Do we as a country suck at solving murders, or are detectives under qualified?

Because they can't prosecute or convict doesn't mean they aren't solved.

You need to watch The First 48.

Murders in low economic areas are extremely tough to solve and usually are the majority of those unsolved cases.

This is for several reasons. They don't trust police and aren't as cooperative, which leads to slower reaction time and less effort on the part of cops. Also it often happens during other illegal activity with unregistered weapons and leaves behind very little evidence.

There aren't a lot of murders in the suburbs and country clubs going unsolved.



ETA:

Without confessions or great evidence like video or something, it is often extremely hard to convict or even charge people of murder.

quote:

---

it has me really questioning our detective work as a society

---

Most smart people don't follow the career path of being a detective.

Joe Kenda

quote:

---

It's not easy to convict someone.

---

It's not all about convicting someone. In the podcast there was a missing college student in 2002. His car was still there, nothing was disturbed, no signs of him, just vanished. The county detectives told his parents that he fell into the lake and drowned. So his parents had the lake searched; nothing. The county detectives told his parents he was probably absorbed by quciksand around the lake. Parents reached out to professionals, no quicksand in Minnesota at all, basically. The county detectives told his parents he fell in the lake and was eaten by snapping turtles. Professionals came in and said theres no way snapping turtles could eat a human.

It's not just about murders, but missing people, unsolved cases and detectives throwing out wild possibilities that have nearly zero chance of being true.

One is not exclusive of the other, it is the effect of the other.

quote:

---

's not all about convicting someone. In the podcast there was a missing college student in 2002. His car was still there, nothing was disturbed, no signs of him, just vanished. The county detectives told his parents that he fell into the lake and drowned. So his parents had the lake searched; nothing. The county detectives told his parents he was probably absorbed by quciksand around the lake. Parents reached out to professionals, no quicksand in Minnesota at all, basically. The county detectives told his parents he fell in the lake and was eaten by snapping turtles. Professionals came in and said theres no way snapping turtles could eat a human.

---

Sounds to me like those detectives found the kid and he ran away to chase his dreams in some gay circus, like a cirque de soleil knock off or something. They were doing the parents a favor.

Is it possible that as scientific techniques got better and the availability of indisputable evidence of guilt or innocence (i.e. video) became the norm rather than the exception, juries were much less willing to convict and grand juries/DAs less willing to prosecute?

The idea is that if people are used to having evidence available that isn't reliant on human perception or proper handling (i.e. recordings and other electronic evidence), then even if they have evidence (forensics, witness testimony, etc.) in front of them that in the past would've been enough for reasonable people to convict or charge, people now may be less likely to act on that evidence because it lacks the indisputable smoking gun.