Feldman (2009), eye witness and victims are sometimes better able to recall the details of a crime when hypnotized. Eye witness testimony can make a deep impression on a jurrry, which is often exclusively assigned the role of sorting our credibility issues and making judgments about the truth of witness statements. Fisher(1999), argues that arriving at a just result and a correct determination of truth is difficult enough without added possibility that witness themselves give. Tversky (1999), also pointed out that witnesses are a powerful impact on juries. Basing on the above elucidation, one may deduce that eye witness testimony plays a fundamental role in the legal system.
If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
Aside from the verdict from the Hinckley trial, the public’s view on the insanity defense is not altogether accurate. There’s a misconception that criminals who use this type of reasoning as a plea can evade punishment. When it comes to the use of the insanity defense, only about one percent of criminals use this type of justification. By using the insanity defense, the criminal is admitting they are guilty of the crime however they are requesting a not guilty verdict based on the state of mind they were in at the time of the crime. This can get tricky for a defendant because if not proven mentally ill, they will be found guilty and usually endure a harsher sentencing for the crime.
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. The police used the “third degree” type of coercion to get a suspect to admit to a crime and at times this included innocent suspects. This type of coercion would range from depriving a suspect of food, water, restroom breaks, physical abuse, to violating some of their other civil liberties. Here are some small details about Skolnick and Leo
Then why do jurors believe the testimony of an eyewitness? Research has shown that we should not trust eyewitness reports because the human brain tends to remember things differently than what it actually is. There are specific changes that should be taken in our court system to make jury members aware of the potential inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony. There is sound evidence showing that the testimony provided by eyewitnesses is not accurate. The human brain is not a video recorder, we all see things differently depending on our age, sex, and experiences in life.
In this speech I am going to tell you about the types of insanity defense that are used in court cases, the process that goes into verifying a criminals sanity, and the issues that come about after a plea is entered. Now I’m going to explain what insanity is and the different types associate with it. The insanity defense plea as defined in law journals is a defense that’s asserted by the accused in a criminal prosecution as a way to avoid liability for a commission of a crime because at the time of the crime the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts. Cognitive insanity is the most common variation of an insanity defense that goes through the court system. This is where the defendant during the time of the crime suffered from a mental disease that impaired his/her psychological ability to see the wrongfulness of the act they committed.
According to Terry Lenamon, expert Criminal Trial Attorney, the first, and most popular, is the “M’Naghten test.” Lenamon says, “Under M’Naghten, the determining factor is whether or not the defendant was (1) able to understand what he (or she) was doing at the time of the crime due to some “defect of reason or disease of the mind” or, (2) if he (or she) was aware of what they were doing, that he (or she) nevertheless failed to comprehend or understand that what they were doing was wrong” (Lenamon). With that in mind, think about how many inmates have not taken that test and have been wrongly convicted. The American Civil Liberties Union states, “Mental Health America, estimates that five to ten percent of all death row inmates suffer from a severe mental illness.” Furthermore, if these people could get tested, they would realize how many people are legally insane and do not deserve to be in jail, but rather a hospital. Consequently, some of the individuals sitting on death row may
One innocent person punished in any way for the crime of another is one too many. I feel like the rules of eyewitness identification still need
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
Jury Nullification Paper John Doe CJA 344 August 2012 Instructor Name Jury Nullification Paper Jury Nullification and it’s affects on the criminal justice system. Jury Nullification is a process that allows jurors to acquit an individual, even when they are technically guilty, and not warrant for punishment. In essence the juror are suggesting that the law in general is unfair or in a particular case. Jury Nullification “Is rooted in English common law and is sometimes used in cases, in which the jury believes a prosecutor enforced an unpopular law or a jury sympathizes with the defendant” (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 265). Because of perceived mistreatment of African American by the criminal justice system, Jury Nullification has become controversial because a number of well-known African American scholars encouraged Black jurors to acquit Black defendants (McNamara & Burns, 2009).