Crime has been fascinating people for a long time. People detest crimes, yet they are curious about the crimes. From “CSI” to “The Good Wife”, these popular TV dramas have mirrored the public’s interest in the complexity of legal systems and the suspense of solving a case. While it might be appealing to reveal the truth, conviction can be complicated. When examining traces of evidence, some trivial details might be key to determining the charge.
Three young people – Farr, Hernandez, and White, passed away in a car crash at a rural intersection in Tampa. Allegedly, the fallen stop sign at the side of the road contributed to their death. Miller, Baillie, and Cole, who lived close to the intersection, were accused of having pulled up the sign. In their statements to the police, they admitted having pulled a number of road signs in the nearby area. Consequently, these three people were charged with manslaughter and were sentenced to 15 years behind bars. However, the charge was dropped one year later by the state attorney’s office.
According to US Law Code, when a person recklessly causes the death of another person with an unjustifiable excuse, his behavior would be determined as manslaughter; when he acts with criminal negligence and causes the death of another person, his act
…show more content…
According to Miller and his two friends’ statements to the police, they had stolen approximately 20 road signs before the car crash happened. The fallen road sign was also within the area where they conducted the thefts. Regardless of the fact that there was neither witness nor fingerprint, the claim of not having pulled the road sign was not convincing when considering their previous behaviors. Their confession of panicking after the accident also raises doubt about their claim. If they were innocent, why should they panic? Evidently, their responsibility in this accident is
The psychological abuse that the four suspects were exposed to made them make a wrong confession. In addition, being in an environment where the interrogation room is tight and dark increased the suspect’s anxiety. Moreover, the Frontline documentary stated that the suspects were held in custody for long hours with Robert Ford who used threatening language in order to make them confess. Not only that the suspects made a false confession, but they also told Ford different stories on how they murdered the victim. The coercive interrogatories, led Joe Dick to accept the label Ford put on him and the others. Although Ford was supposed to act just, he acted upon his self interest. Thus, he denied all facts because of fear of embarrassment of being wrong. However, after serving many years in prison, the four suspects were released to face stigmatization and labeling from the society. Indeed, this case proved that there is a malfunction in the justice system and that there’s a need for an immediate
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
“A friend of mine, Barbara Silva, a nurse at Waltham school was driving to work on Route 128 when another car suddenly cut her off. For some reason the truck ahead of [that car] braked abruptly and [the car] banged into it. She slammed into [the car]. It was a horrible accident. It could have been avoided if [the other car] hadn’t jumped lanes.
Crime is a common public issue for people living in the inner city, but is not limited to only urban or highly populated cities as it can undoubtedly happen in small community and rural areas as well. In The Real CSI, the documentary exemplified many way in which experts used forensic science as evidence in trial cases to argue and to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty. In this paper, I explained the difference in fingerprinting technology depicted between television shows and in reality, how DNA technology change the way forensics evidence is used in the court proceedings, and how forensic evidence can be misused in the United States adversarial legal system.
Sign of the crimes Members of a citizens anticrime group in Linesville, PA., have a new mystery to solve: Who stole their crime watch signs? Five signs and poles were removed from roadsides around Linesville in Crawford County. "We don't know if it was somebody trying to get even," said Ed Barker, chairman of the North Shenango Township Crime Watch chapter. "We don't think it was kids, because the signs were gone, post and all."
In the criminal justice system, the best chance of a fair trial and justice lies within cases that include physical evidence. Physical evidence, whether fibers, fingerprints, or DNA, can give a jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Physical evidence can convict a criminal, or it can free an innocent man. It can bring closure to families and to the law enforcement that work the cases. The following cases will show what physical evidence does in a criminal trial and the vast impact it can make. For each case I will examine how the physical evidence was important to the case and whether or not it could have made more of a difference if the presentation of the evidence were different. The five cases are: the Mosley case, the Warren case, the Chandler case, the Frediani case, and the Swift Case.
Forensics is a scientific method of gathering and examining information about a crime. It is used in the law for figuring out when, where, and what happened at the scene of the crime. Mystery writers must use forensics when writing about crime solving. This draws in the readers because of how realistic the mystery seems. In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s short story “The Red-Headed League,” the author shows his perspective on justice while exemplifying his linear and detailed style, with the main character depicting the story in chronological order and the detective using deductive reasoning to solve the crime.
Picture this: it is a weeknight and you are watching Jeopardy or Wheel of Fortune while enjoying a delicious meal with your family. After those programs finish, it is now about eight o’clock. During late night, local channels present new or old episodes of many television shows. There is American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, The Bachelorette, but most importantly CSI, Criminal Minds, etc. To most viewers, shows like CSI or Criminal Minds capture their attention and find them interesting. Watching the characters solve crimes by either using forensic science or studying the “behavior” of the criminal. Also observing how the crime took place and what exactly was the criminal’s motive. Of course, in reality, it does not take an hour to solve these crimes, or a few days according the shows. For many years, criminological shows entertain hundreds of viewers. My grandmother and I usually watch Criminal Minds every Wednesday night at nine. A criminal can also gain much from reading books or examining earlier killers.
Forensic (criminal) psychology is a job field that deals with both psychology and law. The field has experienced dramatic growth in recent years due to the role of popular movies, television programs and books popularizing the field. Often these individuals are depicted as vivid components in solving vicious crimes or timing out a criminal’s next home. While these depictions of certainly entertaining, yet these portrayals are not necessarily precise. Forensic psychologists play an instrumental role in the criminal justice system while applying psychological principles to the legal system. The crossover of the two spheres is best decided in the Encyclopedia of Psychology,
In order to understand how to compile evidence for criminal cases, we must understand the most effective types of evidence. This topic is interesting because there are ample amounts of cases where defendants have gotten off because of the lack of forensic evidence. If we believe forensic evidence is so important and it affects our decisions, then maybe we need to be educated on the reality of forensic evidence. If we can be educated, then we may have a more successful justice system. If we have a more successful justice system than the public could gain more confidence that justice will be served. In order to do this, we must find what type of evidence is most effective, this can be done by examining different types of evidence.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
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
In the following literature review, scholarly and peer-reviewed journals, articles from popular news media, and surveys have been synthesized to contribute to the conversation pertaining to forensics in pop culture in the courtroom and the overall criminal justice system. This conversation has become a growing topic of interest over just the past few years since these crime shows started appearing on the air. The rising popularity of this genre makes this research even more relevant to study to try to bring back justice in the courtroom.
Review, PubMed PMID: 19543886. Saferstein, R. (2011). Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science (10th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
In recent years, however, such programs as CSI that follows detectives at the Las Vegas Police Department Crime Scene Investigations Bureau as they solve puzzles and catch criminals. Perhaps one of the most well known shows with a forensic psychology theme, CSI has a large impact on viewers perceptions of forensic psychology. On one hand, the increased popularity of forensic psychology because of the show is good and more people are taking an interest in forensic psychology as a career. On the other hand, the forensic psychology that viewers see every week on television may not be exactly the same as forensic psychology in reality. Particularly programs such as CSI also overstate the ability of “hard” evidence (also known as forensic evidence), such as fingerprints and DNA, to provide evidence of definite innocence or guilt (Trask, 2007). They often disregard other components of the investigative process, such as police questioning, despite these being equally valid to establishing guilt (Nolan, 2006). This over-reliance on forensic evidence, due to the importance of forensic science being dramatized by television crime dramas, is also known as the CSI