Question 1
Computer forensics experts have had their roles in crime evolve over time to become critical players in law enforcement. Particularly, law enforcers incorporate computer forensics experts in obtaining a variety of evidentiary information for their investigations. In the courtrooms, the experts are usually subpoenaed by the courts to help the jury or judge in a case, assist an indigent defendant, or even proffer the much needed expert standpoint on the evidence. It is noteworthy that it is not always a guarantee that computer forensics experts will be called to testify in a courtroom. Even so, they have to prepare. In investigations, my understanding is that computer forensic experts help investigators, for instance, in hacking into the computer systems of the suspected criminals to obtain evidence. While that is completely necessary, it is unlawful and unethical. Intruding the privacy of the criminals without their consent is a crime in itself; therefore, a computer forensics expert, in this case, would be committing a crime to solve a criminal case. To this end, since they have limited choices, I find the role of computer forensics experts in investigations somewhat challenging and risky. Essentially, they are of great help, but use means that can have them indicted if the suspect complains of privacy intrusion and unlawful obtaining of evidence on the grounds of inadmissibility. Unlike in investigations, the role of computer forensics experts as witnesses in courtrooms is entirely useful for the cases and the course of justice. Crimes like espionage and bank fraud often require IT expertise besides legal expertise; thus, a judge will need reinforcement to make an informed ruling. It then follows that in such cases, failure to include a computer forensics expert may lead to erroneous and imprecise decisions. I find computer forensics experts an inalienable part of law enforcement.