal issues ......................... l ...... 2 3 4
b. Insufﬁcient feedback from prosecutor on cases not prosecuted l ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
c. Insufﬁcient notice Of prosecutor needs ............................... I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
d. Poor communication benveen investigators and prosecutor ...... I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
e. Problems regarding court scheduling .............................. l ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
f. Prosecutor indifference to investigations ......................... I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
g. Prosecutor interference with investigations ......................... I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4

i h. Prosecutor non-responsiveness to agency requests for support .. . I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
i. Prosecutor pressure on agency investigations 1 .................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
j. Prosecutor release of investigative information to the media l ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
k. Requests to conduct unnecessary investigative leads .............. I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
1. Other - Specify:

 

182

#42 ..‘L Axel: I?
! _

20
SECTION V - INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT/GENERAL

71. Does your agency employ any evidence technicians (persons speciﬁcally designated to collect evidence at crime scenes)?
Yes [ ] IF YES, continue on to Question 72
No [ ] IF NO. SKIP to Question 74

72. How many evidence technicians are authorized full-time. part-time. or as an additional duty?

(1) Eon-time (2)rm_nm-' ' (”WALD-“3!" _
a. Number of sworn ofﬁcers ............

II‘ .0.
—-— ——_——- ———

b. Number of non-sworn (civilians)

oo-
..—_ ——-.— —__

73. Are people who are designated as evidence technicians in your

agency mm to have any specialized experience or training? ......................................... Yes I I No [ l
a. IF YES, what type? . m NJ
(I) A college degree .................................................................... I 2
(2) Investigative experience ......................................................... I ’2
(3) Some college education .......................................................... I 2
(4) Specialized in-house training .................................................... I 2
(S) Specialized training outside of your agency .................................... I 2
(6) Sworn ofﬁcer experience ......................................................... I 2

(7) Other - Specify:

 

74. When your investigators make use of naming crime laboratory
services, what type of laboratory is generally used?

Is: I!!!
a. Your agency's own crime laboratory .................................................................... l 2
b. A crime laboratory that is part of another local/county police agency .............................. I . 2
c. A crime laboratory that is part of another state/federal police agency .............................. l 2
d. A state laboratory not part of a police organization (e.g., public health) .............................. I 2

75. How would the investigative staff in your agency describe their access to routine crime laboratory services? Mark (X)

only one.
'a. Readily available in all cases ............. [ ] c. Available but difficult to get timely access [ ]
b. Readily available but only in serious cases [ ] d. Access is limited, hindering some investigations [ l

76. When your investigators make use of routine crime laboratory services, how would they describe

the W for analysis other than for drug/alcohol eases? Mark (X) only one.
a. Timely [ ] b. Somewhat slow [ ] c. Very slow [ ] d. Completely inadequatef ]

77. What is the approximate number of cases that your agency has cleared as a
result of DNA analysis that probably would not have been cleared otherwise? __ _ __ , _ _ __

20

183

 

21
78. Does your agency mummy have any unsolved cases that are "backlogged"

because there is no DNA analysis readily available? .......................................................

a. IF YES, why is DNA analysis not readily available?

(1) Lack offunding ........................................................................................................
(2) Lack of qualiﬁed personnel .........................................................................................

(3) Other - Specify:

 

b. About how many cases are awaiting DNA analysis? .......................................... ' .................. _ __ __

c. About how much funding is needed to conduct DNA analysis for an of these cases?

d. About how much funding is needed to conduct DNA analysis for

cases that are judged to be insritisaLnerd of DNA analysis? ..............................

79. When your agency uses the Automated Fingerprint Identiﬁcation System (AFIS), who provides the service?

_ Yes his:
a. Your agency's own AFIS ............................................................. I 2
b. A state administered AFIS ........................................................ l ..' 2
c. A federally administered AFIS .................................................. I .. 2

d. Other —- Specify:

 

80. Are the types of records listed below available to investigators in
your agency in manual or computer form? Circle all that apply.

Not Readily Available Available ‘

B I ! v 'l l I l I II C |
a. Crime reports .................................... I 2 ............ 3 »
b. Arrest reports .................................... l 2 ............ 3 ‘
c. Case disposition .................................... I 2 ............ 3

d. Prosecution disposition ......................... l ............ 2 ......... 3

e. Court dispositions .............................. I 2 ............ 3

f. Summary crime statistics ......................... y I 2 ............ 3

81. Please identify the ﬁles that are maintained Wang!
to support investigations. Circle all that apply.
Not Readily Available Available

a. Fingerprints ......................................... I 2 ............ 3

b. Known offender .................................... I 2 ............ 3

c. M.O. ﬁle ............................................ I ............ 2 ............ .3

d. Mug shot ............................................ I ............ 2 ............ 3

e. Organized crime intelligence ................... l 2 ............ 3

f. Narcotics intelligence ........................ l ............ 2 ............ 3

g. Sex offender ......................................... l 2 ............ 3

h. Stolen property ................................... l ............ 2 ............ 3

i. Stolen vehicles ................................... I ............ 2 ............ 3

j. Other - Specify:

 

21

184

 

 

