Term Paper on "Obtaining the Confession"

Home > Topics > Criminal Justice My Account

Term Paper 7 pages (1945 words) Sources: 0

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Ethics and Morality

Obtaining the Confession number of ethical issues present themselves in this particular case. First among them is whether it is right to arrest Sylvester Smoot simply because the police have a "gut feeling" that he is the perpetrator. This dilemma is directly based on the next issue - will arresting Sylvester Smoot save Mickey Cappa's life?

Does a known criminal have "more" rights than a presumably innocent child? Would it be ethical for police to pretend, while interrogating Smoot, that they actually have evidence against him? Again, would such behavior not be justified if it saves the boy's life?

Many different options are available in resolving these ethical issues. Police could investigate Smoot's whereabouts and alibis during the time of the boy's disappearance. Investigators could tell Police Chief Jones that if they find any evidence at all that Smoot might have been in a position to kidnap Cappa then they will bring him in for questioning. Police can use a hypothetical model of what happened to Cappa, pose this scenario to Smoot, and see if he seems evasive, or lets slip any pertinent information.

If detectives can show that there is a reasonably probability that either Smoot is the abductor, or that he might have information that could lead to the boy's safe recovery, it can be argued that questioning Smoot will do more good than harm. If Smoot is not forthcoming during the investigation police might relate to him scenarios from his own criminal past that appear to be similar to the present situation in order to see how he responds. Perhaps, in this instance, Smoot might reveal useful information. Last

Continue scrolling to

download full paper ⤓

ly, police can try to impress on Smoot the idea that a boy's life is in danger, without necessarily indicating they believe it is because of his own actions. Possibly Smoot will divulge information if he is not actually involved, or again, might accidentally reveal information about his complicity.

There are a number of stakeholders in this case. Mickey Cappa is a stakeholder as his safety, or even his life, might depend on the investigation. The boy's family are stakeholders as they want their boy back safe and sound. The police chief is stakeholder as, whatever the outcome; it is his authority and judgment that is being tested. A similar argument applies to the detectives, though their responsibility is not as great as they are not actually in charge of the investigation. Smoot, too, holds a major stake in the investigation as his own freedom, reputation, etc. hang in the balance. The community in which all of these people live and work may also be considered a stakeholder, as other children might be at risk. As well, the community's reputations for fairness and justice could be challenged too.

Immanuel Kant believed firmly in the existence of a universal moral law - moral principals that would hold true in all situations. The case at hands presents a considerable dilemma in terms of Kant's philosophy. On the surface, many commonly-held moral principles appear to conflict depending upon their application. One must look carefully at all of the possible outcomes, and work hard to find principles that would apply evenly to them all. The central ethical issue is what shall the police chief decide in regard to the detective's request to bring in Smoot, use subterfuge in their interrogation, etc. It might be argued, according to Kant's ideas, that the law exists in order to establish universal standards of behavior and of right and wrong. If Police Chief Jones allows the detectives to violate the law by arresting Smoot and presenting him with false evidence, he would be condoning behavior that is inherently illegal. The argument could be made that if it is all right for the authorities to violate the law, then it is all right for the boy's abductor to violate the law. In this view, there can be no distinction of degree - no greater gravity of one offense over the other. To disparage the law is to encourage its being broken, and so to encourage the kind of behavior that has led to the boy's disappearance.

Nevertheless, if it were to turn out that Smoot was the boy's abductor, and he had killed Cappa, a strict adherence to the law would have resulted in the boy's death. Act Utilitarianism would have demanded that the Police Chief do what achieved the most good for the most people in this particular situation. The community would certainly represent a larger interest group than Smoot, himself, the detectives, or Mickey Cappa. In this view, the greatest utility would be served by keeping the community safe, by ensuring that such act never again happen, or if they do, that those associated with them be punished. The arrest and interrogation of Smoot would amount to a statement that Smoot has already transgressed the bounds of community morality and so must remain suspect until such time as his conduct places him entirely above suspicion. Smoot is the logical suspect because his prior actions indicate that he is capable of committing this act, and it is the community's, as represented by the Police Chief, responsibility to see that all avenues are explored, and that everything is done to obtain the safe return of Cappa.

Still another way of looking at Police Chief Jones' dilemma would be to examine it from the perspective of Egoism i.e. Of what would be best for Police Chief Jones. Though in many way sin conflict with other philosophies, the egotistical approach would demand that Jones look at how his own life, career, standing in the community, and so forth, would be affected by his decisions. He could adhere to the letter of the law (presuming it to be universally good in a Kantian way) and hope that the boy will be found alive and well, and his abductor caught. However, in that case, he would have to be willing to risk the consequences of a failure to find the boy and the recriminations that would result. The Police Chief might decide that it is not worth the risk for him personally to not haul in the "most likely" suspect. As well, a decision to take whatever means necessary to find the boy and his abductor would, in the case that such methods are successful, likely result in an increase in Jones' own prestige.

The wisest option in this case would seem to be to bring in Sylvester Smoot for questioning, though not to formally arrest him or charge him. Smoot appears, on the surface, to be well-placed to have been involved in Mickey Cappa's disappearance. He has abducted young boys before and lives in the neighborhood. Police Chief Jones and his detectives could reasonably suspect that he might be involved. Perhaps as well, he might know of others who could have abducted the boy. The assumption here would be that, as a known pedophile, he might have had contacts of some sort with other pedophiles, and if he himself is not guilty, he might lead police to other suspects. The Act Utilitarianism that such a choice involves would appear to provide the best value for the most people. Simply bringing in Smoot, would not be the same as arresting him. If he is guilty, he would be off the street, and so keep other potential victims safe. If he is not guilty, he would be more likely to reveal the names of other suspects if they are known to him.

Furthermore, the questioning of Smoot by using deceptive techniques makes sense within reason. In this instance, the situation might be more one of Rule Utilitarianism. The more evidence that police have against Smoot, the more reasonable it would be to create a scenario that would appear to incriminate him. It does not seem right to place Smoot at the scene of the crime if no such evidence exists. It would seem better to develop a "history" of events that could place Smoot, or some other culprit in the role of perpetrator. Police detectives could use this story to cause Smoot to implicate himself by vehemently denying facts, or by offering others that could indicate his guilt. By the same token, the use of such methods could cause Smoot to name other possible culprits - perhaps even the real culprit. By employing pretense in the questioning of Smoot, but adjusting the amount of pretense used according to the actual information known to police, would represent the following of the rules, so long as those rules advance the cause of keeping the community - and all the individuals within that community - safe.

Lastly, the arrest and questioning of Smoot, and the use of deceptive methods of interrogation to a point would serve the notion of Natural Rights. The boy has a right to live a happy life. By doing everything he can to find him, the Police Chief is helping to guarantee that right. Smoot, too, has a right… READ MORE

Download Full Paper

Write a New Paper for Me

Quoted Instructions for "Obtaining the Confession" Assignment:

“

Instructions: Read the case, and answer the questions that follow. It’s probably more useful to think of these as detailed and thorough answers, rather than as one long, traditional essay

Obtaining the Confession

Due to the popularity of police dramas on television, the public has become aware of the deceptive practices employed in some police interrogations. Indeed, according to Jerome Skolnick, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for the Study of Law and Society, “Deception is considered by police--and courts as well--to be as natural to detecting as pouncing is to a cat.” In particular, it not uncommon for police detectives to lie to a suspect, leading them to believe that they have incriminating evidence against her. Other deceptive techniques are also frequently used. For instance, police detectives will sometimes attempt to lead suspects to believe that they empathize with the suspect and that they would like to help them, but can only do so if they know the truth. A more specific application of this strategy is to lead suspects to believe that in order to be treated leniently for their offense they have a brief window of opportunity to confess and cooperate, otherwise their prospects of leniency worsen.

All of the above interrogation strategies are deceptive because they communicate or imply (in one fashion or another) false information - about the nature and amount of evidence the police have, about the true motives of the interrogators and about the nature of the relationship between the interrogators and the suspect. Because of this, some commentators have argued that confessions that are gotten through deceptive means are not voluntary, and therefore, should not be admissible as evidence.

However, many in the law enforcement profession defend the use of deception during interrogations, insisting that an innocent person would not confess to a crime she did not commit. Hence, they contend, the practice only produces confessions from those who are guilty of a crime. Moreover, before suspects speak to detectives, they are routinely apprised of their “Miranda rights.” The case of Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) held that arrested persons must be informed of their right to remain silent, must be warned that any statement they make may be used against them in a court or of law, and must be informed of the right to legal representation, and that such representation will be provided if they cannot afford it. Hence, if a suspect continues to speak after she is informed of her rights, she does so with the awareness that her statements may be used against her.

Nevertheless, police officers can sometimes shape the way in which suspects respond to the Miranda warnings. Specifically, the monotone voice and perfunctory way in which the Miranda warnings are delivered may be specifically intended to communicate to the suspect that the warning is unimportant, simply a bureaucratic hoop to jump through.

