Crime Scene Detective


the career i want (CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR) but more over a CRIME SCENE DETECTIVE TOO. !!!

Crime Scene Detective: Job Description and Requirements

Learn about the education and preparation needed to become a crime scene detective. Get a quick view of the requirements as well as details about job duties to find out if this is the career for you.

Crime scene detectives are deployed to the crime scene to gather and document evidence and clues. They can pass their findings over to lab analysts to examine them, or they may do it themselves. Education varies by employer, but a 4-year undergraduate degree is often required.

Essential Information

Crime scene detectives identify, collect and process physical evidence at crime scenes. They are generally employed by law enforcement agencies. Prospective crime scene detectives may earn a bachelor’s degree at a college or university in order to enter this career.

Required Education Bachelor’s degree
Additional Requirements Law enforcement officer status may be required; police academy training
Projected Job Growth (2014-2024)* -1% for detectives and criminal investigators
Median Annual Salary (2015)* $77,210 for detectives and criminal investigators

Source: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Job Description

Crime scene detectives are also known as crime scene investigators, crime scene technicians, forensic investigators and forensic science technicians. They are responsible for identifying, collecting, preserving, processing and submitting physical evidence from crime scenes. In addition, they are responsible for analyzing and evaluating the evidence in a forensics laboratory. Evidence may include blood, body fluids, fingernails, fingerprints, glass, hairs, fibers and weapons. They also perform DNA analysis, examine tissues and interpret bloodstain patterns.

When arriving at a crime scene, the detective must secure the scene and ensure that it is not contaminated or disturbed. After identifying any evidence, the detective must secure the evidence by collecting it in a container and properly labeling the container with the date and time. The crime scene detective also determines if any photography or video is needed and documents any sketches or measurements.

Crime scene detectives also operate special equipment for alternative lighting, lifting fingerprints and reconstructing bullet paths. They also use special software that allows them to reproduce crime scenes in 3D.

The detective’s job duties include preparing an investigative report which contains documenting evidence, documenting the crime scene and the techniques that were used when analyzing the evidence. A crime scene detective may also be responsible for appearing at various trials as an expert witness.

Detective Requirements

Though not a requirement, many crime scene detectives are law enforcement officers. Each law enforcement agency has its own requirements for becoming crime scene detectives; however, most require at least a 4-year bachelor’s degree from a college or university. Though no specific bachelor’s degree is required for this career, a forensics or science degree is preferred. Some of the courses may include:

  • Crime scene investigation
  • Criminal evidence
  • Forensics
  • Chemistry
  • Physics

Crime scene detectives must also possess exceptional organizational and computer skills, strong written skills and the ability to communicate with others. They must also possess the ability to operate photographic and video equipment. Employers may require:

  • Background check
  • Drug test
  • Physical examination
  • Polygraph test
  • Interview

Career Outlook

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) stated that detective and criminal investigator positions were predicted to decline by 1% from 2014-2024, which was slower than the average growth of 7% for all occupations. Detectives and criminal investigators earned a median annual salary of $77,210 in 2015, per BLS.

Detectives must know how to properly conduct a crime scene investigation. Being perceptive and accurate are the essential qualities of a crime scene detective. Most government agencies require these detectives to possess a bachelor’s degree in forensics or a similar discipline, sometimes even requiring law enforcement training and experience.


Natural Law


How do natural law conceptions of sin and legalistic definitions of crime differ?

A legalistic definition takes place at it’s starting point the common law or sin which points refers to disregard for religious or morals laws. In modern conceptions of natural law, crime is characterized as the violation of individual rights. The man has a nature of sin. Common law, morals, natural law, come from God, not man. The only real laws are natural laws, sin so basic but so deep that we try not to think about how deeply the world sins or breaks laws. Ten rules of life, the natural laws, seven ways to win to sin fears of the holy spirit. No law of any nation is legal if it violates the natural laws of God. An unjust law is never legal. Mischief if framed in a law against God’s natural laws of morality.
Natural rights or “unalienable rights” derive from natural law. What are unalienable rights?
We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are created equal, that are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is an individual right. Liberty is an unalienable right which is endowed to us by our creator, I mean I’m not sure which unalienable right it is life, liberty or pursuit of happiness it could be all three. Men are socialized to believe that they have an unalienable right to women’s bodies and sex. The right to life for an unborn child is unalienable and should never be infringed upon by politicians.
Natural rights derive from natural laws. Because it’s rights includes, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And other natural rights are protected by the Bills of Rights, including freedom of speech, religion and press. True law derives from the natural rights to our life not from the arbitrary. The natural right to privacy derives from physical exclusion. It should not be mistaken for the privilege to punish indiscretion. Our constitution derives authority from natural rights.

Case! CJUS


A plea bargain may be acceptable to an innocent defendant if the appearance of guilt is strong. How do we reconcile the benefits of plea bargaining with the importance of justice? 

We have mandatory life fixed sentences only reduce flexibility. No plea bargaining never works in practice. But fixed sentences more predictable, which is important four appearance of justice. In the adversary system of Justice, everyone charged with a crime has the right to rely on the presumption of innocence.(Hendrix, pg. 237). This why I believe if you are innocent you never take a plea bargain. Facing Jury is the best way to go. A plea bargain is crap. Makes the guilty less innocent and makes the innocent guilty. Like, if you kill or rape someone and get caught own up to it. Take plea bargain instead of lying and pleading innocent. Even though you are charged with a crime, you are nonetheless innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The truth of the matter is most societies also have experiences with crooked judged and greedy, unethical lawyers. There are corrupt police officers and prosecutors who will drop criminal charges if paid a sufficient sum. Making it okay to let the person exploit my neighbor as well. If I don’t fight evil, in the name of God. When it comes to those that are violating inalienable rights, then I’m basically saying that it’s okay. Citizens of the United States has become upset over the plea bargaining because it seems to make a mockery of the Justice system. Thousands of criminals are given reduce sentences or probation by pleading guilty to a lesser indictment. All ninety percent of convictions in the United States are obtained through plea bargains. I’ve known for quite some time that many inmates were actually innocent, and took plea bargains to avoid lengthy prison sentences, but these stats are beyond ridiculous. While many people may not afford to pay a private attorney to take a case to trial not afford to take a criminal case to trial, plea negotiations are an important part of the justice system; some say the most important considering a vast majority of criminal cases are resolved through plea deals rather than the trail.

In its search for justice, how should the judicial system balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victim?

The judicial system should take their responsibility to protect victims very seriously, as stated they need to balance the rights of their victims delicately. And in the end, they must protect all people by exercising due diligence and good faith. The first step to justice would be to balance victims right to truth and the right of the accused to a fair trial. The fifth amendment states, in part, “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. (Hendrix, pg. 238). I hope this case brings about change to the legal system to find a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the compliant. No law is just which not balance rights accused and of the victim. Old ones do. The amended one does, It says that laws don’t remove evil; laws only restrain evil. And the less more governor when we have, the more freedom we process. The biblical worldview is the less; it gives people the most freedom. A system which favors the rights of the accused over the rights of the victim is not balanced. The system must protect the victim irrespective of circumstances of the case. The rights to a fair trail are guaranteed to the person accused, not the cops the victim or the witnesses not even to the government bringing changes. We are fundamentally people at the beginning of the day, with certain inalienable rights. Some are easy to remember, like freedom of speech and the rights to bear arms, other rights are implied by reading between the lines of the constitution, such as the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, and the right to vote. It only means of the Due Process clause that these rights may be lawful. Commanders need to “start believing”. Believe that there is a problem, and believing victims when they come forward. These doesn’t go contrary to “innocent until proven guilty”, but balances the rights of the accused with the critical act of believing the victims throughout the process.

Reconciling Forgiveness, Mercy, and Justice


You know the difference between right and wrong. You dabble in sin and hope there will not be accountability. But it awaits you. It says, God, is all about forgiveness now, because of what Jesus Christ has done. For as much as God is a Lord of Mercy, love and grace, He is still holy and almighty, and cannot condone sin. When you choose to live blatantly a life where you indulge in sin over and over, though you know it’s wrong, you are saying that you do not agree with or do not agree with, God’s standards. The danger in this is that by doing so, you’re setting yourself against God. In Christ there is no condemnation, grace and forgiveness are in it. Forgiveness gives you absolute freedom in Christ. Your belief in Christ must start from receiving forgiveness for all your sins. Analyses of the social characteristic of death row inmates suggest that the capital punishment continues to be employed in a selective and discriminatory manner. (Hendrix, pg. 279). There is forgiveness in Christ for any sin, even those so heinous as this death row inmate.


Beliefs about appropriate punishment have differed over time and place. The American public has supported many different approaches to sentencing, depending on the social climate of an era and other factors. Most other Western democracies have abolished the capital punishment, but the United States continues to use it. As stated in the Biblical Principles of Government & Criminal Justice Article, it says, Government has the obligations, to kill those who kill those who murder others. Life without parole would be the appropriate sentence as far as I’m concerned. Trial judges now have a freer hand to determine a sentence they feel necessary. The only sentence that is appropriate is life in prison. Historically, the argument for or against capital punishment has revolved around eight central themes: economics, retribution, public opinion. Community protection, deterrence, irreversibility, discrimination, and cruel and unusual punishment. (Hendrix, pg. 277)

God does forgive us if we own up to our sins. But if we confess our sins, he will forgive our sins because we can trust God to do what is right(1 John 1:9). Repent and then return to God so that your sins may be washed away, that times of restoring may come from the Lord forgive and forget. But if we confess our sins to God, he is faithful to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. It’s good to support the government, because it provides services for the people. I’m sure no Christian, past or present would have condoned the punishment or been condemned for such a crime. No punishment can make what a person has done okay. I don’t agree with capital punishment- life in prison is more fitting, much cheaper, and way less morally ambiguous.

There are a lot of Christians in prison. I think locations doesn’t determine justice, persecuted Christian in that number. Prison’s are based on behavior, not belief. Some people that go to prison didn’t believe in God until they’re sent to jail. The population of prisons being made up of people who misbehave rather than what they believe. It is said that the killing can be made for self-defense it’s not the same as murder. Murder is doing it out of cold blood for selfless reasons. Not protect but to hurt.  If obedience to God’s word is considered a crime for which one should be jailed, then Christians are to continue in obedience to God, even if prison is the result. (Acts 5:29). The capital punishment, I’m willing to bet, they didn’t get “peace”, “closure” or “justice” they expected to. It doesn’t bring them back. We should not look into to the capital punishment as punishment for ANYTHING. The discrimination argument contends that the capital punishment is a lottery system, with the odds stacked heavily against those who are less capable of defending themselves.(Hendrix, pg. 279). The capital punishment is cruel/usual punishment, every person killed is a risk for ending an innocent life. The death penalty is defective because it is predicated on the idea that death is a punishment which is not.