22

82. Do uniformed ofﬁcers and/or investigators have daily access
to any of the following? Circle all that apply.

Item Iinifarmedﬂiﬂssrs WI!
a. Cell telephones ............................................................... I \ 2
b. E-mail ........................................................................... l ................... 2
c. lntemet .......................................................................... I ................... 2
d. Pagers .......................................................................... I ................... 2
e. Voice mail .................................................................... I ................... 2

83. Within the next year, does your agency plan to upgrade or enhance any of the following?

its Din
a. Computers in vehicles .................................................................................. l 2
b. Crime analysis capabilities .......................................................................... l . 2
c. Crime report and case disposition ﬁles (reference Question 80 above) ........................ l . 2
d. Investigative support files (reference Question 81 above) ......................................... l . 2
e. Personal communication devices (reference Question 82 above) .............................. I . 2
f. Other - Specify:

 

84. In your agency’s view is investigations work in general
W in the popular media (television, movies, etc.)? .............................................. Yes I I No I I

a. IF YES, to what degree do you think investigations work is misrepresented In the following areas?

Easter ' Eons Slight Modem: Lane:
(I) Interrogations ..................................................... I ...... 2 3 4
(2) Investigator discretion ............................................ II ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
(3) Investigator intellectual ability .................................... l ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
(4) Investigator physical ability .................................... l ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
(5) Relationships with supervisors .................................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
(6) Relationships with suspects .................................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
(7) Relationships with the public .................................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
(8) Relationships with uniformed ofﬁcers ......................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
(9) Relationships with victims and/or witnesses .................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
(10) Use of excessive force .......................................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
(II) Useofinformants ............................................... l ...... 2 . 3.. 4

 

(12) Other — Specify:

85. Some agencies that respond to this questionnaire may be considered for additional research
regarding criminal investigations. This may involve interviews with agency officials, case ﬁle
reviews, observations of investigative activities, or collection of other data for analysis. Would
your agency be willing to consider participation In such projects? ......................................... Yes I I No [ I

185

’23
86. Within the past 5 years, to what extent has research in the areas identified below directly
influenced your agency policy and/or practice regarding the criminal investigation process?

 

 

am . Slight Muskrat: Later
a. Case screening ............ . .................................................. I ...... 2 3 4
b. Computerized data bases (e.g.,AFIS) ................. l ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
c. Criminal investigations management ................................... I ...... 2 ' 3 .. 4
d. Decentralization/centralization of investigatOrs ......................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
e. Forensic science applications (e.g., DNA) .............................. l ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
f. Investigator selection techniques ......................................... I 2 . 3 .. 4
g. Relationships between investigations and community policing I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
h. Team policing ............................................................... l ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
i. Other - Specify: ' a
87. If additional research on the criminal investigation process were carried out,
what priority would you give to each of the following areas?
8mm ' lune Ltm Madam: Hill!
a. Case screening ............................................................... I ...... 2 3 4
b. Clearance rates ............................................................... l ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
c. Crime intelligence/mapping/infonnation systems ......................... l ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
d. Decentralization/centralization of investigators ......................... l ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
e. Generalization/specialization of investigator roles ................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
f. Integration of community policing and investigations ................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
g. Interagency cooperation .................................................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4.
h. Investigator relationships within communities ......................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
i. Investigator selection ......................................................... l ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
j. Investigator training ......................................................... I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
It. - Management of continuing investigations .............................. I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
l. Performance evaluation of investigators .................................... I ...... 2 .. . 3 .. 4
m. Police/prosecutor relations ..................................................... l ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
n. Prosecution and conviction rates .......................................... I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
o. Technological improvements in investigations management l ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
p. Technological improvements in investigative techniques .............. I ...... 2 .. 3 .. 4
q. The investigative role of patrol ofﬁcers .................................... I ...... 2 . 3 .. 4
r. Other - Specify:

 

 

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE BE SURE THE ADDRESS BLOCK ON THE FRONT IS
COMPLETED AND RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE TO:

FRANK l-IORVATH, Ph.D., Professor

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Tel: 517/432-4658
School of Criminal Justice Fax: 517/432ol787
122 Baker Hall email: WM
East Lansing, MI 48824 WEBSITE: W

FOR UP-TO—DATE INFORMATION ON THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY AND WHAT OTHER AGENCIES ARE
DOING REGARDING THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONPROCESS, VISIT OUR WEBSITE ( W ).

23

 

186

APPENDIX 8

Added Items to the Survey Questionnaire for South Korean Police

Section I

2.a What is the population in your jurisdiction? ........................ _ _ _, _ _ _, _ _ _, _ _ _

4.a Total number of ofﬁcers? __ _ _ 4.b How many are patrol ofﬁcers?. .. _ _ _
4.c What is detective average working hours per week?. .. _ _ _ hrs

10. In your agency, how frequently do investigators most commonly report to supervisors on routine
investigation?
Hourly [ ] Daily [ ] Weekly [ ] Monthly [ ] Other [ ]

17. What type of job can you think detectives start as a second career after their retirement?
Specify

 

17.3 How can your agency assist them?
Specify

 

Section III
43.a How much are detectives in your agency satisﬁed with their salary?
l)strongly dissatisﬁed 2) dissatisﬁed 3) undecided 4) satisﬁed 5)strongly satisﬁed

