Governmental Responses to Crime: Ancient-Contemporary Comparisons

As you study criminal justice, it is imperative to examine the various responses to crime through history. Traditionally, responses were focused on current issues without connecting the historical relationship between groups, institutions, cultures, and governmental ideologies. Understanding the historical context of contemporary criminal justice responses is critical. For this Discussion, you compare ancient governmental responses around the world to crime with contemporary responses to crime. Select a specific crime, and using the Learning Resources, research ancient (of your choice; see your Learning Resources for context) and contemporary responses to that crime. Analyze the commonalities and differences between the responses, and evaluate whether or not the responses are effective. Post by Day 3 the type of crime you selected. Then explain one ancient governmental response and one contemporary governmental response to that crime. As can be found in this week’s readings, crime is responded to from the relative cultural reality of that time period. Provide an example to illustrate your points. Describe the commonalities and the differences in these responses. Explain whether or not you consider either response effective and why. Finally, explain whether international responses to crime have helped shape the governmental response to crime where you live. If so, explain how. Provide an example. Use the Walden Library and select an article to support your response. SAMPLE OF MAIN DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT RESPONSE QUESTION: “Why would someone confess to something they did not do? How can the criminal justice system protect against false confessions?” Title: Mod 4 Discussion: False Confessions. Introduction: After reviewing a short clip on four Navy Sailors that all claimed they committed to the same act of raping and murdering a woman. In this discussion I will be explaining why individuals confess to crimes they have not committed. False confessions are more common than we think. They are confessions made by an individual that is not responsible for the crime that is normally induced by interrogation. Coercion: Coercion is the practice of persuading someone by using threats or force. Interrogations are long, stressful, and unpleasant. They are meant to make the suspect confess to the crime. When an investigator is interrogating the suspect for long periods of time they believe the only way they are able to leave the situation is to confess (Leo, 2009). After watching the video, the Sailors mentioned they confessed to the crime because they wanted to tell the investigators what they wanted to hear. The detective walked in to the room after Derek requested a lawyer and told him “told you, you were guilty, told you, you would fail”. The detective started the interrogation process again, which is when the Derek decided to just tell the detective what he wanted to hear about the case. Lesser Sentence: Joe Dick committed to the crime and the penalty was death. His attorney recommended a plea bargain to lessen the sentence because the case was based off of Joe’s confession to the crime. His attorney recommended that Joe tell the truth and bring forth names of others that were involved. When individuals hear the death penalty they fear for their life. It is known that “innocent suspects to confess in exchange for a lesser sentence” (Hritz, Blau, & Tomezsko n.d.) There are times that individuals will confess to crimes to receive a plea bargain in hopes of a lesser sentence. Mental Disabilities: There are times that mental disabilities and mental capability has forced an individual to give a false confession. “Mental disabilities have often falsely confessed because they are tempted to accommodate and agree with authority figures” (False Confessions, 2017). “Mentally capable adults also give false confessions due to a variety of factors like the length of interrogation, exhaustion, or a belief that they can be released after confessing and prove their innocence later” (False Confessions, 2017). If an individual is under the influence their brain is not functioning correctly. If they were to admit to a crime at that time, the investigator could use that against them again, making them falsely confess later. Also, mentally capable can create false confessions. For example, when Joe Dick was under interrogation, the investigator would leave the room and come back to interrogate him more until he finally was exhausted and just gave in. Conclusions and Policy Implications: In conclusion, it is my own personal opinion, that there should be a limit to interrogations. The situation between the Sailors that took place was uncalled for. The investigators had four individuals that admitted to a crime they did not do. Therefore, the person that did commit the crime was still on the streets and not behind bars. I believe that investigators should maintain integrity when interrogating any one. They should question those that are suspected of the crime and get to the bottom of it. There should never be a time when an individual feels they need to confess just to get the interrogation over with. References: False Confessions. (2017, December 14). Retrieved from https://themip(dot)org/issues/false-confessions/Links to an external site. Hritz, A., Blau, M., & Tomezsko, S. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://courses2(dot)cit(dot)cornell(dot)edu/sociallaw/student_projects/FalseConfessions.htmlLinks to an external site. Leo, R. A. (2009, September 1). False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications. Retrieved from http://jaapl(dot)org/content/37/3/332#pageLinks to an external site.