Siriphon Kusonsinwut**
I am extremely thankful to Professor Margareth Etienne, professor of law at University of Illinois, for her contribution as my advisor. This research tries to find out the means to correct the sentencing process. At the first point, I tried to find out the causes that render the sentencing incorrect. I found that some of those causes stem from the police misconduct, the misidentification of eye witness, the unqualified forensic experts and the actual forensic science, and the lack of cooperation of the community.
Most scholars will attempt to study the causes of miscarriage or mistrial and propose the new law or new sanction to control the police investigation. In addition, other will conduct research only in the trail and sentencing process. My view, however, is fairly different. I believe that the correction of sentencing should start at the beginning of the process of criminal justice system, that is, at the police administration. It sounds costly to invent at this stage, but it is actually not true. An investment at the starting point of the criminal justice system, such as the using of forensic technology, and the investigatory technique, will prevent the long term cost deriving from the mistrial judgment, and maybe including the endless appeal by the defendant.
My suggestion is that the state should improve the forensic laboratory to support the police function and at the same time the state should support the necessity of police administration by improvement the police investigatory methods as well as supporting the implementation of other social norms to obtain the highest cooperation of the community to prevent and suppress the crime. This research will be composed of four parts which delineate the problems and the proposal to improve the sentencing. If it is worth reading, I would like to contribute its benefit to my professor. In contrast, if there is something I misunderstood, please give me apology for my false.
INTRODUCTION:
A. GENERAL IDEA
B. PROBLEMS AND THE ERRORS IN SENTENCING PROCESS
C. HOW TO IMPROVE THE ERRORS
CHAPTER 1: CAUSES AND ERRORS IN SENTENCING
1.1 POLICE MISCONDUCT
1.2 EYEWITNESS MISIDENTIFICATION
1.3 PROSECUTOR BEHAVIORS AND THE JUDE ROLE
1.4 FALSE FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND UNQUALIFIED EXPERTS
CHAPTER 2: FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND ITS RELIABILITY
2.1 THE PROBLEMS OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE
2.2 THE ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE VALIDITY OF FORENSIC
EVIDENCE
2.2.1 FRYE STANDARD
2.2.2 DAUBERT STANDARD
2.3 THE REQUIREMENT OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE STANDARD
2.3.1 THE QUALITY CONTROL PRACTIC
2.3.2 THE MODEL FOR THE REGULATION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE
CHAPTER 3: POLICING ADMINISTRATION
3.1 TRADITIONAL POLICING TO COMMUNITY POLICING
3.1.1 TRADITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
3.1.2 THE COMMUNITY POLICING
3.2 IMPROVING THE ABILITY OF PRATORL POLICE
3.3 IMPROVING OF OTHER INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES
3.3.1 VIDEO TAPING DURING INTERROGATION
3.3.2 ARIZONA’S MODEL
3.3.3 MODEL OF LINEUPS AND PHOTO SPREADS
3.3.4 GUIDELINES PRIOR TO ARRESTING THE SUSPECTS
3.4. APPLYING HIGH TECHNOLOGY
CONCLUSION
THE PROPOSALS TO CORRECT THE SENTENCING
OTHER INTERESTING RELATED TOPIC
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
A. GENERAL IDEA
The ideal of the criminal justice system, I believe, is to achieve the justice in every circumstance. Lay persons believe the wrongdoer should have been punished just desert to his act in the real sent rather than the fairness of the procedure. However, the criminology theories might concern much more than such ideal. Many theories, then, have been proposed to be considered into the sentencing process to be commensurate with the objective of punishment: to rehabilitate the wrongdoer; to reinforce the law compliance; to deter the crime commission; or to establish the retribution to the criminal. The law might entitle the judges to apply their discretion when sentencing; each judge might sentence the similar wrongdoer differently because of applying the different theories of punishment. If the judge believes the “Consequentialist ideas,” he will apply the “Utilitarian theories” which require the deterrence effect to the other criminals and the incapacitation will be imposed on only the criminal who cannot be rehabilitated into his society. In contras, if the judge believes the “Deontological ideas,” he might be strict on the “retributive theory” that the criminal must be imposed by the severe sentence which is just the deserts to his commission. This theory emphasizes that the punishment will restore the moral into the society.
[1]B. PROBLEMS AND ERRORS IN SENTENCING
No matter what theories the judges apply when sentencing the criminal, there are many errors in this process. Professor James S. Liebman and his colleagues issued a report in June 2000, A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1993-1995, showing the chronically high reversal rates in thousands of death sentences imposed over decades in the United States and concluding that the nation’s death penalty system is broken.
[2] In this report, they found that 68% of the thousands of death sentences imposed and fully reviewed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 were overturned by the courts.
[3] They indicated that the errors derived from the imposition of verdict based on factors other than the evidence and law.
[4] Even though the statistics of 68% mentioned above was rejected by Professor Joseph L. Hoffmann by reasoning that Professor Liebman’s report did not and could not base his statistics on a complete sample, and then, he concluded that the actual error rate was 40%, not the 68%,
[5] this statistics is still very high. This malfunction of the criminal justice system is undesirable, and must be resolved urgently.
Those statistics, despite illustrating many wrongful convictions in only death penalty cases, might imply that there are many inaccurate rates of conviction in the noncapital cases as well, but the noncapital cases might be subjected the procedural obstruction in appealing the court judgment; then, there is no obvious statistic to show its erroneous rate. The causes of error rate might come from several reasons such as eyewitness misidentification, the perjury committed by the real offender, the police informant, the police officer, or forensic scientist.
[6] The attempt to develop the criminal justice system can be seen by the legislative function which proposes the Act that entitles the defendant to access the DNA evidence to prove his innocence in capital case.
[7] The DNA evidence is the innovation of forensic evidence which has been recently introduced to prove the innocence of the defendant, and has given the unhappy insight into the fact-finding accuracy of the American criminal justice system.
[8] Professor Samuel R. Gross, however, indicated that because the American Criminal Justice System has not concentrate on the non-capital case, the DNA evidence cannot be used to exonerate the innocent. He estimated that the total number of miscarriages in America in the last fifteen years (1989 – 2003) must be in the thousands, perhaps, tens of thousands.
[9]C. HOW TO IMPROVE THE ERRORS
I strongly believe that the first stage of criminal justice system – police investigation – is the most important. After I have presented the causes and the errors in sentencing, which mainly derived from the police investigation process, and the false forensic evidence, in the first chapter, I will illustrate the means to improve the validity of forensic evidence in the second chapter. Another means to support the correctness of sentencing is to improve the policing administration, which I emphasize on several methods that must be implemented together. One of such several means that needs to be emphasized is “community policing” which we can draw the cooperation of the member of society to prevent the crime and to inform the law enforcement officer about the criminal and the physical evidence that is useful to prove the guilty or innocent of the wrongdoer in their society. This technique must be applied as the main component of criminal justice system, while the other techniques of crime investigation must be employed simultaneously.
CHAPTER 1
CAUSES OF THE ERROR IN SENTENCING Professor Samuel R. Gross emphasized the danger of errors in the conviction, particularly in capital case deriving from some or as a whole of the criminal justice processes.
[10] Some mistakes stem from the police investigation conduct, including the misidentification of the eyewitness.
[11] The police might believe some suspects as wrongdoer and apply many unusual investigative techniques to obtain the confession. Thereafter, the defendant will be sent to trial and a jury may confirm the mistake by a wrongful conviction. The prosecutor, the judge, and the jury maybe do not recognize the way how to reduce the errors.
1.1 POLICE MISCONDUCT
Police, traditionally, might concern only catching the wrongdoer by applying all methods to identify the offender and obtain the confession, including inventing the false evidence to bolster the weak case against the suspect.
Professor Richard J. Ofshe and Professor Richard A. Leo, studying the misconduct of police for more than eighty-five years, found that the police-induced false confessions from the innocence are a serious problem for the American criminal justice system.
[12] The evidence suggests that the poor training is the key reasons that false confession occur; the police are not trained to avoid eliciting the suspects, to recognize their variety and distinguishing characteristics, or to understand how interrogation tactics can cause the innocent to falsely confess.
[13] . The police might apply the “Psychological interrogation” to let the suspects make a decision whether to confess or deny by persuading or even lying that the police have overwhelming evidence to charge the suspects. Investigators might elicit the decision to confess from the innocent in one of two ways: either by leading them to believe that their situation is hopeless and will only be improved by confessing; or by persuading them that they probably committed a crime about which they have no memory any that confession is the proper and optimal course of action.
[14] Particularly, whenever having no evidence pointing to the suspect, the investigator will rely on his intuition to carry out the case.
[15] Then, if the intuition of the detective says who the wrongdoer is, he will do everything to achieve his belief.
[16]1.2 EYEWITHNESS MISIDENTIFICATION
According to Professor Samuel Gross study, the eyewitness misidentification is the most significant factors that caused the miscarriages of justice.
[17] In addition, Professor Rattner’s study also revealed that fifty-two percent of the miscarriage stemmed from the same cause.
[18] The witness might make a mistake in good faith by many reasons; for example, the wrongdoer might look very similar to him. In some situation the police cause the witness to make the false identification by leading the witness identifying the offender. For example, the police who conduct the line up identification might render some special signs when calling the suspect, and thus leading to the eyewitness identifies such person. The misidentification can be avoided by using the blind identification testing. (Please see details in chapter 3.)
1.3 PROSECUTOR BEHAVIORS AND THE JUDGE ROLE
The prosecutors might withhold exculpatory evidence, and the judge will not intervene with the discretion of prosecutor. If the defense counsel has not objected any evidence that might be inadmissible, the court will not deal with this problem. For example, when the police elicit the false confession from the defendant, the prosecutor will presume that it is true; the accused will be treated more harshly by every personnel in every stage of the trial process.
[19] The prosecutor and the judge will not try to figure out about the false confession. In addition, even thought the court might know about some error in the process, the limitation of time might not support to scrutinize every discrepancy deriving from other personnel in criminal justice system.
1.4 FALSE FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND UNQUALIFIED EXPERTS
1.4.1 JUDGES ALWAYS RELY ON FORENSIC EVIDENCE
The justice and liberty often depend on the reliability of forensic evidence which the result of such examine of expert, if err, will cause the innocent defendant jeopardous. The jury and the judges might less understand about “forensic evidence interpretation” than the expert, and thus lead them to accept it and convict the defendant without considering the reliability of forensic evidence. Finally, the judge or jury imposes the sentence to the innocent defendant.
[20]1.4.2 UNQUALIFIED PERFORMANCE OF FORENSIC LABORTORIES
In 1978 the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) illustrated the worst quality of the crime laboratories in the United States by revealing the huge number of reports contained erroneous results.
[21] The controlled samples in a wide range of forensic specialties were sent to labs for analyses, and the percentage of unsuitable conclusions reached 71% in one blood test, 51% in a paint set, and 67% in a hair test. The test of the validity of firearms comparisons revealed that 5.7% of laboratories misidentified one projectile and incorrectly reported that all three projectiles had been fired through a single weapon; 3.4 % of those labs in correctly reported that none of the three projectiles could have been fired through the same weapon; and 9.1% of those labs reported results that were clearly in error.
The same errors in analysis of forensic evidence always happen to other evidence such as “soil comparison, which over thirty percent of reports were incorrect. Sixty–four percent of two bloodstains test whether those bloodstains could have shared a common origin were incorrect.
[22] Even in DNA analysis proficiency testing also has been found problems.
[23] The California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors reported that “two of the three private laboratories made and error in analyzing samples.”
[24]1.4.3 UNQUALIFIED EXPERTS
The experts of forensic science might not be qualified. The report in 1982 indicated that fifty-three percent of the fingerprint experts failed the exam of a certification program.
[25] These errors, even good faith, let to the mistake arrest of the innocent. Basically, the courts have to make the decision whether the testimony of expert is reliable. For example, in the murder case, the forensic reconstruction of spattered blood expert gave the opinion to the police in Pennsylvania State Police and led to arrest the man accused of shooting his wife in her bed. The defense attorney retained the other expert to examine the spattered blood which the expert came to the completely different conclusion that is the wife committed the suicide.
[26] The problem is how the court can decide this issue because the court lacks the expertise to examine its reliability.
1.4.4 FALSE FORENSIC EVIDENCE
The false forensic evidence might be made up by the police or the forensic scientist to persuade the prosecutor and judge to believe that the accused is guilty. This false evidence also leads the eyewitness to misidentify the accused.
[27] The most infamous scientist was Fred Zain who was the former head serologist of the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory. He falsified test results as many as 134 cases from 1979 to 1980, and finally the judicial inquiry concluded that the documentary evidence offered by him should be deemed invalid, unreliable, and inadmissible.”
