Deception within the Criminal Justice System - Research Paper Example

? Deception by the Investigating Officer in the Investigative, Interrogative, and Testimonial Processes Question One The main purpose of the investigative, interrogative, as well as testimonial processes of criminal justice, happens to be the obtaining of the truth concerning what took place when a certain crime got committed. Although the truth is the solution to the delivery of justice correctly while criminal justice officials happen to be the representatives of truth and justice, unfortunately, deception can and does happen throughout all three of these processes even on the role of law enforcement officials (Vrij, 2000). Getting criminals to confessing their crimes turns out to be a problematic affair; as a result, investigating officers are involving the use of deception in obtaining the necessary information. According to Justice without Trial, when an investigator perceives the case law as an impediment to his main duty of apprehending criminals, in most cases, he endeavours to construct the facade of compliance instead of allowing the offender to get away from apprehension. Permitting officers sworn to maintain the law to outwit that same law is similar to planting the seeds of its obliteration. Apart from that widespread, along with openly acknowledged, deception demeans the trustworthiness together with perception of the police, as well as the whole criminal justice system. There are numerous reports of investigators lying while on the stand, which is an emergent problem. Apparently, police perjury is not only pervasive, but also a serious cancer that is invading the criminal justice system. While, on the other hand, utilizing deception in entrapping offenders into admitting their complicity turns out to be a means of downgrading police work into trickery (Vrij, 2000). There are substantial arguments that, at the primary stages of investigations, investigators have to circumvent the law in apprehending, while, at the same time, convicting criminals, ongoing avoidance of the law is an illustration of a lack of respect for the same laws which investigators get sworn to maintain. Therefore, tactics such as police sting operations used in capturing burglars, fabrication of nonexistent witnesses for the duration of interrogations, as well as Abscam-type operations, are ideal examples of deception which are in most cases routinely applied by investigators. Therefore, the given notion that often the ends justify the means as applied by the investigators during the processes of investigation, interrogation and testimonial are wrong for a number of reasons; firstly, it is immoral since wrong is wrong, and, secondly, it is illegal. Consequently, investigators must find a way of working within a severe and agonizingly conflicting environment without tampering with their moral order that demands for specific forms of fidelities (Pollock, 2011). Question Two Deception within the criminal justice system degrades the image of the legal system, as well as the equitable carriage of justice (Yeschke, 2002). In instances, whereby the criminal justice system gets the permission of engaging in immoral, along with even criminal behavior, then there comes a tie when the system together with those engrossed in it ceases being superior to the criminals they are attempting to entrap. Apparently, the investigator lies since lying turns out to be a routine way of dealing with legal impediments; this is because the law allows the investigator to lie during the investigative stage, at a time when he is not totally convinced whether the suspect is a criminal or not, but prohibits lying concerning procedures at the testimonial stage, whereby the investigator is certain of the guiltiness of the accused. This is because the investigator characteristically weighs the short-term disutility of the action of suppressing evidence, rather than the long-term utility of the law’s due process for protecting, as well as enhancing the nobility of the citizen under investigation. Within the criminal justice system, deception can either be positive or negative; however, lying, scamming, together with undertaking police stings skirts turns out to be the edge of criminal behavior within itself, which should be utilized only with immense caution (Yeschke, 2002). Apparently, the truth happens to be the key to the delivery of justice appropriately with the criminal justice officials being the representatives of truth, as well as justice. Unfortunately, deception within the investigative process is exceedingly common with the investigator subculture sometimes demanding deception of courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, along with defendants but seldom, if ever, permitting for deception of fellow investigators. On the other hand, deception during the process of testimonial implies perjury, in as much as deception is concerned the testimonial sphere turns out to be the most problematic of all since there is an expectation for all parties to tell nothing but the whole truth considering that they are both under oath. There are other tricks including getting the suspect to confess with failure of acquainting them of their rights; this tactic is currently illegal based on the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona and 1961 Mapp v. Ohio. In most cases, the investigators have no moral conscience since they prompt them to do the right thing, and avoidance of confession is normally equivalent to avoidance of jail time, or worse still, execution (Pollock, 2011). It is a prerequisite to inform arrested persons of their right of remaining silent by warning them that their statements might be utilized as evidence in court while informing them that they have the right of having an attorney present during questioning. As a matter of fact, the government has a heavy burden of proving that a waiver of these rights got done voluntarily, knowingly, as well