This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Started in 2008, Model Crime Investigations (or Model CI, MCI) is a student-associated international conference. Model Crime Investigations is held annually in South Korea so it is usually known as KMCI. MCI is an extracurricular activity where students gather to learn about how a police department operates, as well as about how the broader criminal justice system functions. In the actual conference of simulation, participants will debate upon civil or criminal cases to find culprits among virtual suspects in committees. Unlike scientific investigation, in Model Crime Investigation participants usually interrogate suspects in oral arguments, and gather verbal evidence. Issues that can be discussed will vary from minor cases such as robbery to major crimes such as international terrorism. During the sessions, students who charge the investigation will have to work on affidavit by summarizing the points given by the suspects and witnesses, for the purpose of exterminating crimes by means such as arrest and/or complaint; and prosecute suspects. Along with Model United Nations, Moot Court, Mock Trial, or Model Congress, Model Crime Investigations aims to build students' global perspective.
KMCI basically follows the system of Department of Justice in United States. Committees students can take are Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Marshals, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive, or Department of Homeland Security. Each student will work as police designated as a Lieutenant, Sergeant, or Commander, or will work as suspects defending themselves as innocent. Participants (if they are suspects) will typically receive a criminal case ahead of time, which includes the facts of the crime, their roles, alibis and pieces of evidence. Students taking roles as suspects must prepare and memorize the cases given to them. During model crime investigation sessions, participants working as Police, not knowing who the actual criminal(s) is (are), must gather these pieces of evidence through investigating, interrogating and interviewing suspects in order to find out who the offender(s) is(are).
Whole committees are supervised and controlled by students role-playing as Generals:
Commissioner General, Chief Superintendent General, Senior superintendent general, Superintendent General.
Commissioner General | Georgetown University |
Chief Superintendent General | Princeton University |
Senior Superintendent General | Georgetown University |
Superintendent General | New York University |
(University of Students who took role as Generals in 2009 Korea Model Crime Investigations)
Each session is operated by students following roles as Chiefs:
Chief of Police, Deputy Chief, and Assistant Chief
Participants will be designated in the following committees randomly
And be given the roles in POLICE as
Commander, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Senior Lead Officer, Patrol Force
, OR be given the roles in SUSPECT as
Criminal, Accomplice, Witness, and so on (Types of roles are subjected to be changed according to a criminal case of committee, and participants’ role must be kept fugitive by themselves.)
Police and Suspects has different goal of their own. As mentioned above, police should find out actual offenders by summarizing evidences given by suspects. Suspects should not let police to find about who the actual criminal is. Whoever achieves their goal is to win.
By going through procedures step by step, police officers have to find out the actual criminal, or criminals. All officers shall strictly adhere to the policy of the KMCI prior to any interrogation of suspects. No coercion, threats or promises shall be used under any condition to obtain a confession, statement, or admission from any individual. The immediate objective of the interviewing officer should be to establish a cooperative relationship. To this objective, an officer should: display a sincere interest, be patient and tactful, be respectful, control personal feelings, and provide reassurance.
Participants can be designated as a criminal, accomplice or as a witness. They are able to lie about their positions in order to confuse police, but their evidences should match with the stances Chiefs provides several weeks before session. Suspects’ positions MUST be kept in a secret before sessions start. Actual number of criminals among suspects can vary from zero to all. Suspects making a speech, refusing interrogation or getting an interview should: display utmost respect, be kind to interviewers, cooperate interview as much as interviewee wants to, and never distort their evidence.
Investigation procedures are the only way which investigators can find valuable evidences. These investigations are divided into two parts: Preliminary investigation, and Follow-up investigation.
Most preliminary investigations will be conducted by the members of Patrol Force since they usually are the first to arrive at the criminal scene. All officers designated to conduct preliminary investigation shall do their utmost to gather as much information as possible during this stage of investigation since its police department's the very first stage figuring out the information of suspects. The officers responsible for a preliminary investigation shall interrogate the suspect, find out personal information about the suspect such as, but not limited to age, address, phone number, family members, and shall report the incident fully and accurately and yield the responsibility to the follow-up investigators.
Follow-up investigation will be preceded by the Senior Lead Officer, Sergeant and Lieutenant because they are usually responsible for deeper investigations. It may be possible for the patrol force to conduct follow-up investigations, but the priority is given to other class officers. In this stage of investigation, police department would try to figure out more concrete and detailed information about the offenses and the suspects as thorough as possible, including following steps, although all of the steps may not be necessary in each case: review and analyze all previous reports prepared in the preliminary phase: conduct additional interviews with suspects, and preliminary investigating officers if necessary, conduct interrogations of all suspects, plan, organize and conduct crime scene searches for the purpose of gathering additional evidences: check criminal records of potential suspects: identify and apprehend suspects and: interview apprehended suspects in order to determine involvement in other crimes.
Debate procedure incorporated UNA-USA format(United Nations Associations of United States of America) to foster active participation from students. Motions and points have to be introduced by participants to take an action in the committee, and the conference will be governed under the authority of student chiefs.
Introduction of an affidavit
Once an affidavit has been approved, copied, and distributed, a person/people may make a motion to introduce the affidavit. The Chief will recognize the affiant of the affidavit to read the paragraphs of the affidavit. The Chief, at his or her discretion, may allow the main signatories to answer any clarification points on the affidavit. for any reason. After that, the affiant has to express his/her reasons for supporting his/her own affidavit.
