Digital Forensic Laboratory Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Digital Forensic Laboratory - Assignment Example In this regard, most laboratories without a digital forensic unit are either becoming obsolete or creating space and remodeling existing spaces to create the digital unit. Digital forensics can be defined as the forensic investigation of electronic devices capable of storing data or information in one form or another. The core purpose of performing digital forensic is to extract the digital data from the said devices so as to aid in the investigation and prosecution of a committed crime (Press, 2012). In addition, the collected evidence is also admissible in a court of law. This article will highlight the architectural and engineering design requirements for digital forensic laboratories. In addition to that, it will also explore the history of forensic investigation, and what are the essentials in coming up with a basic reliable site. Laboratory budget In planning a budget for a digital forensic lab the first most crucial part to be considered should be training. The staffs who will be involved in the actual forensic duties need to be adequately familiar with their work and tools of trade (Vacca, 2010). In addition to that, the procedures involved need to be fully understood is shoddy work is to be avoided. In addition to training costs, digital forensics bases its accuracy on advanced equipments that are properly installed and maintained. Considering the fact that technology changes fast it is essential to consider the best, and affordable means of acquiring the equipments especially computers. For operational costs and lab maintenance expenses, it is best to break down the costs down to daily, quarterly, and annual expenses so as to project finance uses, and properly set the budget (Jones et al, 2011). Laboratory expenses include the following: Hardware, these are computers microscopes and all other relevant, and essential equipment required for a successful investigation. Specialized software for an in depth analyses of crime data, facility space and the tr ained personnel who will e operating the equipment’s, and laboratory investigations (Jones et al, 2011). Safety measures and recommendations Based on the sort of sensitivity the data requires safety measures have to be put in place to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence that shall be extracted thereafter. In addition, the involvement of high level electrical equipment also means that hazardous situations may arise due to machine-human interaction (Bill. Nelson, 2010). Digital forensic investigation and safety measures requirements can be briefly summarized as follows: Information and data collection: This involves the acquisition, identification, labeling and recording of evidence on site. Data retrieved from all possible sources need be carefully handled and isolated in order to preserve its integrity, and avoid contamination. Examination of data: his involves the use of various methods such as automated examination to evaluate and extract relevant and valid information from collected evidence. Caution has to be exercised so as not to add or miss relevant and useful facts. Data analysis entails the use of legal techniques to derive useful facts that can be presented as evidence against a given individual or party. Finally, reporting the analyzed information in a presentable and simple format. Usually this involves the description of the entire process, tools that were used, and reasons why a particular criteria was used in achieving the results. Furthermore, it is at this stage that recommendations are also given besides the final conclusion. This is normally done so as to improve future investigations (Vacca, 2010).

Conflicting Reward Systems and Their Impact on Criminal Justice Research Paper

Conflicting Reward Systems and Their Impact on Criminal Justice Administration - Research Paper Example Kerr (1975) presents a wide-reaching warning about the efficacy of reward systems that do not understand the knowledge or motivations of the individuals (or the society) the reward system hopes to incentivize toward some course of action. In order to draw attention to the scope of this problem, the author utilizes examples from politics, organizations, and profit-making firms, even though his intended audience is only concerned with the latter. By using examples from politics, however, the author’s analysis opens up avenues of investigation related to public administration, particularly criminal justice administration and the incentives it hopes to provide for mending the behaviors of convicted persons. Given the importance of preventing criminal recidivism and the economic impacts of fewer people in jails, it is no surprise that public administration officials would be interested in ways to realign their reward systems toward the knowledge or motivations of individuals. With those considerations in mind, this paper hopes to survey some of the problems that occur when reward systems in criminal justice work against the needs and wants of administrators, and how administrators can prevent that from happening. Employees are very good at figuring out what gets rewarded in the workplace and doing those things instead of what they are officially told to do. â€Å"Employee ambivalence† occurs when the explicit norms or desires of an organization come into conflict with the content of the reward systems and the norms generated by that system. An example of such a conflict might be when a company encourages employees to follow the rules, but also to be effective in their job—getting their responsibilities done any way they can. So, despite the wish for ethical behavior from upper management, cutthroat behavior might be ultimately what gets rewarded (Spencer & Sims, 1995, p. 190). And once a single individual figures out how to get rewarded, the pre ssure falls on his colleagues or else fall behind. Only a single violation from a single individual can expose a deep, underlying problem within a reward system. A specific application of Kerr (1975)’s analysis of problematic reward systems is contained within a study of prosecutorial misconduct. Bibas (2009) discusses possible ways to regulate the conduct of prosecutors, who the author believes have the most unreviewable power or discretion of any public official. Embedded in this analysis is a response to potential reward systems for prosecutors based on financial gains. For example, one perspective offers the solution of rewarding prosecutors whose initial charges closely match the charges the criminal was convicted upon. However, keeping in mind Kerr (1975)’s warning that what one measures is what one gets, â€Å"sizable monetary rewards for particular statistics could lead prosecutors to undercharge rather than overcharge and to plea bargain to avoid losing rewar ds for ethical misconduct† (Bibas, 2009, p. 156). Thus, the opposite problem arises out of the solution for the original problem, which is particularly important to bear in mind when creating reward systems for individuals within the criminal justice system. Manipulable and inflatable quantifiable statistics often define the effectiveness of prosecutors, which poses a problem for effective reward systems based on performance. Also, reward systems that become overused tend to produce the opposite effect of rewarding the right behaviors. In other words, the more rewards