• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Remembering the Murder You Didn’t Commit

radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
radcen said:
Repressed memory. The Reid Technique (not mentioned by name). Similarities to the Norfolk Four where, instead of clearing suspects who didn't match the evidence they just kept adding more until somebody match something.
Click to expand...

There is a reason you don't talk to the cops without a lawyer. Its because they interrogate you for hours in order to wear you down until you tell them something that matches and or they slip you information so that you tell them what they what they want to hear. I seen enough of those forensic files type shows that air on CNN,TLC and other channels to see that occurs. This is why confessions should be scrutinized by juries and judges.
 
Memories are super malleable. The most recent science indicates that when you recall a memory it can change a little each time as you store it back into your memory again. And the level of confidence you have in a particular memory has no bearing on the accuracy of that memory. In fact the memories we are most confident in are often the ones we recall most often and hence may have changed the most. It is kind of like playing the telephone game with yourself.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Memories are super malleable. The most recent science indicates that when you recall a memory it can change a little each time as you store it back into your memory again. And the level of confidence you have in a particular memory has no bearing on the accuracy of that memory. In fact the memories we are most confident in are often the ones we recall most often and hence may have changed the most. It is kind of like playing the telephone game with yourself.
Click to expand...
Memory, in the form of "eyewitness testimony", has become known as some of the worst and most unreliable type of evidence, yet it is still the "gold standard" for the prosecution because so many people (read: juries) will buy into it to the point of dismissing DNA evidence to the contrary if they conflict.
 
The power of suggestion is quite strong. I think similar thoughts and emotions took place in the Central Park Five.

Our criminal justice system is terribly flawed.
 
jamesrage said:
There is a reason you don't talk to the cops without a lawyer. Its because they interrogate you for hours in order to wear you down until you tell them something that matches and or they slip you information so that you tell them what they what they want to hear. I seen enough of those forensic files type shows that air on CNN,TLC and other channels to see that occurs. This is why confessions should be scrutinized by juries and judges.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how quickly an investigation is shut down once the suspect "lawyers up." The cop even admits to the camera that they have no case without a confession. It certainly makes you think.

Now, for my mixed feelings. It's natural for humans to assuage their guilt. Typical is an accomplice or even the primary perpetrator selling the idea that they did not do this but rather did that. "I didn't kill her; my partner did. I just stood guard." Or, also common: "I did not intend to kill her; she just died after I tied her up and stuffed a rag in her mouth." In those cases, I totally support aggressive interrogation where cops manipulate the suspect into thinking all will be fine if he just tells the truth.

Where I start seeing a problem is when cops use made up "evidence" and begin threatening someone who may not be guilty into believing that they are up the creek without a paddle. "We have you on video; two witnesses pointed you out. You're getting the needle unless you come clean now. Do yourself a favor." I can see where an innocent person could be persuaded to confess to something they did not do under those extreme circumstances.
 
calamity said:
It's amazing how quickly an investigation is shut down once the suspect "lawyers up." The cop even admits to the camera that they have no case without a confession. It certainly makes you think.

Now, for my mixed feelings. It's natural for humans to assuage their guilt. Typical is an accomplice or even the primary perpetrator selling the idea that they did not do this but rather did that. "I didn't kill her; my partner did. I just stood guard." Or, also common: "I did not intend to kill her; she just died after I tied her up and stuffed a rag in her mouth." In those cases, I totally support aggressive interrogation where cops manipulate the suspect into thinking all will be fine if he just tells the truth.

Where I start seeing a problem is when cops use made up "evidence" and begin threatening someone who may not be guilty into believing that they are up the creek without a paddle. "We have you on video; two witnesses pointed you out. You're getting the needle unless you come clean now. Do yourself a favor." I can see where an innocent person could be persuaded to confess to something they did not do under those extreme circumstances.
Click to expand...
How about when that IS the truth?

Plus, there's a fine line between supporting aggressive interrogation and manipulating in that scenario and manipulating people who may not be guilty into false confessions. And most police really aren't any better at recognizing and stopping at that line than you or I. Add to that the fact they they interact with the dregs of society far more often than you or I so they are prone to build up a "they're all guilty" pre-bias.

But anyway, even if you're innocent... ESPECIALLY if you're innocent... lawyer up. It's the smart thing to do. If you're wrong in your trust, the officer pays no price but the price you pay is huge.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The power of suggestion is quite strong. I think similar thoughts and emotions took place in the Central Park Five.

Our criminal justice system is terribly flawed.
Click to expand...

I need to read up on that one more. I bet it's more of the same.
 
radcen said:
How about when that IS the truth?

Plus, there's a fine line between supporting aggressive interrogation and manipulating in that scenario and manipulating people who may not be guilty into false confessions. And most police really aren't any better at recognizing and stopping at that line than you or I. Add to that the fact they they interact with the dregs of society far more often than you or I so they are prone to build up a "they're all guilty" pre-bias.

But anyway, even if you're innocent... ESPECIALLY if you're innocent... lawyer up. It's the smart thing to do. If you're wrong in your trust, the officer pays no price but the price you pay is huge.
Click to expand...

Well, if that is the truth, by all means the suspect should get it off his chest and pay the appropriate price.
 
calamity said:
Well, if that is the truth, by all means the suspect should get it off his chest and pay the appropriate price.
Click to expand...

Right, but the "appropriate price" might be 2nd degree murder and not 1st degree. It is not uncommon for prosecutors t shoot themselves in the foot and lose a case because it was a high-profile emotional case and they held out for 1st degree even when it should have been obvious that was unwinnable.

No that there's much difference. Prison is prison.
 
radcen said:
Right, but the "appropriate price" might be 2nd degree murder and not 1st degree. It is not uncommon for prosecutors t shoot themselves in the foot and lose a case because it was a high-profile emotional case and they held out for 1st degree even when it should have been obvious that was unwinnable.

No that there's much difference. Prison is prison.
Click to expand...

IMO, much of the over-charging is nothing more than an attempt to force a plea deal. It probably works, given the vast number of cases that result in such deals.
 
calamity said:
IMO, much of the over-charging is nothing more than an attempt to force a plea deal. It probably works, given the vast number of cases that result in such deals.
Click to expand...

That is another factor, absolutely.

Over-charging, charge stacking, draconian mandatory minimum sentences, all work to force plea deals.

I was speaking of over charging in high-profile cases so the prosecutor can also score political points.
 
radcen said:
I need to read up on that one more. I bet it's more of the same.
Click to expand...

There was also a video documentary about that. HBO? I can't remember, it was a few years back.
 
Thoreau72 said:
There was also a video documentary about that. HBO? I can't remember, it was a few years back.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, it's a very famous case, with books and documentaries, etc. I just have never read or watched much about. Not for any particular reason.
 
jamesrage said:
There is a reason you don't talk to the cops without a lawyer. Its because they interrogate you for hours in order to wear you down until you tell them something that matches and or they slip you information so that you tell them what they what they want to hear. I seen enough of those forensic files type shows that air on CNN,TLC and other channels to see that occurs. This is why confessions should be scrutinized by juries and judges.
Click to expand...

Studies have shown, people, not just Cops, involved in shootings, can many times have significant blocks in memory but to trauma and adrenaline.

Sometimes for days and weeks.

Example, many times that can't even remember the number of times they pulled the trigger or if they reloaded.

Police officers are trained to keep their finger off the trigger until the last minute ... because adrenaline alone can constrict the fingers.
 
radcen said:
Memory, in the form of "eyewitness testimony", has become known as some of the worst and most unreliable type of evidence, yet it is still the "gold standard" for the prosecution because so many people (read: juries) will buy into it to the point of dismissing DNA evidence to the contrary if they conflict.
Click to expand...

So you are in a store. You see a man come in and shoot the clerk. You saw his face. Should we rule you out? I get what you are saying, but can you really discount witness statements to the point of essentially immaterial? That almost seems the direction you are going.
 
Cigar said:
Studies have shown, people, not just Cops, involved in shootings, can many times have significant blocks in memory but to trauma and adrenaline.

Sometimes for days and weeks.

Example, many times that can't even remember the number of times they pulled the trigger or if they reloaded.

Police officers are trained to keep their finger off the trigger until the last minute ... because adrenaline alone can constrict the fingers.
Click to expand...

Sure, but police and prosecutors often abuse the concept.
 
blackjack50 said:
So you are in a store. You see a man come in and shoot the clerk. You saw his face. Should we rule you out? I get what you are saying, but can you really discount witness statements to the point of essentially immaterial? That almost seems the direction you are going.
Click to expand...

It deserves an appropriate amount of validity, it's one of many potential puzzle pieces, not being a "gold standard" that trumps even DNA as it is often treated.
 
Cigar said:
Studies have shown, people, not just Cops, involved in shootings, can many times have significant blocks in memory but to trauma and adrenaline.

Sometimes for days and weeks.

Example, many times that can't even remember the number of times they pulled the trigger or if they reloaded.

Police officers are trained to keep their finger off the trigger until the last minute ... because adrenaline alone can constrict the fingers.
Click to expand...

The role of adrenaline in memory retention and PTSD is fairly well documented. 60 Minutes did a piece on it some years back.

Adrenaline might save a person's life in a crisis event, but it can really screw up his mind.
 
blackjack50 said:
Perhaps the reason people distrust DNA evidence is that it can be wrong:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/

Mainly because of the techs.
Click to expand...
Right, human error, not so much the test/process itself. Error on the part of the technician, error on the part of the prosecutor for not seeing it and factoring it in, and error on the part of the defense attorney(s) for not bringing it up in court (provided they had access, like they were supposed to).

There have been other documented cases of human error, as well as outright human fraud, involving DNA, also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom