Torture and "Ticking Bomb" Scenarios

            Between 1994 and 1995 authorities received information that Ramzi Yousef, who was being interrogated in the Philippines, planned to blow up a dozen jumbo jets over the Pacific Ocean. Ramzi Yousef was one of the masterminds of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Philippine authorities were able to foil Yousef’s plan after they tortured the terrorist for sixty-seven days (Guiora & Page, 2006). By foiling the bombings of a dozen jumbo jets, the Philippine authorities saved several hundred lives before the act was carried out by a terrorist. This scenario is a perfect example of a “ticking bomb” situation. A “ticking bomb” scenario involves an uncooperative terrorist, like an al-Qaeda or Taliban captive, who refuses to produce information about an imminent chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. After all methods of interrogation have not been successful, is it o.k. to torture the captive? National polls have shown that some Americans support torture in some situations, though the majority still opposes torture itself (Allhoff, 2003). If you believe that torture is not morally acceptable and is wrong, consider this “ticking bomb” scenario in Italy.  In 1978 an ultra-left Red Brigade commandos kidnapped former Prime Minister Aldo Moro, the head of the ruling Christian Democratic party, after killing his bodyguard (Andersen, 2002). An Italian police officer suggested to General Carlos Alberto Della Chiesa that a detainee who had vital information should be tortured to save the former prime minister’s life. General Carlos Alberto Della Chiesa was the individual who was in charge of the investigation. General Della Chiesa who was later killed by the Sicilian Mafia, stated “Italy can permit itself to lose Aldo Moro, what it cannot allow is the practice of torture” (Anderson, 2002). Former Prime Minister Aldo Moro was eventually killed by his captives 54 days after he was kidnapped even though a prisoner in government custody had all the information to save a man’s life and arrest members of a terrorist organization. This scenario shows that regardless of the political or moral stance on torture, people still lose their lives. We will examine the legality of torture or lack thereof and history of torture in the United States. The philosophic theories of torture will also be examined.

            Torture, for some countries, is a common approach to obtaining information from captive prisoners. Saddam Hussein’s former country of Iraq practices cruel torture techniques such as cutting out peoples tongues, gouging out eyes, lopping off limbs, stringing people up with piano wire, and executing people by the tens of thousands among other methods (Hooks & Mosher, 2005). The countries of Jordon, Egypt, and Morocco are well-known for inflicting brutal treatment on not only on suspected terrorists, but against political dissidents as well. While torture is an old and common practice to obtain information in other countries, some people incorrectly assume that it is a relatively new practice in the United States.

            From the beginnings of this country to today’s current “War on Terror”, torture has been documented even though torture violates U.S. Code and the Geneva Conventions throughout history. The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, a category that includes torture. U.S. law under 18 U.S.C 2340-2340A states that there are no exceptions that would allow for the use of torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the use of torture in any circumstances without actually defining what constitutes torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). So, why does the United States still commit acts of torture? This is partially due to the Landau Commission in 1984, also known as a National Committee of Inquiry, which concluded that controlled moderate physical duress could be allowed in “ticking bomb” situations (Guiora & Page, 2006). The Commission found that certain interrogation methods were legal. This included wall standing, the playing of loud music, sleep deprivation, physical discomfort through manipulation of room temperatures, sitting in an uncomfortable position, and the wearing of a hood. Furthermore, in a “ticking bomb” situation the detainee could be violently shaken (Guiora & Page, 2006). Eventually, a series of court rulings stated that certain actions were acceptable while others were not in “ticking bomb” situations.

During the Reagan Administration, the U.S. relied on the court ruling in Ireland v. United Kingdom that found that torture is limited to “extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices” (Guiora & Page, 2006). This set an international judicial precedent that actions including wall standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation, and deprivation of food and drink were inhuman and degrading; but these do not amount to torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). Therefore, U.S. authorities used such methods that would not violate law, since certain actions do not constitute as torture.

The balance of legitimate national security interests of the United States and the civil liberties of the individual came to a head on September 11^th, 2001. President Bush and his administration, after the largest terroristic acts on U.S. soil and in our history, dealt with the issue between intelligence and interrogation and whether the confluence of the two must necessarily lead to torture (Guiora & Page, 2006). The Bush administration was confronted with legal and moral dilemmas regarding the limits of counter-terrorism. A memo written by LTC Jerald Pfifer on October 11, 2001 specified which interrogation techniques may be used against detainees held in Abu Ghraid and Guantanamo Bay that were holding suspected terrorist responsible for the 9-11 attacks (Guiora & Page, 2006). These techniques included using scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or painful consequences are imminent for the detainee and their family, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation, and “water-boarding”. “Water-boarding” is the strapping down of a detainee to a board or held down to induce the sensation of drowning as either water is repeatedly poured down the individual’s throat or the head is immersed in water (Guiora & Page, 2006). Another memo that affected the counter-terrorism torture debate post-September 11^th was a memo drafted by then Assistant Attorney General (now Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge) Jay Bybee.  According to the Bybee memo, for an act to be defined as torture the interrogator must have intended to cause the detainee prolonged harm for a number of months or years (Guiora & Page, 2006). These memos lead to the events that transpired at Abu Ghraid, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and additional secret facilities. The events that transpired have led others in the international community to assume the American government endorses and therefore encourages torture.

A report in 2004 conducted an investigation after the Abu Ghraib abuses were highly publicized. The Fay-Jones report identified 44 instances or events of detainee abuse committed by Military Police, Military Intelligence soldiers, and civilian contractors at Abu Ghirab prison. Some of the found actions included the following:

a.       Contests between army dog handlers to see who could make the detainees urinate or defecate in the presence of dogs;

b.      Three detainees were stripped, handcuffed together nude, forced to lay on the ground, forced to lie on each other and stimulate sex while being photographed;

c.       The rape of a female detainee and the rape of a 15-18 year-old male detainee;

d.      A detainee being forced to bark like a dog and crawl on his stomach while MP’s spat and urinated on him;

e.       Several instances of detainees being forced to wear woman’s underwear, often on their heads;

f.       A detainee who was beaten with a broom and had a chemical light broken and poured over his body. MP’s then used the broom to sodomize the detainee while two female MP’s hit him, threw a ball at his genitals and took photographs (Hooks & Mosher, 2005).

