Conformational Bias and the Norfolk Four PDF

Preview

Summary

This is the assignment with the questions and answer for professor sea brook class....

Description

Ardy Isma 11/11/18

Conformational Bias and the Norfolk Four: Writing Assignment 1. When interrogating suspected criminals, police are allowed to make accusations, lie about or make up evidence, yell at the suspects or get in their faces. In the case shown in the video, the police told one of the men that he had failed a polygraph (lie detector) test, even though he had passed it. Why do you think it is legal for police to lie when questioning a potential criminal? Do you think that is right? What do you think police should and should not be allowed to do during an interrogation? Answer: The reason that I believe that it is legal for the police to lie when questioning a potential suspect is to gather more information or potentially force the suspected criminal to admit to the crimes that they have committed. I do not believe that this is the right thing to do as a suspect may potentially force to admit a crime that they did not commit. I believe that the police is allowed to ask intense questions during an interrogation although they should not violate a person due process rights or try to create any mental or physical harm to a suspect.

2. In this case, DNA tests of hair and bodily fluids did not indicate that any of the four men were at the crime scene. Why didn't the DNA test results help clear these men of the crime? Answer : The test results did not help clear these men of the crime is because the detective and the police department at the time believed that there was always an extra person involved with the crime and also all of the four men already have made a confession admitting to the crime that they did not commit.

3. Eventually these men were found guilty of the crime in court, even though there was no evidence linking them to the crime, and a positive DNA match identified another man who had confessed to the crime. How could that happen? In what ways were the following parties responsible for the outcome: the four men themselves; the police; the lawyers; and—in the case of a court trial—the jury? Answer: The way that these men were still founded guilty is by the jury listening to their confession tapes as the jury came to believe that their confessions were very detailed of the crime that they supposedly committed. The police is responsible for this outcome for not making the connection that none of these men were involved with the crime due to their DNA tests. The lawyers are responsible for not believing the four men innocence due to the sign confession each of them had.

4. This case took place in Virginia, which not only has a death penalty, but also has the highest total number of executions of all the states in the nation. How did the possibility of the death penalty play into this story? Answer: The detective during the integrations threaten each of the men to confess to one another by threating them if they did not cooperate and did not confess to who was the other person that was involved in the crime they would face the death penalty. Also each of the men signed a plea deal that would have them have life in prison instead of facing the death penalty.

5. Before being questioned by police, suspects must be told their Miranda rights, which give them the right to remain silent and to speak to an attorney. Why might these men have waived their rights? In what ways might their innocence have affected their perception of the importance of remaining silent or having a lawyer present? How might their story have been different if they had insisted on exercising these rights? Answer: I believe that these man may have waived their Miranda rights as a way to leave the interrogation room faster and also they did not believe they needed them as they all thought that they were innocent from any charges that were presented to them. Their innocence made them to believe that there was no need to exercise their rights for an attorney as in a normal situation a person does not need a lawyer if they are truly innocent from a crime. Their story may have been different if all of them insisted on exercising their rights as their lawyers would not allow them to sign any documents of any confession of a crime that they did not do.

6. What possible reasons for giving a false confession are identified in the film chapter? Answer: The possible reasons a person may give a false confession that are identified on the film is the psychological torturing a person may get from being in a small interrogated room for more than 16 hours being question and threaten about a crime that you have no connection of and also the detective was verbally yelling at you that you committed a crime and would not let you leave until you give an answer that the detective want to hear not the actual truth of your innocence....