[28]Everyone believes that the forensic evidence, especially the DNA typing, is the best evidence to prove the guilt or the innocence of the offender; however, it is in fact contains many ambiguity about the forensic science.
CHAPTER 2
FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND ITS RELIABILITY Professor Ted S. Reed explained that “Since 1993, post-conviction DNA testing has proven to be a valuable systemic safeguard against punishing the innocent. It has now exonerated at least one hundred and forty-three Americans. At least twelve of these exonerated citizens were at one time on death row. Virtually all had exhausted their appeals and post-conviction remedies but DNA testing saved them from execution. Collectively, these one hundred and forty-three innocent Americans served more than 1397 years in prison.”
[29] Even though the DNA testing is much more reliable than other forensic evidence, it, however, is not a panacea for the frailties of the justice system. Particularly, the vast majorities of cases do not involve in biological evidence.
[30] In addition, the other forensic evidence itself casts doubt on its reliability. Especially, the methodology to interpret the evidence leading to the conclusion of the personnel in forensic laboratory is formidable and redoubtable because such results are not based on the clear scientific method.
2.1 THE PROBLEMS OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE
The methods to prove the forensic evidence is not clear as the scientific methods. The experts play the vital role in interpreting the meaning of the forensic evidence but they cannot demonstrate that the means they apply to the forensic evidence are reliable. There is more suspicion when the officer who works with collecting the forensic evidence cannot operate well or lacks the expertise in obtaining the evidence. This causes the evidence contaminated with outlandish substance. This contaminated evidence will lead to confusing and wrongful result.
[31]The Department of Justice’s 1997 report described the various problems of forensic deriving from negligence, misconduct, and other shortcoming of the crime laboratories in the United States. Those problems also included the scientifically flawed testimony, inaccuracy testimony, testimony beyond the competence of examiners, improperly prepared laboratory reports, insufficient documentation of test results, inadequate record management and retention, and failure of management to resolve serious and credible allegations of incompetence.
[32]2.2 THE ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE THE VALIDITY OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE
Scientific fraud brought about the concern of the reliability of the forensic evidence such as forged fingerprints, faked autopsies, false laboratory report, and perjured testimony including the falsification of credential.
[33] The false evidence introduced to the court to convict the defendant causes the public concern and requires the regulations to control the validity of forensic evidence. The reliability of the scientific evidence is not sufficient to guarantee the right and the freedom of the innocent people; the validity of those evidences must be established in the criminal case before the court can impose the sentence to the defendant.
2.2.1 FRYE STANDARD
(A) Frye v. United States, 293 F.1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
This case Frye was charged and convicted with the second degree murder. He appealed that the trial court erred in refusing allowing the expert testimony to testify about the result of a systolic blood deception test made upon defendant. The defendant contested that the systolic blood pressure deception test would show that blood pressure was influenced by change in the emotions of the witness. The systolic blood pressure rises are brought about by nervous impulses sent to the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system. By this theory, the fear, rage, and pain always produce a rise of systolic blood pressure, and that conscious deception or falsehood, concealment of facts, or guilt of crime. The blood pressure in a curve derives from the defendant’s mind, between fear and attempted control of that fear, and it can reflect whether the defendant lied during the test.”
[34] The Court of Appeal rejected this theory and affirmed the conviction.
(B) The standard to admit the scientific evidence
Frye set up the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence for a long time.
[35] This standard is based on the general acceptance of the proposed testimony by a relevant community of experts, and permitted peer review and publication.
[36]However, Frye standard failed to account for the phenomenon that much knowledge slips into general acceptance without any careful examination, especially where that knowledge has been accepted for a long time.
[37] The most debatable issue is that the Frye standard can be substituted by the peer review and publication for any detailed analysis which it permitted the nonjudicial actors to make what is essentially a judicial policy decision and deflected
responsibility from the judge.
[38]2.2.2 DAUBERT STANDARD
(A) The fact of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
This is the civil case involving the claims that medicine namely Bendectin, which the plaintiff’s mother had taken during pregnancy, had caused plaintiff’s limb-reduction birth defects.
[39] The trial court’s grant summary judgment for the drug company, and the plaintiff challenged that the finding that its expert’s opinions were inadmissible because it was unreliable and those opinions based on the recalculations study had not been subjected to peer review or published. The appellate court affirmed by relying on the judgment in Frye.
[40] The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and rejected the Frye standard of the “general acceptance” test for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence at trial.
[41].
(B) The Daubert standard to admit the scientific evidence
According to Daubert, it requires the judge to examine the validity of the scientific evidence. The judge has to analyze the proffered expert testimony for the soundness of its underlying theory, it technique and application, and analyzing that testimony which is relevant to the issue questioned in the case.
[42] The scientific evidence must be not only “reliability” but also “validity” by imposing the duty on the trail court to examine and determine such evidence:
[43](1) Analyzing whether the forensic evidence derives from the scientific methodology, and whether the methodology has been applied properly to the facts in question.
(2) Determining that the scientific evidence is a relevance inquiry; it must have the valid scientific connection of the underlying principles and methodology to the pertinent inquiry.
The Supreme Court also guided the trial court to examine four non-definitive factors to scrutinize the logic behind the expert’s proffered testimony, that is, (1) whether can be and has been tested; (2) its error rate; (3) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (4) and whether it has met with general acceptance in the scientific community.
[44](C) The problem of Guideline under Daubert Standard
(1) The scope of the scientific evidence under Daubert standard
Daubert did not resolve some issues such as whether the Daubert standard can apply to all kinds of experts or not. What kinds of evidence fall with in the Daubert standard? Some courts attempt to categorize some kinds of evidence as “technical,” not “scientific evidence” such as some techniques created by the social science and psychology, which might not pass the standard and the concern under the Daubert.
[45](2) The testability of forensic evidence
Another problem is that the scientific evidence cannot be testable and then the experts cannot show any error rate of the conclusion testified by them. The testability means not only that a hypothesis can be verified or falsified by observation and experiment, but also the hypothesis has precise logical consequences that are incompatible with alternative hypotheses. In addition, the validity of the experimental conclusion depends on: (1) whether the result demonstrate a relationship between the tested variables; (2) whether there is a causal or merely fortuitous relationship; (3) whether the hypothesized cause and effect relationship is logical in light of the experimental result; and (4) whether the relationship between the variables can be generalized to other situations. The expert’s opinion for most forensic evidence cannot be testable under the scientific method, especially the social sciences and psychology which have been developed under non-empirical sciences.