           These actions lead to the dishonorable discharge of Pvt. Charles Graner, Pfc. Lynndie England, Spc. Sabrina Harman, and others (Guirra & Page, 2006). While lower ranking members working at Abu Ghraid detention center were sentenced and found guilty of their crimes, higher ranking members received no criminal sentences. President Bush further stated during media reports that these actions were the results of “bad apples” and not due to official memos sent from higher commanders. I personally did not believe that these low ranking soldiers acted alone, I believe their behavior was seen by supervisors and nothing was done to stop it. Interestingly enough, the same report in Abu Ghraid offenses states that 90 percent of the detainees were arrested by mistake; even though this cannot be confirmed because of national security issues and lack of media disclosures (Hooks & Mosher, 2005).

            While the detainees were not arrested for minor traffic violations and their accused offenses are murderous crimes, does this make torture permissible? Prominent public figures have defended and excused the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraid, although they are illegal acts. It can be argued that individuals forfeit whatever rights that might protect them against torture once they engage in certain activities, such as terrorism. If this philosophical argument is true, then torture technically does not violate rights. Assume that a captive has knowledge that could prevent the deaths of innocent lives, like those in the “ticking bomb” situations described above. If a captive is not tortured and the information is not obtained, then the rights of the innocent lives has just been violated. If you torture or not torture prisoners in a “ticking bomb” situation someone’s rights will be violated. Therefore, I am personally unsure if torture can ever be justified, so long as we find ourselves in such a quandary that rights will end up being broken whether torture occurs or not.             

REFERENCES

Allhoff, F. (2003). Terrorism and Torture. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17, (1), 105-118.

Andersen, M. (2002). Is Torture an Option In War on Terror?. Insight on the News, 18, (22), 21-23.

Guiora, A. & Page, E. (2006). The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence, Interrogation and Torture. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 37, (2/3), 427-447.

Hooks, G. & Mosher, C. (2005). Outrages Against Personal Dignity: Rationalizing Abuse and Torture in the War on Terror. Social Forces, 83, (4), 1627-1646.

"Terrorism"---How Should It Be Defined?

"Terrorism" is surrounded by terminological confusion in criminology because there is no clear definition of the term. Terrorism lacks a universal coherent definition and is frequently used in propagandist terms. A large part of the definitional problems of the term are the large range of competing definitions. Criminologists argue that without a clear definition, terminological confusion that exists could effect how to properly respond to terrorism. The definitional problems that exists are the wide range of competing definitions, literal inappropriateness of the term itself, definition by identity of the target and act, definition through reference to the identity of the perpetrator, and the problem of related phenomena to acts of terrorism (English, 2009).

Some criminologists argue that terrorism is a political act committed by a member of a foreign culture for religious or political causes.This notion completely discounts any acts of terrorism committed by "home-grown" terrorists. A perfect example of this would be the bombing in Oklahoma City. The bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was a U.S. citizen who served in the U.S. Army who detonated a truck bomb seeking revenge for the government's actions in the Waco Siege. McVeigh was a militia movement sympathizer and committed an act of terrorism without being a member of a foreign terrorist organization or a foreign culture.

The best literary definition I have seen for terrorism can be attributed to Robert English. It should be noted that Dr. English is a professor of politics, and not criminology. English (2009) states that terrorism involves:
"heterogeneous violence used or threatened with a political aim; it can involve a variety of acts, of targets, and of actors; it possesses an important psychological dimension, producing terror fear among a directly threatened group and also a wider implied audience in the hope of maximizing political communication and achievement; it embodies the exerting and implementing of power, and the attempted redressing of power relations; it represents a subspecies of warfare, and as such it can form part of a wider campaign of violent and non-violent attempts at political leverage". 

While no definition of terrorism will ever be perfect, Dr. English has demonstrated that his definition establishes a strong foundation to properly respond to terrorism. Since in order to respond to terrorism, we must be actually able to define it universally.

English, R. (2009) Terrorism: How to Respond. Oxford, New York. Oxford University Press.

C.S.I. Myths and Latent Print Development Techniques: The Reality of Latent Print Recovery

   C.S.I. Myths and Latent Print Development Techniques: The Reality of Latent Print Recovery

        

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation first aired on CBS television on Friday, October 6^th 2000 (Cohan, 2008) and has been one of the top television shows on the air since then. Currently it is estimated that over 60 million people watch the CSI television show every week (Heinrick, 2006). Since the airing of the first show, America has seen a 250% increase in the amount of programs featuring forensic science as a course of study (Dutelle, 2006). While the show has made “superglue fuming” and “latent prints” household terms, the effect that the show has on the public perception on forensic science can not be ignored.  The show depicts scientific evidence being gathered, processed, and used to solve major crimes. The characters of the show use costly and high techniques to produce compelling evidence connecting a suspect to a specific crime and reconstruct the crime itself all within one hour. The show depicts that forensic evidence is gathered at every crime scene and the evidence, not the actual investigation, solves the criminal case. The show often depicts unrealistic ideas of what surfaces can be printed. 

Latent fingerprints are the most common form of fingerprint evidence and also the one that poses the most problems (Voss-De Haan, 2006). Latent fingerprints consist of a few micrograms of material transferred from the ridge skin to the surface when the fingers touch a surface. This material is a mixture of natural secretions of the body as well as contaminants from the environment (Voss-De Haan, 2006). Most latent prints are made of perspiration, which exudes from the pores of the skin in the ridges of the print (Allen, 2007). Perspiration contains about 98% water, but the mixture of different organic and inorganic compounds vary depending on an individual’s eccrine and apocrine glands (Voss-De Haan, 2006). With this high concentration of water, prints have a tendency to dry out and sometimes disappear completely (Allen, 2007). Life expectancy of a print is unknown on certain surfaces, but the life expancy can be decreased due to real world conditions such as temperature, moisture, and humidity of the surface (Sampson & Sampson, 2005).

Latent fingerprints have three main categories for eight different pattern types. The first category is the arch which comprises of about 5% of all pattern types, this category consists of the plain arch and tented arch pattern type (Coppock, 2001). The loop pattern comprises of about 65% of all pattern types, and this category type consists of the right slope loop and the left slope loop (Coppock, 2001). The third category consists of the whorl, which comprises of about 30% of all pattern types. The whorl category consists of the plain whorl, central pocket loop, double loop, and accidental whorl (Coppock, 2001). The average fingerprint can contain as many as 175 individual ridge characteristics that can distinguish the fingerprint from others (Jones, 2006). However, a print usually found at a crime scene will be a partial print, only representing 20% of a full fingerprint (Jones, 2006).

