What does it take to close a case? Investigators -- engulfed in a slew of incriminating evidence and having secured some extremely reliable witnesses is a substantial amount to put away a prime suspect. What can insure that a case is closed even more quickly is a confession from the suspect. This confession usually takes a certain amount of coercion, on the part of the interrogators, to achieve. Coercion is an interrogation technique that uses intimidation to get suspects to confess to crimes whether or not they are truly guilty of any crime. Some will argue that coercion is a brilliant method with which to incarcerate criminals with. Others will say that it is much more beneficial to conduct a full investigation instead of relying on a …show more content…
Perhaps the most advantageous aspect of a confession is the closure it gives to everyone involved in the case, especially the victims and their families. Having said that, I still believe that conducting a thorough investigation is the best way to ensure that the right person was held accountable for the crime committed. Investigators should not be dependent on confessions. It would be unjust if an innocent man were incarcerated for a crime he did not commit and the real culprit was able to walk free.
The repercussions of subjecting a person, especially an innocent one, to certain harmful coercion techniques are serious. Individuals that have been put through torture techniques are often faced with deep psychological and, not to mention, physical health issues as a result of their experiences. One notable case that demonstrates the effects of torture on the mind is the case of Omar Khadr. Khadr, who is now 23, was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay at the age of fifteen. Khadr is a Canadian citizen who was born in Toronto. Ethnically, he is Egyptian and Palestinian. Born into a family that was heavily involved in terrorism and fundamentalism, he had seen and taken part in some questionable activities, albeit, oblivious as he lacked a good moral compass due to his young age and his upbringing. During a four-hour firefight with militants in Afghanistan, American soldiers
Confessions, in the eyes of most people, have always been a good thing. As a child your parents told you to confess your wrongdoing to them, to not get in trouble. Confession plays a massive role in the religion; believers in God are taught that one must confess their sins to their savior in order to be forgiven. In the criminal court, confessions are used to convict both the innocent and the guilty. The confession which was once pure has now been twisted, to take away loved ones from one another, turn the innocent into the guilty, and rob the lives of the convicted. A confession is a statement by which the person admits his or her guilt. However, does admitting guilt brand you guilty?
Wrongful convictions are common in the court-system. In fact, wrongful convictions are not the rare events that you see or hear on televisions shows, but are very common. They stem from some sort of systematic defect that lead to wrongful convictions such as, eyewitness misidentification testimony, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions and incriminating statements, DNA lab errors, false confessions, and informants (2014). Bringing awareness to all these systematic defects, which result in wrongful, is important because it will better adjust the system to avoid making the same mistakes with future cases. However, false confession is not a systematic defect. It does not occur because files were misplaced or a lab technician put one too many drops. False confessions occur because of some of psychological attempt to protect oneself and their family. Thus, the courts responsibility should be to reduce these false confessions.
Confessions have become one of the most valued pieces of evidence in the criminal justice system. What many people, including jurors, may not know is that the process to obtain a confession can vary greatly. Many confessions can be coerced by very abnormal and dangerous situations. A prime example of a suggestive interrogation with a false confession comes from the documentary titled Murder on a Sunday Morning. Alongside, the analysis of the confession given in this documentary will be the critical analysis of three separate academic articles with findings that could have better served the defendant of this case.
The Abu Ghraib torture scandal left a large blemish on the occupation of Iraq and George Bush’s War on terror. As stories of the torture happening in the Abu Ghraib prison began circulating, American citizens had trouble comprehending the acts of evil their soldiers had committed on Iraqis. Some began to see a correlation between Abu Ghraib and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the guards in both situations were brutal to their captives, distinct differences lay in the severity of their actions. Abu Ghraib’s guards were much more vicious to their captives, and this can be attributed to the prejudices the guards felt against their captors, the environment, and the lack of training, compounded with a lack of accountability in the leadership.
Renegotiation of reality occurs when, by virtue of the institutionalized process of police interrogations, the suspect perceives that his initial reality holds no value to the interrogator or to the outcome of the interrogation, when he lacks agency to defend his reality, and when there is no other option. In this paper, I will illustrate how each of these factors facilitates false confessions and will use the Norfolk Four case as my vehicle for exploration and analysis.
