Deception In Supreme Court Cases

457 Words2 Pages
In this scenario, as a homicide detective, you are faced with a dilemma of having very little evidence against the suspect you believe is involved in the murder of the 9-year-old. Even though there is no Supreme Court law against deception, the question of whether it’s ethical to use deception to obtain a confession is in question, especially when speaking about a crime that is one of the most heinous that a homicide detective will have to work.
An ethical person (detective) in this scenario would continue to work the homicide case and continue to collect evidence to use against the suspect. Even though there is not a Supreme Court case yet on deception against a suspect to obtain a confession, the last thing a detective wants is to have
…show more content…
There have even been some states which the lower courts have ruled that using fake evidence to obtain confession is a violation of the suspect’s rights (Florida v. Cayward) (Pollock, 2014, p. 156). The other unethical response to telling the suspect that the death penalty will be taken off the table. This is an area that the homicide detective has no control over. Only the prosecutor can give this type of deal with the suspect and his attorney. The benefits in taking the unethical response is getting the confession, however, is this confession an actual true confession or just a confession from fear. The consequences to this type of deception is the possibility of the confession being thrown out of court and the defendant being set free or even worse, found not guilty.
Most homicide detective should have a good working relationship with the prosecutors that prosecute homicide cases. The homicide detective should tell the prosecutor as soon as possible about the investigation, interrogation, and the outcome of the interrogation. This will allow the prosecutor to be able to defend your actions and find case law if
Open Document