Police Chief Rod Jones is overseeing the case of a missing 12 year-old boy. The boy, Mickey Cappa, has been missing for 3 days. The main suspect in the case is a man from Mickey’s neighborhood, a convicted sexual predator named Sylvester Smoot. The detectives working on the case have told Chief Jones that they know in their hearts that Sylvester is behind Mickey’s disappearance. However, they do not have as much evidence as they need to arrest Smoot or even get a search warrant. The child is still missing and it is not known whether he is still alive. In addition, the detectives fear that time may be running out to save Mickey’s life. The detectives want to arrest Sylvester and use some of the deceptive interrogation practices described earlier. However, in order to do so they must receive the approval of Police Chief Jones.

This case was based on and adapted from a case published by the Association of Practical and Professional Ethics for use in the national intercollegiate Ethics Bowl competition, and is being used with their permission.

Applying the ETHICS Model

1. Evaluate the Problem (5 points possible)

Describe the ethical issues that you see in the case. (Ex: “Is it wrong for employees to steal office supplies?”)

Central Ethical Issue/Decision to be made:

What should Police Chief Jones do about the detectives’ request?

2. Think through the Options (10 points possible)

Identify optional responses or actions that could be taken to resolve the central ethical issue. List as many practical and realistic options as possible.

3. Highlight the Stakeholders (5 points possible)

Identify the individual stakeholders and stakeholder groups relevant to the central ethical issue. List as many relevant stakeholders as possible.

4. Identify and Apply Relevant Ethical Principles (45 points possible)

Utilize three of the ethical theories that we have studied to resolve the central ethical issue. For each theory, summarize the key points of the theory in at least two paragraphs. Then, in a third paragraph, show how the core ethical principles of that theory would apply to the central ethical dilemma to be resolved. You are encouraged to follow the “Steps in Applying” the theories presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Please answer this question in multiple paragraphs.

A. Apply Immanuel Kant’s theory to the central ethical issue. (15 points)

B. Apply any TWO of the following theories (your choice) to the central ethical issue. (15 points each)

Remember to choose only TWO of the following theories:

Egoism Natural Law

Act Utilitarianism Natural Rights

Rule Utilitarianism Virtue Ethics

Contractarianism

5. Choose the Wisest Option and State Your Justification (10 points)

This is where you put it all together. Drawing from your an*****s of the options and stakeholders and your applications of the ethical theories, choose the option that you think represents the best and wisest course of action. Take a couple of paragraphs to explain and defend your answer using sound logical thinking. Give at least three main reasons why you chose this option over the others. Please answer this question in multiple paragraphs.

6. Identifying Logical Fallacies (15 points possible)

Create five original fallacies that are relevant to the case. That is, imagine and write something someone might have said, or a conceivable dialogue in the story above. For each fallacy you create:

a. Provide the fallacy example you created, and identify who might nave said it.

b. Identify the type of fallacy by name as it is called in the book (Chapter 3).

Ex: Jack said to Jill, “You’re wrong because you’re dumb and ugly!” (ad hominem abusive)

Writing/Composition (10 points)

Remember that this is a Gordon Rule writing assignment. 5% of your grade will be based on the writing skills you demonstrate in the paper. So organize your thoughts carefully, explain them clearly, and proof-read carefully for errors in grammar and spelling.

How to Reference "Obtaining the Confession" Term Paper in a Bibliography

“Obtaining the Confession.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2006, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ethics-morality-obtaining/1997. Accessed 6 Jul 2024.

Obtaining the Confession (2006). Retrieved from https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ethics-morality-obtaining/1997

A1-TermPaper.com. (2006). Obtaining the Confession. [online] Available at: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ethics-morality-obtaining/1997 [Accessed 6 Jul, 2024].

”Obtaining the Confession” 2006. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ethics-morality-obtaining/1997.

”Obtaining the Confession” A1-TermPaper.com, Last modified 2024. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ethics-morality-obtaining/1997.

[1] ”Obtaining the Confession”, A1-TermPaper.com, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ethics-morality-obtaining/1997. [Accessed: 6-Jul-2024].

1. Obtaining the Confession [Internet]. A1-TermPaper.com. 2006 [cited 6 July 2024]. Available from: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ethics-morality-obtaining/1997

1. Obtaining the Confession. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ethics-morality-obtaining/1997. Published 2006. Accessed July 6, 2024.

Related Term Papers: