Unfair
The Central Park 5 case is among the many cases that have drawn attention to problematic facets of the American criminal justice system. The facts provided by Sarah Burn’s book, The Central Park Five and Adam Benforado’s book, Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice each declare that systematic failures are to blame for many miscarriages of justice. Moreover, Burn’s explains the circumstances surrounding the infamous verdict of the Central Park Five case while Benforado illustrates the science behind such phenomena. Benforado discloses that discrimination and violations of due process are not a result of “a few bad apples” and the reasons that incidents such as the Central Park Five are based on two comparable facts: The people …show more content…
Moreover, interrogators convinced the boys that there was evidence that proved they were guilty and that their friends had already told about their involvement. They also claimed that that the boys would be sent home or get off easier if they just confessed. Aside from this, the boys were running on no sleep or food for almost 14 hours. Benforado explains that this method of coercion encourages the accused to think there is no way out and they would better off if they just confessed, even if they are not guilty. Benforado also argues that minimization and maximization of the accused’s involvement in a given situation are likely to increase the rate of false confessions. In the case of the Central Park 5, investigators “minimized” by promising a deal for a confession. Moreover, investigators pretended to identify with the suspects by offering "rationalizations" for the crime in question. They suggested that the alleged crime was not so bad, and in turn, confessing would not be so bad, either. Overall, the empirical studies evidenced by Benforado show that people are significantly more likely to confess to something they did not do when coerced with such techniques (Benforado, …show more content…
In the case of official law enforcement, we place too much responsibility on individuals to make crucial decisions about the fate of others. The officers in charge of enforcing laws are too empowered in deciding what is justifiable and what is not. The people who decide whether or not law enforcement was right in doing so are bias and partial in their own way. Currently, poor and minority people are not accorded the same protection under the law as the majority of white citizens are. The “swift and efficient” justice system has become more of a competitive revolving door with coercion, false confessions, and corruption. Benforado reminds us how far the practice of criminal justice has drifted from its supposed goals. Even though much of these factors seem individualistic, there are ways to systematically control it. For example, all jurors should be required to take an implicit bias test before serving (Benforado, 2016). The adversarial system has lost touch with its true merit. Attorneys should have to sign an oath or pledge their allegiance to serving the public in a fair, plausible way (Benforado, 2016). The bottom line is that the legal system is meant to distribute justice, not allocate revenge or retribution. Within both books the message is clear; the criminal justice system should acknowledge that Lady Justice is blind and also, the
The Central Park 5 case is among the many cases that have drawn attention to problematic facets of the American criminal justice system. The facts provided by Sarah Burn’s book, The Central Park Five and Adam Benforado’s book, Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice each declare that systematic failures are to blame for many miscarriages of justice. Moreover, Burn’s explains the circumstances surrounding the infamous verdict of the Central Park Five case while Benforado illustrates the science behind such phenomena. Benforado discloses that discrimination and violations of due process are not a result of “a few bad apples” and the reasons that incidents such as the Central Park Five are based on two comparable facts: The people …show more content…
Moreover, interrogators convinced the boys that there was evidence that proved they were guilty and that their friends had already told about their involvement. They also claimed that that the boys would be sent home or get off easier if they just confessed. Aside from this, the boys were running on no sleep or food for almost 14 hours. Benforado explains that this method of coercion encourages the accused to think there is no way out and they would better off if they just confessed, even if they are not guilty. Benforado also argues that minimization and maximization of the accused’s involvement in a given situation are likely to increase the rate of false confessions. In the case of the Central Park 5, investigators “minimized” by promising a deal for a confession. Moreover, investigators pretended to identify with the suspects by offering "rationalizations" for the crime in question. They suggested that the alleged crime was not so bad, and in turn, confessing would not be so bad, either. Overall, the empirical studies evidenced by Benforado show that people are significantly more likely to confess to something they did not do when coerced with such techniques (Benforado, …show more content…
In the case of official law enforcement, we place too much responsibility on individuals to make crucial decisions about the fate of others. The officers in charge of enforcing laws are too empowered in deciding what is justifiable and what is not. The people who decide whether or not law enforcement was right in doing so are bias and partial in their own way. Currently, poor and minority people are not accorded the same protection under the law as the majority of white citizens are. The “swift and efficient” justice system has become more of a competitive revolving door with coercion, false confessions, and corruption. Benforado reminds us how far the practice of criminal justice has drifted from its supposed goals. Even though much of these factors seem individualistic, there are ways to systematically control it. For example, all jurors should be required to take an implicit bias test before serving (Benforado, 2016). The adversarial system has lost touch with its true merit. Attorneys should have to sign an oath or pledge their allegiance to serving the public in a fair, plausible way (Benforado, 2016). The bottom line is that the legal system is meant to distribute justice, not allocate revenge or retribution. Within both books the message is clear; the criminal justice system should acknowledge that Lady Justice is blind and also, the