To analyse a trace or not? Evaluating the decision-making process in the criminal investigation

In order to broaden our knowledge and understanding of the decision steps in the criminal investigation process, we started by evaluating the decision to analyse a trace and the factors involved in this decision step. This decision step is embedded in the complete criminal investigation process, involving multiple decision and triaging steps. Considering robbery cases occurring in a geographic region during a 2-year-period, we have studied the factors influencing the decision to submit biological traces, directly sampled on the scene of the robbery or on collected objects, for analysis. The factors were categorised into five knowledge dimensions: strategic, immediate, physical, criminal and utility and decision tree analysis was carried out. Factors in each category played a role in the decision to analyse a biological trace. Interestingly, factors involving information available prior to the analysis are of importance, such as the fact that a positive result (a profile suitable for comparison) is already available in the case, or that a suspect has been identified through traditional police work before analysis. One factor that was taken into account, but was not significant, is the matrix of the trace. Hence, the decision to analyse a trace is not influenced by this variable. The decision to analyse a trace first is very complex and many of the tested variables were taken into account. The decisions are often made on a case-by-case basis.

Dial M for Murder: A Case of Passion Killing, Criminal Evidence and Sultanic Power in Medieval India

This paper considers the structures and applications of the criminal judicial system in the Islamic Later Middle Period as it developed in India under the sultans of Delhi (1200-1400 CE). A fundamental issue in crime and punishment is the relationship between sultanic power and religious authority. Particularly at stake in this relationship is the question of who can sanction the highest form of punishment, i.e. the death penalty (siyāsa). Contemporary historians and scholars in the study of religion investigating the relationship between sharīʿa and siyāsa to reveal the extent and limits of sultanic power show a system of governance that allowed for the delegation of authority, particularly in the area of the judiciary, from the sultan down to viziers and judges. Some scholars depict the relationship between the ʿulamāʾ and the sultan as a kind of stand off. The actual dynamics of legal jurisdiction were much more complex. This study proposes a new interpretive framework for understanding the relationship between political power and religious authority through a critical analysis of the criminal judicial system, law, and historical narrative. In particular, I consider a murder case described by Shams al-dīn Sirāj ʿAfīf in one of the most significant histories written in the later Delhi Sultanate, the Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī.