X-Ray Technology in Flight Pre-Screening

In Panter (2013) I wrote about backscatter imaging as a pre-flight security clearance tactic. Backscatter imaging operates much differently than x-ray technologies, the later is more frequently used and has been in operation in airports for a longer amount of time. Yet, security professionals often do not appreciate how x-ray technologies work or understand the science behind x-ray imaging. This is often due to the academic separation between practitioners and scientists (this will be discussed in another post). Therefore, this post aims to present a better scientific understanding of x-ray technologies as a security measure to those who do not have a degree in physics or a specialization in gamma radiation.

X-ray technology operates via 3 modes of photon/ electron interaction. These are the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, and pair production.  It should be noted that many x-ray devices used in security screening are based upon the photoelectric effect, hence why we will only are discussing this. If you are curious about the Compton scattering effect, which is how backscatter imaging works, please see my previous posts.

 X-ray technologies work by using gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is a type of  electromagnetic radiation that has an extremely high frequency and consists of high-energy photons. These photons vary in their reaction when they enter an atom based on the type of atom they enter. The photoelectric effect occurs when an incoming photon of gamma radiation is absorbed by an electron. This results in the ejection of the electron into its orbit.

 

 

In the photo of a suitcase below notice how different materials show up on an x-ray as being darker in colour. In theory, the more dense an object is (like the revolver) the less likely it is to absorb the same amount of gamma radiation produced by an x-ray screening machine. This is why certain materials appear on a screening monitor as areas of light and dark shading. This is noticeable when looking at the can of tennis balls located to the right versus the revolver. The material of a tennis ball (rubber/ air) is not as dense as the material of the revolver (metal), therefore the gamma radiation from x-rays pass more easily through the tennis balls which creates an observed visual difference between material density. In simplest terms, x-ray photoelectric technology is based upon the fact that x-ray absorption in atomic matter varies with the energy of the beam and the density of the absorbing material.

 

Panter, H. 2013. Backscatter Imaging and Counterterrorism: An Analysis of Legal and Privacy Issues. NSU International Journal of Criminal Justice, VIII :8-14

Fracture Matching in Comparative Analysis of Duct Tape

Duct tape is a common item that you can find in any toolbox or residence since its invention as a waterproof tape in the 1930’s. During World War II, duct tape was used by allied forces for various purposes and after the war it was used in homes for duct work, hence it’s commonly known name…”duct tape”. It is known for its very distinctive silver polyethylene backing but it can be now found in decorative colors. I recently have seen it in patterns ranging from camouflage to American university school logos.

It is found in vehicles, homes, and the DIY toolboxes and used for emergency repairs. Thus the easy accessibility of duct tape can be used by criminals as an evidential component to commit crimes. In homicides, a killer may use duct tape to tie the victim up or seal their body in some type of container. In rapes, the offender may also bound the victim and in hit-and-run homicides it can be used to reattach a damaged bumper. In terrorist attacks it can be used in energetic material construction (A.K.A. “bombs”). In other crimes it may be used to wrap around the handle of a sawed off shotgun to prevent wood splintering or used to wrap around a tool left at a crime scene. Arguably, the possibilities are endless to the usage and only limited by the criminal’s imagination.

(Above: Duct Tape Evidence from the Casey Anthony Case. Photo from the Orlando Sentinel online)

Before we begin it is critical that readers understand a basic forensic theory of evidence, the Locard’s Principle. Dr. Locard (13 December 1877 – 4 May 1966) was known as the French version of the fictional character “Sherlock Holmes” laying the groundwork for the concept that every criminal leaves some type of trace evidence at a crime scene. Dr. Locard’s Priniciple is the basis for the scientific concepts of forensics and trace evidence. So, in descriptive terms---two offenders in a physical struggle will exchange trace evidence from the clothing they are wearing, transfer blood, transfer skin cells, transfer sweat, etc. This can also include the soil found on the bottom of an offenders boot to the exchange of DNA through skin to skin contact (notably forensics is making advances in “touch DNA” extracting DNA from skin cells left from touch---but there is much scientific improvement to be made).

In respect to duct tape, according to Locard’s Principle, the offender may leave his/her blood, hair, clothing fibers, his/her pet’s hair, etc. on the adhesive size of the duct tape. On the polyethylene backing, the offender may leave a latent fingerprint (see my previous blog post) or his/her DNA. Excluding obvious potentials for trace evidence recovery, the debate over duct tape has spawned from the idea that all commercially made duct tape can be traced back to an original manufacturing site which may be traced to a particular store in an area which might be further traced back to a purchaser of said duct tape linking it to a potential suspect. This is called fracture matching in comparative analysis of duct tape.

This concept of fracture matching of tape in forensic science began with Agron and Schecter’s (1986) study of electrical tape were they used photographic examination of two methods of tearing: tension and shearing, and determined that each tear was “unique and nonreproducible”. Their theory rests on the notion that each fracture of tape results in individual and unique characteristics resulting in a matching counterpart, with a matching end piece that holds high evidentiary value.

In the case of duct tape, shearing between two pieces occurs when the elastometric and fibrous materials of the polyethylene backing and the scrim fails. Duct-tape construction consists of a polyisoprene-based adhesive, fabric reinforcement (scrim), and a polyethylene backing (Johnston and Serra 2005). So in other words, the scrim, the component of duct tape that is woven or gauze-like of cotton or polyester blends is used to strengthen the tape. The scrim comprises of yarn running the length of the tape in the manufacturing machine direction which is known as the warp, while the yarn running across the tape is known as the fill (McCabe, Tulleners, Braun, Currie, and Gorecho 2013). The warp and the fill can vary based on the size, type of yarn, etc. based on manufacturing production---similar to the process of the manufacturing of sheets and bedding materials. The second piece of duct tape that holds evidentiary value is the outer adhesive which is manufacture specific and comprises of a combination of various elastomers, tackifying resins, and fillers (McCabe, Tulleners, Braun, Currie, and Gorecho 2013).

In 2007, the FBI discovered through research that relaying on backing analysis (the outer adhesive of duct tape) that…”identifying the tape manufacture in order to direct investigators toward a likely origin for duct tape evidence may not be possible solely by backing analysis” (Hobbs, Gauntt, Keagy, Lowe, and Ward 2007). So…in order for there to be any probability of any evidence of high evidentiary value the area of duct tape that should be examined is the fabric reinforcement area, the scrim.

Tulleners and Braun (2011) examined 1800 pieces of torn tape specimens and 400 cut tape specimens. They discovered that it is possible to match ends of duct tape to their origin 98.25 to 100 percent for torn tape and 98.15 to 99.83 percent for cut tape. So, Tulleners and Braun (2011) were able to determine that you can match a piece of tape to its connecting tape roll. In theory, a piece of duct tape could be connected to a manufacturing point--to a distributor---to a buyer---then potentionally to a suspect.

While what I like to call “manufacturing forensics” is a fairly new area of forensic science, its forensic evidentiary probability and usage should not be discounted. Based on the limited scientific research on fracturing matching of duct tape, more research should be done on the topic. In time, I believe that "manufacturing forensics" could be the future of fruitful evidence recovery by using the same concepts in other manufactured materials that are left at crime scenes. (Examples: clothing, footwear, medical tape, etc.)

Hobbs, A., Gauntt, J., Keagy, R., Lowe, P., Ward, D. (2007). “A New Approach for the Analysis of Duct Tape Backings”. Forensic Science Communications 9(1).

Johnson, J. and Serra, J. (2005). “The examination of pressure sensitive adhesive tapes”. IAMA Newsletter 5(1): 19-31.

McCabe, K., Tulleners, F., Braun, J., Currie, G., Gorecho, E. (2013). “A Quantitative Analysis of Torn and Cut Duct Tape Physical End Matching”. Journal of Forensic Science 58(S1).

Tulleners, F. and Braun, J. (2011). “The Statistical Evalustion of Torn and Cut Duct Tape Physical End Matching”. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. 2009-DN-BX-K235.

How We are Failing as Criminology Researchers...A Call for Action

Unlike my previous blog posts, which have previously had a heavy forensic basis with the analysis of criminal evidence, this blog post will focus on how researchers are failing in the science of criminology...

I often get asked by friends how my current research involving the intersection of gender, sexuality, and officer bias is criminological in nature. When the same friends ask me how do I define "criminology", I have always summed it up typically like this...if psychology and sociology had a crazy drunkard encounter their child would be criminology. Criminology is not "Clarice Starling" interviewing "Hannibal Lector" from "Silence of the Lambs", nor is it determining the probability of recovering readable latent prints on the skin of a homicide victim (see my previous post on latent prints to answer that question). Criminology is the study of determining why certain individuals commit certain crimes, how to prevent and control said crimes, and the very nature and extent of criminal behavior. Criminological research is supposed to accomplish this by examining policy, society, and even to an extent how officers target certain offenders and certain crimes. The complexities of the science itself can even be as detailed as examining what actually constitutes as a crime. While criminology is not a new science, as Italian Cesare Beccaria formulated the principles of classic criminology around 1804 in Essay on Crimes and Punishments, the concepts of contemporary criminologies are deemed as such.

Often modern researchers latch onto old theoretical concepts without giving up-and-coming criminology movements a fair shot. For example, recently I read an article by Rick Nevin in which he addressed how levels of crime could be connected to high levels of lead in drinking water. (For the curious the interesting article is here: http://pic.plover.com/Nevin/Nevin2007.pdf )

While most laughed at the concept of Nevin's (2007) lead argument and additional arguments by Howard Mielke and Sammy Zahran (article here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012000566), they did present something that no one had ever done before. Some have dismissed similar arguments in the somewhat new green criminology movement and other criminology movements, but this is where we as criminologists are failing our science.

With each criminology movement- the positivist revolution, Matza's naturalism, the Chicago School, etc.-the concepts and ideas are viewed as radical and unorthodox for the time. Sure, most criminologists laugh at Lombroso and the Italian School of Criminology in respect to cranial features determining criminal probability of individuals now, but at least they attempted to discover a different explanation for criminal behavior than previous researchers. We, as criminologists, owe it to our science to explore uncharted territories without falling back on constant regurgitated academic theoretical basic philosophies. If we have not successfully explained, discovered, treated, or cured the cause and purpose for crime with years of research with said regurgitated theories---then in essence we have failed. I urge any researcher who is reading this post to always think outside the box of what you read in textbooks---the ramblings of a dinosaur criminologist does nothing to encourage critical thinking in our field. While we must respect what has already been contributed, we must also take these concepts with a grain of salt. We should instead set sail for the uncharted waters of the criminological unknown. If you fail during your journey, at least you have attempted to do something different and solve a problem with a new criminological formula as there is no one way to solve the crime problem.

So for those young pioneers formulating new theories and concepts for our science, stay strong on your course and have the strength to face those who are critical of new theories. Look to other sciences to incorporate into criminology--like biology, psychology, and gender studies. Because in time, the theories of the criminological dinosaurs that academia holds true today will be just as laughable as Lombroso's theory of criminal atavism. Keep thinking critically and never shun those who do the same!

Media Conflict with Forensic Post-Blast Investigations

Since the Boston bombings, I have received several emails from previous students who are asking me to better explain the IEDs that were used in the Boston Marathon. Without going into to much technical detail on construction, I have found this diagram that has been widely circulated internationally throughout news outlets (hence why I am reposting it for demonstrative purposes without any ethical qualms). It should be noted that any speculation at the early stages of a forensic investigation should not lead to a confirmed conclusion until any crime scene/ case is cleared. As such, this blog post is about how the media can damage a major crime scene investigation at a blast site.

It should be noted that this type of device has already been used in the 2005 Delhl's Sarojini Nagar Market bombing, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, the failed 2010 Stockholm bombing attempt, and the failed 2010 New York Times Square bombing attempt, so it's construction is not a new one. 

Now onto my main part of this post, how the media conflicts with forensic investigations. Since this incident this diagram has been widely circulated along with a brief incorrect history over the construction of the device. Several media outlets have eluded readers that the device construction has a long history in the Middle East indirectly implying that the suspect(s) may be from the same region. I have even seen media photos before the detonation of "possible suspects" at the scene who are of potential Islamic descent without giving any explanation of why they are "suspects". This adds fuel to the anti-Islamic biases that some Americans and Brits possess, and indirectly diverts attention away from any other possible non-Islamic suspect(s) which may or may not impact the actual investigation. As previously mentioned the construction of the device has a deeper history and connection to other parts of the world than the media is exploring. Further, the media appears to be releasing crime scene photos of victims and additional diagrams and photos of the epic center of both detonations without any regard to the on-gong investigation. Based on my detective experience, I can tell you that the releasing of too much information by the media can destroy an investigation, arrest, trial, and even people's lives. A perfect example of this was the handling of the Atlanta Olympic bombing investigation. 

Richard Jewell was a security guard working the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. During his security detail he discovered a pipe bomb and alerted Atlanta Police and helped evacuate the area--saving lives before it detonated. Because he discovered the device and had an eccentric history of wanting to be a hero and police officer the media began trying him without any actual forensic evidence, and with unreliable and inaccurate information. The media trial began with the local paper releasing his name as a possible suspect in the FBI investigation, from there the media snowball spun out of control. As a result of the media two victims even civilly sued Jewell himself before the investigation was completed. In 2005, Jewell was exonerated and the investigation was closed, disclosing that serial bomber Eric Rudolph was responsible for the incident. Jewell then successfully sued NBC, A.J.C. (local newspaper), CNN, New York Post, etc. after he and his family were cruelly and publicly tried by the media. Jewell eventually was able to full-fill his law enforcement dream after his exoneration, but he died at the age of 44 from heart disease and diabetes. One has to wonder how much his international media attention damaged his overall health.

Media speculation will naturally be at an all time high in an incident like this in America and other parts of the Western world, but for some odd reason similar incidents like this occur everyday in other parts of the Eastern world without any media attention at all. On a personal note, I have a hard time understanding how the media holds American lives more highly than others who are victims of other terrorists type events that occur in much larger scale and with worst destruction in other parts of the world (this topic is for another blog post, and due to space constrains will be properly addressed later). As such, I would like to encourage the media to respect the integrity of the crime scene without falsely reporting or referencing possible bomber M.O. (modus operandi) and allow the professionals to do a fair and accurate forensic investigation. Do we really need to know every detail leading to an arrest? With the release of abundant information, once an arrest is made how will this effect jurors in a criminal trial? Bombing investigations can take up to several weeks and it is a slow methodological process to collect and analysis forensic evidence at a crime scene. As such, we need to be patient and not prematurely point bias fingers at any suspect(s) until the guilty party is found.

Psychological Dynamics: Interviewer Characteristics and Suspect Criminal Disclosure

         When investigators conduct an interview, there are possible factors that can influence a questioned person’s responses. These responses can be influenced by the steps of the interview. These steps are part of the cognitive process and begin with a question asked by investigators, and the persons interpreting the question correctly. The person being interviewed then must retrieve the information from memory and construct an answer. During this process, respondents can form answers, edit the responses for social desirability, or shape responses to what they believe the investigator will find acceptable (Lord, Friday, & Brennan, 2005). These responses can be shaped by many factors. These factors can include the investigators’ sex, race, age, gender, and their perceived personality. A response might also be shaped by political beliefs, sexual behavior, and drug and alcohol abuse that the investigator might suggest or project during the interview (Lord, Friday, & Brennan, 2005). Two theories that criminologists and psychologists believe describe these steps of answer editing are the Social Attribution Theory and the Social Distance Model. Both describe the process of answer editing based on the investigator characteristics.

            The Social Attribution Theory suggests that a respondent may modify their responses to meet the societal norms and expectations they perceive that the investigator has based off observable characteristics (Lord, Friday, & Brennan, 2005). This theory is built on the assumption that the investigator characteristics alone are sufficient to influence the behavior and the responses of those being interviewed (Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar, 1999). For example, an interviewee would be less likely to discuss illegal substance abuse to an investigator who presents observable characteristics that maybe associated with a negative attitude toward drug abuse. The interviewee would withhold or alter their responses to make them more compatible with the perceived investigator’s values (Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar, 1999).

            Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar (1999) conducted a study of interviews and subject effects on cocaine and marijuana use disclosure during questioning. The sample comprised of over 3,000 male juvenile arrestees. The juveniles were asked questions about their drug use, particularly marijuana and cocaine. If the juvenile disclosed that they had used either drug, interviewers then asked additional questions regarding the frequency and the last time of their use of the drug. Immediately following the interview, the juveniles were asked to submit to a urine test to confirm any statements. Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar (1999) found that there was a diminished rate of disclosure that was related to the interviewers’ race; with the less disclosure to interviewers who were African-American. But in regards to marijuana reporting, there existed diminished rates of disclosure. This was attributed and related to the interviewers’ gender; with less disclosure to female interviewers (Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar, 1999). The interviewers’ age also played a role in disclosure during the study. The juveniles of this study were less likely to disclose their drug use, marijuana and cocaine, to older interviewers (Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar, 1999). This study also showed that the participants of this study were reluctant to disclose cocaine use but more willing to disclose marijuana use during questioning. Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar (1999) showed that the less morally sensitive drug, marijuana, had a higher disclosure rate during questioning than its’ perceived more dangerous drug, cocaine, based on the interviewers characteristics. This study demonstrated that certain observable interviewer characteristics are associated with voluntary drug usage disclosure.

            For law enforcement investigators, this study involving the Social Attribution Theory clearly shows that as soon as an investigator walks into a room to interview a person, the person already makes assumptions of the investigator and their perceived values. So what happens in situations involving morally sensitive topics that are discussed during an interview? Another theory as to how certain information of morally sensitive topics is disclosed to investigators can be attributed to the Social Distance Theory.

 The Social Distance Theory is based on the idea that individuals may be hesitant to disclose personal information on sensitive topics, such as sexual behaviors and domestic violence due to the social stigma of the crime or the lack of connection between the investigator and interviewee. If an interviewee perceives that that an investigator has a negative stigma associated with a crime, the interviewee will be less likely to disclose it because they do not feel connected to the investigator. Perceived values that the investigator presents are interrelated with the level of stigma that an interviewee associates with a piece of information. Criminal behaviors are sensitive topics that are stigmatized and criminalized by mainstream society and by investigators in general (Golub, Johnson, Taylor, & Liberty, 2002). Sensitive behaviors such as drug use, sexual practices, and physical violence all have different levels of stigmas. This model states that a respondents’ willingness to disclose sensitive information depends on the social stigma they associate with it (Lord, Friday, & Brennan, 2005). This perceived stigma is based off the differences between the investigator and the interviewee. People tend to disclose more honestly and in greater detail to investigators whom they feel more emotionally comfortable (Catania, Binson, Canchola, Pollack, Hauck, & Coates, 1996). Interviewees edit their responses to the similarities and differences between themselves and the investigator asking questions. For example, if an investigator walks into a room and immediately tells someone they are questioning for child molestation, “child molesters are disgusting...how could anyone do such things to beautiful children”, the interviewee will probably never disclose any information because of the social stigma associated with the crime combined with the perceived values of the investigator. Investigators should be cognitive of stigmas during questioning. It should be noted that stigmas can also appear in an investigators non-verbal movements and gestures also. Something as simple as the nodding of your head in agreement or the look of disgust while the offender is talking could impact the probability of disclosure.

According to a study done by Goulb et al. (2002), individuals are more willing to disclose marijuana use, which is the least stigmatized of the illegal drugs, than recent use of crack cocaine. Goulb et al. (2002) attributed this finding to the social expectations and perceptions of marijuana usage versus crack cocaine usage. Goulb's (2002) theory has since been supported by other recent similar studies. 

A study by Johnson, Fenrich, Shaligram, Garcy, & Gillespie (2000) measured telephone responses regarding lifetime drug disclosure of 3,714 survey participants in Illinois. This study determined that respondents’ reporting recent drug use is relative to interview situations characterized by very high respondent-interviewer similarity (Johnson, Fenrich, Shaligram, Garcy, & Gillespie, 2000). In other words, the closer the respondents felt to the interviewer, the more likely they are to disclose information. Johnson, Fenrich, Shaligram, Garcy, and Gillespie (2000) found that a person interviewed may react, consciously or not, to interviewers based on stereotypes and misperceptions. This should be an important issue for investigators to remember, since a person being interviewed might hold a bias against the investigator's race. This would make it less likely that the interviewee would form a “bond” with the investigator and disclose any information needed during a confession.

Catania, Binson, Canchola, Pollack, Hauck, and Coates (1996) conducted a study of 2,030 18-49 year old adults and asked them questions on sexual behavior. Participants were allowed to choose if they wanted a female or a male interviewer to disclose information about their sexual behavior. Catania et al. (1996) hypothesized that both males and females given the choice to pick the gender of their interviewer will lead to more personal disclosure of the interviewees, which reinforces the Social Distance Model. This study showed that female respondents choose to disclose personal sexual behavior to women, and were less likely to disclose sexual information to male interviewers. Male respondents choose both men and women interviewers, with a slight majority selecting female interviewers (Catania, Binson, Canchola, Pollack, Hauck, & Coates, 1996). This study showed that by making the respondents feel more in control by selecting the gender of their interviewer, there is a perceived decrease in question threat. This perceived decrease in question threat lead to more voluntary disclosures of answers regarding personal sexual behavior.

For investigators this study has provided very valuable information, especially for investigators working sex crimes. Women who are potential suspects in a sex crime might be more willing to disclose more information or feel more comfortable with a female investigator. Men who are potential suspects in a sex crime might be more comfortable to disclose more information to a male or a female. Based on the results of this study I would urge a male and a female investigator to enter the room initially together and see which one the suspect responds or interacts with. The investigator that the suspect has the most observed or preferred interaction with should be the investigator that is the lead during the interview. It should be noted that investigators should not be insulted if the offender connects with a different investigator than themselves.

Investigators questioning possible suspects during an interview should be aware that everything they project and even who they are can determine the disclosure rate during an interview. Investigators should try to find the person that might best connect with the interviewee to be the lead interviewer in a criminal interview. Age, race, gender, and even perceived investigator values can influence how and how much a person might disclose in an interview. Investigators who are working major crimes like homicides, rapes, and child molestations might have a better success rate of disclosure if they attempt to connect with the interviewee and take the stigma away from the crime in question. By removing indicators of negative social stigma, the criminal act could be psychologically justified by the offender while in the process of disclosure. This process allows the criminal to justify or defend his criminal actions. While removing criminal and social stigmas from certain crimes can psychologically haunt investigators when "getting down on their level", it is a necessary interview tactic within policing that is very successful in obtaining criminal confessions. 

REFERENCES

Catania, J., Binson, D., Canchola, J., Pollack, L., Hauck, W., & Coates, T. (1996). Effects of Interviewer Gender, Interviewer Choice, and Item Wording on Responses to Questions Concerning Sexual Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60,345-375.

Fendrich, M., Johnson, T., Shaligram, C., & Wislar, J. (1999). The Impact of Interviewer Characteristics on Drug Use Reporting by Male Juvenile Arrestees. Journal of Drug Issues, 29 (1), 37-58.

Johnson, T., Fendrich, M., Shaligram, C., Garcy, A., & Gillespie, S. (2000). An Evaluation of the Effects of Interviewer Characteristics in an RDD Telephone Survey of Drug Use. Journal of Drug Issues, 30, (1), 77-102.

Lord, V., Friday, P., & Brennan, P. (2005). The Effects of Interviewer Characteristics on Arrestees’ Responses to Drug-Related Questions. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 1(1), 36-55.



Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

Recent news reports have brought main-stream attention to AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) and one of the current bomb makers, Ibrahim Hassan Tali al-Asiri. So, what is AQAP and how dangerous is Ibrahim al-Asiri?

The AQAP emerged in January 2009 consisting of Yemeni and Saudi Arabian radicals under the leadership of Amir Masir al-Wahish and Qasim al-Rimi. AQAP's goals are to support the activities of al Qaeda and establish strict Islamic law throughout the world (Bolz, Dubonis, & Schulz, 2012). Collectively, AQAP and Al Qaeda were responsible for the publication called Inspire, an English radical Muslim magazine that provided information on how to construct IEDs and other weapons. The magazine also encouraged radical violent acts and allowed similar-minded individuals to contact each other.

The CIA has described AQAP as a major threat to U.S. security (Bolz et. al., 2012) and they have been known to use explosives, assault weapons, and other small arm weapons. White House counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan has stated that the AQAP is "the most active operational franchise" of al Qaeda outside Afghanistan and Pakistan. The AQAP has gained a reputation for being innovative and very active recently from three major incidents that can be attributed to bomb maker Ibrahim al-Asiri and other radical Islamists.

Ibrahim al-Asiri was responsible for the construction of a device used by his brother, Abdullah al-Asiri, in the failed assassination attempt of Saudi Deputy Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef on August 27th, 2009 (Stewart, 2012). Prince Mohammed bin Nayef was in charge of the kingdom's counter-terrorism efforts and was conducting a social appearance during the celebration of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting. Prince Mohammed bin Nayef also used the appearance to show the media a Saudi man who was a wanted militant from AQAP and was willing to publicly renounce terrorism (Stewart, 2012). The Saudi man, Abdullah al-Asiri, asked to meet the prince in order to repent and then be accepted into the kingdom's amnesty program. Prior to meeting the prince, al-Asiri was screened by security and a metal detector did not pick up any abnormalities. Unbeknownst to the security staff, al-Asiri has inserted 100 grams of pentaerythritol tetranitrate inside his rectum (Stewart, 2012). Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) is a powerful relatively stable high explosive which is part of the same chemical family as nitroglycerin. Once al-Asiri was close to the prince, the device detonated ripping al-Asiri in half and thankfully the prince survived. The prince survived due to the downward blast of the device and al-Asiri's body absorbed most of the impact of the blast (Stewart, 2012). Following this failed assassination attempt Ibrahim al-Asiri then used his creative bomb making capabilities to construct the device used on Northwest Flight 253.

On December 25th, 2009 the AQAP claimed credit for the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 as it approached Detroit. The attempted bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to detonate a 6 inch package of PETN powder sewn into his underwear.   Umar Abdulmutallab attempted to mix the PETN and liquid acid with triacetone triperoxide (TATP), a high explosive that was also used by shoe bomber Richard Reid in 2001. Thankfully, other passengers noticed foul odours and the flames on Umar's pant legs and subdued him and extinguished the fire before his attack was carried out. After arrest, Umar Abdulmutallab advised that he obtained the device in Yemen and he was directed by al Qaeda to carry out the attack.

The third device that al-Asiri has been considered responsible for is the attempted attack against two U.S. cargo aircraft in October 2010. The two devices were located aboard UPS and FedEx planes addressed to synagogues in Chicago, but counter-terrorism experts believe the devices were intended to blow up the planes once over the United States. The devices consisted of PETN and were hidden inside printer cartridges. The printer itself contained an electrical switch that was connected to a mobile phone SIM card (Stewart, 2012).

Although Ibrahim al-Asiri devices have not been successfully in destroying their intended targets, his innovative and out-of-the-box thinking regarding bomb designs pose a great threat to America and other allies. In previous designs, al-Asiri demonstrated that he is able to create devices that potentially can pass undetected by security screening personnel. This possesses a great hazard particularly to airlines because they are vulnerable; and terrorist attacks generate a large causality rate and extensive press coverage. Until his apprehension, Ibrahim al-Asiri poses a great terrorist threat since his devices are becoming more and more difficult to detect. Tragically, recent media reports have speculated that AQAP may use pets and humans as containers for surgically implanted explosives in the future. With bomb makers like Ibrahim al-Asiri working for the AQAP, I am afraid in time the media reports might actually become true.

References

Bolz, F., Dudonis, K. & Schulz, D. (2012). The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques-4th Ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Stewart, S. (2012). AQAP: Paradigm Shifts and Lessons Learned. Retrieved from http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090902_aqap_paradigm_shifts_and_lessons_learned on 05/12/12.

The Early History of Terrorism

As a counter-terrorism instructor, students often inquire about the early history of terrorism and the influence religion/politics have on certain terrorist acts. Political science historians and terrorism experts (Pape, 2005; Boltz, Dudonis, & Schulz, 2012) have stated that terrorism has been occurring since the first century with the Jewish Zealots and Sicarii. While the organizational structure of the Jewish Zealots and Sicarii are relatively unknown, their strategic logic is notorious (Pape, 2005). The Zealots and the Sicarii used violent attacks designed to incite an uprising among the Jewish targeting the Roman occupation at the time. After several decades of attacks, the Zealots and Sicarii triggered the Jewish War of 66 A.D.(Aberback & Aberback, 2000). The Jewish War, which resulted in defeat, led to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem; extermination of Jewish areas in Egypt and Cyprus; and the exodus of Jews from Judea (Aberback & Aberback, 2000). After four years the war ended in Masada, where 960 members committed one of the largest group suicides in history rather than submit to Roman rule after years of war, murder, rape, and slavery.

One of the most well-known historical terrorist groups to date was the Ismaili Assassins. The Ismaili Assassins attempted to overthrow the existing Sunni Muslim order during the Fatimid dynasty, 909 to 1171 A.D. in the Middle East. The Assassins were a small fundamentalist religious sect that believed that they were more true to Islam than the Shiites and the more dominant Sunni Muslims. They engaged in acts of murder for their political goals and frequently used the threat of suicide attacks to compel Sunni rulers to abandon military campaigns against them (Pape, 2005). Besides their reputation for violent attacks, the Assassins were also accredited with the invention of chain –mail armor to protect themselves from dagger attacks (Boltz et al., 2012).

Although the Ismaili Assassins have been labeled one of the most notorious groups of historical terrorists, there has been many more. In previous posts, the definition for terrorism and the acts of suicide terrorism have been explored. Often, suicide terrorist acts have been primarily motivated due to religious or political beliefs. In the 1980’s the Shia Muslims battled the Israeli (Jewish) and Western (Christian) opponents in Lebanon (Pape, 2005). In Sri Lanka, the Tamils (Hindu) battled the Sinhalese (Buddhist) in the 80’s and 90’s. The Tamil Tigers, as they are frequently called, have been attributed to mass usage of suicide bombers to commit murder for political ends. Often women have been used as a suicide bombers, since they arouse little suspicion from their intended targets prior to detonation.

While acts of terrorism did not end in the 1990’s, this brief history should show that terrorism in general has been around since the writing of the Bible. In counter-terrorism circles, often there are theories and strategies to combat terrorism but in reality terrorism will be something that will never be stopped. As history has shown, terrorism is constantly evolving in ideology but some methods and acts of terrorism will never change.

Aberback, M. & Aberback, D. (2000). The Roman-Jewish Wars and Hebrew Cultural Nationalism. New York: St. Martin Press.

Bolz, F. Dudonis, K. & Schulz, D. (2012). The Counterterrorism Handbook: Tactics, Procedures, and Techniques-4^th Ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Pape, R. (2005) Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York: Random House.

Psychological Variables of False Confessions

False confessions are not a new concept in America, and there have been hundreds of examples of false confessions. In Massachusetts in 1692 many colonists confessed to being witches in Salem. The trials resulted in at least nineteen executions before they were eventually stopped (Agar, 1999). Further along in American history, the Lindbergh kidnapping and murder became a public media skeptical in 1932. During that time, over 200 innocent people came forward and confessed to the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh’s child (Agar, 1999). More currently with the advancement of DNA techniques, confessed sentenced criminals are being released from prison for crimes they never committed. Why would anyone ever confess to a crime, especially a serious one, when they never committed the crime? Current criminal justice professionals, psychologists, and sociologists argue that the suspect’s mental and psychological condition may affect many false confessions. Suspect psychological characteristics, type of crime, and contextual characteristics of the interrogations can affect a suspect’s tendency to confess (Gudjonsson, 2003).

Gudjonsson (2003) discussed different psychological variables that effect confessions. These include current mental status, intellectual functioning, reading ability, interrogative suggestibility, state and trait anxiety, and the understanding of rights by questioned suspects (Gudjonsson, 2003). For these variables to be properly examined, investigators conducting a criminal interview must determine if the suspect is fit to be interviewed. Investigators must assess the cognition and intellect of the suspect to be best of their abilities. The investigators tasked with interviewing a suspect should be aware of any psychiatric disorder that will usually lead to unfitness for an interview and psychiatric disorders that might indicate a significant risk of unreliability (Rix, 1997).

 Psychiatric disorders that will usually lead to unfitness for interviews would be suspects that are experiencing acute organic reactions (including alcohol or drug withdrawals), mania, severe dementia, and severe mental handicap (Rix, 1997). Psychiatric disorders that may indicate a significant risk of unreliability would be milder forms of dementia, hypomania, schizophrenia, depressive disorders, mild or moderate mental handicap, and mild substance withdrawal states (Rix, 1997). While certain psychological disorders automatically should rule a suspect unfit for an interview; the theories of false confessions are endless and are currently being studied by criminal justice professionals.

The mental status of a suspect should always be considered when determining if and how a suspect should be interviewed. Individuals with diagnosed mental handicaps comprise of one to two percent of the general population, but in prison they comprise of approximately 4.2 percent (O’Connell, Garmoe, & Goldstein, 2005). Current studies have determined that individuals with diagnosed mental handicaps are often more easily caught by police and are more likely to be tricked by police during interview into confessing or taking the blame for criminal offenses (O’Connell, Garmoe, & Goldstein, 2005). Suspects who suffer from mental handicaps, even in mild cases, should at all costs understand their rights and understand what is happening to them. For example, if a suspect suffers from Down syndrome investigators should make sure that the suspect has proper representation and is aware of what is transpiring. A person with Down syndrome, if being interviewed, may not understand what certain questions are or what they are being accused of. Personally, I would never ask a suspect who has Down syndrome any questions until they have proper legal representation to represent them. I would also contact my district attorney to see if there is any way to conduct an intellectual assessment of the suspect prior to taking any voluntary statements. A person who lacks intellectual reasoning or articulation skills should never be held to statements that they do not understand or comprehend.

Another mental status that is currently being studied are individuals with ADHD. A study by Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Bragason, Newton, and Elinarsson (2008) studied 90 Icelandic prisoners who were currently serving prison sentences and diagnosed with ADHD. The study determined reasons why ADHD prisoners made false confessions for previous crimes that they did not commit. The reasons were: nine (43%) wanted to leave the police station or to avoid custody and six (29%) were protecting someone else (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Bragason, Newton, and Elinarsson 2008). This study concluded that ADHD suspects are particularly vulnerable during police questioning and detention because of their restlessness, poor concentration, and impulsiveness (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Bragason, Newton, and Elinarsson 2008). The findings of this study are not unexpected, as anyone with any experience with ADHD can understand. Besides certain mental status conditions another issue in confession is the understanding of legal rights during questioning and detention.

Understanding legal rights is another major psychological variable in confessions. It is estimated that 695,000 mentally disordered offenders are arrested and Mirandized annually in the Unites States (Rogers, Harrison, Hazelwood, & Sewell, 2007). Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established procedural safeguards to protect suspects in interviews to avoid making self-incriminating statements and to have an attorney present during questioning. The suspect must make a confession “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily” (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). A study conducted by O’Connell, Garmoe, and Goldstein (2005) determined that individuals with lower IQ scores had a higher tendency to be tricked by leading questions. The same study determined that individuals with mild mental retardation demonstrated difficultly understanding Miranda rights. If a suspect cannot understand their legal rights, then their rights can be violated—making any voluntary confession not admissible.  

Representation should always be present and if applicable a psychologist who specialized in the disorder should also be present to explain the suspect’s rights. In situations where the suspect suffers from ADHD, investigators should be trained in how to interview individuals with the condition and every effort should be made to make the interview short and brief. Personal statements from individuals affected by these conditions should not be discredited, since they may be telling the truth in a voluntary confession.

References

Agar, J. (1999). “The Admissibility of False Confession Expert Testimony”. The Army Lawyer; Aug. pp. 26-43.

Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. Wiley, England, 2003.

Gudjonsson, G., Sigurdsson, J., Bragason, O., Newton, A., & Elinarsson, E. (2008).

“Interrogative suggestibility, compliance and false confessions among prisoners and their relationship with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms”. Psychological Medicine (2008), 38, pp. 1037-1044.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

O’Connell, M., Garmoe, W., & Goldstein, N. (2005). “Miranda Comprehension in Adults with Mental Retardation and the Effects of Feedback Style on Suggestibility”. Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 3, June 2005.

Rix, K. (1997). “Fit to be interviewed by the police?”. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, vol. 3, pp. 33-40.

Rogers, R., Harrison, K., Hazelwood, L., & Sewell, K. (2007). “Knowing and Intelligent: A Study of Miranda Warnings in Mentally Disordered Defendants”. Law of Human Behavior, Vol. 31: pp. 401-418.

Analysis of Reid & McDonald Interview Techniques in American Law Enforcement

Current television shows portray a police interview as a session where the suspect, when confronted with evidence, breaks down and confesses to a crime in a matter of minutes. In reality, this is a product of pure fiction. In most criminal cases, very rarely does the investigator have all the incriminating evidence of a suspect’s guilt prior to an interview. Due to the lack of certain evidence, an interview may be conducted in an effort to obtain evidence that would be needed to affect an arrest and/or a conviction. The proper way to conduct an interview has been examined; and theories and techniques have been formed on which is the most effective way to get a guilt party to confess. Many investigators in law enforcement have their own style and personal techniques while conducting an interview. Most investigators use several different techniques during interviews. While all of the major techniques have pros and cons, I believe the Reid technique is more applicable to the American criminal justice system. Unlike the Reid technique, the interview tactic that I seriously disagree with would be the McDonald tactic.

The Reid technique, when used properly, satisfies two major criteria in interviews. For any technique to be effective enough it must persuade a guilty suspect to tell the truth but not so powerful that it would cause an innocent person to confess (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). The Reid technique attempts to reduce the perceived consequences of telling the truth without having the investigator offer a promise of leniency for a confession. Instinctively, criminal suspects’ deception is motivated to avoid the consequences of telling the truth (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). The consequences that a suspect may face could include jail time, separation from family, paying fines, and other real consequences. The suspect may also feel personal consequences like embarrassment and shame (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). Investigators who are educated on the Reid technique are aware of this and can alter their approach during an interview. For example, an investigator should never tell a suspect “you messed up big time, you will get at least 20 years for what you have done”. If a suspect is fearful of jail and a lengthy sentence, why would he tell the investigator anything?  Instinctively, human beings typically only do things to benefit themselves or others. I have found it usefully to try to relate to the suspect and why he would commit a certain crime, just as the Reid technique describes. The Reid technique encourages the reinforcement of the guilty suspect’s own justification for his crime (Jayne & Buckley, 2004). A focus on the suspects' "victim mentality" might encourage the suspect to confess even though there is no logical justification for committing the crime.

