Advertisement

Homicide Resources, Solvability and Detection

  • Rebecca RiggsEmail author
  • Richard Timothy Coupe
  • Denis O’Connor
Chapter

Abstract

The key objectives in this chapter are, first, to understand how homicide investigations are resourced, and the ways in which investigative costs, investigative actions and exhibits (output evidence items) are related to detection outcomes. A second important objective is to identify solvability factors which distinguish between detected and undetected cases, and to identify factors that help predict differences in solvability among the detected cases. Third, the accuracy of detectives’ homicide classification for predicting case costs in England and Wales is also assessed, and fourth differences between the two police jurisdictions in the study are examined. The study is based on a population of 290 homicides committed in Hampshire and Thames Valley Police jurisdictions, which cover shire counties in lowland England and Wales. There is a fuller set of homicide characteristics for Thames Valley Police data which enables a more comprehensive solvability factor analysis. Nine-tenths of cases were detected. Solvability factors explained over a third of detection outcomes whereas investigative costs did not help explain whether or not cases were detected. Solvability factors were identified which included suspect numbers, homicide type (murder/manslaughter/infanticide), offender–victim relationship (stranger/friend/relation) and suspect age. In contrast to existing research, whether the homicide occurred in a private or public place and whether knives or firearms were used had no effect on detections. Murders were less solvable than family-related incidents while homicides where hammers, golf clubs, spades, axes and blunt instruments were used as weapons reduced the prospects of a detected outcome. At odds with other studies, stranger homicides were linked with higher not lower odds of detection, while offences involving drugs tended to improve detection odds, a probable reflection of how solvability factors differ under circumstances of virtually unlimited resourcing and very high detection rates. Given exceptionally high detection rates, alternative indicators of solvability were evaluated that could be used to predict solvability differences among the detected cases. These indicators included number of investigative actions, number of exhibits per action and costs per action, all of which differed between detected and undetected incidents, plus time taken to charge suspects. Higher numbers of actions, less costly actions, fewer exhibits per action and greater time taken to charge suspects indicate lower solvability and characterise difficult-to-solve cases for which additional, often unproductive, investigative activities are undertaken in exhausting possible investigative avenues. Homicide characteristics predicted 28% of the variation in number of investigative actions which was the best alternative solvability indicator. It is notable that resources had little, if any, statistical effect on detection outcomes. This is because these homicide investigations were fully funded so that investigative effort continued to be expended until all investigative options were tried. This resulted in more actions, albeit lower costs and less productive ones, as case solvability fell, so that earlier cases involved fewer more costly and productive actions, while later cases involved more less costly actions which produced fewer exhibits. This tends to equalise investigative costs and make undetected cases almost as costly. Hence resources tended to reflect case solvability and add little statistical explanation of detection outcomes. Police homicide grades based on detectives’ experience were good predictors of homicide costs, though it appears there is some potential to improve these predictions by drawing on statistical analysis of solvability factors. That detectives’ grades proved to be better predictors of investigative costs than variables measuring homicide characteristics is undoubtedly affected by the limited number and range of homicide characteristics in the data set, whereas detectives have all factors available to them on which to base their case cost estimates. Investigative costs were higher in Thames Valley Police jurisdiction, the principal effect of which was to accelerate the investigation so that suspects were charged earlier than in Hampshire Police Force jurisdiction. There is a need for more detailed examination of investigative costs and the type—witness, forensic, electronic—and quality of evidence—which results from various investigative actions for different types of homicide to understand their role in detecting cases. This would provide insights into how to make homicide investigation more cost-effective by tailoring investigative actions to particular sorts of incidents.

Keywords

Homicide Investigation Costs Evidence items Actions Exhibits Solvability Resources 

References

  1. Addington, L. (2006). Using national incident-based reporting system murder data to evaluate detection predictors. Homicide Studies, 10, 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adhami, E., & Browne, D. P. (1996). Major crime enquiries: Improving expert support for detectives. Police Research Group Special Interest Series, Paper 9. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, K. M., & Keppel, R. D. (2012). Child abduction murder: The impact of forensic evidence on solvability. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eck, J. E. (1983). Solving crimes: The investigation of burglary and robbery. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  5. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. (2000). Policing London, winning consent. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  6. Innes, M. R. (2002). The ‘Process Structures’ of police homicide investigations. British Journal of Criminology, 42(4), 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Innes, M. (2003). Investigating murder: Detective work and the police response to criminal homicide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Innes, M. (2007). Investigation order and major crime inquiries. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of Criminal Investigation (Chapter 10). Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  9. Jackson, M. (2010). Murder concentration and distribution patters in London: An exploratory analysis of ten years of data (Unpublished M.St. paper). University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Lee, C. (2005). The value of life in death: Multiple regression and event history analyses of homicide clearance in Los Angeles County. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 527–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leveson, B. H. (2012). An inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  12. Litwin, K. J. (2004). A multilevel multivariate analysis of factors affecting homicide clearance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miethe, T. D., & Regoeczi, W. C. (2004). Rethinking homicide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Centre for Policing Excellence. (2005). Guidance on major incident room standardised administrative procedures (MIRSAP). Wyboston: ACPO Centrex.Google Scholar
  15. National Centre for Policing Excellence. (2006). Murder investigation manual. Wyboston: ACPO Centrex.Google Scholar
  16. Ousey, G. C., & Lee, M. R. (2010). To know the unknown: The decline in homicide clearance rates, 1980–2000. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richardson, M. (2011). A descriptive analysis of gang homicides in Trinidad and Tobago (Unpublished M.St. thesis). University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Riggs, R. (2017). An assessment of the utility of the categorisation framework of homicide investigations in British policing (Unpublished M.St. thesis). University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Roberts, A. (2007). Predictors of homicide clearance by arrest: An event history analysis of NIBRS incidents. Homicide Studies, 11, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roberts, A. (2014). Adjusting rates of homicide clearance by arrest for investigation difficulty: Modelling incident- and jurisdiction-level obstacles. Homicide Studies, 1–28.Google Scholar
  21. Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (2005). Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In S. L. Gabbidon & H. Taylor Greene (Eds.), Race, crime, and justice. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, D. J. (2003). The Shipman inquiry second report: The police investigation of March 1998. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  23. Stelfox, P. (2006). Factors that determine outcomes in the police investigation of homicide (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Open University.Google Scholar
  24. Taylor, P., Bond, S. (2012). Crimes detected in England and Wales 2011/12. Statistical Bulletin, 08/12. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  25. Trussler, T. (2010). Explaining the changing nature of homicide clearance in Canada. International Criminal Justice Review, 20(4), 366–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wright, M. (2008). Detective intuition: The role of homicide schemas (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Liverpool.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Riggs
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard Timothy Coupe
    • 2
  • Denis O’Connor
    • 2
  1. 1.Metropolitan PoliceLondonUK
  2. 2.Cambridge UniversityCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations