You are the crime scene investigator. When you arrive at the scene, you find what you thought was a bizarre call is in fact true. You see the mangled body of a Caucasian man and a partially deployed parachute streaming in the mild breeze. You also note that the deceased’s reserve chute has not opened. Closer examination of the scene reveals that the deceased is wearing a leg bag containing about 20 lbs. of cocaine and U.S. currency totaling $28,000.00.
The victim had in his possession 2 state ID cards, one from California: Andrew Jackson, DOB 01-05-60, 1419 Petulia Drive, Santa Cruz, CA. The second ID is from Texas: Paul Smith, DOB 05-01-61, 268 Ridge Boulevard, Crawford, TX.
explain the steps that you will take and the techniques that you will use to process from arrival until the scene is relinquished. Prepare a comprehensive list of how the scene should be documented. Create and include a crime scene sketch. Use your own neighborhood to fabricate any necessary details. You may then draw and scan the sketch or use any software application of your choice. Prepare a comprehensive list of at least 25 questions that need to be answered about the scene and the body. Prepare a list of evidence that will be collected from the scene and from the body. What methods or techniques will you use to collect and preserve the evidence? Explain. Conduct a background investigation to develop logical leads, which would include an AFIS inquiry, applicable forensics analysis, and any other leads you determine to be appropriate.
>Social Policy Neo-Liberals versus Social Democrats in Security and Tax Distributed: 28th July, 2017 Last Edited: seventh September, 2017 Disclaimer: This exposition has been put together by an understudy. This isn’t a case of the work composed by our expert paper journalists. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any sentiments, discoveries, conclusions or suggestions communicated in this material are those of the writers and don’t really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. What are the diverse perspectives of neo-liberals versus social democrats with respect to government disability and tax assessment? A standout amongst the most critical highlights of majority rule government, that enables it to be such a fruitful type of government is the assorted variety of political positions. Social majority rules system is a political philosophy that backings both monetary and social intercessions. Neo-radicalism anyway offers comparing financial advancement arrangements, for example, privatization and diminished government spending. Standardized savings and tax assessment have dependably been an expansive point of exchange, I hope to investigate the differentiating sees held by these two belief systems focussing on the impact that has on the populace in UK history. Neo-radicalism has just been around for around thirty years, ‘progressivism’ alludes to monetary and political thoughts in view of the political economy of Adam Smith and ‘neo’ means another type of progressivism. Neo-progressivism is related with free enterprise financial matters which takes after the convictions that “the world is an automatic framework and there is no requirement for the inclusion of government. Government association, as indicated by this monetary hypothesis, would incorporate any sort of control, the lowest pay permitted by law, tax assessment, or oversight. Free enterprise financial analysts see tax assessment on organizations as a punishment for creation.” (Investopedia.com, 2003) The ubiquity of neoliberalism is questionable yet was utilized as a part of numerous monetary approaches received in the UK and US by political pioneers, for example, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Raegan in the 1980’s. Their primary point is for the market to wind up predominant as it builds the general execution of the business which puts more cash into that nations economy and decreases the part of the state. At the point when open organizations wind up private the overall population can purchase shares which makes a positive motivator and profits. In the UK, the offers soared in an incentive when they were issued, “giving these new investors a moment benefit of anything between 20% (British Gas) and 85% (British Telecom).” (veronica, 2015) With this being the point of convergence of the strategy, it is obvious to see that neo-radicalism complements financial move instead of social equity. It is contended that this prompts an “increment in imbalance as the administration were offering state resources, which were possessed by everybody to a wealthier subset of individuals which thusly builds the hole between the rich and poor people.” (veronica, 2015b) The neoliberal routine with regards to giving open riches to a little well off elitist privatized gathering, affirming tax reductions for the rich and diminishing wages for the less blessed dominant part is the reason neo-progressivism is such a disputable political position. Social vote based system was the fundamental political standing held by the general population and the legislature in the UK after the world wars. It underpins social and monetary intercessions, a political development upholding a “continuous and quiet progress from private enterprise to communism by popularity based means.” (Merriam-Webster, 2017) William Beveridge is a standout amongst the most compelling individuals is social law based history, his confidence in the network and that the well-off should bolster those in the public eye who are in require and less capable began the formation of the welfare state. Social just political standing has a far-left belief system, they put stock in equitable government and individual flexibilities. They feature the requirement for the insurance of poor people and minority gatherings, bolster exchange associations, free training and take a stab at sexual orientation fairness. Social democrats put stock in remunerating ability and diligent work instead of benefit which is advantageous as it doesn’t squander the ability of individual nationals, which thus urges society to wind up more incorporated. Rather than the convictions of the neo-liberals, social democrats don’t trust that the privatized showcase is sure