For example, when she asked, “how fast was the car going when the two cars smashed?” the participants gave a much higher speed than when the question was phrased, “how fast was the car going when the two cars collided?” This research created a lot of skepticism over the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and since then DNA testing has found a lot of convicted felons to be innocent. A remarkable 75% of these were due to false eyewitness testimonies. This means we are constantly, unconsciously reshaping our memories with experiences and knowledge we find after the
While it can be hard to understand why someone would falsely confess to a crime, psychological research has provided some answers and DNA exonerations have proven that the problem is more widespread than many people think. In approximately 25% of the wrongful convictions overturned with DNA evidence, defendants made false confessions, admissions or statements to law enforcement officials. In some false confession cases, details of the crime are inadvertently communicated to a suspect by police during questioning. Later, when a suspect knows these details, the police take the knowledge as evidence of guilt. Often, threats or promises are made to the suspect off camera and then the camera is turned on for a false confession.
Another main reason is that even if a person was to be texting while driving most of the time he or she will not admit to it. This would cause for less evidence in a case where someone was injured in an accident. This source would be important to me in most of my essay in most of it. It has some good facts stated by a lawyer who is involved in lawsuits relating to car wrecks while texting and driving. The source states that a person texting while driving can be following the laws while texting and driving, and another person might be the cause of the wreck.
What happens during the reconstruction of the memory may significantly affect its accuracy. False eyewitness memory is the main factor leading to false convictions. The Innocence Project claims that eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful conviction in the USA, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions that were subsequently overturned through DNA testing. One explanation for the inaccuracy of EWT is that questioning by the police or other officials after a crime may alter witnesses’ perception of the events and thus affect what they subsequently recall. For example some questions may be more ‘suggestive’ than others.
has overreacted to terrorists attacks. The first premise is that the U.S. has more people who die from murder, and the second is that the U.S. has more people who die from automobile accidents. The inducted conclusion is that the U.S. does not care about deaths in the U.S. “It seems clear, at least, that sheer numbers cannot explain response to 9/11” (Moore and Parker, 2007, p. 457) is the statement that leads to this particular conclusion. However, this particular use of premises is weak, with the author assuming a stronger relationship to the conclusion than actually exists. It should also be noted that the author has created a substantial false dilemma around this situation, noting that if money is not spent on something, than it must be perceived as unimportant.
This type of legal system exercises the ideal that the supposed offender is considered innocent until proven guilty. This systems premise exercises the idea that both the defense and prosecuting attorneys will work at extreme lengths to make sure that guilty are convicted, and the innocent are set free. Both the prosecutor and the defense have rules of procedure, statute, and case laws that they must fallow. The Constitution also has certain powers and rights that both sides must implement and promote for fair administration of justice. In the adversarial system the defense attorney has the duty to act faithfully and enthusiastically on behalf of the defendant.
Ethical Dilemma Everyday more people will operate a motor vehicle and drive senseless by being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated is operating a motor vehicle with blood levels of alcohol or drugs that excess of the state legal limit. When a person is under the influence he or she can put other drivers and oneself in danger that can lead to death or injuries. Usually, the offender is too impaired to think about the consequence on what can happen for any unforeseen incident. In some countries it is a criminal offense.
What is a jury Trial A jury trial is when someone has been charged with criminal offenses but they also have that constitutional right to a trial by jury as well. The defendant also has the right to elect a bench trial and what this means is that the trial in which the judge decides the verdict so therefore the defendant can elect to have a jury tri.
The second reason being it would stop most kids from at least drinking and driving which is the main concern here. Also that depending on the cops sense of humor it would be hilarious to watch a bunch of people yak it everywhere, but that's just a personal opinion. I think this solution could have a lot of humor behind it and if it does make the officers laugh, relieve them from stress of other problems they might be having on the job. In the real life the situation is being solved by cops getting more ways to get the right to invade your privacy. There's all kinds of ways for them to trick you or get around certain situations so that they can bust you for drinking.
The point of a driverless car is safety, but there are plenty of people who guess that self-driving cars are dangerous. Are they right or wrong? What may cause popularization of driverless cars in the future? What are security problems of driverless cars and how to solve them?