The fundamental positive characteristics of a criminal investigator are those that will help
the investigator to do their job to the best of their ability. According to Hess and Orthmann
(2010), “A good investigator is knowledgeable, creative, patient and persistent. Regardless of
title, pay or rank, investigative officers are more effective when they possess specific intellectual,
psychological and physical characteristics” (p. 12). Some characteristics, in addition to the
above, that an investigator should have is being open minded to all the possibilities, logical and
have empathy. Two examples of investigators from television that are shown to exhibit these
traits are Richard Castle from Castle and Gil Grissom from CSI. Both these characters from
popular crime television shows investigators are knowledgeable about a wide variety of topics,
both show creativity in their own particular way, such as designing lab experiments and spinning
possible stories for finding a motive, and they continue working towards finding the solution
even when the show writers throw blocks in their path.
Negative characteristics of a criminal investigator would be the opposite of the
characteristics that are positive, taking the positive characteristics too far or only having a few of
the characteristics. For instance, a detective that is too persistent that never gives themselves a
chance to get away from work and be with family or their friends may get too burnt out over
time to be an effective investigator. An example of this could be Aaron Hotchner during the
middle seasons of Criminal Minds where his relationship with his wife suffers from his devotion
to his job. Also, a detective could get to the point where they are no longer open-minded and
start to have a lot of preconceived notions like Olivia Benson on SVU.
References
Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. M. (2010). Criminal investigation. (9th ed.). Clifton Park, NY:
Delmar, Cengage Learning.
Training investigators to have specific expertise may be easy for large cities to handle
because they have a large amount of officers to call upon for crimes. According to Palmiotto and
Unnithan (2010):
For example, in police departments, clear distinctions are made with regard to those who
are defined as patrol officers and those who are deemed to be investigators. The latter are
often subdivided into units that deal with crimes against persons and those who
investigate property crime. (p. 80-81)
The problem is that smaller cities may not be capable of doing the same. The main con of
training two of the investigators specifically in homicide investigation would be that it would
take that manpower away from other crimes. Eventually, the rash of homicides may be
eliminated, and having two out of five officers specialized in this type of investigation would be
too many. The pro of training two of the investigators in this specifically would be that it seems
that this is a problem crime in the area, and having two investigators may increase how quickly
these violent crimes are solved. The two officers may be able to assist each other with their
investigations when a second set of eyes are needed more efficiently than those that are not
specifically training for homicide investigations. Overall, if the rash of homicides is a large
enough number in comparison to other crimes in the area it seems that the pro will outweigh the
con in training two officers specifically for homicide.
References
Palmiotto, M., & Unnithan, N. (2010). Policing and Society: A Global Approach. Clifton Park,
NY: Cengage.