CSI Reflection Padlet by Arissa Hooks

How can what we know and what we've learned about those in the criminal justice system (e.g., our stereotypes of people who engage in crime) affect our ability to be unbiased in our knowledge? What impact does this have on the operations of and public beliefs in the CJS? Make sure you apply this week's class content on memory and learning when you answer these questions.

hooksa4 — 2024-09-13 17:23:37 UTC

Reflection #2

Biases and stereotypes impact how a person processes information, knowingly and unknowingly, making it challenging to make unbiased decisions regarding individuals in the criminal justice system. They can cause tunnel vision, leading a person to overlook information that does not confirm their suspicions. When information is continuously reinforced in a person’s brain, it becomes increasingly difficult to make unbiased judgments because their recall memory allows them to overlook information that does not match their memories.

How might a person’s understanding of the roles of the players in the criminal justice systems (e.g. victim, defendant, judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, jury, law enforcement, etc.) and the stereotypes associated with those roles (e.g., race, gender, power, etc.) impact their ability to be an objective juror on a case? Give two examples of how the expectations might be beneficial and two examples of how the expectations might be detrimental.

hooksa4 — 2024-09-20 20:41:20 UTC

A juror's understanding of the roles within the criminal justice system and associated stereotypes can significantly impact their objectivity. For instance, if a juror perceives law enforcement as flawless, they might give undue weight to police testimony, potentially undermining the defense. This expectation could lead to a biased view that the defendant is guilty simply because they are being accused, which may distort the juror's judgment.

On the beneficial side, a juror who understands the players' roles can better navigate the trial process. For example, recognizing the prosecutor's duty to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may prompt them to scrutinize the evidence more carefully. Additionally, a juror aware of societal biases might actively work to counteract their preconceptions, fostering a fairer deliberation process.

Conversely, stereotypes can hinder objectivity. A juror influenced by racial or gender biases might make assumptions about the credibility of witnesses or the defendant based on stereotypes, leading to prejudicial conclusions. Similarly, if a juror believes that defendants from certain backgrounds are inherently more likely to commit crimes, they may approach the evidence with a preconceived bias, affecting their impartiality.

Do you personally have the qualities necessary to be a good investigator? Why or why not? (Be honest.) What could potentially go wrong if an investigator relies on their knowledge from TV on how to conduct an investigation? What are the short-term and long-term effects of that?

hooksa4 — 2024-10-11 15:47:40 UTC

I do not have the qualities necessary to be a good I do not possess the qualities necessary to be a good investigator. My communication skills need a lot of improvement, as I often struggle to express my thoughts clearly and effectively. Additionally, I find it challenging to remain objective in emotionally charged situations, which can cloud my judgment. My excess empathy, while well-intentioned, often leads me to want to help everyone, making it difficult to maintain the necessary distance required in an investigative role. If an investigator relies too heavily on their knowledge from TV, they could face serious consequences. For example, they might misinterpret evidence due to the dramatized portrayals of forensic science, leading to incorrect conclusions. Their interviewing techniques may suffer as well, resulting in ineffective interviews that fail to extract crucial information from witnesses. Overconfidence stemming from fictional portrayals can cause them to overlook critical details, which could prove detrimental to a case. Misusing established procedures could compromise investigations and skew results while developing biases based on exaggerated narratives. The long-term effects of these missteps can be severe. An investigator’s credibility might be irreversibly damaged if they repeatedly fail to deliver sound results, leading to a loss of trust among peers and the public. Legal consequences may arise if evidence is mishandled, jeopardizing the investigation's integrity. A lack of adaptability could prevent them from responding effectively to new challenges, while unethical practices learned from fiction could result in disciplinary action. Ultimately, these issues could lead to missed opportunities for promotions and hinder professional growth.

If an investigator relies too much on their knowledge from TV they could risk misinterpreting evidence, ineffectively interveiw a witness, become overconfedent and miss details, missuse procedures, and create bias's. Long term effects could be damage to crediability, legal consequences, lack of adaptibility, unethical practices, missed oppurtunies and promotions.

How does the presence/likelihood of failed forensic evidence interact with the race and gender of the defendant? How can failed forensic evidence be prevented? Make sure you discuss failed forensic evidence and the race/gender of the defendant within the investigation and in the courtroom.

hooksa4 — 2024-10-25 20:14:05 UTC

Flawed forensic evidence often involves defendants’ race and gender, which can greatly affect investigations and the outcomes in the courtroom. Research shows that bias can emerge during trials, with jurors sometimes viewing forensic evidence differently based on these factors. For example, male defendants, particularly from minorities, often face intense scrutiny. This can lead jurors to place unearned trust in unreliable forensic evidence, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and raising the risk of wrongful convictions.

When the forensic evidence fails, it can harm the defendant. Investigators could unintentionally fixate on evidence that confirms their bias, potentially causing them to miss other crucial information that could clear a defendant’s name. This bias contributes to the likelihood of wrongful conviction. To tackle these issues, it's essential to set clear standards for forensic practice and offer the proper training throughout a professional career. Increasing diversity within forensic teams can also help reduce bias, as different perspectives can lead to a more comprehensive investigation. Regular audits and reviews of forensic methods and their courtroom applications are key to maintaining reliability and preventing unjust outcomes.

This week, we focused on the ethics of forensic science, but also on the ethics inherent in investigations on the whole. Ethics in investigations implies an objectivity that is free from any bias. Why is it so important that those involved in a criminal investigation should be held to the highest ethical standards? Use Walter McMillian's case from the Just Mercy reading for this week (e.g., the Introduction to Chapter 4) to support your response.

hooksa4 — 2024-11-08 21:53:18 UTC

Maintaining high ethical standards during a criminal investigation is crucial. When investigators and legal professionals allow biases knowingly or unknowingly to influence their work, it can undermine the entire process and lead to wrongful convictions, as highlighted in the Walter McMillian case in the novel Just Mercy.

McMillian was wrongfully convicted of murder in Alabama largely based on racial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, and a lack of thorough investigation. The reliance on the coerced testimony, specifically from Ralph Myers, who was pressured to implicate McMillian without evidence, demonstrates how investigative bias can distort the truth. The failure to consider crucial alibi witnesses shows a troubling trend where the chase for a conviction means more than justice. Prosecutorial misconduct, including concealment of evidence and the presentation of misleading information, points out the urgent need for ethical accountability in the legal system. Upholding high ethical standards protects against wrongful convictions, fosters public trust in the justice system, and safeguards the dignity and rights of all individuals involved.

Why do you think this book is called Just Mercy? What impact did this book have on you? (The 250 word limit will not be enforced for this week's reflection)

hooksa4 — 2024-12-06 18:34:12 UTC

This book is called Just Mercy to highlight the necessity for mercy in the criminal justice system. Throughout the book, we hear multiple stories of people unfairly sentenced to death and see how individuals in the criminal justice system unintentionally create racial bias. These stories pull at the heartstrings and often call for people to look at the justice system and demand justice. For me, the word "mercy" means offering others forgiveness, compassion, and understanding. Bryan Stevenson wants us to recognize the humanity of those in the system, something we often overlook.

The book made me step back and reflect on the darker aspects, so to speak, of our criminal justice system. It also made me realize that a death sentence or imprisonment doesn't just affect the individual; it impacts their family and community. This book showed me who I don’t want to be in the criminal justice system and raised my awareness of how my actions can affect others. In the long run, as we age, these actions may cause more harm than help someone.