The American criminal justice system is built on the principles of justice and fairness. For the most part, the system strives to uphold these principles. Prosecutors work closely with juries, judges, and the defense to ensure that justice is delivered. However, there are cases where the justice system fails to fulfill its mandate. The case of Brenton Butler who faced charges for the murder of Mary Ann Stephens in 200O is among those that underscore the failure of the justice system. This case represents a gross miscarriage of justice and highlights the need for the prosecution to demonstrate more diligence and fairness in conducting its affairs. One of the critical issues that this case raises concerns forced confessions. As one examines the case, they are able to recognize how these confessions compromise the prosecution process.
Role of Forced Confession
The damage that wrongful conviction does to the integrity of the criminal justice process is the main focus of the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning. This documentary sheds light on the various prosecutorial failures the led to the wrongful conviction of Butler. Among the main questions that the documentary addresses is the role that forced confessions play in the trial process. In Butler’s case, the police charged with the investigation of Ann’s murder used techniques that compromise the credibility of their testimonies and the strength of their case. The documentary reveals that the police enlisted the services of an expert trained in extracting confessions. It is alleged that one of the techniques that this expert used is violence. He punched Butler with the goal of obtaining a confession. The confession can be considered forced because it was obtained through violence which induced duress. It can be argued that Butler confessed to Ann’s murder because he feared that he would suffer further violence. It is indeed unfortunate that the jury considered the confession credible and this informed its decision to wrongfully convict Butler.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the foundations of the justice system is legal representation. All individuals under arrest or facing criminal charges are entitled to legal representation. One of the purposes of legal representation is to shield suspects against such issues as forced confessions. The documentary shows that the police forced Butler to confess to the murder in the absence of his attorney. They isolated him in a sound-proof room where he was subjected to threats and violence. It is therefore little wonder that Butler confessed despite his innocence. The prosecution clearly failed to uphold the principles that govern its function. It presented evidence obtained through unlawful means and disregarded Butler’s rights. This case is a reflection of the issues that plague the American justice system.
Literature Review
The question of forced confections and the damaging effect that it has on the delivery of justice has been the subject of extensive scholarly inquiry and research. Kassin, Meissner and Norwick (2005) are among the scholars who have explored this question. They carried out a research with the goal of establishing the impact that bias has on the perspectives of police officers and investigators regarding the accuracy and credibility of confessions. Do officers act differently when they understand that there is some chance that a confession is false is the research question that the three scholars sought to answer. To obtain an answer, they required college students and investigators to listen to confessions from 10 inmates. It was observed that compared to the college students, the investigators were more likely to find that a confession was accurate. The experience was conducted for a second time. However, this time, the investigators were told that half of the accounts from the inmates were false. Again, despite understanding that half of the confessions were inaccurate, the investigators readily accepted them as the truth. The researchers concluded that investigators are inherently biased and that this bias could lead them to push for the wrongful conviction of people who are innocent.
The research described above relates directly to the case of Butler. In this research, the investigators displayed their desperate need to resolve cases. The officers go extreme lengths including dismissing concerns that a confession is inaccurate. In the case of Butler, the police officers went similarly extreme lengths to obtain a confession and use the confession to secure a conviction. As already noted, they used violence and threats to persuade Butler to admit that he murdered Butler. These officers disregarded protocol and the very values on which the criminal justice system is founded. The relationship of this case with the experiment that Kassin and his colleagues conducted lies in the fact that the officers were desperate to secure a conviction that they ignored all evidence that would have exonerated Butler.
Kassin and Kiechel (1996) joined the scholars above in conducting a research that explored the impact of forced confessions on the administration of justice. The research question that guided their study sought to determine how fabricated evidence causes suspects to confess. Basically, they set out to answer the question: presented with false evidence, does an individual confess to a crime that they have not committed? As part of their efforts to answer this question, the researchers recruited subjects who faced accusations that they had caused damage to a computer by pressing the wrong key. These participants signed a confession and demonstrated some level of remorse. Through the study, the researchers confirmed that presented with evidence that links them to a crime, an individual is likely to confess.