The Reid technique is further broken into 9 steps of interview. These include direct positive confrontation, theme development, stopping details, overcoming objections, getting the suspect’s attention; the suspect quiets and listens, alternatives, bringing the suspect into the conversation, and the confession. Step one, direct positive confrontation, would include presenting evidence to the suspect and telling the suspect they are involved in a crime (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). The behavior of the suspect should be studied and this is the beginning stage to any interview. The second step, theme development, would include providing justifications for the suspect to commit a crime (Gudjonsson, 2003). Just as mentioned earlier, this is relating to the suspect and his state of mind during the commission of the suspected crime. The third step involves the suspect quitting denials which could indicate probable guilt, followed by the fourth step of overcoming objections (Gudjonsson, 2003). The fifth step of getting the suspect’s attention is a very important step. This involves physical closeness and the use of verbal techniques to command attention (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). For example, if a suspect is showing signs that they are not listening the investigator may turn and face the suspect closer and attempt to make eye contact. This process involves removing any barriers between the suspect and the investigator, like a table in the interview room. By presenting open nonverbal gestures, the investigator might open up a dialog with the suspect. The sixth step is when the suspect quiets and listens, usually showing signs of surrender (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). Step seven is alternatives followed by step eight of bringing the suspect into the conversation. This step involves encouraging the suspect to freely talk about any aspect of the crime (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998). The final step is the confession. At this point the verbal statements of the suspect are usually recorded (Zulawski & Wicklander, 1998).
Unlike the Reid technique, the McDonald tactic involves violating suspects’ rights during interviews. McDonald states that the simplest method to break people is to severely limit their food intake or refuse them food (Gudjonsson, 2003). I believe that this technique is illegal and violates the rights of the accused. From my experience, I have learned that a $5 meal and showing acts of kindness go farther than intentionally starving a suspect during an interview. By opening the interview with some humanity, the suspect might open up to you and trust might be established. This earned trust can be used to the investigators advantage, if the investigator is skilled at interviews.

While the Reid technique has survived legal scrutiny for more than 50 years in the United States, it also must adhere to judicial decisions. This involves legal rights that a suspect has and the advisement at the proper times of the Miranda rights. This is why the McDonald tactics should never be practiced. The McDonald tactics involve borderline torture techniques that should never be practiced in the criminal justice system.

While each human is different and their behaviors are different, each investigator should take these considerations into play when conducting an interview. Over time, skilled investigators use several different techniques to obtain a confession. While opponents of the Reid technique argue that it is unfair, it is still a very effective tool for investigators. It should be noted that some guilty suspects will confess within 5 minutes and some will never confess. Every suspect should be interviewed according to what the lead investigators believe is the best personal method. Textbook methods although are descriptive and great, are not always applicable under every circumstances. 

References

Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. Wiley, England, 2003.

Jayne, B. & Buckley, J. (2004). The Reid Technique of Interrogation. Retrieved from http://www.reid.com/educational_info/canada.html on 07/07/2010.

Zulawski, D. & Wicklander, D. (1998). Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation. CRC Press, Ann Arbor, 1998.

Torture and "Ticking Bomb" Scenarios

            Between 1994 and 1995 authorities received information that Ramzi Yousef, who was being interrogated in the Philippines, planned to blow up a dozen jumbo jets over the Pacific Ocean. Ramzi Yousef was one of the masterminds of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Philippine authorities were able to foil Yousef’s plan after they tortured the terrorist for sixty-seven days (Guiora & Page, 2006). By foiling the bombings of a dozen jumbo jets, the Philippine authorities saved several hundred lives before the act was carried out by a terrorist. This scenario is a perfect example of a “ticking bomb” situation. A “ticking bomb” scenario involves an uncooperative terrorist, like an al-Qaeda or Taliban captive, who refuses to produce information about an imminent chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. After all methods of interrogation have not been successful, is it o.k. to torture the captive? National polls have shown that some Americans support torture in some situations, though the majority still opposes torture itself (Allhoff, 2003). If you believe that torture is not morally acceptable and is wrong, consider this “ticking bomb” scenario in Italy.  In 1978 an ultra-left Red Brigade commandos kidnapped former Prime Minister Aldo Moro, the head of the ruling Christian Democratic party, after killing his bodyguard (Andersen, 2002). An Italian police officer suggested to General Carlos Alberto Della Chiesa that a detainee who had vital information should be tortured to save the former prime minister’s life. General Carlos Alberto Della Chiesa was the individual who was in charge of the investigation. General Della Chiesa who was later killed by the Sicilian Mafia, stated “Italy can permit itself to lose Aldo Moro, what it cannot allow is the practice of torture” (Anderson, 2002). Former Prime Minister Aldo Moro was eventually killed by his captives 54 days after he was kidnapped even though a prisoner in government custody had all the information to save a man’s life and arrest members of a terrorist organization. This scenario shows that regardless of the political or moral stance on torture, people still lose their lives. We will examine the legality of torture or lack thereof and history of torture in the United States. The philosophic theories of torture will also be examined.

            Torture, for some countries, is a common approach to obtaining information from captive prisoners. Saddam Hussein’s former country of Iraq practices cruel torture techniques such as cutting out peoples tongues, gouging out eyes, lopping off limbs, stringing people up with piano wire, and executing people by the tens of thousands among other methods (Hooks & Mosher, 2005). The countries of Jordon, Egypt, and Morocco are well-known for inflicting brutal treatment on not only on suspected terrorists, but against political dissidents as well. While torture is an old and common practice to obtain information in other countries, some people incorrectly assume that it is a relatively new practice in the United States.

            From the beginnings of this country to today’s current “War on Terror”, torture has been documented even though torture violates U.S. Code and the Geneva Conventions throughout history. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, a category that includes torture. U.S. law under 18 U.S.C 2340-2340A states that there are no exceptions that would allow for the use of torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the use of torture in any circumstances without actually defining what constitutes torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). So, why does the United States still commit acts of torture? This is partially due to the Landau Commission in 1984, also known as a National Committee of Inquiry, which concluded that controlled moderate physical duress could be allowed in “ticking bomb” situations (Guiora & Page, 2006). The Commission found that certain interrogation methods were legal. This included wall standing, the playing of loud music, sleep deprivation, physical discomfort through manipulation of room temperatures, sitting in an uncomfortable position, and the wearing of a hood. Furthermore, in a “ticking bomb” situation the detainee could be violently shaken (Guiora & Page, 2006). Eventually, a series of court rulings stated that certain actions were acceptable while others were not in “ticking bomb” situations.

During the Reagan Administration, the U.S. relied on the court ruling in Ireland v. United Kingdom that found that torture is limited to “extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices” (Guiora & Page, 2006). This set an international judicial precedent that actions including wall standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink were inhuman and degrading; but these do not amount to torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). Therefore, U.S. authorities used such methods that would not violate law, since certain actions do not constitute as torture.

The balance of legitimate national security interests of the United States and the civil liberties of the individual came to a head on September 11^th, 2001. President Bush and his administration, after the largest terroristic acts on U.S. soil and in our history, dealt with the issue between intelligence and interrogation and whether the confluence of the two must necessarily lead to torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). The Bush administration was confronted with legal and moral dilemmas regarding the limits of counter-terrorism. A memo written by LTC Jerald Pfifer on October 11, 2001 specified which interrogation techniques may be used against detainees held in Abu Ghraid and Guantanamo Bay that were holding suspected terrorist responsible for the 9-11 attacks (Guiora & Page, 2006). These techniques included using scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or painful consequences are imminent for the detainee and their family, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation, and “water-boarding”. “Water-boarding” is the strapping down of a detainee to a board or held down to induce the sensation of drowning as either water is repeatedly poured down the individual’s throat or the head is immersed in water (Guiora & Page, 2006). Another memo that affected the counter-terrorism torture debate post-September 11^th was a memo drafted by then Assistant Attorney General (now Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge) Jay Bybee.  According to the Bybee memo, for an act to be defined as torture the interrogator must have intended to cause the detainee prolonged harm for a number of months or years (Guiora & Page, 2006). These memos lead to the events that transpired at Abu Ghraid, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and additional secret facilities. The events that transpired have led others in the international community to assume the American government endorses and therefore encourages torture.

A report in 2004 conducted an investigation after the Abu Ghraib abuses were highly publicized. The Fay-Jones report identified 44 instances or events of detainee abuse committed by Military Police, Military Intelligence soldiers, and civilian contractors at Abu Ghirab prison. Some of the found actions included the following:

a.       Contests between army dog handlers to see who could make the detainees urinate or defecate in the presence of dogs;

b.      Three detainees were stripped, handcuffed together nude, forced to lay on the ground, forced to lie on each other and stimulate sex while being photographed;

c.       The rape of a female detainee and the rape of a 15-18 year-old male detainee;

d.      A detainee being forced to bark like a dog and crawl on his stomach while MP’s spat and urinated on him;

e.       Several instances of detainees being forced to wear woman’s underwear, often on their heads;

f.       A detainee who was beaten with a broom and had a chemical light broken and poured over his body. MP’s then used the broom to sodomize the detainee while two female MP’s hit him, threw a ball at his genitals and took photographs (Hooks & Mosher, 2005).

           These actions lead to the dishonorable discharge of Pvt. Charles Graner, Pfc. Lynndie England, Spc. Sabrina Harman, and others (Guirra & Page, 2006). While lower ranking members working at Abu Ghraid detention center were sentenced and found guilty of their crimes, higher ranking members received no criminal sentences. President Bush further stated during media reports that these actions were the results of “bad apples” and not due to official memos sent from higher commanders. I personally did not believe that these low ranking soldiers acted alone, I believe their behavior was seen by supervisors and nothing was done to stop it. Interestingly enough, the same report in Abu Ghraid offenses states that 90 percent of the detainees were arrested by mistake; even though this cannot be confirmed because of national security issues and lack of media disclosures (Hooks & Mosher, 2005).

            While the detainees were not arrested for minor traffic violations and their accused offenses are murderous crimes, does this make torture permissible? Prominent public figures have defended and excused the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraid, although they are illegal acts. It can be argued that individuals forfeit whatever rights that might protect them against torture once they engage in certain activities, such as terrorism. If this philosophical argument is true, then torture technically does not violate rights. Assume that a captive has knowledge that could prevent the deaths of innocent lives, like those in the “ticking bomb” situations described above. If a captive is not tortured and the information is not obtained, then the rights of the innocent lives has just been violated. If you torture or not torture prisoners in a “ticking bomb” situation someone’s rights will be violated. Therefore, I am personally unsure if torture can ever be justified, so long as we find ourselves in such a quandary that rights will end up being broken whether torture occurs or not.             

REFERENCES

Allhoff, F. (2003). Terrorism and Torture. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17, (1), 105-118.

Andersen, M. (2002). Is Torture an Option In War on Terror?. Insight on the News, 18, (22), 21-23.

Guiora, A. & Page, E. (2006). The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence, Interrogation and Torture. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37, (2/3), 427-447.

Hooks, G. & Mosher, C. (2005). Outrages Against Personal Dignity: Rationalizing Abuse and Torture in the War on Terror. Social Forces, 83, (4), 1627-1646.

"Terrorism"---How Should It Be Defined?

"Terrorism" is surrounded by terminological confusion in criminology because there is no clear definition of the term. Terrorism lacks a universal coherent definition and is frequently used in propagandist terms. A large part of the definitional problems of the term are the large range of competing definitions. Criminologists argue that without a clear definition, terminological confusion that exists could effect how to properly respond to terrorism. The definitional problems that exists are the wide range of competing definitions, literal inappropriateness of the term itself, definition by identity of the target and act, definition through reference to the identity of the perpetrator, and the problem of related phenomena to acts of terrorism (English, 2009).

Some criminologists argue that terrorism is a political act committed by a member of a foreign culture for religious or political causes.This notion completely discounts any acts of terrorism committed by "home-grown" terrorists. A perfect example of this would be the bombing in Oklahoma City. The bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was a U.S. citizen who served in the U.S. Army who detonated a truck bomb seeking revenge for the government's actions in the Waco Siege. McVeigh was a militia movement sympathizer and committed an act of terrorism without being a member of a foreign terrorist organization or a foreign culture.

The best literary definition I have seen for terrorism can be attributed to Robert English. It should be noted that Dr. English is a professor of politics, and not criminology. English (2009) states that terrorism involves:
"heterogeneous violence used or threatened with a political aim; it can involve a variety of acts, of targets, and of actors; it possesses an important psychological dimension, producing terror fear among a directly threatened group and also a wider implied audience in the hope of maximizing political communication and achievement; it embodies the exerting and implementing of power, and the attempted redressing of power relations; it represents a subspecies of warfare, and as such it can form part of a wider campaign of violent and non-violent attempts at political leverage". 

While no definition of terrorism will ever be perfect, Dr. English has demonstrated that his definition establishes a strong foundation to properly respond to terrorism. Since in order to respond to terrorism, we must be actually able to define it universally.

English, R. (2009) Terrorism: How to Respond. Oxford, New York. Oxford University Press.

C.S.I. Myths and Latent Print Development Techniques: The Reality of Latent Print Recovery

   C.S.I. Myths and Latent Print Development Techniques: The Reality of Latent Print Recovery

        

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation first aired on CBS television on Friday, October 6^th 2000 (Cohan, 2008) and has been one of the top television shows on the air since then. Currently it is estimated that over 60 million people watch the CSI television show every week (Heinrick, 2006). Since the airing of the first show, America has seen a 250% increase in the amount of programs featuring forensic science as a course of study (Dutelle, 2006). While the show has made “superglue fuming” and “latent prints” household terms, the effect that the show has on the public perception on forensic science can not be ignored.  The show depicts scientific evidence being gathered, processed, and used to solve major crimes. The characters of the show use costly and high techniques to produce compelling evidence connecting a suspect to a specific crime and reconstruct the crime itself all within one hour. The show depicts that forensic evidence is gathered at every crime scene and the evidence, not the actual investigation, solves the criminal case. The show often depicts unrealistic ideas of what surfaces can be printed. 

Latent fingerprints are the most common form of fingerprint evidence and also the one that poses the most problems (Voss-De Haan, 2006). Latent fingerprints consist of a few micrograms of material transferred from the ridge skin to the surface when the fingers touch a surface. This material is a mixture of natural secretions of the body as well as contaminants from the environment (Voss-De Haan, 2006). Most latent prints are made of perspiration, which exudes from the pores of the skin in the ridges of the print (Allen, 2007). Perspiration contains about 98% water, but the mixture of different organic and inorganic compounds vary depending on an individual’s eccrine and apocrine glands (Voss-De Haan, 2006). With this high concentration of water, prints have a tendency to dry out and sometimes disappear completely (Allen, 2007). Life expectancy of a print is unknown on certain surfaces, but the life expancy can be decreased due to real world conditions such as temperature, moisture, and humidity of the surface (Sampson & Sampson, 2005).

Latent fingerprints have three main categories for eight different pattern types. The first category is the arch which comprises of about 5% of all pattern types, this category consists of the plain arch and tented arch pattern type (Coppock, 2001). The loop pattern comprises of about 65% of all pattern types, and this category type consists of the right slope loop and the left slope loop (Coppock, 2001). The third category consists of the whorl, which comprises of about 30% of all pattern types. The whorl category consists of the plain whorl, central pocket loop, double loop, and accidental whorl (Coppock, 2001). The average fingerprint can contain as many as 175 individual ridge characteristics that can distinguish the fingerprint from others (Jones, 2006). However, a print usually found at a crime scene will be a partial print, only representing 20% of a full fingerprint (Jones, 2006).

