I completely and 100 percent agree with everything that the article says and its deeper meaning. Personally, I have always thought to myself while watching “Law and Order”, what would happen if someone during the eyewitness accounts really didn’t know who the culprit was. If he or she made a mistake in choosing who did the crime. At this point these people could be sending innocent people into jail for a crime that they did not commit or might have not even been there.
There has to be many of these cases too. We don’t always heard of any mistakes in the criminal justice system because after a verdict is committed not many lawyers or police agents look at the case again until something similar to the case occurs. The case, once a verdict is said, is put away for later use. But not many times is this case opened again.
Eyewitness accounts are usually taken for a 100 percent accurate system of getting a criminal. All my days of watching “Law and Order” have showed me that once a person has said that you were at the scene of a crime you are put a prime suspect and are placed in court as a criminal. This is majorly and morally unfair and unjust. What occurs occasionally is that the people that are on the witness stand have much pressure on top of them and they lose sight of the things that occurred during the crime. Which leads to innocent people being placed on trail, for something that they might not have even been involved in.
Lucky Reaction Paper The book Lucky written by Alice Sebold, told the story of her rape and her life before and after it, including parts of the trial and criminal justice system. Her rape happened in 1981 in Syracuse, New York. My initial reaction to the beginning of the book was not good, but after reading the book I have changed my mind. I had a few problems with some of the issues that arose ...
Just as it was shown in the article, once more evidence is found the suspect that was thought to be the actual criminal might not be the actual criminal. This leaves the actual criminal out there in the real world capable of hurting someone else.
In my opinion I don’t believe anyone should be fully trailed just on an eyewitness account. Since these might be a mistake. But I do believe if you are see at the time of the crime and near the crime scene you should be detained for several hours, since you might in fact be the culprit. Also I think that eyewitness accounts should enable you to be jailed for a longer period of time until proven guilty or not guilty by the actual evidence.
When an innocent person is jailed by just a couple of evidence and an eyewitness account, it leaves this innocent person troubled in their daily life. People view them differently from this point on. And this is not right in any level of a case. Allot of information and evidence should be showed in order to fully say that someone in guilty.
Sense perception in any case should just be used in order to back up the already established evidence. Not as a main point in the case. But that is just my opinion of course. In this way many of the trails and court cases would be more accurate and much safer for all suspects. Since in a case at first there is always more than one suspect and as the case moves on the number of suspects lowers. At this point the actual culprit is realized. And the other suspects get in no trouble what so ever.