This paper will discuss that topic along with if it is a conflict between the code of ethics and how law enforcement is conducted. This paper will also discuss the role physical behavior and nonverbal communication play in detecting deception. According to Skolnick and Leo (1993) the typology of interrogatory deception discusses interview versus interrogation, Miranda warning, misrepresentation of the nature or seriousness of the offense, role playing, misrepresentation of the moral seriousness of the offense, the use of promises, the misrepresentation of identity, and fabricated evidence. Police rely on deception when it comes to interrogation and at times it is the only way to find the truth. The police used severe beating and torture for years to obtain a confession out of a suspect and this type of activity was known as the “third degree” but now that times have changed mainly because of the Miranda warning, what is used most is deception.
When misconduct or mistakes are made it can have very damaging effects on individuals and their lives, but also to the credibility of the criminal justice system. This can happen and does on occasion (Meyer & Grant, 2003). How can we improve consistency in how prosecutors accept case work? When assessing possible improvements to the consistency of how prosecutors accept case work, there are no simple answers. Putting strict demands on what a prosecutor
Handling evidence properly is one of the most crucial points of any investigation. Without even intentionally doing so, mishandling of evidence could mean a case thrown out of court. Some types of mishandling of evidence would be planting of evidence, removing evidence, not following the chain of custody and unlawfully obtaining evidence. Rape cases should involve specially trained individuals, if an untrained investigator was to handle a rape case the way a homicide case was handled even more issues can arise. Reducing Ethical Considerations From arrival at a crime scene the investigator must follow only the facts and remove any emotion from considerations.
‘Outline and evaluate research into eyewitness testimony.’ Eyewitness testimonies are often used as evidence and are an important part of the criminal process. Witnesses to crimes may be perceived to be honest and well intention-ed when giving evidence, however psychological research has shown that eyewitness testimonies may not be as truthful and helpful as it is widely perceived thus debating how valid eyewitness testimonies are. There are many factors that affect eyewitness testimonies, one of the main factors is the role of anxiety. One of the most widely known studies into anxiety affecting eyewitness testimony is Loftus’ study to find out if anxiety during a witnessed incident affects the accuracy of later identification. Within this study participants were exposed to two situations, one a low-key discussion in a laboratory about an equipment failure with a person then emerging from the laboratory holding a pen with grease on their hands.
Both prosecutors and law enforcement, sometimes knowingly ignore this behavior, in hopes that their testimony will secure a conviction in their favor. Law enforcement who work closely with the crime lab in their department will often try to influence Pathologists to tailor their analysis and testing of evidence to suit their needs in assurance of a solid conviction. Consequently, Pathologists are criminally mishandling and presenting false testimony of the evidence and tests. Regardless of their underpinning of excuses, we must find some means of addressing these issues on a broader scope within the criminal justice system. Dr. Ralph Erdmann is a prime example of one who would
Looking at the case there would have been a high level of anxiety amongst the witnesses when they were interviewed on site as they would have been in shock at what had happened, thus the inconsistencies with their statements.The Yerkes-Dodson law provides evidence to support my statement. It showed, that when there were low or very high levels of anxiety memory recall was low, and when a moderate amount of anxiety was evident the memory recall was the best. This proves that the high level of anxiety in the witnesses in their first statement may have corrupted the overall result of the case. Further studies by Elizabeth Loftus also support the fact that anxiety plays a major role in a EWT. She staged an experiment in which participants (Ps) were put in two different situations.
From this type of profiling an offender can be categorized as organized nonsocial offenders and disorganized asocial offenders. The killing from theses two types of offenders would produce two different crime scenes, one of complete chaos and plenty of evidence all over and another with little evidence and more controlled. A major benefit from using this type of profiling is that it let investigators know what kind of offender they will be dealing with so they know how to proceed with the case and interrogate them. A limitation from this type of profiling can be that too much attention is paid to the physical evidence and not on the nonphysical (Holmes & Holmes,
This is the definition of repressed memories used by most researchers. It is also important to note that some researchers refer to repressed memories as “Dissociative Amnesia,” and others as “false memories” due to the fact that they don’t believe the memories are real. This doesn’t mean that these researchers think that people claiming to have repressed memories are liars, only that these people have been implanted with false memories in ways that will be discussed later. Now that repressed memory has been defined and explained it is time to explore its current place in the legal system. Repressed memories are most often used in
A "profile" is a coherent set of facts - known conditions and observable behavior that indicate a particular individual may be engaged in criminal activity. The technique of "profiling" is a well-known and long-standing law enforcement tactic. In fact racial profiling can make us less safe. Multiple studies have shown that when police focus on factors such as race, they tend to pay less attention to actual criminal behavior. This is a dangerous trend that can inhibit effective law enforcement and ultimately endanger the lives of all persons who depend on law enforcement for protection.
If such identifications are excluded, police will begin to use only reliable identification procedures. A wealth of research has been done on why mis-identifications occur and what the best practices are to minimize the possibility of mis-identifications – why shouldn’t we insist that police use these best practices and insist that only reliable testimony be admitted at trial? "An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." In considering whether error is harmless, a case's particular facts must be considered along with various factors including: "the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's