Our criminal justice system has over time implemented and changed the means of sentencing and punishment for crimes. In the United States plea deals are accountable for 90% of criminal cases. A plea deal is an agreement between prosecutor and defendant in whom the defendant accepts a guilty plea to a charge and in return receives some type of concession from the prosecution. As we have moved forward in the judicial system and now have the ability to look back on previous cases, plea deals have become more controversial. The majority of awareness in this area has been used to look deeper into false confessions, grazing right over the fact that false confessions are a large part plea deals. A controversy arose when many refused to believe that situational factors during interrogations and dispositional factors inherent to the suspects could result in false confessions. (Redlich, 2010)
When questioning witnesses of a crime, detectives may choose a specific technique; one technique is the Reid Technique. The Reid Technique is a multi-step questioning method that pressures the witnesses or the accused to admit to the crime. It is used in North America. According to Professor Brent Snook, a psychologist at the Memorial University in Newfoundland, the Reid Technique is “Starsky and Hutch”, where two hot head detectives “beat up” their suspects to encourage them confess (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/25/youre-guilty-now-confess-false-admissions-put-polices-favourite-interrogation-tactic-under-scrutiny/). This paper will examine the steps of the Reid Technique, as well as reveal substantial evidence that this technique should be banned. This technique has led to false confessions. Not only does this mean that someone has been punished that isn’t guilty, but it also means the real criminal has not been found and punished. The arguments against the use of this technique are the following:
Police interrogate suspects on a daily basis, but how can they tell if the confession is real? We have all heard, at one time or another of someone confessing to a crime they didn’t commit. Then your next thought is “I would never confess to something I didn’t do”. The only way you can be a 100% sure of that is if you have been through an interrogation before. This paper is going to define “confession” and tell how an innocent person will confesses to a crime they didn’t commit. This paper will also show the history of interrogations.
In recent years, there have been multiple high-profile cases of people being exonerated, often by DNA testing, after giving a false confession to a crime they did not commit. People who often fall into this trap are juveniles or those with a diminished mental capacity (Redlich, 2009). DNA testing has helped many innocent people that gave false confessions be free again. This trend brings up the question of how were they able to give a false confession.
This paper contains expert information snitching, evidence on eye witness testimony, and proven study on false confessions. Appendix 1 shows the leading causes of wrongful convictions in United States. The first credited study and research analysis on wrongful convictions will demonstrate the seriousness of this problem and the need for a resolution. Various other authors and reports have been reviewed for the purpose of this research paper.
The Antic Egyptian civilization believed in the afterlife and they needed to prove innocence to the Gods. The ‘’The Negative Confessions’’ were created in order to gain a position in the afterlife. Consequently, the common theme of the confessions in the Book of Dead is that all confessions are a representation of the everyday morality.
Guantanamo Bay, though started with good intentions, only highlights America’s negative side. Marine Major General Michael Lehnert, who played a significant role in the opening of Guantanamo, has drastically changed his opinion and said that it, “Validates every negative perception of the U.S.” (Sutton 1). One example of this occurred in 2006, when President Bush justified the use of “physical coercion” (torture) during interrogations (Fetini 1). Some of these torture methods include isolation, beatings, sleep deprivation, and general abuse. Other tactics such as disrespect for Islamic symbols or sexual provocation are used to encourage stress in detainees (Bloche 1). These immoral methods led to an international outcry. It was later remarked that the Cuban territory upon which Guantanamo is located is being used as a “concentration camp” of sorts (Fetini 1). Guantanamo and its unethical values are being recognized by nations around the world, displaying America in a bad light.
Almost everyone who has seen a cop television show or movie has heard the saying “You have the right to remain silent”. In America, people are raised to believe that the justice system never fails, and that no matter what happens justice will always prevail, though for some people this safety net has failed them. Since the late 1980s six studies have documented 250 interrogation-induced false confessions. Police-induced false confessions are the result of multistep process and sequence of influence, persuasion, and compliance. Imagine that a solider of the U.S. military is brought in for questioning, kept locked up for sixteen hours in an interrogation room, constantly threatened with the death penalty if they did not confess to the crime, and the whole time left without representation. In 1997 this was the case for four individuals from Norfolk, Virginia held without representation and forced to give false confessions.
Ronald D. Cretlinsten contends that torturers acquire the ability to cope with the moral dilemmas of inflicting pain upon and murdering their fellow humans primarily through the processes of “routinization” and “dehumanization”, and also through the notion of “authorization” (191). With such as the case, an individual adept in the art of torture would necessarily have learned to be cruel, however, that argument neglects the very reality that many engaged in such activities are intrinsically perverse, and in fact willingly and happily do harm to others.
Imagine this: You are at a McDonald’s drive through. You have ordered only one cheese burger, but when you drive up to the collection window, the young trainee hands you a big bag filled with food and a handful of change. There are two options, do you, A; tell the young trainee that you only ordered a cheese burger, (which cost you only $1.90) and give back to him the big bag of food and handful of change? Or do you, B; say thank you to the young trainee and drive off happily with the huge bag of food and all the change, feeling lucky that the trainee made a mistake with your order.