Deception By the Investigating Officer in the Investigative, Research Paper

Deception By the Investigating Officer in the Investigative, Interrogative, and Testimonial Processes - Research Paper Example Getting criminals to confessing their crimes turns out to be a problematic affair; as a result, investigating officers are involving the use of deception in obtaining the necessary information. According to Justice without Trial, when an investigator perceives the case law as an impediment to his main duty of apprehending criminals, in most cases, he endeavours to construct the facade of compliance instead of allowing the offender to get away from apprehension. Permitting officers sworn to maintain the law to outwit that same law is similar to planting the seeds of its obliteration. Apart from that widespread, along with openly acknowledged, deception demeans the trustworthiness together with perception of the police, as well as the whole criminal justice system. There are numerous reports of investigators lying while on the stand, which is an emergent problem. Apparently, police perjury is not only pervasive, but also a serious cancer that is invading the criminal justice system. Wh ile, on the other hand, utilizing deception in entrapping offenders into admitting their complicity turns out to be a means of downgrading police work into trickery (Vrij, 2000). There are substantial arguments that, at the primary stages of investigations, investigators have to circumvent the law in apprehending, while, at the same time, convicting criminals, ongoing avoidance of the law is an illustration of a lack of respect for the same laws which investigators get sworn to maintain. Therefore, tactics such as police sting operations used in capturing burglars, fabrication of nonexistent witnesses for the duration of interrogations, as well as Abscam-type operations, are ideal examples of deception which are in most cases routinely applied by investigators. Therefore, the given notion that often the ends justify the means as applied by the investigators during the processes of investigation, interrogation and testimonial are wrong for a number of reasons; firstly, it is immoral since wrong is wrong, and, secondly, it is illegal. Consequently, investigators must find a way of working within a severe and agonizingly conflicting environment without tampering with their moral order that demands for specific forms of fidelities (Pollock, 2011). Question Two Deception within the criminal justice system degrades the image of the legal system, as well as the equitable carriage of justice (Yeschke, 2002). In instances, whereby the criminal justice system gets the permission of engaging in immoral, along with even criminal behavior, then there comes a tie when the system together with those engrossed in it ceases being superior to the criminals they are attempting to entrap. Apparently, the investigator lies since lying turns out to be a routine way of dealing with legal impediments; this is because the law allows the investigator to lie during the investigative stage, at a time when he is not totally convinced whether the suspect is a criminal or not, but prohibits lying concerning procedures at the testimonial stage, whereby the investigator is certain of the guiltiness of the accused. This is because the investigator characteristically weighs the short-term disutility of the action of suppressing evidence, rather than the long-term utility of the law’s due process for protecting, as well as enhancing the nobility of the citizen under investigation. Within the criminal