The study by Kassin and Kiechel sheds light on how forced confessions are obtained. These researchers established that fabricated evidence can be used to persuade suspects to confess. Butler’s case confirms this. In the documentary, viewers are told that the expert who obtained the confession presented Butler with a narrative and pressured him to confirm that it is true. He told him that he had murdered Stephens and discarded the weapon in the woods. Another issue that relates the research to the case concerns the role of pressure. The researchers exposed the participants to a high pressure situation with the goal of obtaining the confession. Butler also suffered immense pressure in the form of threats and violence. This pressure is partly responsible for his confession.
One of the interesting aspects of Butler’s case is that it involved a 15-year old boy. What makes this aspect interesting is the possibility that Butler’s age could have played a role in his confession. Answers can be found in a study that Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson (1996) conducted. The researchers sought to answer the question of the personality traits define false confessors The researchers administered such tools as the Gudjonsson Compliance Scale and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire among inmates with the goal of establishing the traits that those involved in false confessions shared. Their findings revealed that most of the false confessors were compliant and emotionally liable. This outcome is significant as it sheds light on the personality issues that expose individuals to a greater risk of false confessions.
The relevance of the study by Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson conducted lies in the fact that it highlights the relationship between personality and false confessions. In particular, as stated above, this study suggests that false confessors tend to be emotionally fragile and therefore easy to manipulate. It can be argued that the officers investigating the case involving Butler exploited his young mind to obtain a confession. As a juvenile, Butler lacked the competence and intelligence needed to defend himself against a gravely unfair practice. He could not insist on legal representation and was unable to fight off the violence that he suffered. Given the pain that he endured, one is able to understand why Butler confessed to the murder.
Recommendation
The police investigators and the prosecution in Butler’s case are entirely to blame for his wrongful conviction. Their failures and violations of protocol and guidelines represent the issues that plague the US criminal justice system. Using violence, threats and intimidation is among the failures of the officers. Moreover, the officers failed to provide Butler with legal representation despite the fact that the law required this. The prosecution relied heavily on Butler’s forced confession to build its case. Combined, these failures led to Butler’s wrongful conviction and raised questions about the competence and the integrity of the American justice system. If the system is to regain its integrity and public confidence, there are changes that need to be implemented.
There are various measures that the prosecution could adopt to improve its conduct and performance. Accounting for Butler’s young age is one of these. Butler was a 15 year old boy who had not had any prior interaction with the criminal justice system. Furthermore, and more importantly, as a juvenile, he lacked the capacity to understand how the criminal justice system functions. The prosecution clearly disregarded his vulnerability. To demonstrate its dedication to justice, the prosecution should have offered Butler all the protections that he needed. This did not happen since the prosecution treated Butler as a guilty murdered even before his conviction. Another measure that the prosecution could adopt is scrutinize the actions of the police officers. For example, the prosecution could have sought to understand how the confession was obtained. Had it done this, it would have established that the confession was forced and therefore inadmissible.
In conclusion, trust in the US justice system is at an all-time low. The failure by officers in the system to be faithful in the performance of their duties is largely to blame for the lack of confidence in the system. As Butler’s case reveals, these officers use unacceptable methods to extract confessions from suspects. These confessions are then used to secure convictions. Various research studies have confirmed that forced confessions pose a serious threat to confidence in the criminal justice system. The prosecution should lead the effort to repair the damage that the integrity of the system has suffered. Prosecutors, police officers and investigators should collaborate to safeguard the rights of suspects.
References
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: compliance, internalization and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7 (3), 125-8.
Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: a comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29 (2), 211-27.
Sigurdsson, J. F., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996). The psychological characteristics of ‘false confessors’. A study among Icelandic prison inmates and juvenile offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 20 (3), 321-9.