Prints can be lifted off porous and non-porous surfaces. Porous surfaces would consist of paper, cardboard, and raw wood. The best latent development techniques for porous surfaces are iodine fuming and Ninhydrin techniques (Sirchie, 2002). Iodine fuming works by a mechanism of interaction of physical absorption (Lee & Gaensslen, 2001). When iodine crystals are warmed, they produce a violent iodine vapor that is absorbed by the fingerprint secretion residues. The latent print then takes on an appearance of a yellowish brown color (Lee & Gaensslen, 2001). Ninhydrin, on the other hand is not used in a process of fuming like iodine or Cyanoacrylate (superglue). Ninhydrin is a biological stain that reacts with the amino acid of latent prints. The amino acids form a permanent chemical bond with the Ninhydrin and the latent prints will become visible (Sirchie, 2002). Ninhydrin solutions can be applied by spraying, swabbing, or dipping a surface containing a possible latent print (Lee & Gaensslen, 2001).

Non-porous surfaces include painted wood or metal, glass, plastics, and polished surfaces. The best latent print development techniques for non-porous surfaces are oxide, florescent, magnetic, metallic, or a combination of print powders (Sirchie, 2002). Fingerprint powders rely on the mechanical adherence of powder particles to the moisture and oily components of skin ridge deposits of the latent prints (Lee & Gaensslen, 2001). It should be noted that just because these methods are the reported best technique for recovery of latent prints from porous and non-porous surfaces it does not mean a latent print can be recovered every time, like on CSI.

In a CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode called “Burked” (Mendelsohn, Zuiker, & Cannon, 2001),  Detective Brass asks a CSI technician, “Can you get a print off those balloons?” The technician replies “I can get a print off of air”. Statements like this one may make viewers believe that fingerprint evidence is always recoverable (VanLaerhoven & Anderson, 2009). Actually, fingerprints may not be available for a number of reasons. Many materials are not conducive to retaining prints and weathering of surfaces may have also removed any prints (VanLaerhoven & Anderson, 2009). Rarely people leave crisp detailed complete latent prints behind that are seen weekly on CSI. It is entirely possible to touch an item and not leave behind a latent print. When most people touch something, they only contact the surface with part of the fingerpad, and often moving their fingers creating a smudged print (VanLaerhoven & Anderson, 2009).  A smudged print can not be used for comparison and hold very little evidentiary value. For example, it is particularly difficult to retrieve a latent print from rough surfaces such as wood, cloth, skin, cardboard, or Styrofoam. Latent prints may also be partial prints, smeared, or on top of each other (Fischer, 2008). Realistically, smooth shinny surfaces are the best sources for clear, complete latent prints suitable for comparison and identification (Fischer, 2008).

In CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode “Weeping Willows” (Lloyd & Fink, 2005), a CSI technician fumes a .22 pistol and recovers a perfect print off the weapon that leads to a suspect and solves the case. While latent prints can be possibly recovered off a gun barrel, grip, trigger, magazine, or cartridge finding latent prints off firearms are always difficult (Coppock, 2001). The most frequently used method for fuming a firearm is cyanoacrylate fuming. Cyanocrylate fuming reacts with latent print residues to create a visible white plastic-like print appearance (Coppock, 2001). The difficulty with recovering latent prints on firearms occurs for several reasons. On triggers, most surface areas are grooved to ensure a good grip and are small in nature making the recovery of even a partial print difficult. Once a weapon has been fired, the probability of recovering latent prints on working parts of the firearm are low due to the heat expended (Coppock, 2001). Many forensic experts state that the highest success rate for recovering latent prints from a firearm is usually the unfired cartridges from the firearm. The surface area of the unfired cartridge contributes to a higher recovery rate of prints (Coppock, 2001).

In CSI: Crime Scene Investigation “Play with Fire”(Shankar, Lipsitz, & Fink, 2003), CSI Grissom discovers a body in a press box at a high school stadium. He immediately covers the body in a plastic sheet and fumes the deceased and recovers one print that leads to the arrest of the offender. Once again CSI has made a very difficult task appear easy and frequently used. Realistically, human skin is probably one of the most difficult items to process for latent prints. According to an article in the Journal of Forensic Identification, the probability of recovering a latent print of evidentially value off the skin of a deceased individual is approx. 15,000,000 to one (Sampson, 1996). Although the odds are likely that a latent print will not be recovered of human skin, there is an extremely small chance of a latent print recovery. There are over 70 different methods used to process human skin for latent prints, but the most documented successful process has been the use of magnetic powders (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). Cyanoacrylate fuming, iodine fuming, and ninhydrin are a few of the chemicals used for recovery of latent prints off deceased skin. On living skin, the most common techniques for lifting latent prints are magnetic powders, lifting paper, and photography (Morris, 2005). Magnetic powders used in a direct application method have been more successful at the recovery of latent prints, than cyanoacrylate fuming (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). CSI: Crime Scene Investigation demonstrates cyanoacrylate fuming as only way to process prints of a deceased body, when most technicians use magnetic powders. Keys to successful recovery of evidentiary prints are ambient and skin surface temperature, relative humidity, and the scene environment (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). On deceased individuals, once the surface skin temperature gets 89.6 F or higher, the latent residues transform into a liquid state or diffuse, which can wash away prints (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). Obviously, time is an issue in the recovery of latent prints from human skin. Most prints on human skin must be recovered within a few hours of deposit (Morris, 2005). On living human skin, latent prints can be recovered up to 1.5 hours after the prints are placed on the skin. Currently, it is unknown how long a latent print can remain on a deceased body since proper controlling of the body’s environment are critical in the discovery of latent prints (Sampson & Sampson, 2005). A latent print was recovered 5 hours off a deceased individual in a controlled environment in Miami, the longest recorded time to date (Sampson & Sampson, 2005).

        

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, although entertaining, is very misleading about the processing and development of latent prints. The show presents improbable forensic latent print recoveries, such as prints from human skin, as a common procedure.  Recent reports indicate that this top-rated show may have a significant impact on the real criminal justice system in the future by creating unrealistic expectations about the field of forensic science and how latent prints can be processed. These unrealistic expectations could impact the way jurors and others view the “how” and “what” of surface areas that might contain latent prints. Unfortunately, these unrealistic expectations can make forensic experts and investigators’ jobs more difficult than it normally is.

REFERENCES

Allen, S. (2007, April). Crime Scene Myths. Law & Order, 55(4), 90-94.

Coppock, C. (2001). Contrast: An Investigator’s Basic Reference Guide to Fingerprint Identification Concepts. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Cohan, S. (2008). CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dutelle, A. (2006, May). The CSI Effect and Your Department. Law & Order, 54(5), 113-114.

Fisher, J. (2008). Fingerprint Identification: Trouble in Paradise. Forensics Under Fire: Are Bad Science and Dueling Experts Corrupting Criminal Justice. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Heinrick, J. (2006). Everyone’s an Expert: The CSI Effect’s Negative Impact on Juries. The Triple Helix. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from www.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf.

Lee, H. & Gaensslen, R. (2001). Advances in Fingerprint Technology (2^nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Lloyd, A. (writer) & Fink, K. (director). (2005). Weeping Willows. In J. Bruckheimer (producer), CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Los Angeles: CBS Broadcasting Company.

Mendelsohn, C. (writer), Zuiker, A (writer), & Cannon, D. (director). (2001). Burked. In J. Bruckheimer (producer), CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Los Angeles: CBS Broadcasting Company.

Morris, M. (2005). Casting a Wide Net: Lifting Fingerprints from Difficult Surfaces. Forensic Magazine. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://www.forensicmag.com/Article_Print.asp?pid=52.

Sampson, W. (1996). Latent Fingerprint Evidence from Human Skin (Part 1). Journal of Forensic Identification, 46(2), 362-385.

Sampson, W. & Sampson, K. (2005). Recovery of Latent Prints from Human Skin. Journal of Forensic Identification, 55(3), 188-206.

Shankar, N. (writer), Lipsitz, A. (writer), & Fink, K. (director). (2003). Play With Fire. In J. Bruckheimer (producer), CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Los Angeles: CBS Broadcasting Company.

Sirchie Finger Print Laboratories (2002). Overview of Latent Print Development Techniques. Youngsville, NC: Sirchie.

VanLaerhoven, S. & Anderson, G. (2009). The Science and Careers of CSI. The CSI Effect: Television, Crime, and Governance. New York: Lexington Books.

Voss-De Haan, P. (2006, July-August). Physics and Fingerprints. Contemporary Physics, 47(4), 209-230.

Criminals and Psychopathology

            The first personality disorder to be recognized in the field of psychiatry was psychopathy. Psychopathy is commonly associated with an increased risk for antisocial behavior, crime, and violence (Hare & Neumann, 2009). In the field of criminal justice, encountering a criminal exhibiting psychopathology is a frequent occurrence based on the symptoms of this personality disorder. Psychopathology is defined as a personality disorder based on a cluster of symptoms. These symptoms include a constellation of interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial traits and behaviors (Hare & Neumann, 2009). Typically psychopathology is broken down into primary psychopath, secondary psychopath, controlled, and inhibited groups (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008). The antisocial behavior of primary psychopaths is usually an absence of conscience or guilt, typically making them incurable. Secondary psychopaths are motivated by underlying psychopathology and are potentially treatable (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008). Typically, individuals who suffer from secondary psychopathy have an inability to form interpersonal bonds and lack empathy and conscience.

            Primary psychopaths are typically impulsive, aggressive, hostile, extroverted  and self confident with low to average anxiety. Like primary psychopaths, secondary psychopaths are hostile, impulsive, and aggressive. Secondary psychopaths, unlike primary psychopaths, appear to be socially anxious, moody, and have low self-esteem (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008). The two other classifications of psychopathology are controlled and inhibited. The controlled classes of psychopaths are defensive, controlled, sociable, have low anxiety and high self-esteem. The inhibited classifications of psychopaths are shy, withdrawn, controlled, moderately anxious, and have low self-esteem (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008).

            Besides the classification types of psychopathology; investigators should be aware of the different clusters of interpersonal and affective traits and behaviors. On the interpersonal level psychopaths are grandiose, deceptive, dominant, superficial, and manipulative (Hare & Neumann, 2009). They typically have glibness or superficial charm and a grandiose sense of self-worth. Imagine serial killer Ted Bundy; several individuals who met him have stated that he was a rather charming individual. He actually used his superficial charm to lure some of his victims to his vehicle, where they ultimately met their deaths at the hands of Bundy. On the interpersonal level they are also manipulative for personal gain and deceitful (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008).

            Lifestyle behaviors like the need for stimulation, a parasitic lifestyle, impulsivity, and irresponsibility are also common with psychopaths (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008). While these behaviors alone might not be enough to indicate a clinical case of psychopathology, these behaviors combined with antisocial behavior could. Antisocial behavior like poor behavior controls, early behavior problems, criminal versatility, poor anger control, and juvenile delinquency could all lead to a diagnosis of psychopathology (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008).

            After examining behaviors and traits like those presented above, it is easy to see how understanding psychopathology aids predicting criminal behaviors. The characteristics important for inhibiting antisocial and violent behavior are seriously deficient in psychopathic people; empathy, close emotional bonds, fear of punishment, guilt (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008). Psychopathic people expressing their egocentricity, grandiosity, sense of entitlement, impulsivity, lack of behavioral inhibitions, and the need for power and control constitute what maybe described by a prescription for the commission of antisocial and criminal acts (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008). Unlike other offenders, psychopathic people appear to suffer little personal distress, see little wrong with their attitudes and behavior, and seek treatment when it only benefits themselves (Blackburn, Logan, Donnelly, & Renwick, 2008). For investigators who are interviewing psychopaths, unless specifically trained to deal with this personality disorder, obtaining a confession might be impossible. This is due to a psychopath’s grandiose sense of self-worth and lack of guilt. Since psychopathic persons are almost impossible to relate to, I would urge investigators to interview these individuals by properly trained personnel.

           

            REFERENCES

Blackburn, R., Logan, C., Donnelly, J., & Renwick, J. (2008). Identifying Psychopathic Subtypes: Combining an Empirical Personality Classification of Offenders with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, (6), 604-622.

Blundell, N., & Blackhall, S. (2004). Visual Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. England: Greenwich Publications.

Castleden, R. (2005). Serial Killers. England: Time Warner.

Hare, R., Neumann, C., (2009). Psychopathy: Assessment and Forensic Implications. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, (12), 791-802.

Lane, B., & Gregg, W. (1995). The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. New York: Berkley Publication Group.

Cinderella and Forensic Podiatry

            Once upon a time there was a prince who hosted a huge party at the royal castle. At the gala, one female stood out from the others at the dance, her name was Cinderella. Cinderella was able to attend the party because of a magical godmother who was able to turn a pumpkin into a coach, mice into horses, her old clothes into a beautiful ball gown, and gave her glass slippers (Perrault, 1697). Cinderella was told that she had to leave the party by midnight because everything that her magical godmother had transformed would turn back to their normal state. As the night continued on and eventually approached midnight the beautiful Cinderella had to leave the prince’s company in a hurry. During her exit, Cinderella left behind a glass slipper (Perrault, 1697). The prince was so intrigued with Cinderella that he went out into the village with the glass slipper to see if it fit the woman he had met at the gala the night before. The prince tried the shoe on several women’s feet, but it did not fit. Eventually, the prince placed the glass slipper on Cinderella’s foot, and it was a perfect fit. The prince was so happy that he had found Cinderella that he married her, and they lived happily ever after (Perrault, 1697). While this old fable is well known, it demonstrates the uniqueness of our feet and how forensic podiatry works. Forensic podiatry can either link the shoe to the suspect or prove it doesn’t belong to a person in question (Earnshaw, 2008). A human footprint can tell a forensic specialist more than a fingerprint. Footprints can be examined and an approximation of someone’s height and how a person walks can be obtained (Earnshaw, 2008). Forensic specialists can examine a person’s footwear and also determine if the suspect in question has any foot deformities or other structural medical conditions, such as bad knees (Earnshaw, 2008). Another benefit of examining footprints at a crime scene is the higher possibility of obtaining a successful footprint or shoeprint. For example, a criminal can wear gloves and hide his fingerprints at a crime scene but it is extremely rare if a criminal can enter a crime scene without using their feet (Earnshaw, 2008).

            Even without scientific proof, people have long considered footprints to be different and unique. The presenting of footprint evidence in court dates back to the late 19^th century, when a criminal named LeDru was convicted in 1888 based on footprint evidence (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). One of the earliest documented footprint evidence cases in North America occurred in Canada in 1948 (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). The Kett brothers were accused of a series of burglaries. One of the brothers, William Kett, stated that he was innocent and that a pair of shoes matched to the crime scene belonged to his brother Donald, who had already been convicted. The pair of shoes that were recovered at the crime scene were cut open and the impressions were compared to Williams’ feet, which matched and lead to his conviction (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). Many of the earlier court cases relied on the assumption that barefoot impressions were unique to an individual, although no research had been done to establish this. Recent research has backed up the theory that barefoot impressions are unique to an individual. Since, like fingerprints, not every footprint in the world can be collected and compared; extensive studies have been done on barefoot impressions. These studies have concluded that the probability of a random match to an impression is 1 in 1.27 billion, indicating the variability of barefoot impressions (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). A current footprint database, called AutoCAD, has also determined and confirmed the individuality of footprints.

The uniqueness of the human foot can be viewed as morphological, biomechanical, or with the papillary ridge formations on the foot. Morphological characteristics are the visible form and structure of the foot (Hilderbrand, 1999). The human foot structure is arranged in a way of order to support the body. One part of the foot functions by supporting the body while other parts function to propel it. Foot morphology can best be described as how the foot moves and its affects the way a shoe fits during movement. Morphological characteristics allow forensic examiners to establish a link between the barefoot of a suspect to an impression left at a crime scene.

Biochemical characteristics relate to the functions of the foot. These would include foot ailments or medical conditions that effect the way a person walks and the uniqueness of wear on an individual’s shoes. Foot ailments such as bunions, calcaneal bumps, hammertoes, and sesamoiditis can have an effect on the inside of the shoe. In addition to foot defects, injury to the back, hip, knee, or leg can cause the individual to walk differently and thus change the weight-bearing areas of the foot (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). In some of these instances, foot problems can also produce distinctive wear patterns on the outsole of individual shoes (Hilderbrand, 1999). Wear patterns can be unique inside the shoe also due to other biochemical characteristics. With each step that is taken, heat is generated and sweat becomes present inside a shoe, causing it to stretch and conform to the shape of the foot (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007).

Papillary ridge formations are the components that can provide a positive identification based on the formation and unit relationship of the ridges on the bottom of the foot (Hilderbrand, 1999). Papillary ridge formations are similar to the structure of fingerprints. The foot is also comprised of highly refined interrelated segments that provide a stable base for supporting the body when standing, running, walking, and jumping. With each movement of the body, the foot or shoe leaves behind a mark according to Locard’s theory.

Footwear evidence can be found in two forms, impressions and prints. An impression is an indentation that can be found in mud or other soft materials. A print is made on a solid surface by dust, powder, or a similar medium (Hilderbrand, 2007). Footwear evidence can be divided into three categories of crime scene prints, just like latent prints. These include visible prints, plastic prints, and latent prints. Visible prints are made when the suspect’s footwear steps into a foreign substance and is contaminated by it, then the footwear comes into contact with a clean surface and it is pressed into that surface. The print can be visibly seen by the naked eye without other aids (Hilderbrand, 2007). Plastic prints are impressions that occur when footwear steps into a soft surface, like snow, mud, wet sand, or dirt creating a three-dimensional impression. These types of impressions allow forensic examiners to see length, width, and depth. Latent prints are the most overlooked at crime scenes and are usually found on smooth surfaces.