[46](3) The ability of the judge to examine the scientific evidence
Under this standard, the judges might lack the expertise to assess the scientific validity. The judge cannot know whether the performances of the laboratory as well as the experts are qualified. For example, in murder case the expert has found the hundreds of hairs in the crime scene and two scalp hairs and two hairs are consistent microscopically with the defendant’s. If the expert cannot explain whether the other hairs can share the same combination of characteristics, this evidence cannot be admitted.
[47] However, the judge might not able to scrutinize the scientific evidence whether it is valid.
2.3 THE REQUIREMENT OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE STANDARD
Professor Randolph N. Jonakait has identified the “Quality Control Practices” of the forensic expert and proposed the “Models For The Regulation of Forensic Science” as followings:
[48]2.3.1) THE QUALITY CONTROL PRACTICES
The false forensic evidence can be mitigated by the “Quality Control Program” to
guarantee the performance of the forensic laboratory and the experts. The protocols that the experts who examine the evidence must be set up and those experts have to follow those procedures when conducting the testing so that the forensic scientists can produce consistently accurate results.
The forensic scientists also think as the scientist that is they should test those evidences without bias. In fact, the forensic scientists always has been suggested by the detective when given the crime scene evidence to be examined, and thus those suggestive and bias influence the forensic result. In addition, the forensic scientists conduct the testing without repetition or lack of sufficient sample and control evidence. If there are enough unknown samples to repeatedly test, the rate of error will be decreased. Then, while the court lacks the expertise and time to examine the forensic evidence or scientific evidence including the limitation of the adversarial system of trial, the quality control system should be set up to assure the forensic evidence will be reliable and valid.
2.3.2) THE MODEL FOR THE REGULATION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE
According to the study of the Oregon Public Heal Laboratory in 1986, it illustrated that the
quality of medical licensed laboratories performance was higher than that in the unlicensed ones. Then, the Congress enacted the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 to regulate all clinical labs. However, there was no acceptation that the forensic laboratories must be regulated both at the state or national level; the reliability and the validity of the data deriving from the testing are questionable.
The forensic evidence is very significant in that it has been presented to the court around a third of all criminal cases by reasoning that the forensic evidence will enhance the accuracy of fact-finding in criminal case. For this reason, the forensic evidence must be guaranteed its validity and reliability. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988 might be the best model for enhancing the precise of forensic laboratory performance.
Under this law, the laboratory must be certified under the four major components to control the quality: (1) maintenance of a quality assurance and quality control program by the laboratory; (2) maintenance of appropriate records, equipment and facilities; (3) personnel standards; and (4) proficient testing. Those four programs must be federal regulation to guarantee the same standard throughout the country. Particularly, the mandatory proficient testing with the blind test of all forensic laboratories must be examined every year.
In short, at the present the forensic evidence or the scientific evidence is also ambiguous about its validity and reliability; the regulation to control its quality to assure that those evidences can be used to prove the fact in the trail. If the forensic evidence testing is accurate, valid and reliable, it will be beneficial to the criminal justice system; the accuracy of sentencing of the judge in criminal case will be respectful, and the innocent person will not be the victim of the poor performance of the forensic scientist and the poor criminal justice system.
CHAPTER 3
POLICING ADMINSTRATION The policing administration, in my point of view, is very crucial for the criminal justice system. Not many scholars will study how to improve the policing technique to enhance the error rate of conviction. The policing administers always focuses on the power to enforce the law or the crime fighter. The community function has been separated from the police function. However, the role of peace-keeping which is opposed to strictly law enforcement has been gradually included in the police function as well as the role of crime fighter.
[49] The communities have come to involve in the crime protection. If the communities have the full sense of belonging in their own communities, the police tasks will be much easier because the people in such communities will help one another to detect and fight with the crime. When the crime has been committed, they will be willing to be the witnesses; the causes of error from the eye-witness misidentification will be reduced as a result.
3.1 TRADITIONAL POLICING TO COMMUNITY POLICING
3.1.1 TRADITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
In 1837, the United States policing have been established like a watchman in England.
[50] The traditional law enforcement strategies are hinged on the belief that the people will be deterred from engaging in criminal activity if they fear getting caught and being punished.
[51] These strategies are achieved by increasing the number of officer on the street, increasing arrests, and/or increasing the threat or use of force by the police.
[52] This Model of policing is believed that it can be applied as “one-size-fits-all,”
[53] such as “random preventive patrol” or “rapid response to police calls for service.” However, those tactics bring about only a little impact on crime or fear of crime in American communities, and were ineffective in combating crime.
[54] In contras, the effectiveness of crime control depends on the public cooperation with the police. The more the citizens trust the police in its legitimacy, the more cooperation they will help the police in achieve the crime control.
[55] Consequently, the police will be able to achieve the goal to combat the crime only when they can draw the cooperation from the communities. In turn, it effects the accomplishment of the criminal justice system both in the prosecutorial process and the trail process in the sentencing stage.
3.1.2 THE COMMUNITY POLICING
The assumption of this idea is that the police can draw from a much broader array of resources in carrying our police functions than found in the traditional law enforcement power.
[56] The most intriguing model, however, is the Japanese Community Policing Model.
[57]Japan has very impressively low crime rate and very high in clearance rate, that is, almost 100% that Japan criminal justice system can carry out of all crime committed in its society. For example, there was only 1.1. Homicide per 100,000 populations in 1994 and the clearance rate was 96.1%, while that in the United States was 9.0, and 64.4% respectively.
[58] Professor L. Craig Parker, Jr. explained the reasons that brought about the low crime rate might stem from: (1) the homogeneous Japanese society which is a powerful factor in exerting social controls on illegal, and in many instances, deviant behavior; (2) the large network of both formal and informal groups,
[59] under the influence of ideas of Confucianism and Buddhism. Each person will be strict on his duties contributing to his society according to his classification. Then, Japanese are prone to seek the informal means to resolve conflicts with one another.
[60]The community policing has been introduced in Japan since in the feudalism of Tokugawa shogunate between 1603 and 1867
[61] Everyone must be a member of the Neighborhood Association so that they can assist one another in every aspects and control their membership’s behaviors since the reign of Meiji
[62] There are many Koban and Chuzaisho located in every community, which have brought about the close relationship between the citizen and the police officer until the present. The police officer must visit every family in its area twice a year; they will record all information of the people in the society. In general, the police are respectful and friendly to everyone and thereby the citizen in such society will help the police to control the crime and inform all useful information to the police.