as intelligently. Therefore, perjury in the investigator’s culture turns out to be not only systematic, but also representing a subcultural standard, instead of an individual aberration. This makes deception along with the inherent coercion of custody to be inescapably related within modern interrogation. Although deception is most acceptable to investigators, as it is to the courts during the investigation stage, it turns out to be less acceptable throughout the interrogation, with being least acceptable during the testimonial stage. With the rise in deception, people are losing faith in the criminal justice system, thereby beginning to take matters to their own hands, leading to a lawless environment whereby there is the possibility of mob lynchings taking place. Apart from that, considering that some suspects happen to be innocent, thwarting the constraints of justice inevitably leads to innocent people getting convicted, with some getting executed (Yeschke, 2002). Question Three The behaviour of investigators being deceptive provided that they capture a bona fide criminal instead of an innocent person, and it turns out to be widely acknowledged, while, at the same time, getting permission in the investigator’s jurisdictions as a constituent of investigator discretion. This behaviour is also acceptable to the courts to a greater level than might seem compatible within the criminal justice’s task as a defender of right, together with justice. This has led the investigators into transcending the bounds of the law, as well as of morality thereby repeatedly gaining convictions (Panek, 1987). According to investigators, perjury happens to be an essential way of achieving the ends of justice considering it is virtually impossible to catch criminals in the act of performing some forms of crimes or investigating with lack of engaging into deception. The main aim of the criminal justice’s investigative, interrogative, as well as testimonial processes is obtaining the truth concerning what took place when a certain crime got committed. Unfortunately, by means of the aforementioned utilization of torture, even the guiltless get induced to confessing to crimes they did not commit. In most cases, this is evident when the prosecutor misleads the court, the defense, as well as the jury by asking inappropriate questions, while, at the same time, knowingly giving them inaccurate directions throughout his summation. Furthermore, if investigators continue to applying subterfuge while lying in order to get around what they identify as unwarranted barriers to the conviction of criminals entrenched in the law, these barriers will never be revealed and be dealt with in improving the law. Criminal justice deception is extremely dangerous; therefore, it should only be used when obligatory and only under the limitations of the law, as well as of sober caution. If investigators continue to be permitted to lie on the witness stand, fabricating information, thereby undermining the judicial system, a day will come when the criminals that they are attempting to get off the street are of lesser moral reprehensibility compared to themselves (Panek, 1987). Although the deception on the part of the investigators at any level of the criminal justice process paves way for a pause, the obligation on it heightens the closer the process nears to trial. Nonetheless, deception takes places throughout all the three of these processes, including on the part of officials of law enforcement. There are incidents when federal prosecutors conceal the truth, thereby presenting falsified documents in court; in most cases, they justify their behavior with the pretext of having the intention of bringing out the truth at a later stage. Such practices of deception by investigators at any stage of the criminal justice process is a suggestion of deep-seated corruption in the criminal justice system (Levy, 1968). Investigators, together with other criminal justice personnel, apply deception mainly for two reasons: firstly, because, mostly, this is the only means of bringing offenders to justice, and, secondly, because this technique has proven to work. This leads to the ensuing of corruption while a corrupt, criminal justice system happens to be a terrifying prospect considering that it endangers criminals, as well as the innocent. There are interrogation strategies, for instance, the good cop or bad cop roles, which tend to mingle deception together with an equal amount of intimidation. Whatever the case, the parameters defining what amounts to entrapment, as well as what does not, tend to be nebulous. This practice is so pervasive thereby prompting the assumption that almost all investigators lie. Additionally, there is proof that, during the interrogative process, investigators utilize a number of tactics thereby inducing offenders to confess. It is clear that when people in authority get the permission of doing something under many limitations, although they inherently discern are wrong, they will characteristically begin ignoring the constraints yet go ahead to engage in the prohibited act (Pollock, 2011). Without a shadow of a doubt, deception at all these three processes, i.e., investigative, interrogative, and testimonial processes, implies corruption of a systematic nature. As a matter of fact, there are implications as to whether custodial interrogation can turn out to be effectual in the absence of deception. References Levy, L. W. (1968). Origins of the Fifth Amendment: the right against self-incrimination. Southern Oregon: Macmillan. Panek, L. (1987). An Introduction to the Detective Story. Maryland: Popular Press. Pollock, J. (2011). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Finland: Cengage Learning. Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice. Portsmouth: Olma Media Group. Yeschke, C. L. (2002). The Art of Investigative Interviewing: A Human Approach to Testimonial Evidence. New Zealand: Butterworth-Heinemann. Read More