When processing a crime scene, a slow visual search should be completed for the possible discovery of shoeprints after initial crime scene photographs have been taken. The crime scene should be protected so that footwear and barefoot evidence is not lost and destroyed. Forensic crime scene technicians should always, as on any crime scene, take every step to preserve the integrity of the crime scene from further contamination. Suspected areas where the suspect might have walked should be carefully visually examined for possible latent prints. The most efficient way to search for shoeprints is to darken the room and use an intense oblique lighting source on the areas were suspected shoeprints might be located. Often times, the less visible imprints are the ones that leave the finest details for comparison (Hilderbrand, 1999). If latent prints are still not visible under oblique lighting, the area can be searched with black gel lifters. The black gel lifters can aid in viewing latent prints in oblique lighting that was not previously seen (Hilderbrand, 1999). After locating any prints, proper crime scene photographs should be taken of the scene and documented. Most prints can be enhanced to provide further detail, but as stated earlier, before any enhancement is made, evidence quality photographs need to be taken. Taking photos prior to any attempt at enhancement will help retain the evidence in case enhancement techniques destroy the impression.

Shoeprints that are found in crime scenes should be treated as fragile evidence and can deteriorate over time. In some substances, time is of critical importance in the successful recovery of shoeprints. The six most common reagents that are used at crime scenes where aged shoeprints are found are Ninhydrin and Diazofluorenone of the amino acid staining techniques, amino black and coomassie blue of the two protein staining techniques, and leucocrystal violet and fluorescein of the two peroxidise staining techniques (Morgan-Smith, Elliot, & Adam, 2009).

A study conducted by Morgan-Smith, Elliot, and Adam (2009) compared common floor coverings and shoe patterns in different elapsed time periods to determine how long shoeprints would last and which methods were best for collection and enhancement of the prints. Morgan-Smith, Elliot, and Adam (2009) conducted the tests on surface areas of carpet, linoleum, varnished wood, and paper. They discovered some interesting findings on time lapses and the processing of shoeprints. Indoor impressions were shown to deteriorate the least, followed by outdoor sheltered areas, and then areas of open exposure. Footwear impressions on paper showed the least deterioration and the impression on linoleum showed the most (Morgan-Smith, Elliot, & Adam, 2009). For untreated footwear impressions on paper in a sheltered outdoor area, many previously visible features were lost within three weeks. The outdoor impressions on linoleum flooring appeared to be washed away after one week of exposure to periodic rain (Morgan-Smith, Elliot, & Adam, 2009). As far as enhancement of aged shoeprints, it was determined that amino acid provide the best enhancement on wood flooring and linoleum after 16 weeks of exposure (Morgan-Smith, Elliot, & Adam, 2009). While this experiment did not scientifically show a specific life span of visible shoeprints, it showed that even weeks after a homicide scene had occurred valuable shoeprints could still be recovered at a scene.

If a footwear or barefoot print is located in blood, then a blood reagent may be used according to the medium of the surface area (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). Fingerprint powder can be used on concrete, wood or vinyl floors, or countertops in crime scenes where no blood is involved. In prints that appear dusty, potassium thiocyanate can be used since it reacts to iron that might be present in the soil (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). If salt is used during the winter months, then a silver nitrate solution can be used to process possible prints.

After a print has been enhanced or made more visible, it should be photographed again with a scale and lifted. If the print is located on a surface that can be cut, the area around the print can be cut out and kept as an exhibit (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). Prints that are in dust or are dusty can be lifted with an electrostatic dust lifter. An electrostatic dust lifter generates a static charge that is applied to a sheet of foil that is placed over the print. The dust is attracted to the foil sheet by static electricity, allowing the print to be properly lifted for processing (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). If a print is found on a piece of paper on the floor, it should be photographed and the electrostatic dust lifter should be used prior to moving the paper. After processing the paper, the paper should be taken back to a lab for further processing (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). As with any type of evidence, every movement should be properly documented when moved and a proper chain of custody must occur.

Footwear or barefoot impressions are processed completely differently than prints found at a crime scene. Initially, the crime scene is photographed along with the foot impressions. These impressions, or plastic prints, are three dimensional and are commonly made in snow, mud, wet sand, or dirt. The impression is basically a negative cast of the shoe or foot. Unlike visible prints or latent prints, plastic prints usually do not generally show the same amount of detail as two dimensional prints (Hilderbrand, 2007). Once the plastic print is photographed with scales and other crime scene photos, a cast should be completed. The most common choice for preservation of a plastic print is dental stone. Dental stone is a form of gypsum that is hard enough to clean without the loss of detail. Dental stone is also much stronger than other casting methods and does not require that reinforcement material be placed in the cast during the pouring (Wolfe, 2008). Before casting the impression, it is important to make a form around the plastic print. This form can be made out of heavy cardboard or wood. The form should not be placed too close to the impression, because doing so might risk distorting the impression. After the form is made, the casting material should be mixed. In order to make a cast, the casting material usually comes in a zip lock bag which can be used to mix with water. Typically, 6 to 9 ounces of water per pound of dental stone is added into the zip lock bag (Hilderbrand, 2007). With the water inside the bag, the contents are mixed for about 5-7 minutes until they are a pancake batter consistency (Hilderbrand, 2007). Before pouring any mixture into the impression, talcum powder can be sprinkled over the impression which gives it a fixative. When using talcum powder, make sure not to over sprinkle, because doing so will lose details. Pour the mixture onto a spoon or a stirring stick while holding the spoon or stick to the side of the impression. The dental stone mixture should never be poured directly into the impression, because this will lose some if not all detail. Once the cast is poured, it must set undisturbed for at least 30 minutes, after which it can be lifted. When lifting the impression, use a knife or the spoon to pry the cast upwards. The cast should easily break free from the surface. Some soil or dirt made adhere to the cast, but do not remove it. The cast should then be air dried for 24-48 hours before cleaning. The cast should never be placed in a plastic bag for drying, since it will not dry appropriately. Once the cast is dried it can be carefully cleaned with a potassium sulfate solution with virtually no loss or erosion of detail from the surface (Hilderbrand, 2007). For different surfaces, the techniques for lifting a successful impression are varied.

Often times in colder climates, the impression might be located in snow. This type of impression should be processed just like other three dimensional impressions with proper photographing and documenting. A form should be placed around the impression and snow print wax can be sprayed over the impression and allowed to set for about 10 minutes. If snow print wax is not available, talcum powder or grey primer spray paint can be sprayed lightly over the impression (Wolfe, 2008). Just as mentioned above, you repeat the same process for pouring of the dental stone into the impression but allow the mixture to cast for 60 minutes with very cold water. Often times, technicians will place a box over the casting impression due to the long casting time to protect the cast (Hilderbrand, 2007). The cast can then be removed and should be dried for 48 hours.

