Deception in the Criminal Justice Process
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper details how deception can occur at three stages of the detective process, namely in the investigation, interrogation and testimony. The paper goes on to show how the acceptability of deception is observed as varying, depending on the level of the criminal process, and subject to a set of stringent normative constraints. The paper outlines the different types of false confessions and describes the extent to which methods of interrogation have led to false confessions. The paper explains how this can lead to the wrongful detention of innocent individuals as well as letting the guilty walk free. This paper contends that law enforcement officers should be encouraged to be impartial when carrying out investigations.
From the Paper:"Investigative deception is permitted by the courts and police organizations train their policemen on how to go about the process. In the investigative stage, the police are allowed to partake in trickery and deception. For instance, detectives are trained in the use of informers, also known as provocateurs when the criminal activity under investigation involves possession or scale of contraband, with the contraband itself not mattering (Skolnick, 1982, p.45). The line between acceptable and unacceptable deception is also referred to as entrapment and acceptable police conduct in enforcement patterns. The legal definition of deception is hazy, murky as well as unclear. The first approach employed in legal writing with reference to entrapment is the subjective approach which focuses on the defendant's background, character and intention. It seeks to understand whether the defendant was predisposed to have committed the crime or even without the government official or agent participating. The objective approach focuses on the nature of the governmental participation. According to Justice Frankfurter, the objective test focuses on whether the police conduct, as revealed in a particular case, falls below the set standards, to which common feelings respond, for the proper use of governmental power (Allen & Iacono, 1997, p.238)."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Abdollah, T. (2003). Brain Fingerprinting - Picture-perfect crimes, Berkeley Medical JournalIssues, Retrieved May 10, 2010, fromhttp://web.archive.org/web/20060722001256/http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~issues/spring03/brainfinger.html
- Allen J., & Iacono, W. (1997). A comparison of methods for the analysis of event-relatedpotentials in deception detection. Psychophysiology, 34(2), 234-240
- Deception. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception
- Meissner, Christian A. & Russano, Melissa B. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and False Confessions: Research and Recommendations. The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 1(1), 53-64.
- Schollum, Mary. (2005). Investigative interviewing: The Literature. Wellington: Office of the Commissioner of Police.
Cite this Persuasive Essay:
Deception in the Criminal Justice Process (2013, February 05) Retrieved December 02, 2020, from https://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/deception-in-the-criminal-justice-process-152391/
"Deception in the Criminal Justice Process" 05 February 2013. Web. 02 December. 2020. <https://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/deception-in-the-criminal-justice-process-152391/>