[63] Much of the clearance rate is done by volunteers at the community level.
[64]According to the lesson from Japan, the United States attempted to start experiment of community policing. This experiment, conducted in Newark, New Jersey, revealed that the residents of the neighborhoods patrolled on foot felt more secure than persons in other areas.
[65] This idea is also consistent with the policing in United Kingdom, the proposal is that the police must gain both public support and public consent to perform the police’s role to achieve their tasks both crime control and crime investigation.
[66] Then, in my points of view, the “community policing” is very useful to gain the cooperation from the society, and finally when this technique has been introduced in several aspects depending on the unique of the each society, it will improve the criminal justice system in correcting the sentencing because the police, prosecutor, and the court can make the best decision based on the abundant of evidence and witness in criminal case.
3.2 IMPROVING THE ABILITY OF PRATROL POLICE
The community policing must be introduced to the different communities by the different tactics based on the different cultures of each communities. This technique must be implemented together with other investigative techniques concomitantly. The police who play the significant roles to investigate the crime are not only the detective, but also the patrol police. Those police personnel must help one another to retain the presence of witnesses and physical evidence which is the most important factors leading to arrest the offender.
[67]The patrol, in fact, will be informed to examine the crime scene and keep the crime scene as well as the significant evidence. The information available to the first officers responding to the crime scene will lead to the success of crime investigation.
[68] Then, the good cooperation between the investigator and patrol police will better and correct the target of the crime investigation. For this reason, the patrol police must be trained in several steps: from identifying the crime scene; identifying the proper techniques for collecting the physical evidence that might be destroyed because of the weather condition prior to the coming of investigators; identifying the proper measure to protect themselves from the biohazard or other danger in keeping the crime scene; preparing crime scene diagram and its accurate scale of physical evidence; sketching and recording the details of crime scene condition; identifying the method to photograph the crime scene; and defining the chain of custody of the evidence in the benefit of trial process. Then, the achievement of crime resolving depends on how the patrol police can conduct such preliminary
crime scene investigation to keep the physical evidence and witness in the chain of custody that will be useful to the trial and sentencing finally.
[69]3.3 IMPROVING OF OTHER INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES
3.3.1 VIDEO TAPING DURING INTERROGATION
Videotaping has been commenced in several States such as Alaska, Minnesota and Texas for some extent of time because this technique will entitle the court to determine whether the defendant has voluntarily confessed his guilt. This tactic also led to an increase in convictions and plea bargains, and let to fewer charges of police misconduct.
[70]3.3.2 ARIZONA’ S MODEL
This Model Act to improve the correctness of sentencing can be explained as following:
[71](1) Interviewers would be trained using modern and continually updated research
knowledge concerning the best way to elicit accurate information form witness. Interviews and interrogations would be audio and video recorded.
(2) Procedures for lineups and photo-spreads. This provision adopted the proposal
of Department of Justice Guide. (Please see next topic.)
(3) The Judge must evaluate the value of confession made by the defendant
whether it is reliable and admissible as the evidence to prove his guilt.
(4) The crime laboratories must be decoupled from police agencies and be
overseen by the people educated and trained first and foremost in doing good science. In addition, the laboratories must serve defense counsel and courts, as well as police and prosecutors. Staff forensic scientist would be certified; the laboratories would be accredited, and all would be subjected to blind proficiency testing and independent audits.
(5) The state can examine the old evidence notwithstanding any other provision of law limiting consideration of new evidence.
3.3.3 MODEL OF LINEUPS AND PHOTO SPREADS
The guidelines to improve the reliability of eyewitness identification have been proposed to decrease the misidentification of eyewitness.
[72] First, a report of the Executive Committee of the American Psychology/Law Society (AP/LS) has been released since 1998, and second the United States Department of Justice Office has published “Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement.” The latter recommendation has incorporated the former one into its recommendation, but not all. The guidelines are composed of:
[73](1) The person who conducts the lineup or photo spread should not be aware of which member of the lineup of photo spread is the suspect (or blind or double–blind testing.)[74]
(2) Eyewitness should be told explicitly that the person in question might not be in the lineup or photospread and therefore should not feel that they must make an identification. They should also be told that the person administering the lineup does not know which person is the suspect in the case.
(3) The suspect should not stand out in the lineup or photospread as being different from the distracters based on the eyewitness’s previous description of the culprit or based on other factors that would draw extra attention to the suspect.
(4) A clear statement should be taken from the eyewitness at the same time of the identification and prior to any feedback as to his or her confidence that the identified person is the actual culprit.
Wells has proposed two additional recommendations, that is: (1) switching to sequential lineups and (2) videotaping lineups.
[75] These recommendations, especially videotaping, will entitle the judge or jury to see the witness as the identification is made whether the witness is able to identification without any doubt.
[76] Another recommendation which can reduce the false identification rates to 50% of current levels is increasing the size of lineups from 5 persons to 12 persons.
[77]Those recommendations are not mandatory and the most of states have not adopted such recommendations, particularly blind testing, videotaping, or increasing the size of persons even though those measures can assure that the misidentification will be decreased. The vivid argument is adopting the videotaping lineups is too costly; however, the benefits of increasing the budget in the first stage of investigation is better than the expensive expenditure deriving from the repeated recurrence of appeal of judgment and finally declared miscarriage. Therefore, the police should adopt such recommendations and extend the network of witness and information from the community to assure that they will obtain the most valuable information before arresting the suspect.
3.3.4 GUIDELINE PRIOR TO ARRESTING THE SUSPECT
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Handbook (1976) instruction of the arresting the suspect requires the investigating department to answer four questions.
[78](1) Has the investigation definitely established the identity of the offender?
(2) Is there enough information to support an arrest, charge, and turning over to the court for prosecution?
(3) Do you know the exact location of the offender so that you could take him into custody now?
(4) Is there some reason outside the police control that stops you from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender?
The police must think about the adequate information not only arresting the suspect, but also turning over to the court trial whether there is enough information to convict the offender if go to trail. Then, the police need to obtain the most information from the community and the witness to substantiate the charge of the suspect before making arrest. This means can assure that there is no innocent people will be arrested by the police, prosecuted by the prosecutor and sentenced by the court.