In warmer wet climates, an impression might be in muddy water. Most people would assume that the impression is unliftable, but that is not the case. Just as with other types of impressions a form should be placed around the impression after it is photographed. The form should be large enough to come above the waterline. If there is any debris on the surface of the water, it should be removed very carefully. Instead of pouring the dental stone, it should be sprinkled in its powder form over the area of the impression very carefully (Hilderbrand, 2007). The sprinkled dental stone should be about one inch and allowed to settle. After the dental stone has settled, a mixture of the dental stone can be poured into the impression. This dental stone mixture should be thicker than normal and allowed to dry for 60 minutes. The cast should then be air dried for 48 hours after removal.

The benefits of casting an impression are numerous at any major crime scene. The cast gives lifelike and actual size molding of the original impression including uneven surfaces and depths that a photograph cannot show. The cast also gives reproduction of microscopic characteristics. In deep impressions, the cast impression gives reproductions of characteristics of the side of outsoles and midsoles of shoes which usually are not reproduced in photographs (Hilderbrand, 2007). While casting does not eliminate the need for photographs, it backs-up the photographs but also eliminates focus and scale problems.

The next step in the evaluation of footprint or footwear process is the collection of known impressions from individuals either for the elimination or inclusion process.  Footwear worn by a suspect should be seized via search warrant and other shoes should be seized for comparison processes. All areas of the shoes should be photographed and the suspects’ feet should be photographed from every angle as well with a scale. These photographs will aid the examiner in determining placement of toes and foot flexes, and if any damage has been done to the foot by the footwear (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). Investigators should also attempt to obtain height, weight, and physical deformities that might affect the way a suspect stands or walks. Molded impressions should then be taken of the suspects’ foot using a foam material and other casting methods. The suspect should have his foot above the foam material, gradually increasing the weight on his foot into the foam until the bottom of the foot is half way through the box of foam (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). The foot should then be pulled out of the foam and a dental stone casting should be completed making a positive cast of the suspects’ foot.

Besides casting impressions of the suspects’ feet, inked impression and photographs should be taken also. These should be taken with the suspect standing and walking with and without socks, so that any discrepancies that might be present between the standing and walking impressions (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007). During this process the bottoms of the feet are covered in fingerprint ink and the suspect is told to walk the length of a 5 to 6 meter long piece of white paper. It is extremely important that the suspects’ walking pattern be watched to make sure that they are walking normally. If socked impressions are being collected the suspect should wear a pair of thin socks and the bottoms of the suspects’ feet should be inked and the same process should be repeated (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007).

When obtaining standing inked impressions, the suspect stands on an inked pad and then sits with his feet on the floor. A white sheet of paper is then placed in front of the suspect and then the suspect is told to stand on the piece of paper. A socked impression is obtained the same way, except for the suspect is asked to wear a thin pair of socks (Kennedy & Yamashita, 2007).

Once the suspect’s impressions are collected then an expert can compare those collected against impressions or prints obtained at a crime scene. The same process should be completed for eliminating prints of first responders, possible witnesses, or victims. The footwear/ footprint expert will first examine the class characteristics of the impressions. These include the outsole size, specific shapes of the foot and shoe, the dimensions, and specific design or logo. Because a class match is the lowest type of match to make, additional comparisons should be made. These additional comparisons should be individual characteristics such as a scratch, tear, air bubbles, or an inclusion of a foreign object into the sole of the shoe. Either a large combination of class characteristics or the existence of random individual characteristics should be used to match a suspect to a crime scene, set of shoes, or other collected footprint or footwear evidence. It should be noted that it is not possible to statistically determine the probability of specific damage to a piece of footwear. But if an expert can determine that the shoes damage could not occur on another sole, then a positive comparison can be made.

When examining the foot, it is usually more beneficial for a forensic podiatrist to examine the evidence to make a more conclusive comparison. The forensic podiatrist can analyze podiatry treatment records of the suspect, bare footprints, footwear, and forensic gait analysis. They can look at impressions and shoe wear to determine or rule out foot-related pathologies that are functional (for example, forefoot varus), structural (hammer toes condition), and superficial (sites of corns and callus) (Vernon & McCourt, 1999). Forensic podiatrists also examine friction ridge detail and other relevant skin features on barefoot prints, which can be used to make a link between a crime scene and a suspect. Occasionally, a forensic podiatrist will ask for assistance from a forensic anthropologist that is experienced in structural dimensions of the foot to the body frame to determine the body dimensions of a possible suspect. When examining footwear a forensic podiatrist can interpret functional pathologies of the foot and gait which may be manifested in outsole wear patterns of footwear and relate these functional pathologies of the foot and gait (Vernon & McCourt, 1999). Also, forensic podiatrists can also access wear features of footwear which relate to function and fit of the shoe to establish links between a known person and the questioned shoe, or between different sets of footwear items (Vernon & McCourt, 1999).

Footwear impressions and prints are just as important as other types of evidence collected at major crime scenes. Often the lack of training and education in the proper searching, collection, and preservation of footwear and footprint evidence is a cause of overlooking this type of valuable evidence. Also, footwear and footprint evidence is assumed to be undervalued or not understood by those responsible for collecting evidence and analyzing the crime scene (Hilderbrand, 2007). Failure to properly collect footwear and footprint evidence often occurs because of incomplete searches at the crime scene, weather conditions, or not believing that the impressions can be found at the scene after first responders have walked over the scene (Hilderbrand, 2007). First responders and forensic evidence experts should be aware of the high probability of obtaining a good quality footwear or footprint at any major crime scene. Footwear impressions and footprints stand a better chance of being present at a crime scene than latent prints. For example, a criminal can wear gloves and hide his fingerprints at a crime scene but it is almost impossible for a criminal to not walk into a crime scene and leave something behind. But in order for footwear and footprint evidence to be used it must be searched, recovered, collected, and preserved in a proper and effective manner to be of value. Unfortunately, this type of evidence is not usually collected due to lack of training and education supplied to crime scene investigators and first response officers. With additional research and more education this science has the potential to become a staple in crime scene investigations just as collecting fingerprints has. With new advancements in technologies, footwear and footprint impressions may lead to the proper convictions of potential burglars, rapists, and murderers.

