Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Should DNA be mandatory to convict suspects

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    1.) Applying the basic notion of due process to involuntary confessions, explain why we would ever prevent a jury from hearing a defendant's confession? Would people ever confess to crimes they did not commit? What are the dangers of an inquisitorial system of criminal justice?

    2.) In your opinion, should the use of DNA evidence be compulsory in order to convict someone, particularly if the crime carries the death sentence? Why? What could be the possible disadvantages of the mandatory use of DNA evidence for such crimes?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 4:52 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    1.) When confessions are obtained illegally, jurors will be barred from hearing these confessions. If defendant's are not read their Miranda rights or denied access to counsel before giving a confession this would be an illegal confession. If the defendant is a child and his or her parents are not allowed in the interrogation during a confession this could be case for the confession becoming inadmissible. In addition if a defendant is coerced into a confession it may be inadmissible depending upon the circumstances as police officers have constitutional protections when they use lies and deception to obtain confessions in certain instances.

    People have confessed to crimes they did not commit and will continue to do so. A definitive answer ...