3.4 APPLYING HIGH TECHNOLOGY
Many high technologies in surveillances and investigation have been proposed to combat the crime and to be used as the evidence in the court. However, there are many obstructions when introducing those techniques. For instance, the high technologies cost are extremely prohibited, and need the personnel who occupy high technology knowledge to manipulate those equipment. The high technology techniques might appropriate only in some area which the computer crimes often occur, but it might unnecessary in rural area. Then, the high technology must be selective and applied the alternatives of high technology in different areas. In addition, the use of high technology technique which impacts to the right of privacy of individual must be regulated properly.
[79] Some obstructions can be explained as following:
3.4.1 High Cost
The good example is Chicago Police Department which has planed to use
the cameras as the surveillance in the public area since 2004. The cost estimation of that equipment is around $8.6 millions, which is composed of the 250 new cameras, along with the new system dispatchers. These cameras will be used to monitor them, are to be in place by the spring of 2006. A $5.1 million federal grant will be used to pay for the cameras, and the city will add $3.5 million to pay for the computer network that will connect them.
[80]3.4.2 Personnel’s abilities to understand
The Science and Technology Policy Institute or RAND has issued the report indicating that the factors affecting the use of technology by law enforcement are that: (1) high cost and limited resource; (2) technology risk which such technology might not perform the desired tasks adequately; (3) the human associated risks which the personnel in the department need to be adjusted and there are not enough understand about the high technology; and the unanticipated potential costs in the future.
[81] Most of the local and state police lacked the technology to fight the crime.
[82]. Another report suggested about the computer crime case. It indicated that 72% of police department, and 88% of sheriff’s department do not have units that specialize in the computer crime area.
[83] In addition, many agencies have tried to “fake it” or “make do” when it comes to handling computer crime by designating the computer crime case to the most proficient WordPerfect user as the department’s computer expert to carry that case.
[84] It seem like only FBI and the large Law Enforcement Agency have prepared to deal with the computer crime and apply the high technology to cope with this problem. Since 1998 the FBI launched a new division, the Cyber Division, dedicated to investigating computer crime and in August 2002 more than 3,500 people have been convicted under the operation of this unit.
[85]The introduction of high technology techniques needs to be done in several ways simultaneously. The training program must be proffered to the local police and state police by the National Plan of the United States, and at the same time, the federal agencies might extend their assistance to the state and local police in selective areas which allow them to ask the assistance when needed.
3.4.3 The legal obstruction
The main obstruction is the legal problem. Generally, the high technology surveillance must subject to the Fourth Amendment; the police need warrant from the court to obtain the information from the suspect’s hardware.
[86] However, there are some particular situations that the USA PATRIOT ACT grants the power to FBI to access some individual electronic information without securing the warrant. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 which prohibited the wiretap action according to the provision of the Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 will not apply in this situation. However, the other street crimes the police and law enforcement agency must follow to the Fourth Amendment.
CONCLUSION THE PROPOSALS TO CORRECT THE SENTENCING
In accordance with the errors in conviction in chapter 1, the errors derived from many causes such as eyewitness misidentification, the police misconduct as well as false forensic evidence and unqualified experts in performing and applying the scientific knowledge to examine the evidence. Therefore, my proposals are: (1) to establish the standard to regulate the forensic evidence validity; and (2) to enhancing the policing administration because it is the first stage of criminal justice system which can be able to render the desirable result of criminal justice system.. I believe that the policing administration is the most important stage that affects the correctness of the sentencing of the court.
In addition, the community policing is the most intriguing technique to correct the sentencing when the street crime had been committed and finally the wrongdoer has been charged to the court. This method needs the cooperation of citizen in the society to prevent the crime before it happens, and requires them to grant information to the police after the crimes have been committed. The more a community relation program is successful, the more information the citizen will be willing to give the police in conducting crime investigation.
[87]Nevertheless, the community policing might be introduced in different characteristics in different communities because each community might be composed of different culture and other factors. In addition, the community policing might not be the only means to achieve the crime prevention and correct the sentencing in trial. In contrast, it is considerably useful to control the crime, to collect the evidence to prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and finally to correct the sentencing if this technique has been supported by other methods as mentioned in chapter 2 and 3. This technique might require the more safeguard of the trustworthy forensic evidence and other sanctions to prevent the misconduct of the related persons in criminal justice system.
Particularly, if the new standard of forensic evidence, both in its sciences and the experts which are reliable, can be developed, it can be used to correct the sentence without any doubt whether those forensic evidences are reliable. Those evidences themselves do not change and they cannot tell anything without the expert; then, the standard of the expert witness must be required to render those evidences are trustworthy. Those would be the best evidence to support the eyewitness and other indirect evidence or other circumstances to correct the sentencing.
OTHER INTERESTING RELATED TOPIC
One more interesting question which might be important for police to deal with is how to deal with computer crime in the future. Because the arrival of the rapid development of computer technology, and the digitization of most forms of information since 1980’s lead to the creation of the Internet, which facilitates the distribution and transportation of information possible with the click of the button,
[88] these innovations facilitate the crime commission on internet and cyberspace as well. The development brought about the state to change both criminal law and civil trying to catch up the reality of this high technology. Moreover, many scholars propose that the police must improve the high technology and extend the information network for all law enforcement agencies as well as in the global cooperation network to fight the computer crime: such as “Surveillance of internet online.” However, the most looming to our criminal justice system is the abilities of the personnel in the criminal justice system to understand these hi-tech of criminal activities. Even if some of police department and prosecutor office have been fashioning the new techniques of digital evidence to combat the computer crime, there are many limitations in terms of the individual rights and the privacy which the law must protect. In addition, the court might disagree to much invade the privacy of the general people by introducing the new method of searching – digital searching – to obtain the evidence without the warrant from the court.
