In April 1989, a young white jogger in Central Park was raped, beaten, and left to die near the park. She was in the hospital for a long time. After years of rehabilitation, she still suffers from impaired vision and sketchy balance. Her emotional trauma is unquantifiable.
While interrogating the case, the police questioned five teenagers whom had been implicated in a separate series of muggings before. All of the boys made statements to the police. The boys were convicted and incarcerated for raping the woman. However, all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed that the police concocted their videotaped confessions. The search for the perpetrator stopped. And five anguished families watched their sons go to prison even when they were innocent of the crime. The five teenagers have since served years of jail time for the crime.
In 2002, however, the actual perpetrator, a man named Matias Reyes, confessed to the rape and assault. DNA tests proved that Reyes had raped the woman. On December 5, 2002, the Manhattan district attorney's office made a rare move; it asked a judge to dismiss all charges against the five teenagers, who had been previously convicted, and were now full-grown men, for the crime they had not committed. http://www.theroot.com/views/revisiting-central-park-jogger-case
How can police use of deception in interrogation best be controlled?
use references/use examples
I think that one way by which to ensure that police use of deception in interrogation is controlled effectively, is to train police officers that deception in interrogation is unethical, and to provide sanctions that would help to deter such activities. An example of a sanction that would deter such activities would be the immediate dismissal ...
This solution describes how to control police deception during interrogation procedures in 225 using the case of five teens wrongly imprisoned because of police pressure to confess.