Prints can be lifted off porous and non-porous surfaces. Porous surfaces would consist of paper, cardboard, and raw wood. The best latent development techniques for porous surfaces are iodine fuming and Ninhydrin techniques (Sirchie, 2002). Iodine fuming works by a mechanism of interaction of physical absorption (Lee & Gaensslen, 2001). When iodine crystals are warmed, they produce a violent iodine vapor that is absorbed by the fingerprint secretion residues. The latent print then takes on an appearance of a yellowish brown color (Lee & Gaensslen, 2001). Ninhydrin, on the other hand is not used in a process of fuming like iodine or Cyanoacrylate (superglue). Ninhydrin is a biological stain that reacts with the amino acid of latent prints. The amino acids form a permanent chemical bond with the Ninhydrin and the latent prints will become visible (Sirchie, 2002). Ninhydrin solutions can be applied by spraying, swabbing, or dipping a surface containing a possible latent print (Lee & Gaensslen, 2001).

Non-porous surfaces include painted wood or metal, glass, plastics, and polished surfaces. The best latent print development techniques for non-porous surfaces are oxide, florescent, magnetic, metallic, or a combination of print powders (Sirchie, 2002). Fingerprint powders rely on the mechanical adherence of powder particles to the moisture and oily components of skin ridge deposits of the latent prints (Lee & Gaensslen, 2001). It should be noted that just because these methods are the reported best technique for recovery of latent prints from porous and non-porous surfaces it does not mean a latent print can be recovered every time, like on CSI.

In a CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode called “Burked” (Mendelsohn, Zuiker, & Cannon, 2001),  Detective Brass asks a CSI technician, “Can you get a print off those balloons?” The technician replies “I can get a print off of air”. Statements like this one may make viewers believe that fingerprint evidence is always recoverable (VanLaerhoven & Anderson, 2009). Actually, fingerprints may not be available for a number of reasons. Many materials are not conducive to retaining prints and weathering of surfaces may have also removed any prints (VanLaerhoven & Anderson, 2009). Rarely people leave crisp detailed complete latent prints behind that are seen weekly on CSI. It is entirely possible to touch an item and not leave behind a latent print. When most people touch something, they only contact the surface with part of the fingerpad, and often moving their fingers creating a smudged print (VanLaerhoven & Anderson, 2009).  A smudged print can not be used for comparison and hold very little evidentiary value. For example, it is particularly difficult to retrieve a latent print from rough surfaces such as wood, cloth, skin, cardboard, or Styrofoam. Latent prints may also be partial prints, smeared, or on top of each other (Fischer, 2008). Realistically, smooth shinny surfaces are the best sources for clear, complete latent prints suitable for comparison and identification (Fischer, 2008).

In CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode “Weeping Willows” (Lloyd & Fink, 2005), a CSI technician fumes a .22 pistol and recovers a perfect print off the weapon that leads to a suspect and solves the case. While latent prints can be possibly recovered off a gun barrel, grip, trigger, magazine, or cartridge finding latent prints off firearms are always difficult (Coppock, 2001). The most frequently used method for fuming a firearm is cyanoacrylate fuming. Cyanocrylate fuming reacts with latent print residues to create a visible white plastic-like print appearance (Coppock, 2001). The difficulty with recovering latent prints on firearms occurs for several reasons. On triggers, most surface areas are grooved to ensure a good grip and are small in nature making the recovery of even a partial print difficult. Once a weapon has been fired, the probability of recovering latent prints on working parts of the firearm are low due to the heat expended (Coppock, 2001). Many forensic experts state that the highest success rate for recovering latent prints from a firearm is usually the unfired cartridges from the firearm. The surface area of the unfired cartridge contributes to a higher recovery rate of prints (Coppock, 2001).

In CSI: Crime Scene Investigation “Play with Fire”(Shankar, Lipsitz, & Fink, 2003), CSI Grissom discovers a body in a press box at a high school stadium. He immediately covers the body in a plastic sheet and fumes the deceased and recovers one print that leads to the arrest of the offender. Once again CSI has made a very difficult task appear easy and frequently used. Realistically, human skin is probably one of the most difficult items to process for latent prints. According to an article in the Journal of Forensic Identification, the probability of recovering a latent print of evidentially value off the skin of a deceased individual is approx. 15,000,000 to one (Sampson, 1996). Although the odds are likely that a latent print will not be recovered of human skin, there is an extremely small chance of a latent print recovery. There are over 70 different methods used to process human skin for latent prints, but the most documented successful process has been the use of magnetic powders (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). Cyanoacrylate fuming, iodine fuming, and ninhydrin are a few of the chemicals used for recovery of latent prints off deceased skin. On living skin, the most common techniques for lifting latent prints are magnetic powders, lifting paper, and photography (Morris, 2005). Magnetic powders used in a direct application method have been more successful at the recovery of latent prints, than cyanoacrylate fuming (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). CSI: Crime Scene Investigation demonstrates cyanoacrylate fuming as only way to process prints of a deceased body, when most technicians use magnetic powders. Keys to successful recovery of evidentiary prints are ambient and skin surface temperature, relative humidity, and the scene environment (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). On deceased individuals, once the surface skin temperature gets 89.6 F or higher, the latent residues transform into a liquid state or diffuse, which can wash away prints (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). Obviously, time is an issue in the recovery of latent prints from human skin. Most prints on human skin must be recovered within a few hours of deposit (Morris, 2005). On living human skin, latent prints can be recovered up to 1.5 hours after the prints are placed on the skin. Currently, it is unknown how long a latent print can remain on a deceased body since proper controlling of the body’s environment are critical in the discovery of latent prints (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). A latent print was recovered 5 hours off a deceased individual in a controlled environment in Miami, the longest recorded time to date (Sampson & Sampson, 2005).

        

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, although entertaining, is very misleading about the processing and development of latent prints. The show presents improbable forensic latent print recoveries, such as prints from human skin, as a common procedure.  Recent reports indicate that this top-rated show may have a significant impact on the real criminal justice system in the future by creating unrealistic expectations about the field of forensic science and how latent prints can be processed. These unrealistic expectations could impact the way jurors and others view the “how” and “what” of surface areas that might contain latent prints. Unfortunately, these unrealistic expectations can make forensic experts and investigators’ jobs more difficult than it normally is.

REFERENCES

Allen, S. (2007, April). Crime Scene Myths. Law & Order, 55(4), 90-94.

Coppock, C. (2001). Contrast: An Investigator’s Basic Reference Guide to Fingerprint Identification Concepts. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Cohan, S. (2008). CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dutelle, A. (2006, May). The CSI Effect and Your Department. Law & Order, 54(5), 113-114.

Fisher, J. (2008). Fingerprint Identification: Trouble in Paradise. Forensics Under Fire: Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Heinrick, J. (2006). Everyone’s an Expert: The CSI Effect’s Negative Impact on Juries. The Triple Helix. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from www.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf.

Lee, H. & Gaensslen, R. (2001). Advances in Fingerprint Technology (2^nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Lloyd, A. (writer) & Fink, K. (director). (2005). Weeping Willows. In J. Bruckheimer (producer), CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Los Angeles: CBS Broadcasting Company.

Mendelsohn, C. (writer), Zuiker, A (writer), & Cannon, D. (director). (2001). Burked. In J. Bruckheimer (producer), CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Los Angeles: CBS Broadcasting Company.

Morris, M. (2005). Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces. Forensic Magazine. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.forensicmag.com/Article_Print.asp?pid=52.

Sampson, W. (1996). Latent Fingerprint Evidence from Human Skin (Part 1). Journal of Forensic Identification, 46(2), 362-385.

Sampson, W. & Sampson, K. (2005). Recovery of Latent Prints from Human Skin. Journal of Forensic Identification, 55(3), 188-206.

Shankar, N. (writer), Lipsitz, A. (writer), & Fink, K. (director). (2003). Play With Fire. In J. Bruckheimer (producer), CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Los Angeles: CBS Broadcasting Company.

Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories (2002). Overview of Latent Print Development Techniques. Youngsville, NC: Sirchie.

VanLaerhoven, S. & Anderson, G. (2009). The Science and Careers of CSI. The CSI Effect: Television, Crime, and Governance. New York: Lexington Books.

Voss-De Haan, P. (2006, July-August). Physics and Fingerprints. Contemporary Physics, 47(4), 209-230.