43.b To what extent are the following people cooperative and helpful in solving crimes in your agency?
None=l Slight=2 Moderate=3 Large=4 Strongly=5

a. Victim

b. Witness

c. Suspect

d. Informants

e. Patrol ofﬁcer

f. Detective in other P.D.
g. Evidence technician

g. Prosecutor

h. Media
Section IV
64.a. None Slight Moderate Large
(21) Lack of funding ................................... I ............ 2 ............ 3 ............ 4
65.u. Increase in funding for detective work. ....... I ............. 2 ........... 3 ............ 4

66.b Why are the prosecutor's investigators assigned from your agency?
Specify

 

66.c How long have they been assigned? __ _ years

187

APPENDIX C

Transmittal Letters

US. Department of Justice

 

Ofﬁce of iustice Programs
National Int-rind: of Justice

 

WOC w:

1' SEP 1999

Dear Law Enforcement Administrator.

The National Institute of Justice has recently celebrated its 30" Anniversary.
During those three decades. the Institute has promoted research and
disseminated findings to practitioners and policy makers. We are proud to
continue building new partnerships between researchers and practitioners where
they work closely in developing important and useful knowledge.

The National Institute of Justice ls supportive of the School of Criminal Justice at
Michigan State University in its re-examlnation of how law enforcement agencies
carryout their investigative function. This Is the ﬁrst national re-examination of
the investigative function in more than twenty years. The study is designed to
provide a current assessment of the criminal investigative process as well as
generate information necessary to Inform police and other public decision.
makers.

On behalf of the National Institute of Justice I ask for your participation in this
important and timely study.

    

'onal Institute of Jusitice

188

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

WOV‘OGMSODICIOSCHOOLOIMMM‘HQ
mum

December 27, 1999

Dear Law Enforcement Administrator:

EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 “Ill-II“

In October we sent you a questionnaire that was part of a survey designed to collect
information about the criminal investigation process in law enforcement agencies across the
country. The survey is sponsored by the National Institute of Justice. and the questionnaire
requests information from agencies that conduct criminal investigations W

{3.9.1191-

Because we have not yet received a completed questionnaire from your agency, we are
sending a second capy in the event that the ﬁrst one has been misplaced.

We want the survey to be as complete and accurate as possible, and for that reason we
would be extremely grateful if you would take a few minutes to complete the enclosed
questionnaire and return it in the enclosed stamped. self-addressed envelope. Of course. if f
you have already returned the first copy of the questionnaire. you need not return tlus one.

Thank you very much for your cooperation and support.

Frarilt Horvath, PhD.
Professor

Michigan State University
School of Criminal Justice
122 Baker Hall

East Lansing. MI 48824
Tel: 517/432-4658

Fax: 517/432-1787

Email: W

Web Site: www.ciol.org

189

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

W! O! SOCIAL ma 0 SCI-(00‘ Of Quorum IA“ WW6 0 anoncm 0 48164".
um "AU.

February 15. 2000

Dear Law Enforcement Administrator:

in October. and again in December. of 1999, we sent you a questionnaire designed to
collect information about the criminal investigation process in law enforcement agencies
across the country. The survey is sponsored by the National Institute of Justice of the
U.S. Department of Justice.

The questionnaire requests information from agencies that conduct criminal

investigations MW Because we have not yet received a
completed questionnaire from your agency. we are sending you a third copy.

We want the survey to be as complete and accurate as possible. and for that reason we
would be extremely grateful if you would take a few minutes to complete the enclosed
questionnaire and return it in the enclosed stamped. self-addressed envelope. Of course.
if you have already returned a previous copy. you need not return this one. Thank you
very much for your cooperation.

Frank Horvath. PhD.
Professor

Michigan State University
School of Criminal Justice
122 Baker Hall

East Lansing, MI 48824
Tel: 517/432-4658

Fax: 517/432-1787

Email: gig|(a:pi|gt,m§g.edg

Web Site: www.ciol.org

190

APPENDIX D

Approval of the University Committee on Research Involving Human

Subjects (UCRIHS)

MICHIGAN STATE
u N l v e a s l T Y

June 15. 1999

TO: Dr.Frank HORVATI—I
512 Baker Hall

RE: IRBtt 99313 CATEGORY: l-C
APPROVAL DATE:June 15. 1999

TITLEIAN UPDATE AND EXPANSION OF THE RAND SURVEY REGARDING
STATE AND LOCAL POLICE INVESTIGATION PROCESSES

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB#
and title Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and

 

approved
OFFICE 0‘ If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
8553253 http Ilwww.m5u edulumtlvprgs/UCRIHSI
GRADUATE

STUDIES

University Committee on
Research lnvelvlng
Human Subjects
(UCRIHS)

‘J 2.a-:5: State art-vest,
2:5 32- r 5:? :‘ Su-'c-rq
225' .21"; klcnicar.
13321-1046

355-2130 DEW bC

=:.r 353.295

Li—

  

cc Robert MeeSIg

191

 

ones or
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

Unlversily Commlllee on

Research Involvln
Human Su acts
(UCRIHS)

Michigan Stale University
246 Adminrslration Build'
East Lansing. Mich'
48824.1

   

517055.21”

FAX 517/353-2976

IN Mich-can Sm 00»!me
IOU r5 instantiate! Marry
(new: in khan

USU or an Munch-entail.
ecu! Wimp 00$!le

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

September 8. 1999

TO: Frank Horvath
512 Baker Hall
RE: IRB It 99313 CATEGORY: t-c

TITLE: AN UPDATE AND EXPANSION OF THE RAND SURVEY REGARDING STATE AND
LOCAL POLICE INVESTIGATION PROCESSES

ANNUAL APPROVAL DATE: June 15. 1999
REVISION REQUESTED: July 23. 1999 -.
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: September 8. 1999

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects‘ (UCRIHS) review of this project is
complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.

Therefore. the UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECTS REVISION.

This letter approves questionnaire revlslons dated September 7. 1999.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval Is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.
A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possble. Investigators wlshing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete revlew.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes it procedures Involving human subjects. prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal form.
To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRBff and title. Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised Instruments. consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) Involving human
subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new Information indicating greater risk. to the
human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@pilot.msu.edu.

Sincerely.

  
  
  
  
 

   

avid E. Wright. Ph.D.
UCRIHS Chair

DEW; ab
cc: Robert Meesig

192

 

GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Commltlee on
Research Involving
llamas Subjects
Michigan Sac Urivasiy
2&6 Administration Budding
East Lansmg. Michigan
“824-1046

SIT/3552180

fo SIT/3530976

Web m msu etiuMerlucrihs
E'MIII utrlhsOmsu edu

the Mica-pan Sure unwary

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s I T Y

 

June 2. 2000

TO: Frank HORVATH
512 Baker Hall

RE: IRBII 00~319 CATEGORY11-C
APPROVAL DATE: June 2. 2000

TITLE: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROCESSESS AND POLICIES OF THE
KOREAN NATIONAL POLICE

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of Eris
project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain Informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved thIs project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed mm the ween
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishhg to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes In procedures involving human subjects. prior
to initiation of the change. If this Is done at the time of renewal. please use the ween renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRBff
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS prompUy: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes In the research environment or new information indicating

greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http'jlwww.msu.edu/unitlvprgslUCRII-ISI

malt)

David E. Wright. Ph.D.
DEW: bd

cc: YungHyeock Lee
122 Baker Hall

193

 

 

 

 

STUDIES

Uelveralty Commlttee ee
Research Involving
llamas Subjects
Michigan Sta: Universiy
246 Mmin'straion Building
East Lansing. Michigai
t88244046

srmsszrao

FAX srmsszsrs

Web mesa admirer/verbs
E-Mail; ucrisOmsuedu

the Morgan State m
w is nsrirwaul Diversify
Dalian n Adm

  

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s I T Y

 

May 22. 2001
TO: Frank HORVATH
512 Baker Hall

RE: IRB I 00619 CATEGORY: EXEMPT I-C
RENEWAL APPROVAL DATE: May 21. 2001

TITLE: CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROCESSES AND POLICIES OF THE KOREAN
NATIONAL POLICE

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and methods to obtaln Informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECTS RENEWAL.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval Is valid for one calendar year. beginnlng with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal form.
A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes In procedures involving human subjects. prior to
initiation of the change. If this Is done at "18 time of renewal. please use the green renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRBI and title. Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised Instruments. consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving human subjects
or 2) changes in the research environment or new Information indicating greater risk to the human
subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu.

 

r. M.D.
Interim Chair. UCRIHS

AK: br

cc: YungHyeock Lee
122 Baker Hall

194

BIBLOGRPHY

Barker, T., & Carter, D. L. (1994). Police deviance (3rd ed.). Cincinnati. Ohio:
Anderson Pub. Co.

Baumer. T. (1978). Research on fear of crime in the U.S. Victimologv. 3, 254-
264.

Bayley, D. H. (1985). Patterns of policing: a comparative intematjonal
perspective New Brunswick. NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bayley, D. H. (1991). Forces of order: Policing modern Japan. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Bayley, D. H. (1994). Police for the future. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bayley, D. H., & Bittner, E. (1984). Learning the skills of policing. Law and
Contemporary Problems. 47(Autumn). 35-59.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Becker, R. F. (1997). Scientiﬁc evidgnce ancL expert testimony handbook.
Springﬁeld: Charles C Thomas.

Bedau. H. A., 8. Radelet. M. L. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially
capital cases. Stanford Law Review. 40(21), 21-179.

Bernard. T. J., & Engel. R. S. (2001). Conceptualizing criminal justice theory.
zlgstice Quarterly. 18(1), 1-30.

Bittner. E. (1970). The anctions of Police in Modern Society. Washington. DC:
National Institute of Mental Health.

Black, D. (1980). The manners and customs of the police. New York: Academic
Press.

Black. D. (1998). The social structure omght and wrong. San Diego: Academic
Press.

 

Bossard, A. (1990). Tﬂnsnatjonal Crime anc_l__Criminal Law. Chicago: Office of
International Criminal Justice.

Brandi. S.. & Horvath. F. (1991). Crime-victim evaluation of police investigative
performance. Mmal oLCriminal Justice, 19, 293-305.

195

Bronfenbrenner. U. (1979). Thejcologv of Hgman Development. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Brown, D. L., 8. Hirschl, T. A. (1995). Household poverty in rural and
metropolitan-core areas of the United States. Rural Sociology. 60(1), 44-
66.

Buerger, M. E. (1998). Police training as a Pentecost: Using tools singularly ill-
suited to the purpose of reform. Police Quarterly, 1(1), 27-63.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998). Censps of State anﬂocaLLaw giforcement
AgenciesL1996. Washington. DC: Government Printing Ofﬁce

Cardarelli. A. P.. McDevitt, J., & Baum, K. (1998). The rhetoric and reality of
community policing in small and medium-sized cities and towns. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Sﬁtrategies & Management. 21(3), 397-
415.

Carter, 0., Sapp, A., & Stephens, D. (1988). Higher education as a bona ﬁde
occupational qualiﬁcation (BFOQ) for police: A blue print. American
Journal of Police. 7(2), 1-27.

Carter, D. L. (1985). Hispanic perception of police performance: An empirical
assessment. Journal of Criminaﬂgstice. 13, 487-500.

Carter. D. L. (1994a). East Lansing, MI: School of Criminal Justice. Michigan
State University.

Carter, D. L. (1994b). International organized crime: Emerging trends in
entrepreneurial crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 10(4).
239-266.

Carter, D. L., & Sapp, A. D. (1992). A comparative analysis of clauses in police
collective bargaining agreement as indicators of change in labor relations.
American Jogmal of Police. 12(2), 17-46.

Carter. D. L.. Sapp, A. D.. & Stephens, D. W. (1989). The state of policg
ﬂoation policy direction for the 21st centpﬂ. Washington. DC. (2300 M
St.. N.W., Suite 910, Washington 20037): Police Executive Research
Forum.

Cassel. P. G., & Fowles, R. (1998). Handcufﬁng the Cops? A thirty-year
perspective on Miranda's Harmful Effects on Law Enforcement. Stanford
Qw Review. 50. 1055-1145.

Chang, D. H. (1995). A New Form of lntemational Crime: The Human Organ

Trade. lntematjonal Journal of Cormarative and Applied Criminal JusticeI
1_9_(1&2), 1-18.

196

Chappell, 0., Gordon, R.. 8. Moore, R. (1982). Ministry of the Solicitor General of
Canada.

Cohen, 8., & Chaiken, J. (1987). Investigators who perform well. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Cole, G. F. (1970). The decision to prosecute. Law and Society Review. 4. 313-
343.

Cole. G. F., 8. Smith, C. E. (1996). CriminaUustice in America. Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing.

Conger, R. D. (1997). The special nature of mral America. E. B. Robertson. 2.
Sloboda, G. M. Byod, L. Beatty, & N. J. Kozel (Eds), Rural substance
abuse: State of knowledge and iSSlﬂ . Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.

Cooney, M. (1994). Evidence as partisanship. Law and Society. 2_8(4), 833-858.

Cordner, G. W. (1989). Police agency size and investigative effectiveness.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 17(3), 145-155.

Crank, J. P. (1990). The inﬂuence of environmental and organizational factors on
police style in urban and rural environments. Joumai of Research in Crime
and Delinquency. 27(2), 166-189.

Cumings, B. (1997). Korea's place in the sun: A modern history. New York: WW.
Norton & Company.

Cutler, S. (1999). Building International Cases. Law Enforcement Bulletin. 68(12),
1-7.

Das, D. K., & Kratcoski, P. C. (1999). lntemational Police co-operation: a world
perspective. Policing: An lntematiM Joumai of Police Strategies &
Marﬁgement, 22(2), 214-241.

Donnerrnyer, J. (1994). Perspectives on violence and substance t_lse in ru_;_a_|
America. Oak Brook, IL: Midwest Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools
and Communities.

Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. Translated_by George
Simpson. New York: Free Press.

Eck, J. E. (1979). Managing case assignments: The Mglary investigation

decision model replicatiﬂ. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research
Forum.

197

Eck, J. E. (1992). Criminal investigation. In G. W. Cordner & D. C. Hale (Eds),
What works in policing? Operations and adminisgration examined (pp.
19-34). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Eck, J. E. (1999). Problem-Solving Detectives: Some Thoughts on Their Scarcity.
Seattle: Seattle Police Department.

Erez, E. (1984). Self-deﬁned "desert" and citizens' assessment of the police. ﬂip
Journal of Criminal |_.aw & Criminology. 75(4), 1276-1299.

Ericson, R. V. (1981). Making crime: A study of detective work. Toronto:
Buttervvorths.

Fairchild, E. S. (1989). National Culture and Police Organization in Germany and
the United States. Public Administration Review, (September/October),
454-462.

Feuille, P., Hendricks, W., & Delaney, J. (1983). The impact of collective
bargainipg and interest arbitration on policing. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice.

Freeman, R. B. (1986). Unionism Comes to the Public Sector. Joumai of
Economic Literature. 24(1), 41-86.

Freudenburg, W. (1986). The density of acquaintanceship: An overlooked
variables in community research? American Jogmal of Sociology. 9_2_(1),
27-63.

Garkovich, L. (1989). Ponglation and commnity in rpral America. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.

Garkovich, L. (1991). Governing the countryside: Linking politics and
administrative resources. K. E. Pigg (ed), The fmre of rpral America:
Anticipating policies for constructive change . Boulder, CO: Westview.

Geller, W. A. (1993). (Report No. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 139962).
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Justice.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss. A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime &
Delinqgency. 25(2), 237-258.

198

Greenberg, |., & Wasserman. R. (1979). Managing criminal investigations.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal
Jusﬁce.

Greene, J. R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1988). Community policing rhetoric or reality.
New York: Praeger.

Greenwood, P. W., Chaiken, J. M., & Petersilia, J. (1977). The criminal
investigation process. Lexington, MA: 0.0. Heath and Company.

Greenwood, P. W., & Petersilia, J. (1975). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Grifﬁne, G. (1980). A study of the relationship petween level of college education
and police patrolman's performance. Saratoga, NY: Twenty One
Publishing.

Hagan, J. (1989). Why is there so little criminal justice theory? Neglected macro-
and micro-level links between organization and power. Joumai of
Research in Crime and Delinquency. 26 , 116-135.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Press.

Havard, J. (1991). A historical and comparative review of the reception of
forensic medical and scientiﬁc evidence under different systems of law.
Forensic Science Review. 3(1). 30-40.

Herbert, S. (1998). Police subculture reconsidered. CriminologyL36(2). 343-369.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture's consequences international differences in work-
related values (Cross-cultural research and methodology series No. v. 5).
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations software of t_he mind. London,
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Horvath, F., & Lee, Y. H. (2002). [Inﬂuence of physical and non-physical
evidence in prosecutorial decision-making]. Unpublished raw data.

Horvath, F., Lee, Y. H., & Meesig, R. (2001). [A content analysis of criminal
justice journals in the last twenty years: Researchers' attention to the
police criminal investigation]. Unpublished raw data.

Horvath, F., & Meesig, R. (2001). A nationaL survey of police policies and
practices marmg the crimina_l investigation process: Twenty-ﬁve years
after Rand. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

199

 

Horvath, F., & Meesig, R. (1996). The criminal investigation process and the role
of forensic evidence: A review of empirical ﬁndings. Joumai of Forensic
Science, 41 (6), 963-969.

Hudzik, J. (1978). College education for police: Problems in measuring
component and extraneous variables. =lglrnal of Criminal Jpstice. 6. 69-
81.

Jacobs, D. & Britt, D. (1979). Inequality and police use of deadly force: An
empirical assessment of conﬂict hypothesis. Social Problems. g, 401-
411.

Jacoby, J. E. (1980). The American Prosecutor: A Search for identig. Lexington:
LexingtonBooks.

Johnson, D. T. (2002). The Japanese Way of Justjpe: Prosecuting Crime in
Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kades, M. (1997). Exercising discretion: A case study of prosecutorial discretion
in the Wisconsin Department of Justice. American Jopmal pf Criminal
Law 25(1), 115-149.

 

Kagan, R. A. (2001). Adversarial Legalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.

Kash, D. (1995). Targeting the Terrorists: A Legal Proposal for Assassinating
Terrorists as a Preemptive Strike. International Jamal of Comparative
and Applied Criminal Jy_§_tjce, 19(1&2), 127-138.

Kiely, T. F. (2001). Forensic Evidencﬁcience and t_he Criminal Law. Boca
Raton: CRE Press.

Kleismet, R. B. (1989). Police unions and the rejuvenation of American policing.
D. J. Kenney (Ed), Police and policing Contempprary isspe_§ . New York:
Praeger.

Kohn, M. L. (1987). Cross-national research as an analytic strategy. American
Sociological Review, 52, 713-731.

Kroes, W. H. (1985). Society's victims-The police: An analysis of job stress in
policing. Springﬁeld, Ill: Thomas.

Lee, Y. H. (1997). PerceLtion of police stressors andpolice cynicism in Soyt_h
Korea. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.

Lemert, E. M. (1967). Human Deviance. Social Proplems. arﬁ Social Control.
Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

200

Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. The Joumai of Criminal Law 8.
Criminology. 86(2), 266-303.

Leo, R. A., 8. Ofshe, R. J. (1998). Criminal law: the consequences of false
confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age
of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminolggy.
@(2). 429-496.

Linda, H., 8. Mangen, S. (1996). Cross-naﬁgtal Research Methods in the Social
Sciences. London and New York: Pinter.

Lupsha, P. A. (1996). Transnational Organized Crime Versus the Nation-State.
Transnational Orﬂiized Crime. 2, 21-48.

Magenau, J. M., & Hunt, R. (1989). Sociopolitical networks for police role-
making. Human Relations. 42(6), 547-560.

Maguire, E. R., Kuhns, J. 8., Uchida, C. D.. 8 Cox, 8. M. (1997). Patters of
community policing in nonurban America. Joumai of Research in Crime
and Delmpency. 34(3), 368-394.

Manning, P. K. (1997). Police Womghe social organization of policing. Prospect
Heights, III: Waveland Press.

Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man: Studies in ;he ideolggy of advanced
industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Margules, P. L. (1992). lntemational Art Theft and the Illegal Import and Export of
Cultural Property: A Study of Relevant Values, Legislation. and Solutions.
Suffolk Transnational Law Journal. 15, 609-647.

Martin, P. Y., 8. O'connor, G. G. (1989). The social environment: open system
applications. New York: Longman.

Mastrofski, S. D., Worden, R. E.. 8. Snipes, J. B. (1995). Law enforcement in a
time of community policing. Criminology/S33 (4). 539-563.

McCormick, K., 8. Stekloff, B. (2000). Money Laundering. American Criminal Law
Review. 36. 729-756.

Meesig, R., Lee, Y. H., 8. Horvath, F. (in press). The police criminal investigation
process. Sncyclopedia of Crime and Punishment.

Miller, D. C. (1975). Leadership andL power in t_he Bos-Wash megalopolis:
Environment. ecology. and urban manization. New York: Wiley.

Muir, Jr. W. K. (1977). Police: Streetcomer politicians. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

201

Mullen, R. E.. 8 Donnermeyer, J. F. (1985). Age, trust, and perceived safety from
crime in rural areas. The Gerontolﬂogist. 25(3), 237-242.

Myers. M. A., 8. Talarico, S. M. (1986). Urban justice, rural injustice?
Urbanization and its effect on sentencing. Criminology. 24(2), 367-391.

National Public Radio. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Kennedy School of
Government (2001). National Survey on Civil Liberies.
www.kff.org/content/2001/3209/CivilLibertiesToplines.pdf

New York Times’s Editorials. Pakistan’s Cruel Blasphemy Law. New York Times,
Aug., 30. 2001, A2

Niederhoffer, A. (1967). Behind thﬁhield: The police in tiban society. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday.

Oberdorfer, D. (1997). The two Koreas. U.S.: Basic Books.

Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., 8. Whitaker, G. P. (1978). Police agency size: Some
evidence on its effects. Police Studies. 1(1), 34-46.

Packer. H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford, Calif: Stanford
University Press.

Peterson, J. L., Mihajlovic, S., 8 Gilliland, M. (1986). Forensic evidence and the
police: The effects of scientiﬁc evidence on criminal investigation. Davis
Forensic Science . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Peterson, J. L., Mihajlovic, S., 8 Bedrosian, J. L. (1985). The capabilities. uses,
and effects of the Nation’s criminalistic laboratories. Joumai of Forensic
Sciences. 30(1), 10-23.

Peterson, J. L., Mihajlovic, S., 8 Gilliland, M. (1984). Forensic evidence and th_e
police: The effects of scientiﬁc evidence on criminal investigations.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Peterson. J. L., Ryan, J. P.. Houlden, P. J., 8 Mihajlovic, S. (1987). The uses and
effects of forensic science in the adjudication of felony cases. Joumai of
Forensic Science. 32(6), 1730-1753.

Pizzi, W. T. (1999). Trials without Tru_tl1. New York: New York University Press.

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice.
(1968). The challenge of crime lg free society. New York: Avon Books.

Przeworski, A., 8 Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparatjve 80% Inqu_i[y.
New York: Wiley-Interscience.

202

Radelet. L. A., 8 Carter, D. L. (1994). The police and the commpnity. New York:
Macmillan College Publishing Company.

Regan, K. J., Nalley, P. G., 8 White, T. (1979). Managing criminal investigations:
A summary report. Unpublished report: Urban Institute.

Reppetto. T. A. (1978). The detective task. State of the Art, Science, Craft?
Police Studies. 5-10.

Resendiz, R., 8 Neal, D. M. (2000). lntemational Auto Theft: The Illegal Export of
American Vehicles to Mexico. D. Rounds lntemational Criminal Justice .
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rothwax, H. J. (1996). Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice. New York:
Warner Books.

Sanders, W. B. (1977). Cetecm/e work: A stpdy of crimirgl investigations. New
York: Free Press.

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., 8 Dwyer, J. (2001). Actual Innocence: When iustice
goes wrong and how to make it rigm. New York: A Signet Book.

Scheuch, E. K. (1967). Society as Context in Cross-cultural Comparison. Science
of Science |nformation.6, 7-23.

Sherman, L., 8 Blumberg, M. (1981). Higher education and police use of deadly
force. Joumai of Criminal Justice. 9, 317-331.

Sherman, L. (1978). The gality of police edu¥cation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Sherman, L. W. (1974). Police corru_Ltion: A sociological perspectiv_e. Garden
City, NY: Anchor Books.

Sherman. L. W. (1980). Cause of police behavior: The current state of
quantitative research. Journal of Research in Crime and Celingpency.
ﬂu), 69-100.

Sherman, L. W., Milton, K. H., 8 Kelly, T. V. (1973). Team policing: Seven case
studies. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Shernock, S. (1992). The effects of college education on professional attitudes
among police. ﬂimal of Criminal Justice Education, Spring, 71-92.

Siegel, J. A. (1997). History and development of the forensic expert witness in
the courtroom. S. Gerber (ed.), More Chemistiryand Crime . Washington,
DC: American Chemical Society.

