Discussion Board Criminal Justice - Essay Example

Law officers are known to lie under some pretext during an investigation to elicit information. The psychology of the criminals, the mandate of the Supreme Court, and the totality of the circumstance surrounding a case allows an officer to use psychic methods to bring forth revelations to solve cases. Officers in the process of interrogation can play this card if only to get valuable information from hardcore criminals. Rarely will any criminal openly declare his guilt in an interrogation unless he believes that the odds against him beating the case are overwhelming.

Officers find themselves staring at an uncompromising, non-committal criminal in most cases. "If you can't beat them, join them" is a familiar phrase that most of us know. This is precisely what these officers in uniform do. Lie to a criminal, utilizing deception as a tool, to make it appear that there is evidence against the criminal to prove his involvement. This has a telling effect on the criminal. "A confession which is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker may be used as evidence to establish the guilt of the defendant in court. FSM v. Jonathan, 2 FSM Interim.

189,194 (Kos. 1986) Although questioning of witnesses and suspects is a necessary tool for the effective enforcement of criminal law, courts have recognized that there is an unbroken line from physical brutality to more subtle police use of deception, intimidation and manipulation, and that vigilance is required. FSM v. Jonathan, 2 FSM Interim. 189,195 (Kos. 1986)When a defendant has expressed a wish to meet with counsel before further questioning, questioning must cease at once. Any attempt by police officers to ignore or override the defendant's wish, or to dissuade him from exercising his right, violates 12 F.S.M.C. 218. FSM v. Edward, 3 FSM Interim.

224, 235 (Pon. 1987)Now consider these:Where a police officer promised to reduce charges if the defendant cooperated but there was no other showing of police intimidation or manipulation and the defendant had recognized that his guilt was apparent, the confession was not induced by the promises but instead was a voluntary response to the futility of carrying the deceit further. FSM v. Jonathan, 2 FSM Interim. 189,198 (Kos. 1986)In determining whether a defendant's statement to police is "voluntary," consistent with the due process requirements of the Constitution, courts should consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances.

Courts review the actual circumstances surrounding confession and attempt to assess the psychological impact on the accused of those circum stances. FSM v. Edward, 3 FSM Interim. 224, 238 (Pon. 1987)" (Criminal Law and Procedure-Interrogation and Confession, zdigest.4.pdf referred on