There is a correlation among the three articles in the sense that they all discuss the dynamics surrounding confessions by criminals. The articles scrutinize the degree of the persuasiveness of a confession towards the jury’s decision in light of the vast controversy concerning the legitimacy of confessions. For instance, Kassin & Sukel, (1997) seek to investigate the effect of a criminal’s confession regarding whether it was coerced or made out of sound mind with regards to the harmless error rule. The authors go further to indicate the guidelines put forward by judges and jurors in avoiding convictions due to coerced confessions. Hasel & Kassin (2009) similarly agree that confession is a fundamental part of the litigation process, especially when providing evidence. The point of departure from the other article, however, is that it focuses on how confession affects evidence in the litigation process especially when dealing with eyewitness identifications.
The authors further elaborate and assert that identifications due to mistaken eyewitness make up the main sources of error. Among other factors, the errors also arise from untrue confessions thereby resulting in 25 percent wrongful convictions. Also, a point of concession is further realized by Lassiter et al., (2002) when they attest that admission of guilt by a defendant has the most significant impact on decision-making by jurors and judges. According to the article, confessions are majorly made in one of the two ways; either through writing or a recording. However, the article focuses on the videotaped confessions and how they affect court decisions. In essence, according to the authors, proponents of videotaped confessions argue that the concept will curb if not mitigate confessions made out of coercion. The authors peculiarly emphasize this fact owing to the prelude that the camera is placed behind the interrogator focusing solely on the suspect.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the research and study by Kassin and Sukel (1997), there were manipulation checks that showed that pressure from police and judges played a huge role in admitting a crime. However, Hasel and Kassin (2009) do not include manipulation checks in their study. This tenet should have been included to ensure that manipulation of confessions did not lead to wrong eyewitness identifications. Despite this omission, the authors’ methodology was good inclusive of the two phases of trials to solidify the fact that witness identification closely correlated to confessions by defendants as a feedback function on interrogations. Ultimately, Lassiter et al. made use of a suitable methodology which like the previous article had two stages. However, the authors did not include manipulation checks which they ought to have incorporated in determining the degree of variance in videotape confessions due to coercion following equal-focus and suspect-focus camera angles, and how they affect trials.
References
Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications?. Psychological Science, 20 (1), 122-126.
Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the" harmless error" rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21 (1), 27.010.87.5.867
Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Weiland, P. E., & Munhall, P. J. (2002). Videotaped interrogations and confessions: a simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (5), 867. DOI: 10.1037//0021-9
