Oral Acception

“It is difficult to prove a causal relationship between permissible investigative and interrogatory deception and testimonial deception.  Police freely admit to deceiving suspects and defendants.  They do not admit to perjury, much less to the rationalization of perjury.  There is evidence, however of the acceptability of perjury as a means to the end of conviction.  The evidence is limited and fragmentary and is certainly not dispositive” (Skolnick, 1982).

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

During interrogation, police are allowed to make accusations, lie about or make up evidence, yell at the suspects or get in their faces. According to the law, police are allowed to use the tactic trickery or lying to receive a confession from the suspect. The assumption the police officers make is that no matter how many lies told, a person will not state they are guilty if they truly did not commit the crime. In the case shown in the video, Confession, the police told one of the men that he had failed a polygraph (lie detector) test, even though he had passed it. I believe this tactic is unjust. I admit, I tend to do this to people because I want to know if they are telling me the truth. However, when it comes to a person potentially being convicted and receiving the death penalty or time in jail, I believe the tactic that was used was not right. Joe Dick was interrogated for eight hours. He claimed that he was told every thirty seconds that he was lying and he was going to be sentenced to the death penalty. In Confession, Richard Leo made a valid point stating that people who are tortured will say anything to make the pain stop. Also, people who have the torture mechanism waved in their face will state that they are guilty to avoid being tortured. Joe had the death penalty waved in his face. He was given an ultimatum of the death penalty or tell the truth? In addition, the police officers repeated told Joe that he was lying and the lie detector proved this. What other

Determining a false confession proves difficult due to the multitude of dimensions involved. According to Kassin and Wrightsman’s (1985) survey of the literature, there are three main types of false confessions—voluntary, coerced-compliant, and coerced-internalized. Unlike coerced false confessions, voluntary false confessions arise as a result of someone willingly turning themselves into the police with an account of their crime (McCann, 1998). Voluntary false confessions can result from multiple motives, including an internalized need for punishment or to save someone else’s face. In contrast, coerced false confessions directly result from police interrogations. While coerced-compliant confessions are made to avoid interrogation, escape the stressful situation, or achieve some other reward, coerced-internalized confessions emerge when a suspects begins to

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.

(Hall, 2014) Although, Tom was not Mirandized his motive statement was obtained illegally may not be admitted to prove his guilt; however, the Supreme Court stated that statements that violate Miranda may be admitted, under certain circumstances, to impeach the defendant. (Hall, 2014) The Supreme Court also held that any physical fruits of non-Mirandized confession are not to be suppressed at trial. (Hall, 2014) Tom was not coerced by Officer Norman in the scenario. Therefore, if Tom’s confession is different at trial, the prosecutor can use Tom’s admission statement from his first encounters with Officer Norman can be used as a rebuttal at the

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.

Many of today’s interrogation models being utilized in police investigations have an impact on false confessions. The model that has been in the public eye recently is the social psychological process model of interrogation known as the “The Reid Technique.” There are two alternatives used by the police today to replace the Reid Technique, one is the PEACE Model and the other is Cognitive Interviewing. These methods are not interrogation techniques like Reid but interview processes.

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.

“It was me. I did it. I’m guilty.” It’s what every interrogator is waiting for and hoping to hear. Any variation will do the job, as either is the heart of each and every confession. The main purpose of an interrogation is to elicit the truth from a suspect that they believe has lied or is guilty of the crime they’re investigating. They are looking for a confession. Confessions are the most damaging and influential piece of evidence of the suspect’s guilt that the state can use against a defendant (Leo, 2009). It makes sense. People instinctively trust confessions. After all, why would someone confess to a crime they did not commit? The mere idea that someone would admit to committing a crime they did not do boggles the mind simply because it just does not seem rational. However, the fact remains that false confessions do happen, and for a multitude of different reasons. This paper will begin with an examination of false confessions in general, then focus on the different types of false confessions, including what leads to their occurrence, and will conclude by discussing ways in which false confessions could be avoided.

Hey, Melinda did you know “Deception can occur in any or all three stages of the detecting process during the investigation, interrogation, and court testimony” (Ciske, 2009). Criminals have every reason to expect that law enforcement officers are going to use deception against them, just as well as they lie to escape accusation. The law enforcement officers in this situation must take into account what sorts of methods are permissible and what the costs are. However, law enforcement officers have to take into account a confession is a substantial piece of evidence that can be presented in court. If the police have to lie to get a confession, it’s still up to the judge to determine if the suspect confession seems voluntary. People may disagree with police tactics during interrogation; however, police are not trained psychologist their deception during interrogating of a suspect has solved numerous of crimes. Therefore, law enforcement interrogations are videotaped inside the interrogation room to create an objective record of police questioning to which all interested and potentially interested parties may appeal, suspects, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries. (Wakefield & Underwager, 2014)

If an officer has a previous instance of falsifying testimony, any testimony he gives in the future could be thrown out of court, letting an offender go free.

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.

Confession : A Special Category of Hearsay The main reason for excluding hearsay from evidence is that its veracity cannot be vouched for sense the person who had made the statement would not be available in the court for cross-examination. The rule cannot be strictly invoked in case of confessions because here the maker of the statement is the accused himself who is a party to the proceedings. He obviously cannot cross-examine himself but can certainly, put forth a defence either denying 22 that he made such a statement or explaining away the same as having been made under any pressure of influence. If in a criminal proceeding against C, A deposes in the court that B told him that C committed a crime and if B is

The research study focused on identifying present day scenarios relevant to oral piercings and the health issues that coincide. The findings from this research suggested that oral piercing has become one of the most widely followed trends in recent times, but the complications and consequences are often ignored. The research has considered five quality journals with experimental researched on the oral infections caused by oral piercings. Education, awareness, and prevention must be considered in order to reduce the obstacles with oral piercings.