In 1990 at the age of 17, Jeffrey Deskovic (Jeff) was found guilty, yet was actually innocent, for the rape and murder of a female classmate. This review, based on Jeff's speech at St. Thomas University on January 21st, 2013, will be on the investigative flaws that led to Jeff's incarceration, his failure to receive appeals and his outward search for help, and on the his post-exoneration. The last paragraph, however, deviates from the story and looks at my personal opinion of this story, which shows the lifelong effect of these stories on my desired career path.
In 1989, a shocking death of a classmate had occurred and police were in pursuit of finding the culprit first by asking questions to the victims classmates. Jeff, who was a labeled as being on the outs of how students felt human behaviour should be, was specifically targeted by police, due to students leading police to believe he should be a witness, was questioned and asked to take a polygraph test in which he agreed. The police brought Jeff to another county, due to the location of the polygraph examiner, where he met a plain clothed individuals who was to administer the test. Jeff was never given food or water and supplied with multiple cups of coffee, which is known to speed up heart rate. During his eight hours of interrogation, police used the “good cop, bad cop tactic” and the polygraph examiner continuously insisted that the test had shown that he was the culprit of the rape and murder. Finally the police playing the 'good-cop' made a deal with Jeff that if he would simply confess, he could be returned to his home. As a 16 year old at the time and looking at the short term benefits, Jeff confessed to the crime and was arrested. As the trial for Jeff began, with ...
... middle of paper ...
...tion needs to be passed to protect DNA evidence, and the system needs to look at justice and not so much on procedures.
As a future crown prosecutor, I look at this case and wonder how this could have happened. Obviously, I cannot look into the future and see how I would react, but the DNA should have been explored further than guessing to whom it belonged. After the presentation, I took a serious look at what kind of lawyer I wanted to be, and instead of running away from the idea of working in the Attorney General's office, it is something that I want even more. I want to be the kind of prosecutor that wins most of my cases, not because I omit, partner, or make arrangements, but because I look at cases and see that the evidence does make the defense guilty without a reasonable doubt. This presentation simply makes me more motivated to make the justice more just.
This illustrates the refusal of the rights of victims and the inevitable denial of justice for society. The coronial inquest that was conducted in 2011, corrected some of the initial issues with the investigation. Before the inquest, vital DNA evidence was disposed of, as a result of human error, which meant that the likely suspect could not be identified. As a result of human error the inquest provided some form of justice for society but due to how late it was conducted the family did not receive justice
In July of 2008, one of the biggest crime cases devastated the United States nation-wide. The death of Caylee Anthony, a two year old baby, became the most popular topic in a brief amount of time. Caylee’s mother, Casey Anthony, became the main suspect after the child supposedly was kidnapped and went missing. To this day, the Casey Anthony case shocks me because justice, in my opinion, wasn’t served. I feel as if the criminal conviction system became somewhat corrupted in this case. The entire nation, including the court system, knew that Casey Anthony was behind this criminal act, but yet she escaped all charges. I chose this case not only because it’s debatable, but also to help state the obvious, this case was handled the wrong way. Clearly the legal system was biased, which worked in Casey Anthony’s favor, freeing a murderer.
He cares about people and believes that the safety of individuals is decreasing because criminals are not punished effectively by imprisonment and that some even receive a “sign of manhood” from going to prison (1977). Additionally, he is upset that the ineffective system is so expensive. His concern for his audience’s safety and his carefully argued grounds, which he uses to support his claim, create a persona of an intelligent person of goodwill. Jeff Jacoby does an excellent job informing his audience that the current criminal justice system is not any more humane than the physical forms of punishment used in the past.
Now, it takes a lot of courage for an investigator to stand up and admit a wrongful conviction, especially in a case that he helped to convict. That brings me to think agree with the statement of Chief Justice William H. Rehmquist “the justice system has not yet learned to confront the fact that, even when there are no easily identifiable misstep, it can produce an unjust outcome.” (Clifford 4) It is because of this reason, that manyinnocent people end up in jail. Despite the efforts to get them out, many of them are denied. It took nine years for federal agents to even consider looking into the Edward Garry conviction case. In addition, it took another three years for Garry’s lawyer to get a post-conviction motion, which was denied by a Bronx judge, saying that the new evidence wasn’t credible. And still, Garry has yet to be absolved for this crime that he did not commit despite witnesses testifying on his behalf. This is a really depressing case because of the fact that Garry has become broken. “Garry gives the impression of a man who has been inside literally and figuratively for far too long.” Twenty one years of his innocent life that he may never get back. All because this justice system has failed him as a
Dwyer, Jim, Peter Neufeld, and Barry Scheck. "False Confessions, Race." Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right. New York: New American Library, 2003. Print.
Louis, Kemper had confessed of killing her son and setting the house on fire after police officer had told her that she had failed the polygraph test. The judge in this case had let the information and the results of the polygraph come in to court as part of the evidence of the State. Later in the trial, the judge decided to call the case a mistrial as the jurors had heard and gathered too much information of the case that could sway their judgment. The case was also questioned in the matters of a suspect confessing to a crime after falsely having been accused of failing the polygraph test when in fact she had passed the polygraph. The defendant’s lawyer had stipulated to the Supreme Court that the confession had been corrupted by the detective involved in this case. Later on in 2006 the case had been blocked by the Supreme Court (Matthew, F.,
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
The reinterpretation of the Leopold and Loeb case illustrates that it significantly altered America’s perception of childhood experience, mental health, and the media’s role in criminal cases. At the time, society struggled to comprehend how two young teenagers were put on trial as murderers – children were given sympathy for being targeted as victims. However, today journalists and reporters blame the way children are raised for committing crimes. The environment they grow up in and the values that are instilled within them are what influence their every action. While Nathan and Richard were raised in upper-class families, both endured difficult childhoods.
"Know the Cases." Innocence Project. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2011. .
I wanted to look at the investigative and criminal procedures following the arrest of an alleged criminal and the powerful effects via testimonies and evidence (or lack thereof) it can have on a case.There is an importance of the courts in regards to crime that can’t be over looked. The primary function of the criminal justice system is to uphold the established laws, which define what we understand as deviant in this society.
Forensic psychology is an area of psychology that has been rapidly gaining popularity in recent years. Entertainment media’s fascination with the intersection of crime and psychology has fueled the growing interest in the field. According to Jane Tyler Ward, PhD, forensic psychology can be defined as psychology that “emphasizes the application of research and experimentation in other areas of psychology to the legal arena.” Although forensic psychology is popular right now, it was not until 1962 that a court case set the precedent that properly trained psychologists could provide expert testimony (Page 20). Additionally, forensic psychology was not APA (American Psychological Association) certified until 2001 (Page 16). The field of forensic
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. National Institute of Justice, 10, 15. Retrieved from, https://www.ncjrs.gov/
“Last year around 6.5% of alleged rapes led to conviction. Why is the conviction level for rape so low? The question this essay addresses is the difficulty, in convicting rapists and understanding why the conviction level for rape is so low. Proving a rape happened is easier said than done, there are many factors that are critical to contributing to a conviction. Why is the conviction level for rape as low as 6.5%?