This essay was published in the book Essays For Living, 2025, found on amazon. It can also be found at: https://sites.google.com/view/investigate-him-her
I Investigated Him/Her! How Did That Turn Out?
In this essay, “investigate” means that someone makes an inquiry about the character, activities, or background of someone.
Suppose you are investigating someone; what are the reasonable guidelines that you need to consider? Is it a case of doing a fair, honest inquiry? Or could it be something else, perhaps even a case of personal aggression. This is important because investigations can have a powerful effect on the person investigated.
First of all, what is the reason for the investigation? Is it a good reason? If no good reason, then stop right there.
The internet is a good source of information on this topic. Search for “investigations guidelines.” Here is a summary of what can be found.
Experience. Do you have the experience for carrying out an investigation? A case of honest inquiry will require some guidelines. Do you understand the legal limits of an investigation? If you don’t have experience and the case can have a major impact, then don’t do it or get an experienced mentor/helper.
A Plan. Do you have a plan for an honest, impartial, and confidential inquiry? What is the topic? How will the information be gathered and protected? What will you avoid? Again, you need some experience to do this properly.
Evidence. How will this be gathered, and what level of evidence is needed? The law should not be broken in doing this. For example, no breaking and entering. Obviously, no planting fake evidence. Also, if you access medical records, do you have permission? You don’t have a right to do so without permission, and the hospital does not have the right to give them to you. Conclusions should be provable if they have an impact on the person investigated.
It is important to require a rigorous, independent confirmation of any significant piece of evidence. Without this, any thoughtless, biased comment can be given too much weight.
Conclusions. Be careful of jumping to conclusions without enough evidence. An example might be calling someone a “sex offender” (legal term reserved for those convicted of sex offenses) simply when there is only a case of possible harassment.
This point, along with the previous one in #3, is especially important because errors here can result in seriously wrong and unfair conclusions from the investigation. These errors can persist in time. You may even believe them.
Confidentiality. Usually, confidentiality is offered to those questioned so that most information can be gathered. But how will it be given and protected?
Reports. To whom will they be given? Is the investigation for you or someone else? How will it be prepared, and how will it be kept confidential if confidentiality was promised?
Conflicts of interest. Are there situations where you should not investigate? Well, the presence of a personal bias is a warning flag. Supposing you feel that you will get a big promotion if you can find enough negative stuff to get the person fired. Suppose that you have a strong negative bias such that you emphasize negative findings and ignore positive ones. Are you aware of this bias? How will it be handled? Are you investigating because you have something at stake and negative findings will help you? If yes, then this is not an honest, unbiased inquiry. Don’t do or allow the investigation.
In summary, is your investigation a straightforward, rigorous, honest, unbiased, worthwhile and confidential inquiry? If yes, then fine.
But, it is not OK if: you have no experience and the impact can be great; you don’t understand the legal limits of an investigation (ignorance of the law is no excuse); you don’t have standards for gathering solid, provable evidence; you have a strong bias such as love or hatred; you jump to conclusions; you violate confidentiality after giving it. In these situations, you are possibly an ethical wrongdoer. Your investigation will be discredited or worse. It should not be called an investigation. It’s more like a witch hunt or even a persecution. If you carry out a bad investigation, you may create an unfair situation that persists. You may even believe some of your errors. Your own reputation will be hurt. Don’t do the investigation!
If someone stands to gain from an investigation, or if someone’s position is highly dependent on an investigation, or if someone is hurt by an investigation, see if the investigation was done by the recommended guidelines.
These issues and guidelines can also apply to simple, everyday inquiries about another person.
Two good movies that relate to this theme are Absence of Malice (1981), with Paul Newman and Sally Field, and Doubt (2008), with Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Another good one is Atonement (2007) with Vanessa Redgrave.