The Main Problems in the American Justice System - Essay Example

The Main Problems in the American Justice System I. I believe that one of the main problems in the American Justice System is the rate of its erroneous convictions due to the system’s reliance on eyewitness testimony, jury trials, and high profile criminal lawyers whose main purpose is to win and never mind the truth if their client is indeed guilty or not. With the help of DNA experts, the 200th person to be exonerated through DNA evidence in the U.S. was set free last May 2007 (Willing, 2007). Research has shown that “mistaken eyewitness identification was the largest single factor contributing to the conviction of these innocent people” (Wells and Olson, 2003). It also has been proven that eyewitness testimony accounts for “4,000 or more false convictions annually in the United States” (Duke, Lee and Pager, 2007). This is definitely a staggering number that draws researchers to study eyewitness testimony as related to eyewitness memory. John C. Yuille and Judith Daylen (in Payne, et al., 1998) explained in their research that a person that is traumatized by a crime (either as a witness or a victim) incurs a high level of stress that decreases eyewitness accuracy. There tend to be gaps and confusion in the eyewitness’ memory of what actually happened and the order in which it happened. Details that are crucial to the case may be overlooked, forgotten or sometimes even changed. This is why reliance on eyewitness testimony leads to a high number of erroneous convictions. Jury deliberations also present the system with more problems. A very prominent criticism lies in the role of the foreman, who is chosen immediately by a group of strangers. The foreperson, chosen because of experience or sometimes, just mere charisma, brings with him or her all his personal biases and beliefs, which can lead to prejudiced thinking. The same goes for all the other jurors because “when Americans assemble in juries, they do not leave behind the status, power and privileges that they hold in the outside world” (Sanders, 1997 quoted in Fulwider, 2005). Because of this, the jury cannot be considered as highly capable to mete out justice and think fairly and impartially. In fact, this is also the reason why lawyers do a background check and use this information to pick out the jurors that they think are more sympathetic to their side. Thus, even from the start, the trial is already staged with persuasion tactics. Another example of these types of tactics is “stealing the thunder,” wherein the worst that can be said about the lawyer’s client is said at the start and this decreases the impact it would have had if the opposite side was the one to declare it. Kipling Williams (2005) explains that “persuasion is a part of the judicial process from start to finish, from how the judge, as a person of authority, talks to jurors to voir dire – how attorneys select jurors,” and this is questionable as again, the jurors are made to see and believe what the lawyers want them to. It is like they are being manipulated to vote for “guilty” or “not guilty.” With these problems in the judicial system of the United States, I believe that changes are in order. If I have the power to enact changes, I would make the jurors more capable of doing the serious job of meting out justice by giving seminars and lectures (at least 3 days before the trial starts) about what is involved with being a juror and a foreman. I would also employ a policy wherein all eyewitnesses should be examined by a court-appointed or in-house psychologist to check whether their memory of what happened is clear—whether they are lying or if there are gaps in their memory. This will increase the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. II. A secure attachment relationship is formed between an infant and his or her primary caregiver, whether mother, father or relative, when enough attention, love and care is being given. Mothers who form a secure attachment relationship with their babies are known to be sensitive to their needs and have genuine love and concern for them. Insecure attachment relationship is developed when the mothers and/or primary caregiver do not consistently address the needs of the baby. When the mother rejects the infant, he or she can feel it and will grow up to have an avoidant attitude towards relationships. On the other hand, when a mother’s attention is inconsistent and sometimes even contradictory, the child will be so confused that he or she will end up having an ambivalent behavior and view towards relationships. With these three types of attachment relationships in mind, it is then safe to assume that an individual with a secure attachment relationship will have a better and higher chance of having a normal, fruitful, and stable romantic relationship that can last for years and years. Ambivalently and avoidantly insecure individuals, on the other hand, are more likely to have problematic romantic relationships that tend to be brief. This is because these individuals have major issues expressing themselves to their partners. The ambivalent one will more often be withdrawn, insensitive and cold, while the avoidant one will become so inconsistent in showing their feelings that the partner will have trouble understanding him or her. Although these models of attachment relationships can really be true, I do not believe in generalizations. It really depends on the strength of character of the individual if he or she will be able to get past his or her relationship with his or her mother in order to nurture a romantic relationship. Although I cannot deny that this happens a lot, there are still many people out there who had a dysfunctional relationship with their mothers and yet they grew up to be exceptional people—both alone and in a relationship. III. Although violence in itself can be considered evil, physical violence is one of the most common types of violence that is prevalent in society. Whether in school, at home, or on the streets—it happens everywhere. Physical violence is the easiest way to exhibit aggression as one can literally be goaded into doing it. From the angry shove at the playground or basketball court, to the husband seriously beating his wife, aggression through physical violence is the most pervasive vicious behavior among humans. The frustration-aggression theory sheds some light as to why people submit so suddenly and willingly to physical violence. This theory states that a person’s frustration from the deterrence of reaching a certain goal leads to aggression, which is more often than not, physical violence. The closer an individual is to reaching his or her goal, the higher the rate that his or her frustration will turn into physical violence. For instance, during a basketball game, when a shooter has the momentum and runs from the back court all the way to the basket, he or she can already see the shot, whether it is a lay-up, a dunk, or a jump shot. Now, when the opponent blocks this player so close to making his or her shot, even though that person is called for a blocking foul, the tendency is for the player fouled to react violently—either by shoving the other player or by bouncing the ball high. Why? Because he was so near to his goal and someone literally blocked him. His frustration turned into aggression in the form of physical violence. I believe that there is something that can be done for frustration-induced aggression. Although it is inevitable in contact sports, it can be prevented or minimized in other situations. Children should be made aware of this theory early on so that they know that they should avoid goading and teasing their peers when one has failed or they should not deliberately thwart a friend’s plans of reaching a particular goal as these can lead to physical violence. In this way, these children will grow up to become cautious and considerate of other people’s feelings and instances of frustration-induced aggression can be reduced. References Duke, S. B., Lee, A. S. and Pager, C. K. W. (2007). A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words: Conversational versus Eyewitness Testimony in Criminal Convictions. American Criminal Law Review, 44(1). Fulwider, J. (2005). Do Moderators Matter? Answering a Jury Deliberation Challenge to Deliberative Democracy. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Public Policy Center. Wells, G.L. and Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness Testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, pp. 277+. Williams, K. (2005). Prof explains courtroom persuasion strategies, trial tactics. Purdue University. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2005/050401.Williams.law.html Willing, R. (2007). DNA to clear 200th person. USA Today. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-22-dna-exoneration_N.htm Yuille, J. C. and Daylen, J. (1998). The Impacts of Traumatic Events on Eyewitness Testimony. In Payne, D.G. (Ed). Eyewitness Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives (pp. 155-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Read More