[89]It is fair enough to conclude that only some personnel or some offices in criminal justice system which has potential to combat the new characteristics of crime, and it sounds difficult for the judges to adapt themselves to adjust the old law to new aspect of computer crime. The legislature needs to play the significant role to adopt the new law to achieve this problem which entitles the judges to impose the precise sentence to the criminals who commit the high technology crime.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS
L. Craig Parker, Jr., The Japanese Police System Today: A Comparative Study,2001
Nora V Demleitner, at el, SENTENCING LAW AND POLICY: Case, Statutes, and Guideline, 2004
Neal E. Trautman, A STUDY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT: A Comprehensive Study of the World’s Greatest, Yet Most Difficult, Profession, 1990
Obi N. Ignatius Ebbe, Comparative & International Criminal Justice Systems: Policing,
Judiciary, and Corrections, 1996
William Schwabe, et al, Challenge and Choices for Crime-Fighting Technology: Federal
Support of State and Local Law Enforcement, 2001
ARTICLES
James S. Liebman, Opting for Real Death Penalty Reform, 63 Ohio St. L.J.315 (2002)
Joseph L. Hoffmann, Violence and thee Truth, 76 Ind. L.J. 939, 945 (2001)
Lauri Constantine, et al, MODEL ACT: Model prevention and remedy of Erroneous
convictions act, 33 Ariz. St. L. J. 665 (2001)
Samuel R. Gross, The risks of death: Why erroneous convictions are common in capital
cases, 44 Bull. L. Rev. 469 (1996).
Richard J. Ofeshe, et al, AN INTERDISCIPLINARY EXAMINATION OF CORECION,
EXPLOTATION, AND THE LAW: II. CORCED CONFESSION: The Decision to
confess Falsely: Rational Choice and Irrational Action, 74 Denv. U.L. Rev. 979, 982
(1997).
Margery Malkin Koosed, The Proposed Innocence Protection Act Won’t – Unless it also
Curbs Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications, 63 Ohio St.L.J. 263, 271 (2002)
Randolph N. Jonakait, FORENSIC SCIENCE: THE NEED FOR REGULATION, 4 Harv.
J. Law & Tec 109 (1991).
Herbert L. MacDonell, CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE-BLOOD SPATTERS AND SMEARS
AND OTHER PYHSICAL EVIDENCE, 1 Quinnipiac Health L.J. 33, 40 (1996).
Paul C. Giannelli, AKE V. OKLAHOMA: THE RIGHT TO EXPERT ASSISTANCE IN A
POST-DAUBERT, POST-DNA WORLD, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 1305, 1308 (2004).
Ted S. Reed, Freeing the Innocent: A proposed Forensic Evidence Retention Statute to Optimize Utah’s Post-Conviction DNA Testing Act for Claims of Actual Innocence,” 2004 Utah L. Rev. 877 (2004).
John E. Smialek, et al, The Microscopic Slide: A Potential DNA Reservoir, FBI LAW
ENFORCEMENT BULL. 18, 19 (Nov.2000). cited by Paual C. Giannelli, Scientific Evidence: Mitochondrial DNA, 4, 19 A.B.A. SEC. Criminal Justice 54,55 (Winter 2005)
Ericaa Beecher-Monas, BLINDED BY SCIENCE: HOW JUDGES VOID THE SCIENCE IN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, 71 Temp. L. Rev. 55, (1998).
Jason Sushine, at el, THE ROLE OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY IN
SHAPING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR POLICING, 37 Law & Soc’y Rev. 513, 515 (2003)
David Weisburd, at el, WHAT CAN POLICE DO TO REDUCE CRIME, DISORDER, AND FEAR?,593 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 42 (2004)
Andrew M. Pardieck, “VIRTUOUS WAYS AND BEATIFUL CUSTOMS: THE ROLE OF
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN JAPAN,” 11 Temp. Int’l & Comp. L.J.31, 32 (1997).
Steven A. Drizin, at el, Let the Cameras Roll: Mandatory Videotaping of Interrogations
Is the Solution to Illinois’ Problem of False Confessions, 32 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 337, 340 (2001)
Avraham M. Levi, at el, Lineup and Photo Spread Procedures: Issues Concerning Policy
Recommendations, 7 Psysh. Pub. Pol. and L. 776 (2001)
Floyd Feeney, POLICE CLEARANCES: A POOR WAY TO MEASURE IMPACT OF
MIRANDA ON THE POLICE, 32 Rutgers L.J. 1, 11 (2000).
Christopher Slobogin, CRIME AND TECHNOLOGY: TECHNOLOGICALLY-ASSISTED
PHYSICAL SURVEILLANCE: THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION’S TENTATATIVE DRAFT STANDARDS, 10 Harv. J. Law & Tec 383, 451-461 (1997)
Marc D. Goodman, CRIME AND TECHNOLOGY: WHY THE POLICE DON’T CARE ABOUT COMPUTER CRIME, 10 Harv. J. Law & Tec 465, 476 (1997).
Arthur J. Carter, et al, COMPUTER CRIMES, 41 Am.Crim. L. Rev. 313, 342 (2004).
James Q. Wilson, VARIETIES OF POLICE BEHAVIOR, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1943, 1945 (1970).
Michael Coblenz, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIMES, 9 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech 235, 238 (1999).
NEWSPAPERS
Michael Coren, Digital evidence: Today’s fingerprints, Police and prosecutors are fashioning a new weapon in their arsenal against criminals: digital evidence, CNN, January 31, 2005.
INTERVIEW
Susan Schwartz, the Police Training Specialist of Police Training Institute University of
Illinois, interviewing on March 9-10, 2005.
WORLD WIDE WEB
Footnotes
[1] Nora V. Demleitner, at el, SENTENCING LAW AND POLICY: Case, Statutes, and Guideline, (2004), p.2
[2] James S. Liebman, Opting for Real Death Penalty Reform, 63 Ohio St. L.J.315 (2002)
[5] Joseph L. Hoffmann, Violence and thee Truth, 76 Ind. L.J. 939, 945 (2001)
[7] Joseph L. Hoffmann, Id. at 947
[8] Lauri Constantine, et al, MODEL ACT: Model prevention and remedy of Erroneous convictions act, 33 Ariz. St. L. J. 665 (2001)
[9] Samuel R. Gross, Id. at 4.
[10] Samuel R. Gross, The risks of death: Why erroneous convictions are common in capital cases, 44 Bull. L. Rev. 469 (1996).
[12] Richard J. Ofeshe, et al, AN INTERDISCIPLINARY EXAMINATION OF CORECION, EXPLOTATION, AND THE LAW: II. CORCED CONFESSION: The Decision to confess Falsely: Rational Choice and Irrational Action, 74 Denv. U.L. Rev. 979, 982 (1997).
