“Courts have permitted the interrogators to tell the suspect that if he confesses his conscience will be comforted or they will inform the suspect’s cooperation to the court” (Richard 2008). It is unethical to promise and give hope to the suspect that will not be met in order to obtain a voluntary confession which are induced. During interrogation someone may walk in and hide his identity like being a police officer, while acting like someone else and promise the suspect that he or she is here to help and they are in good hands. Doing this is violating the rights of the suspect and should be taken into consideration, because it inflicts the mind of a suspect. If the suspect is going to confess it should be voluntary not being forced to “voluntary
Evidence based on scientific explanations is a good evidence that can be used in the criminal justice system. In addition, these evidences based on forensic science can be very useful and critical where these evidences can free innocently convicted accused. Criminal cases such as Duke lacrosse, David Millggard, Clayton Johnson, and Talao are examples of case that forensic science helped to prove their innocence. However, there is potential possibility that these evidences of forensic science can lead to wrongful convictions when the criminal justice system subjectively look into the scientific evidences. Michel Shirley in 1987 was arrested in 1987 for the murder and rape of Linda Cooke.
This is very uncommon but is most common with people who are either very confident or have experience with law. Although this is very uncommon, one thing that they can do as their own lawyer is to plead the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, saying something that could get them arrested. They can be silent during their trial and force the prosecutor to prove the person is guilty. When you hear the words, "You are innocent until proven guilty." They mean it, and if the person being prosecuted doesn 't think they have enough evidence or that they are truly innocent, then that 's what could happen.
However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities. The differences The due process model is pegged on the belief that it would be better if a criminal found innocent goes free rather than have one innocent person in jail. On the other hand, the crime control model argues that it is better to have a innocent person detained, questioned, tried and found innocent then let free than have a society full of criminals roaming
There are a number of practical arguments made for the death penalty. Because the death penalty is such a powerful construct, many argue that it decreases crime rates through deterrence. While many believe that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than a lengthy prison sentence, the very concept of ‘deterrence’ is argued by many as inapplicable to criminal psychology, especially if mental illness is involved. Criminals rarely think about the consequences of their actions and this is especially true with crimes of passion. By killing felons, the death penalty removes the burden of housing them within the penitentiary system.
For example, a people Q, have been murdered, the prosecutor presented a voice record about the defendant threaten to murder Q if Q does not want to accept his contract, such evidence may be Prima Facie evidence of intend to kill. Prima Facie evidence does not mean that it cannot be deny, it is use to prevent charges being made have no evidence to back it up and waste the time for court and other parties. According Section 173(f), if the judge decide no prima facie case then the defendant will be acquitted because the evidence is not sufficient. Presumption that the defendant are innocent until proven to the
Falsely confessing to a crime puts consequences on the wrong individual and creates issues within police agencies. There are estimates that false confessions include 5-12% of all confessions. A false confession is when someone admits guilt to a crime that they did not commit. Although confessions are considered valuable as evidence in court, there are factors that can impact the accuracy of confessions, such as one 's mental, physical, and emotional state. There are multiple reasons one may falsely confess; Three of these reasons are: a promise of a lighter sentence, feeling one is protecting others by confessing, and admitting to a crime due to exhaustion.
In this case, in justice of the victims (two deceased persons) who were murdered, the eye-witness and the knife with blood matches found in Mr. James Lane’s residence are biggest evidence which make the accused to be found guilty. However, the weakness in the criminal justice process is that, the stage of bail hearing might be misused and a person who found guilty would find way to get away from the punishment. Hardest part to bear is, if there is no evidence appropriate to justify the crime committed by the accused, then there are chances for the case filed to be discharged. The accused who had really committed murder might not get sentenced. This could be said to be the weakest link in the criminal justice
Inadmissible Evidence When discussing the outcome of criminal cases, evidence is a make or break factor. During trials, jury members rely heavily on the evidence presented to them over the arguments being made by prosecution and defense lawyers. Depending on the evidence admitted into court, it can be the nail on the coffin for some defendants to secure a conviction. Other defendants may walk free, despite the evidence against them, because the evidence may be deemed inadmissible in court; therefore, never presented to the jurors. There are a few factors to consider with evidence admissibility, and these include the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the exceptions to these rules, and the applicability during an actual
Thinking about how disordered this world is, death penalty is a good solution to solve crimes related to murder and sexual offence, which are soiling this world. If it is such a good solution, why not used it earlier? Death penalty has been a controversy, because of the fact that it violates criminals’ rights. However, if we think about it backwards, they cannot judge that it violates human rights; it is them who first violated innocent people’s rights. Besides, there are other reasons to support my idea, and furthermore persuade you.
Do you yearn to get into the deranged minds of criminals like the infamous Jeffrey Dahmer? When you become a highly trained doctor of forensic psychology, you get to do the job of the hit T.V show characters Dr. Huang from Law & Order: SVU and Dr. Reid from Criminal Minds. Police, judges, juries, and lawyers are all unable to determine if felons are mentally insane or fit for trial, nor are they able to counsel victims. However, the recently sought-after study of forensic psychology is able to consolidate the divide between legal matters and the mental processes of these criminals. Become part of a field that is recognized as one of the most undeniably important parts of today 's legal system by becoming a forensic psychologist (Watchel).
One of these is the ideal of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Hammurabi outlines the importance of this with law three: “3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.” This law places incredible pressure on the accuser forcing them to have evidence to back up their claim. The elders are also protected by the concept of innocent until proven guilty, they are not punished as soon as someone accuses them of a crime but are rather innocent until there is provided evidence that proves them to be guilty. This principal is present today in some form in almost all legal systems and cultures around the world.