40. Early Modern Criminology (Part 2)

In this episode, we discuss the development of modern forensics and its application to detective work, beginning with the work of Alphonse Bertillon, moving through the golden age of fingerprint analysis and criminal profiling, touching on the Jack the Ripper and H H Holmes murders, and ending with the implementation of DNA profiling in the 1980s.


2 thoughts on “40. Early Modern Criminology (Part 2)”

  1. Russ Mangum says:

    Hi Adam. Just now listening to criminology episode part 2. You are taking about Miranda rights, and date of that US Supreme Ct ruling. It was 1966, a bit later than mentioned in the podcast. Also, one other clarification about Miranda rights from persona experience. I was a police officer in Southern California for a short while, and in our training we were told that Miranda rights only had to be instructed if we were going to ask questions. In fact, as rookies we were told we weren’t detectives and shouldn’t be asking questions, as we would mess us the interrogation. We were told that if we “read someone their rights” and then they said they wanted an attorney, all chances to interrogate were lost. By the way, this was just adults. For juveniles we did it right away in all circumstances.

    1. Adam Adam says:

      Hey Russ,

      You’re right – definitely got the year wrong on the Miranda rights. It looks like I did catch that one over in the show notes, but thanks for letting me know! Wouldn’t be the first time I missed something pretty big.

      That’s really interesting insight into a LEO’s perspective on reading rights. I was curious and checked, and you’re absolutely right that the courts have ruled that a suspect doesn’t need to be informed until they’re being interrogated – not that I didn’t believe that’s what you were taught, but because it wouldn’t be the first time departments looked for loopholes on stuff like this. I’m really surprised that it’s not required at the time of arrest, given its basis in the Constitution and the opportunity for a suspect to self-incriminate before a formal interrogation begins. I suppose that’s part of the rationale, though. At least it’s good to know that in your region minors are given that courtesy up front.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *