According to Anniken Davenport in the book Basic Criminal Law, perjury is “giving false testimony in a judicial administrative proceeding: lying under oath as to material fact swearing to the truth of anything one known or believes to be false (Davenport, 2018). A real-life example of perjury case was the case of a famous rapper by the name of Lil Kim. The case of Lil Kim was about a weapon offenses crime that has happened and Lil Kim gave a false testimony about that crime. Everything was going well until “her lawyer, Paul Shechtman, said Ms. Jones had lied out of a misguided sense of loyalty to men she considered her friends” ( Preston). When she admitted that it true that she has lies, she was “sentenced to serve a year and a day in federal
In a handful of occasions such as in an interrogation it seems reasonable enough to lie to an individual in order for them to confess to a crime. A case law that shows this was Frazier v. Cupp in which according to Police Link, “ The case involved the interrogation of a homicide suspect who was falsely told that an accomplice had already implicated the suspect in the killing.” In the case of Frazier v. Cupp kept on getting integrated even after he asked to speak to a lawyer so as a result he ended up doing a written confession where he confessed about being part of the murder that was later used as evidence against him.
After reviewing the article “Inside Interrogation: The Lie, The Bluff, and False Confessions”, it became very evident the huge problem with interrogations and false confessions in the criminal justice system is with false confession. Jennifer T. Perillo and Saul M. Kassin crafted three distinct experiments to try and better understand false confessions and how trues the actual numbers in real life are. What Perillo and Kassin were trying to prove is that “the bluff technique should elicit confessions from perpetrators but not from innocents” (Perillo, Kassin 2010). What is called the “Bluff Technique” is an interrogation technique that uses a sort of threat or hint that there is certain proof that a person will think is more of a promise for
Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate, therefore it should not be used in the criminal justice system. Discuss.
According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, lying means to tell an account of an untrue event or give false information.
In the last forty years, there has been a shift in courtroom proceedings. Lawyers are not only focusing their evidence on the scientific aspects of an event, but also on those who may have witnessed the actual event as well. Recently, the number of eyewitness appearances in the courtroom has increased, making statements about either a crime or an event that occurred in their presence. But how does the courtroom decide who is a legitimate witness to an event? Too often, age, race, education, and socio-economics play a major role in this decision. Here, we will discuss the age aspect of this problem in terms of child eyewitness testimony and it's implications in the courtroom.
Depending on what study is read, the incidence of false confession is less than 35 per year, up to 600 per year. That is a significant variance in range, but no matter how it is evaluated or what numbers are calculated, the fact remains that false confessions are a reality. Why would an innocent person confess to a crime that she did not commit? Are personal factors, such as age, education, and mental state, the primary reason for a suspect to confess? Are law enforcement officers and their interrogation techniques to blame for eliciting false confessions? Regardless of the stimuli that lead to false confessions, society and the justice system need to find a solution to prevent the subsequent aftermath.
There has been considerable debate worldwide, regarding the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system. Particularly, arguments have surrounded wrongful convictions that have resulted from incorrect eyewitness evidence (Areh, 2011; Howitt, 2012; Nelson, Laney, Bowman-Fowler, Knowles, Davis & Loftus, 2011). The purpose of this essay is to consider psychological research about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and its placement in the criminal justice system. Firstly, this essay will define how eyewitnesses and their testimonies are used within the criminal justice system and the current debate surrounding its usage. Secondly, the impact of post-identification feedback will be used to show the affect on the confidence of a witness. Thirdly, studies around gender related differences will show how a witnesses gender can affect memory recall and accuracy. Fourthly, empirical studies will be used to highlight how a psychological experience called change blindness can cause mistakes in eyewitness identification. Finally, the effect of cross-examination will be used to explore the impact on eyewitness accuracy. It will be argued, that eyewitness testimony is not accurate and highly subjective, therefore, the criminal justice system must reduce the impact that eyewitness testimony is allowed to have. Developing better policies and procedures to avoid wrongful convictions by misled judges and jury members can do this.
Defendants have the right to all exculpatory and mitigating evidence in the state's possession during the discovery process, which has been the procedure for the last half century. During the discovery phase of the Morton case, the only files that were turned over to Morton’s lawyers were crime scene photos and an autopsy report. Anderson kept everything else back, including the notes from the lead investigator Sergeant Don Wood, and Morton’s oral statements that were taken by Woods and Sheriff Boutwell. According to Morton’s lawyers (Texas Monthly, 2012), they had never encountered this kind of hardball. However, in the state of Texas statute requires law enforcement officers to turn over all their reports and notes once they took the stand,
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
She lies to the bank so she doesn’t get charged with “$60 in overdraft fees”, out-and-out lie. She does not tell the truth to her husband about her day so he does not “[keel] over,” white lie. She lies to her clients so that she does not get fired for telling the truth about the reason she is late. She lies to her friends so that her friend’s feelings do not get hurt, (Ericsson 181).All of these are justifiable because of the intent. There are consequences to telling the truth in these cases and thus Ericsson needs to lie to avoid the
The article “Rejecting All Lies: Immanuel Kant by Sissela Bok also presents the same argument. Sissela Bok presents the ideas and viewpoints of Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher. Kant believed that lying was bad and that “truthfulness is statements which cannot be avoided is the formal duty of an individual to everyone, however great may be the disadvantage.” He believed lying was always bad no matter the situation. Kant said that lying “vitiates the source of law,” or makes the source of law weaker. Our whole purpose of the government is to serve justice and if everyone is lying in court, it gets harder to serve justice. The purpose of the government would not be fulfilled if people lie. According to Kant, lying also “harms the liar himself, by destroying his human dignity and making him more worthless even than a small thing.” Kant says lying makes the liar lose his or her pride and honor. And I think it probably makes the liar feel bad and makes them feel guilty. In the article “Teens Do their Share of Lying” by Loretta Ragsdell, a quote from Sabrina, a college freshman, takes about how she lied...
The primary role of particular criminal justice agencies in the criminal court system is to make an appropriate, objective and determine decision while fulfilling their duties. For example, judges are able to interpret and apply law on particular circumstances; and police collect evidence and investigate crime through proper and legal ways, as they are all restrict to the legal regulation and bureaucratic administration (Findlay, Odgers, & Yeo, 2009, p. 21). To maintain the interests of defendants as well as public interest by avoiding innocent individual to a miscarriage of justice and giving a prompt and certain punishment to guilty individual, it is very important that each criminal justice agencies can fulfill their duties in a lawful manner, especially the legal representative. A legal representative is an individual representing defendant in court to defense and make decision for them, which means the legal representative is the only one stays at the same side as the defendant and cares the interests of the defendant. Therefore, in this report we will examine to what extent is the role of legal representation important in Local Court and Supreme Court.
is making false statements and being untruthful. For example, a person asks a car salesman for
What are lies? A lie is defined as follows: To make a statement that one knows to be false, especially with the intent to deceive. There are several ways that lies are told for instance, there are white lies, lies of omission, bold faced lies, and lies of exaggeration. No matter what type of lie that one chooses to tell many people believe that lies do more harm than good.
A story has numerous important effects in our daily lives. It has been one of the most effective source of inspiration know to man. In this I would like to tell you about the something which was taught to me in childhood. “Behavior” the word defined as “a person who was well treated to represents themselves to others. This thing is generally comes from our family; the one quote was I always remember “Telling a lie and boast may end up in trouble”. When I tell lie to someone this quote comes into my mind. I can still remember when I was six year old and whenever I had made any mischief by saying a lie to family, my grandmother used to tell this story in brief.