CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Groenendaal J, Helsloot I. Police Pract. Res. 2015; 16(3): 224-238. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2015, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
In scholarly debate on the gravity and prevalence of tunnel vision in criminal investigation procedures, one relevant issue has, thus far, been insufficiently explored; specifically, how have police forces responded to the apparent increased focus on the phenomenon of tunnel vision in criminal investigations? The present article examines this question through providing a narrative history of the effects of administrative oversight policies developed in response to a certain serious crime in the Netherlands and which was designed to better prevent the assumed problem of tunnel vision in major criminal investigations. In addition, we conducted group interviews with major criminal investigation teams so as to bring into focus their perception of the effectiveness of this policy. We concluded that the adopted policy had failed to give balanced consideration to the polarity between efficacy (raising the number of solved crimes) and precaution (prevention of errors in criminal investigations). Additionally, based on the interviews, we concluded that the policy did not significantly improve efficiency or eliminate tunnel vision from working its way into the investigation process. |