Speaker's list
When a speaking time designated for an affidavit elapse, the Chief will terminate his speech. After that, the floor will be yielded to the Chief who will open the floor to debate. Chief will entertain other suspects’ or police agents’ speeches. These speeches must include reasons for disagreeing or sometimes supporting the contents in the affidavit. (Affiant also can take the floor again as long as the Chief recognizes him/her.)
Closure of the debate
When total allotted debate time is almost elapsed, a session will have final speeches. Usually, a final speech lasts 1 minute for, and 1 minute against the affidavit. When the final speeches are over, the debate procedure will automatically be closed, and voting procedures will begin.
Introduction of an Affidavit | Speaker's List | Closure of Debate |
Statement from an Affiant | Chief recognizes members to be added to the speaker's list once it is opened. Members should send a note to the Chief in order to be added to the Speaker's List | Final Speeches: 1 minute for or 1 minute against the affidavit |
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."
A detective is an investigator, usually a member of a law enforcement agency. They often collect information to solve crimes by talking to witnesses and informants, collecting physical evidence, or searching records in databases. This leads them to arrest criminals and enable them to be convicted in court. A detective may work for the police or privately.
A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.
An arrest warrant or bench warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual or the search and seizure of an individual's property.
The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.
The Reid technique is a method of interrogation after investigation and behavior analysis. The system was developed in the United States by John E. Reid in the 1950s. Reid was a polygraph expert and former Chicago police officer. The technique is known for creating a high pressure environment for the interviewee, followed by sympathy and offers of understanding and help, but only if a confession is forthcoming. Since its spread in the 1970s, it has been widely utilized by police departments in the United States.
A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the adversarial system, which is adopted in common law, or inquisitorial system, which is adopted in civil law. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative framework for the powers of police officers in England and Wales to combat crime, and provided codes of practice for the exercise of those powers. Part VI of PACE required the Home Secretary to issue Codes of Practice governing police powers. The aim of PACE is to establish a balance between the powers of the police in England and Wales and the rights and freedoms of the public. Equivalent provision is made for Northern Ireland by the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989 (SI 1989/1341). The equivalent in Scots Law is the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Within the criminal justice system of Japan, there exist three basic features that characterize its operations. First, the institutions—police, government prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organs—maintain close and cooperative relations with each other, consulting frequently on how best to accomplish the shared goals of limiting and controlling crime. Second, citizens are encouraged to assist in maintaining public order, and they participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, apprehension of suspects, and offender rehabilitation programs. Finally, officials who administer criminal justice are allowed considerable discretion in dealing with offenders.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established the "good faith" exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.
The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.
A false confession is an admission of guilt for a crime which the individual did not commit. Although such confessions seem counterintuitive, they can be made voluntarily, perhaps to protect a third party, or induced through coercive interrogation techniques. When some degree of coercion is involved, studies have found that subjects with highly sophisticated intelligence or manipulated by their so-called "friends" are more likely to make such confessions. Young people are particularly vulnerable to confessing, especially when stressed, tired, or traumatized, and have a significantly higher rate of false confessions than adults. Hundreds of innocent people have been convicted, imprisoned, and sometimes sentenced to death after confessing to crimes they did not commit—but years later, have been exonerated. It was not until several shocking false confession cases were publicized in the late 1980s, combined with the introduction of DNA evidence, that the extent of wrongful convictions began to emerge—and how often false confessions played a role in these.
In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. Rendition can also be seen as the act of handing over, after the request for extradition has taken place.
The legal system of South Korea is a civil law system that has its basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Court Organization Act, which was passed into law on 26 September 1949, officially created a three-tiered, independent judicial system. The revised Constitution of 1987 codified judicial independence in Article 103, which states that, "Judges rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and the law." The 1987 rewrite also established the Constitutional Court, the first time that South Korea had an active body for constitutional review.
A criminal charge is a formal accusation made by a governmental authority asserting that somebody has committed a crime. A charging document, which contains one or more criminal charges or counts, can take several forms, including:
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement. The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
An examining magistrate is a judge in an inquisitorial system of law who carries out pre-trial investigations into allegations of crime and in some cases makes a recommendation for prosecution. Also known as an investigating magistrate, inquisitorial magistrate, or investigating judge, the exact role and standing of examining magistrates varies by jurisdiction. Common duties and powers of the examining magistrate include overseeing ongoing criminal investigations, issuing search warrants, authorizing wiretaps, making decisions on pretrial detention, interrogating the accused person, questioning witnesses, examining evidence, as well as compiling a dossier of evidence in preparation for trial.
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure contains the rules governing criminal procedure in every court in Italy. The Italian legal order adopted four codes since the Italian Unification. After the first two codes, in 1865 and 1913, the Fascist Government established in 1930 a new code adopting an inquisitorial system. In 1988 the Italian Republic adopted a new code, that could be considered to be somewhere in between the inquisitorial system and the adversarial system.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Police, Office of Justice Services, also known as BIA Police, is the law enforcement arm of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. The BIA's official mission is to "uphold the constitutional sovereignty of the Federally recognized Tribes and preserve peace within Indian country". It provides police, investigative, corrections, technical assistance, and court services across the over 567 registered Indian tribes and reservations, especially those lacking their own police force; additionally, it oversees tribal police organizations. BIA services are provided through the Office of Justice Services Division of Law Enforcement.