[16] Id. at 998 There are four techniques to obtain the False Confessions: (1) Stress-Complaints; (2) Coerced-Complaint; (3) Non-Coerced Persuaded, and (4) Coerced-Persuaded. The first one is that the means to overcome a suspect’s resistance by employing the influence techniques to induce the significant distress and anxiety, or to eviscerate his self-confidence, and to reinforce the claim that his guilt is well known and certain. The second is using threats of harm and/or promises of leniency, which some suspects will knowingly give a coerced-complaint false confession. The third will be applied when the suspects have become more convinced that it is more likely than not that he committed the crime, despite possessing no memory of having done so
[17] Samuel R. Gross, Id.469
[18] Margery Malkin Koosed, The Proposed Innocence Protection Act Won’t – Unless it also Curbs Mistaken Eyewitness Identifications, 63 Ohio St.L.J. 263, 271 (2002)
[19] Richard J. Ofeshe, Id. at 982
[20] Randolph N. Jonakait, FORENSIC SCIENCE: THE NEED FOR REGULATION, 4 Harv. J. Law & Tec 109 (1991).
[26] Herbert L. MacDonell, CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE-BLOOD SPATTERS AND SMEARS AND OTHER PYHSICAL EVIDENCE, 1 Quinnipiac Health L.J. 33, 40 (1996).
[27] Lauri Constantine, et al, Id. at. 672. For example, in William Harris case, the crime victim at first excluded Harris at a lineup because she was certain he did not rape her. The laboratory falsely reported that Harris’s DNA matched the semen taken from the victim. It was conveyed to the victim, and then she identified Harris as the rapist. He, however, was exonerated by valid DNA test after having been convicted for rape for Eight year.
[28] Paul C. Giannelli, AKE V. OKLAHOMA: THE RIGHT TO EXPERT ASSISTANCE IN A POST-DAUBERT, POST-DNA WORLD, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 1305, 1308 (2004).
[29] Ted S. Reed, Freeing the Innocent: A proposed Forensic Evidence Retention Statute to Optimize Utah’s Post-Conviction DNA Testing Act for Claims of Actual Innocence,” 2004 Utah L. Rev. 877 (2004).
[30] Margery Malkin Koosed, Id. at. 271
[31] John E. Smialek, et al, The Microscopic Slide: A Potential DNA Reservoir, FBI LAW ENFORCEMENT BULL. 18, 19 (Nov.2000). cited by Paual C. Giannelli, Scientific Evidence: Mitochondrial DNA, 4, 19 A.B.A. SEC. Criminal Justice 54,55 (Winter 2005).
[32] Paul C. Giannelli, Id. at 1318
[34] Frye v. United States, 293 F.1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
[35] Ericaa Beecher-Monas, BLINDED BY SCIENCE: HOW JUDGES VOID THE SCIENCE IN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, 71 Temp. L. Rev. 55, (1998).
[39] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 582-583 (1993).
[48] Randolph N. Jonakait, Id. at 151-191
[49] Neal E. Trautman, A STUDY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT: A Comprehensive Study of the World’s Greatest, Yet Most Difficult, Profession, (1990), p.47
[51] Jason Sushine, at el, THE ROLE OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY IN SHAPING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR POLICING, 37 Law & Soc’y Rev. 513, 515 (2003)
[53] David Weisburd, at el, WHAT CAN POLICE DO TO REDUCE CRIME, DISORDER, AND FEAR?,593 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 42 (2004)
[55] Jason Sushine, Id., at 518
[56] David Weisburd, Id. at. 44
[58] L. Craig Parker, The Japanese Police System Today: A Comparative Study, (2001), p. 6
[60] Andrew M. Pardieck, “VIRTUOUS WAYS AND BEATIFUL CUSTOMS: THE ROLE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN JAPAN,” 11 Temp. Int’l & Comp. L.J.31, 32 (1997).
[61] L. Craig Parker, Id. at 18
[66] Obi N. Ignatius Ebbe, Comparative & International Criminal Justice Systems: Policing, Judiciary, and Corrections, (1996) p.45
[67] David Weisburd, Id. at 49
[69] I gratefully thank to Professor Susan Schwartz, the Police Training Specialist of Police Training Institute University of Illinois, who grants many materials and interviewing to me during March 9-10, 2005.
[70] Steven A. Drizin, at el, Let the Cameras Roll: Mandatory Videotaping of Interrogations Is the Solution to Illinois’ Problem of False Confessions, 32 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 337, 340 (2001) He stated that a 1993 U.S. Justice Department report found that at least one-third of the nation’s largest police department were videotaping some interrogations and confessions.
[71] Lauri Constantine, et al, Id. at 674
[72] Margery Malkin Koosed, Id. at 305
[74] Avraham M. Levi, at el, Lineup and Photo Spread Procedures: Issues Concerning Policy Recommendations, 7 Psysh. Pub. Pol. and L. 776 (2001)
[78] Floyd Feeney, POLICE CLEARANCES: A POOR WAY TO MEASURE IMPACT OF MIRANDA ON THE POLICE, 32 Rutgers L.J. 1, 11 (2000).
[79] Christopher Slobogin, CRIME AND TECHNOLOGY: TECHNOLOGICALLY-ASSISTED PHYSICAL SURVEILLANCE: THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION’S TENTATATIVE DRAFT STANDARDS, 10 Harv. J. Law & Tec 383, 451-461 (1997)
[81] William Schwabe, et al, Challenge and Choices for Crime-Fighting Technology: Federal Support of State and Local Law Enforcement, (2001), p. 3-4
[82] Id. at. 45 For example, 90% of local lacked of technology to detect or analyze cyber attacks; only 5-15 percent of local department and 10-15 percent of state police indicated that they link or share computerized fillies of summonses or warrants with other agencies. Furthermore, only 5 percent of local police reported having video or other systems that allowed them to file cases with prosecutors remotely.
[83] Marc D. Goodman, CRIME AND TECHNOLOGY: WHY THE POLICE DON’T CARE ABOUT COMPUTER CRIME, 10 Harv. J. Law & Tec 465, 476 (1997).
[85] Arthur J. Carter, et al, COMPUTER CRIMES, 41 Am.Crim. L. Rev. 313, 342 (2004).
[87] James Q. Wilson, VARIETIES OF POLICE BEHAVIOR, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1943, 1945 (1970).
[88] Michael Coblenz, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CRIMES, 9 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech 235, 238 (1999).
[89] Michael Coren, Digital evidence: Today’s fingerprints, Police and prosecutors are fashioning a new weapon in their arsenal against criminals: digital evidence, CNN, January 31, 2005.