           

                                                                        References

Earnshaw, R. (2008). “Forensic Podiatrist views Crime Scenes From A Unique Perspective”. The

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nwitimes.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/article on 04/26/2010.

Hilderbrand, D. (1999). “Four Basic Components of a Successful Footwear Examination”.

Journal of Forensic Identification, Jan/Feb; 49 (1), 37-50.

Hilderbrand, D. (2007). “Footwear, The Missed Evidence”. Staggs Publishing: Wildomar, CA.

Kennedy, R. & Yamashita, A. (2007). “Barefoot Morphology Comparisons: A Summary”. Journal of Forensic Identification, May/Jun; 57 (3), 383-413.

Morgan-Smith, R., Elliot, D., & Adam, H. (2009). “Enhancement of Aged Shoeprints in Blood”. Journal of Forensic Identification, Jan/Feb; 59 (1), 45-50.

Perrault, C. (1697). "Cendrillon, ou la petite pantoufle de verre," Histoires ou contes du temps passé, avec des moralités: Contes de ma mère l'Oye : Paris.

Vernon, D. & McCourt, F. (1999). “Forensic Podiatry-A review and Definition”. British Journal of Podiatry, Vol. 2, No. 2, May, 45-48.

Wolfe, J. (2008). “Sulfur Cement: A New Material for Casting Snow Impression Evidence”. Journal of Forensic Identification, Jul/Aug; 58 (4), 485-498.

Increases in False Confessions: The Juvenile Factor

Many professionals in the criminal justice field argue that the rate of false confessions is on an increase compared to previous years. While there has been a notable increase in the frequency of false confessions discussed in the media and the criminal justice field, the actual rate of false confessions in practice is difficult to determine (Leo & Ofshe, 1998). The reason why this is so difficult to determine is due to the amount of evidence needed for exoneration. In the past, evidence such as DNA was not existent. Therefore, it would be difficult to compare cases of suspected false confession in the 1860’s to cases in today’s times. Without the ability to compare exoneration rates, it would be next to impossible to determine the rate of false confessions. The current reasoning behind the assumption that false confessions are on the increase can be connected to the numerous studies of reported exonerations of wrongfully convicted individuals. The increase in exonerations can be connected to interrelated trends (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). One major trend would be the growing technology of DNA sophistication and identification technology. DNA is becoming cheaper and more available for criminal justice professionals. Another trend is that DNA evidence has been more newsworthy and the exoneration by DNA has become more popular in society and the media (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). This extra media attention has led law enforcement professionals to become more aware of the dangers of false convictions. Currently, there are forty-one Innocence Projects in thirty-one states (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). The Innocence Project, a non-profit organization that works to overturn wrongful convictions, claims to have aided in the overturning of 215 wrongful convictions; with nearly 25% of these cases have included some type of false confession evidence. Thankfully, DNA testing has been used during post conviction to exonerate the innocent and help investigators catch the guilty party. Other criminal justice studies have produced similar numbers that are comparative to those of the Innocence Project (Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000); it appears that juveniles may be a large number of those wrongfully convicted by false confession evidence. In a study of 328 wrongful convictions in the U.S., 44% of juveniles provided a false confession when compared with only 13% of adults in the sample (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). So, what is leading to an assumption of the increase in false confessions? I personally believe that the increase in violent crime among juvenile offenders is leading to an assumed increase in false confessions. This increase in violent crimes by juvenile offenders leads to a higher chance of police questioning, which may lead to a false confession by the confronted juvenile.

In a study conducted by Drizin and Leo (2004), a study was conducted of 125 cases of proven false confessions that occurred between 1971 and 2002. One-third of the cases examined consisted of juvenile offenders under the age of 17 (Drizin & Leo, 2004). Interesting, over 90% of the cases involved major charges such as murder or rape (Drizin & Leo, 2004). Other empirical studies have also concluded that juveniles are more likely to falsely incriminate themselves and confess during an interrogation than older persons and adults. In a study of exonerations conducted by Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil (2005) found that 33 of 340 individuals who were exonerated between 1989 and 2003 were under the age of 18 at the time of the crimes that they were convicted. Fourteen of those thirty-three that were exonerated admitted that they had falsely confessed- 42% compared to 13% of older exonerees (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005). Out of the youngest of these juveniles that were exonerated, those aged twelve to fifteen-69% confessed to homicides (and one rape) that they did not commit (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005).

           

Many argue that juveniles are more vulnerable to coercion and suggestion than their adult counterparts. Current studies have determined that younger children are more suggestible than older children in terms of giving in to both leading questions and interrogative pressure (Gudjonsson, 2003). Studies have determined that adolescents are more responsive to negative feedback during an interrogation than adults. In a study conducted by Warren, Hulse-Trotter, & Tubbs (1991), younger children (7 years of age) yielded more to misleading questions and shifted their answers more after negative feedback than children who were older and adults (Gujonsson, 2003). The same study determined that 7 year olds and 12 years olds both shifted their answers significantly more after negative feedback than did adults in the same study (Gujonsson, 2003). Many theorize why juveniles are more vulnerable than their adult counterparts is because of the social expectations of obedience to authority and the juvenile’s actual perceived social status. With a perceived lower social status, a juvenile may be more likely to speak indirectly with authority figures to avoid provoking conflict (Feld, 2006).

           

The perceived increase in false confessions can be attributed to a number of different reasons in the criminal justice field. But the alarming studies of false confessions among juveniles can not be ignored. Juveniles, who are making up more and more of the criminal offenders in the criminal justice field, have been shown to be more suggestible and more likely to be coerced than their adult counterparts. This increase in questioning can lead to a false confession by a juvenile confronted by an authoritative figure with leading questions. Current investigators should be aware of the suggestibility of juvenile offenders and their desire to please those in an authoritive role asking misleading questions. Investigators should constantly remember that the main goal of justice is to arrest the guilty party and protect the innocent.

           

REFERENCES

        Drizin, S. & Leo, R. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-1007.

Feld, B. (2006). Police Interrogation of Juveniles: An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97, 219-316.

Gross, S., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the Unite States, 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95, 523-560.

Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Leo, R. & Ofshe, R. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88, 429-496.

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P. & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual Innocence. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.