Ethical Issues In Interrogation

There exists a generally accepted presumption that humans lie. Yet, in the context of criminal interrogations practices have demonstrated humans can lie when they deny culpability; however, when they admit guilt it is inherently truthful. Because of this: (1) Trial judges tend to presume that defendants who have confessed, are guilty and rarely suppress confessions; (2) Jurors are also unduly prejudiced against defendants by confessions; and (3) there is a presumption of truthfulness unless they were elicited through physical coercion or given by a defendant who is mentally ill. This does not present an issue unless certain miscarriages of justice arise, one being false confessions. The problems that arise out of false confessions usually do not become an issue until the confession is entered into evidence at trial, with the exception of plea bargains.

So they have someone else with them when they are being catechised by enforcement . So that the lawyer can talk for the people being query by enforcement . So the lawyer can help them talk to the police. So they can tell their lawyer if what the police is saying is the truth or if it is not the truth .So if it is not the truth they can try to get them out of trouble,but if it is the truth they will still try to get them out of trouble even if the lawyer will have to lie to the police because they pay the lawyer to try to get them out of trouble. Miranda Rights is more than just words on

The sheer ruthlessness of the punishments discourage any sort of crime as they will scare the citizens into never breaking the law in fear of the consequences. The document “Crime and Punishment in the Elizabethan Era” also points out that the law was flexible and could be applied differently based on the situation. When a person was convicted of treason, they were not always executed immediately. Some were inhumanely tortured for more information to see if they were working with others, despite the obvious lack of morality in doing this, it worked. However, on the other hand, the Elizabethan Law did have at least some moral sense to it as people some were spared from torture, and even execution in certain circumstances.

S could be a possible suspect in the murder of Hae, Adnan loved Hae and he wouldn’t that upset to just go kill her, and Jay kept changing his alibi about what happened. Even Jay is saying that he found Hae’s body in the back of Adnan’s car, Adnan is ultimately innocent because Jay could have took part in the crime somehow and he could be possibly covering something up. What I learned most from this project is that people can’t trust everyone. They can stab them in the back or make up lies but all the lying and false accusations can make people be involved in crimes or tough situations. From what had happened to Adnan, readers can tell that Adnan couldn’t trust Jay because he was telling wrong information the

Prisons are full of people who have done unethical things learning how to become ethical. It is absolutely crucial that correctional officers make the right ethical decisions when working with criminals. Correctional officers are in charge of prisoners and could often abuse their power of authority. Within women’s correctional facilities many officers could have sexual relationships with the inmates. This conflicts with the actual relationship between the officer and the inmate.

People are wired to protect themselves and improve themselves, with lying being the easiest solution. Whether we want to protect our reputation or a loved one’s, escape repercussions, or gain superiority, getting there truthfully and easily is almost impossible. Wouldn 't you take the easy way out if it was as simple as ABC? So can you blame the people of Salem for lying? That is up to the reader, but in the end did any of the characters really benefit?

When you put your life in the hands of 12 people then you have to convince them your innocents where as you have a judge trail you have to convince him with the evidence and he’s the only one that will make the decision, however sometimes a jury trial works better for whoever being accused depending on the case. Eye witness testimony is sworn to tell the truth otherwise they commit perjury and can be fine or possible go to jail so when your using there information they’re obligated to tell what they saw to help dictate the bigger picture eye witnesses help solve the mysteries and help answer question regarding the case and event. However you get someone that’s dirty nothing says they won’t try to bribe to testify on their behalf. It’s hard to find 12 honest people that will listen and convict somebody,

If someone say something that may help the authorities find the crook who actually committed the crime. Then they won't use it against that person in court. They will use the evidence the person gave them to help them solve the crime that was committed. If the person “helping” the police actually committed the crime and lied about not doing it that person would get worse charges. That is why I think the Miranda Rights are more than just words.

The examples Bradbury gives in the book teaches those who read it to communicate with others rather than not discussing problems, to speak out rather than be muted by censorship, and to give law enforcers background checks and psychological testing, for those enforcers that are not right for the job can lead to corruption. Although there is a lot more to learn from the satirical novel, these three chosen problems are some of the most important to reflect on after

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.

The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining Disclaimer By: LawInfo When faced with criminal charges, a defendant often has one simple goal. That is, to minimize the potential penalty. Of course, being found innocent at trial, and being aquitted, is the best way to avoid jail time and other penalties. However, going to trial can be risky because it is impossible to predict what a jury will decide. Therefore, many defendants choose to enter a plea bargain agreement with the prosecution.

Even though a misdemeanor is defined as a lesser criminal act and comes with less severe punishments, criminal defense lawyers urge clients not to take misdemeanor charges lightly. The criminal justice system is often unpredictable, but Buntin, Etheredge, & Fowler, LLC in Dothan, AL, wants to help. Here are three reasons to hire a criminal defense attorney if you are facing misdemeanor charges: If You Don’t Have A Record: There are programs in place that may help with a dismissal of charges for those who do not have a criminal record. An experienced criminal defense attorney will help determine if you are eligible for such a program. If You Do Have A Record: If you already have a criminal record and are facing a misdemeanor, you could be