Obsolete investigation system: Billions spent, jus...

Summary

• When it works, offenders are brought to justice through credible evidence, innocent citizens are protected, and courts can distinguish between guilt and innocence.
• Investigators need professional training to preserve evidence, while forensic laboratories and prosecutors must ensure that findings withstand judicial scrutiny.
• In murder investigations, contaminated crime scenes, unreliable testimony and failures to connect physical evidence to suspects can allow offenders to evade accountability.

AI Generated Summary

A criminal investigation system is the backbone of a functioning justice system. When it works, offenders are brought to justice through credible evidence, innocent citizens are protected, and courts can distinguish between guilt and innocence. When it fails, the entire edifice of criminal justice begins to crumble. Unfortunately, Pakistan, particularly Punjab and Lahore, remains trapped in a vicious cycle of outdated investigative practices despite extraordinary advances in forensic science and digital technology.

One of the most disturbing features of this institutional stagnation is the alleged reliance on coercive methods belonging to a bygone era. When police fail to trace a suspect, family members may find themselves in the firing line. Brothers, sisters and other relatives can face intimidation, harassment or detention to pressure a wanted person into surrendering. Such practices raise serious questions about legality, professional competence and respect for fundamental rights.

The principle is simple: the sins of one individual cannot be visited upon an entire family. Relatives are not bargaining chips, nor can they be used as pawns when an investigation reaches a dead end. When investigators resort to such tactics, they expose the shortcomings of a system seemingly more comfortable applying pressure than following evidence.

Instead of reassessing evidence, identifying procedural failures and pursuing fresh leads, the traditional approach shifts the burden onto a suspect’s family. It is a case of putting the cart before the horse: coercion becomes the starting point when professional investigation should be the first order of business.

The irony is that criminal investigation has undergone a technological revolution. DNA profiling can establish biological links between suspects and crime scenes. CCTV footage can reconstruct events and trace movements. Geofencing, lawful access to location records, call-detail analysis, digital forensics, fingerprint databases and financial investigations can provide vital leads. Scientific examination of weapons and other physical evidence can strengthen prosecutions in ways forced confessions never could.

Technology, however, is no silver bullet. DNA evidence must be collected correctly, digital records lawfully obtained, and CCTV footage authenticated. Investigators need professional training to preserve evidence, while forensic laboratories and prosecutors must ensure that findings withstand judicial scrutiny. These challenges demand investment and reform, not an excuse to cling to obsolete methods.

Why, then, does Pakistan continue to struggle with investigative practices that have outlived their usefulness? Why do serious cases suffer from weak evidence, procedural lapses and avoidable delays? And why has a system entrusted with public safety failed to translate technological progress into meaningful institutional change?