Name Professor Course Date Case laws on deceit The application of the deceit and lying by the officers was aimed to drive out information from the mother and father of the child in order to establish if in case they had conspired to kill their handicapped child. The interrogation with the other children seemed to have yielded less fruits towards knowing exactly what caused the fire incident. It was therefore upon the officer to lie to the mother and father so as to establish their doubting instincts about what facilitated the fire. Looking at the legal ramifications there is no legal provision for such induction as an undertaking even though he did not confess to the officers directly. Having no other evidence to carry on with the case the officers were correct to use the means they applied in establishing some piece of evidence within the case. Work cited Kassin S. M. Appleby S. C. & Perillo J. T. (2010). Interviewing suspects: Practice science and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology 15(1) 39-55. Mims M. C. (2010). A Trap for the Unwary: The Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel After Montejo v. Louisiana. La. L. Rev. 71 345. Sheriff v. Bessey. law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1996/26362-1.html. Cain Nicole. The Use of Deception During Police Interrogations . inpublicsafety.com/2015/12/the-use-of-deception-during-police-interrogations-2/. [...]
Unit IV Case Study Read the following Case Study and answer the questions below. Your paper should be at least two pages in length and follow APA guidelines, to include a title and reference page. The title and reference page do not count towards the minimum page requirement. Properly cite the textbook and all other references utilized to support your position. Case Study Scenario: Shortly after a fire had killed her handicapped child, a mother was asked to come to police headquarters to talk with a detective. The mother knew that her two older children had been questioned at school but had no idea what the detectives wanted with her. She was questioned for several hours at the police department. After questioning, she was arrested and charged with murder of her child, charged with deliberately starting a fire by throwing a blanket over a space heater next to the child’s crib. BCJ 4001, Procedures in the Justice System 3 Later in the investigation, the detective questioned the father. During the questioning the detective claimed he also had a special needs child and that he and his wife often thought of hurting their child and even thought and said to one another that the child would be better off dead. The detective claimed the father repeatedly stated that “a special needs child needs to be with God and suffer no longer.” The interrogator asked the mother if she had these kinds of thoughts as well. He asked variations of this question until the mother eventually acknowledged that it was possible that she may have thought about it. Eventually, during the interrogation, the detective also threatened to charge the two older children with murder, telling the mother that they were suspects if she was not the one who started the fire. At this point, she dissociated and responded to this threat with high anxiety, confusion, and stress. The detective falsely told the mother that they had conclusive evidence that the fire started from the space heater, although no tests had been done at that point in the investigation. He had also falsely told her during the beginning of the interrogation that there was no intention to charge her. The evaluation of the mother indicated that she was most likely dissociating at times during the investigation. She never admitted to purposefully choosing to throw the blanket on the space heater, but only that it might have happened inadvertently without her knowledge. She never admitted to wanting the child dead but only to the possibility that part of her may have wanted that to happen. 1. Was this interrogation within the legal ramifications regarding case law? Cite case law that deals with detectives sympathizing, using deceit, or minimizing the moral seriousness of the offense. 2. Should any of the mother's confession be admitted into court as evidence? Why, or why not? 3. Were any of the mother’s rights violated? Explain your response. 4. What are your concluding thoughts on this case scenario?