203

Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of GeoﬂrlSimmel. Translated ang edited py
Kurt H. Wolff. Glencoe. III: Free Press.

Simon, D. (1991). Homicide: A year on the killing streets. Boston: Hougton
Mifﬂin.

Skogan, W. G. (1994). The impact of community policing on neighborhood
residents: A cross-site analysis. In D.P. Rosenbaum The challenge of
commtﬂity policing: Testing the promises (pp. 167-181). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Skogan, W. G., 8 Antunes, G. E. (1979). lnforrnation, apprehension. and
deterrence: Exploring the limits of police productivity. Joumai of Criminal
Justice 7, 217-241.

 

Skolnick. J. H. (1994). Justice without trial : law enforcement in democratic
socieg . New York : Macmillan ; Toronto : Maxwell Macmillan Canada.

Skolnick. J. H.. 8 Leo, R. A. (1992). The ethics of deceptive interrogation.
Criminal Justice Ethics-Winter/Spring, 3-12.

Slomczynski, K. M., Miller, J., 8 Kohn, M. L. (1981). Stratiﬁcation, Work, and
Values: A Polish-United States Comparison. American Sociological
Review, 46, 720-744.

Smith, B. W., Novak, K. J., Frank, J., 8 Travis III, L. F. (2000). Multijurisdictional
drug task forces: An analysis of impacts. Joumai of Criminal Justice. 28.
543-556.

Smith, B. L., 8 Huff, C. R. (1982). Crime in the country: The vulnerability and
victimization of rural citizens. Joumai of Criminal Justice 10(3), 271-282.

 

Spader, D. (1999). Teaching comparative criminal procedure: Russian dolls,
color charts, and cappuccino. Joumai of Criminal Justice Education 10(1),
111-136.

 

Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the Commpnity. New York: Ginn and
Company.

Trojanowicz, R. (1978). An evaluation of She neighborhood foot patrol program in
Flint- Michigan. East Lansing, MI: National Neighborhood Foot Patrol
Center, Michigan State University.

Trojanowicz, R., 8 Bucqueroux, B. (1994). Commpnity policing: How to get
started. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

204

U.S. Department of Justice, F.B.l. (1999). Uniform crime reportimuiata: [United
States] Part 95: Cffenses known and clearance by arrest, 1997 [Compu_te_r
ﬁle]. Compiled by the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bareau of
Investigation. ICPSR ed. 9028. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium
for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor].

Vidich, A. J. (1968). Small town in mass society: Class. power. and religion in a
gral community. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Violanti, J., 8. Aron, F. (1995). Police stressors: Variations in perception among
police personnel. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2&3), 287-294.

Walker. S. (1993a). Does anyone remember team policing? Lessons of the team
policing experience for community policing. American Jopmal of Police.
EU), 33—55.

Walker, S. (1993b). Tamingthe System: The Control of Discretion in Criminal
Justice 1950-1990. New York: Oxford University Press.

Walker, S. (1999). The police in America: An introduction. Boston: McGraw-Hill
College.

Weber. M. (1951). The religion of China: Confgcianism and Taoism. Translated
and edited by Hans H. Gerth. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.

Weber, M. (19583). The cig. Translated and edited by Don Martindale and
Gertrud Neuwirth. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.

Weber. M. (1958b). The Protestant ethic and the sprit of capﬁalism. Translated
by Talcott Parsons. New York: Scribner.

Websdale, N. (1998). Rural woman battering and justice system: An
ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weisheit, R. A., 8 Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000). Change and Continuity in Crime in
Rural America. Criminal Jpstice 2000. 1, 309-357.

Weisheit, R. A., Falcone, D. N., 8 Wells, L. E. (1996). Crime angpolicim in rpﬂl
all small-town America. Prospect Heights, III: Waveland Press.

Weisheit, R. A., Wells, L. E., 8 Falcone, D. N. (1994). Community Policing in
Small Town and Rural America. Crime andQelingency. 40(4), 549-567.

Wheeler, S. (1976). Problems and issues in record-keeping. In S. Wheeler
(Eds), On recon; Files and dossiers in American life (pp. 3-25). New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.

205

Williams, P.. 8 Woessner, P. N. (1996). The Real Threat of Nuclear Smuggling.
Scientiﬁc American. 225, 26-30.

Willman, M. T., 8 Snortum, J. R. (1984). Detective work: The criminal
investigation process in a medium-size police department. Criminal
Justice Review, 9(1), 33-39.

Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and
order in eight commgpities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, J. 0.. 8 Kelling, G. L. (1982 March). Broken windows: The police and
neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly. pp. 29-36, 38.

Worden, R. E. (1990). A Badge and a Baccalaureate: Policies, Hypotheses. and
Further evidence. Justice Quarterly. 7(3). 565-592.

Wright, K. N. (1980). The desirability of goal conﬂict within the criminal justice
system. =lggmal of Criminal Jtitice. 9, 19-31.

Yoon, D.-K. (1990). Law and Political Apthority in 80th Korea. Boulder:
Westview Press.

206

 

   

lli[iliijj’jiijjiﬂiijjijil