Without a motive, it would be difficult to prove guilt since the number question needed to be answer for juries are the “whys” in crimes. Therefore, it is extremely important to establish a motive in a case that a jury would believe. In addition, it is also important for criminal investigation personnel to collect and interpret evidence correctly to establish an accurate motive. The Behavioral Evidence Analysis would be the most effective method help with this. Behavioral Evidence Analysis (BEA) is a deductive based strategy that uses evidence from an investigation to determine the offender’s personality and behavioral characteristics.
Justice Clark’s dissent emphasized the importance of confidentiality: “Until today’s majority opinion, both legal and medical authorities have agreed that confidentiality is essential to effectively treat the mentally ill and that imposing a duty on doctors to disclose patient threats to potential victims would greatly impair treatment” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 1976, p. 20). If patients are unable to trust their therapist completely, then it is likely that they will not be as open during their sessions, which will make it difficult for the therapist to accurately diagnose and treat the patients. The decision by the court places the therapist in a difficult position. A therapist could utilize the ethical principle of beneficence, defined as acting in ways that benefit another and prevents harm, in determining the best way to act to benefit both the patient and protect the third party. Per the ruling of the court, “when a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another,” he is required to warn the victim of that “danger” (Felthous, 2006, p. 339).
Miranda Rights are more than just words on paper. Do you think it is important for people who are being interrogated by the authorities to have their Miranda Rights read to them? Some people think that it is important to have their Miranda Rights read to them when being interrogated by the authorities . Some people think that it is not important to have their Miranda Rights read to them when being interviewed by the law enforcement . I think it is important for people to have their Miranda Rights read to them if they are being interviewed by the law enforcement .
How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney? The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.
This has been a direct result of the limitations in methodological training that psychologists receive and a bias against such research in the publication standards of the professional and academic literature. According to Newman, studies that measure achievement rates and program effectiveness in mental health service programs have not been considered commendable of publication.
Cross-examination by the defense asks the jury to question what was done procedurally during the stop and arrest, to challenge the validity of scientific tests or to doubt the law enforcement officer’s competency or even integrity. The prosecutor’s cross-examination can be an effective tool to repair any damage that occurred in defense cross or direct testimony by bolstering the jury’s faith in the fairness of the prosecutor and officer and their search for truth. Many would argue that the practical purpose of cross-examination is simply to undermine or destroy direct testimony. However, the legal purpose of cross-examination is a good faith quest for ascertaining truth and the prosecutor should use it justly and legitimately. Cross examination of fact witnesses will differ from that of expert witnesses but a prosecutor’s goals remain the same.
This subsequent approach ruled in the minds of following judges. Lord Woolf MR in Pearce , who viewed that “if there is a significant risk which would affect the judgment of a reasonable patient, then in the normal course it is the responsibility of a doctor to inform the patient of that significant risk.” As well as Lord Steyn in Chester , who stated that “in modern law medical paternalism no longer rules and a patient has a prima facie right to be informed by a surgeon of a small, but well-establish, the risk of serious
Thus, legal practitioners often argue that this approach is not fit enough for the criminal justice system. Hence, their perception that restorative justice as not taking seriously the fundamental concerns of a criminal justice system. Firstly, we need to understand the idea of serving justice according to the legal practitioners. Most legal practitioners employ the retributive approach to address crime. This approach posits that punishment is to right the wrong done in the criminal offence.
As time progresses, it is assumed the witness’s memory would become more clouded. If a witness becomes more confident in their recollection of the perpetrators features after a length of time, this could be a form of confirmation bias: a way to put the traumatic case behind them. It is easier psychologically to identify a suspect and obtain closure than it is to live knowing that your attacker could still be out there. To combat this, it is suggested that the victim be questioned immediately after the incident to prevent memory deterioration, and with open ended questions to allow for free recall so as to obtain as much information as possible; even a cognitive interview would be
Incoherent convictions are necessary for moral development and in specific for evolving the type of rational and communicative moral convictions Brownlee favours. Public conscientious convictions require deep internal thought and deliberation in order for them to mature. Brownlee, in her dialogue fails to give way to the agent who is still weighing and deliberating to form moral convictions which is not known to others yet. Thus, these insightful discussions help us explore the nature of conscience and conscientious convictions and draw important conclusions concerning the justifiable protection of acts of civil disobedience. The discussions in this book give rise to new questions and challenges in the
Men who had autographs, pictures with and merchandise of O.J. Simpson were also asked to be excused. This was due to the fact that they could alter the case findings by being bias. Determining not only eyewitnesses can change the outcome of this case when being discredited but the jurors as well. Valentine and Maras (2011) performed a study in which they found that there was very little research on the influence of leading questions
In each incident, some characteristics can be more obvious than others, the distance from the incident matters, and what our brain chooses to do with the information we process are all big factors that come into play when trying to answer this question. For some people, their accounts of what occurs in front of their eyes is extremely accurate, while for other people - it is not. What I do know is, eyewitness testimony is to be used as a guideline in courtrooms, and not as any kind of evidence/proof. Too many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted due to false identifications and too many studies have proven that it is not as reliable as we all
The adversarial nature of the legal system can make people afraid of testifying. The dysfunctional attitudes about sex generally coupled with individualized rather than systematic response of the criminal justice system show us that the system is an inept tool to respond to a social
Finally, to significantly reduce eyewitness error, the criminal justice system must view eyewitness evidence as a type of trace evidence.45 Like other types of trace evidence, such as fingerprints, DNA, and firearm patterns, eyewitness evidence has a physiological basis (i.e., biochemical changes in the eyewitness’s brain).46 Consequently, the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, like other types of trace evidence, depends in large part on the use of proper scientific procedures in collecting and preserving it. In short, before admitting eyewitness evidence, a judge should always first determine if valid scientific procedures were followed in producing it. If they were not followed, this failure should generally weigh heavily against admitting