advantage for the administration as its undemocratic. Organizations are possessed by not very many affluent people and as it isn’t self-managed which can end in monetary emergency with elevated amounts of joblessness and absurd expansion which numerous individuals can’t bear. The welfare state is a “wellbeing net for the imperfections of free market, it plans to give a level of standardized savings for some individuals by redistributing the abundance of the market by tax collection.” (veronica, 2015c) Tax assessment is the measure of cash paid to the administration by subjects and organizations that is then redistributed into the more extensive society. The principle kinds of tax assessment in the UK is: pay charge, national protection, VAT and enterprise impose. An assessment framework that takes a higher extent of duty from the salary of rich than poor is known as a dynamic framework. Under a backward framework, the poor pay a higher extent of their pay in charges than the rich. Pay tax assessment is a dynamic framework, while circuitous expenses e.g. VAT have a tendency to be backward as poorer gatherings spend a higher extent of their salaries on VAT. Where social democrats would execute the financing of tax collection in frameworks, for example, human services administrations and the welfare state, neo-liberals have an altogether different arrangement of standing perspectives on tax assessment, seeing high duty as a negative thing for the economy. One of the principle objectives of numerous neo-liberals is to privatize open organizations with the conviction that if privatized, subjects won’t need to pay charge towards the organization and just the individuals who utilize it should pay (e.g. privatizing the railroad in 1990) making the economy more attractive. The possibility that slicing assessments will leave space to invigorate financial development anyway regularly prompts open administrations being abused for benefit, and upgrades frameworks to end up more elitist, something social vote based system expects to keep away from. In both the UK and the US amid the 1980’s a political development that neo-radicals would see as creative was executed. In the US Ronald Raegan lessened the best pay assess rates from “70% to half and afterward a 25% diminishment in wage impose for everybody, in the UK pay charge was decreased to 25% for lower and 40% for higher workers.” (Ferrara, 2011) Whilst the goal of Mrs Thatcher, a nonentity for neo-radicalism, amid this development was to minimalize the debilitating impact of high duty to the individuals who buckle down what happened was an enormous increment in the imbalance of money related gap as salary impose dropped VAT ascended with a specific end goal to reestablish harmony to subsidizing, permitting less demanding buy for well off nationals yet not poor people. This is a prime case of how neo-progressivism expects to utilize tax collection to give greater obligation to the people of general society by ‘moving back the state’, however frequently prompts profiting social and monetary pecking order. Neo liberals judge state mediation as dangerous and take a stab at it to be limited and imagine tax assessment to be a weight, frequently investigating the high charges set up by social democrats. Margaret Thatcher broadly stated: “The issue with Socialism is that in the long run you come up short on other individuals’ cash.” (Mikkelson, 2014) Social democrats trust that the state has its very own obligation to take care of people in general who are lesser abled through the financing made by charge therefore demonstrating a reasonable contrast in see. Standardized savings is all types of money related help gave by the state, it is a fundamental piece of each legislature anyway different types of government disability can incorporate perspectives not paid by the state .e.g. wiped out pay. In the UK, the idea was presented in the mid 1900’s. “It is a framework set up to guaranteeing against the dangers of specific occasions throughout everyday life, for example, joblessness and here and now infection, alleviating neediness or low pay, redistributing assets over individuals’ lifecycles, particularly from working age to retirement, redistributing assets from the rich to poor people, ‘adjusting’ for a few sorts of additional cost, (for example, youngsters or inability) and giving budgetary help when ‘conventional’ families separate.” (Fox, 2016) Social democrats contend that government disability and state intercession is indispensable to lessen disparity’s and battle social unfairness, the conviction they hold is each individual is associated and we will all amid our lifetimes pay assesses and get some type of standardized savings benefits. Social democrats intend to set up a universalised arrangement of social advantages and security which implies that all administrations are accessible to all nationals, this kills the requirement for implies tried advantage’s which can be humiliating and bureaucratic for the individuals who are qualified for guarantee them; they trust that widespread advantages are less demanding to manage and more viable. “For social democrats, the low take up of means tried advantages is a critical falling flat of the present government disability framework. In 1980, no methods tried advantage had in excess of a 80% take up.” (Limited, 2015) The principle figure set out toward standardized savings in the UK was Sir William Beveridge, his push for the formation of an all inclusive and mandatory welfare state and government managed savings framework to destroy imbalance by making a mutual and deliberate society. There are likewise numerous negatives about widespread government disability the fundamental being the surprising expense which is the principle reason the UK executes to a lesser degree a general framework today. Neo-liberals have exceptionally differentiating view, they see general arrangement of advantages and government disability as “irrational; it provides for the individuals who needn’t bother with it and squanders assets. Tyke advantage, for instance, costs about £5 billion multi year (1988), going to 6.8 million family units with 12 million youngsters paying little heed to pay.” (Limited, 2015) Neo-liberals thought>