Showing papers in "Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology in 1996"

Inside the Interrogation Room

Abstract: This article takes the reader inside the interrogation room in order to analyze the characteristics, context and outcome of police interrogation practices in America. This study is the first in over twenty-five years to examine routine police interrogation practices in America through field research. The data is based on nine months of observation in a major, urban police department involving 122 interrogations and 45 detectives. It also relies on 60 videotaped custodial interrogations from two additional police departments. The article attempts to fill in the gap left by criminal interrogation scholars who have failed to employ empirical research on police interrogation practices in their studies. The article asserts that the techniques that Miranda was designed to address, such as undermining suspects' confidence in their denials and confronting suspects with fabricated evidence of their guilt, continue to be used in contemporary American police interrogations. It also suggests that interrogators have become increasingly successful at eliciting incriminating information from custodial suspects in the last thirty years. These findings confirm that interrogation methods exert a fateful effect on criminal cases at every subsequent stage in the criminal justice system.

The Social Construction of a Hate Crime Epidemic

Abstract: Although definitions vary from state to state, "hate crime" generally means a crime against persons or property motivated in whole or in part by racial, ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation and other prejudices.' Politicians, journalists, interest groups, and some criminologists insist that the United States is experiencing an acrossthe-board hate crime "epidemic." The use of the epidemic metaphor is meant to dramatize a sharply accelerating hate crime rate. Assertions that a hate crime epidemic exists are almost always accompanied by recommendations for new "hate crime laws" that increase minimum and/or maximum punishment for offenders. This Article attempts to deconstruct the claim that the United States is experiencing a hate crime epidemic. Drawing on the "social construction of reality" perspective,2 we attempt to show how the "reality" of a hate crime epidemic has come to prevail. First, we examine the hate crime epidemic hypothesis and identify its proponents, including advocacy groups, the media, academics, and politicians. Second, we examine the hate crime data collection efforts of the AntiDefamation League (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center's

The Impact of Miranda Revisited

Abstract: The second of a two-part series, this article analyzes the long-term impact of the Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona on the behavior, attitudes, and culture of American police interrogators. The study is based on nine months of observation in an urban police department involving 122 interrogations and 45 detectives. It also relies on 60 videotaped custodial interrogations from two additional police departments. The article reviews the history and evolution of judicial attempts to regulate police interrogation methods through the constitutional law of criminal procedure. The author evaluates the desirability of Miranda as public policy and argues for the adoption of a constitutional rule that requires videotaping of custodial interrogations in all felony cases. Recording interrogations will provide greater credibility and legitimacy to police work, improve the quality of interrogation practices, and preserve the details of the interrogation for future review.

Deterrence and the death penalty: The views of the experts

Abstract: The American public has long been favorably disposed toward capital punishment for convicted murderers, and that support continues to grow. In a 1981 Gallup Poll, two-thirds of Americans voiced general approval for the death penalty. That support rose to 72% in 1985, to 76% in 1991, and to 80% in 1994.1 Although these polls need to be interpreted with extreme caution, it is clear that there are few issues on which more Americans agree: in at least some circumstances, death is seen as a justifiable punishment. Part of the support for capital punishment comes from the belief that the death penalty is legitimate under a theory of 'just deserts."2 This justification suggests that murderers should be executed for retributive reasons: murderers should suffer, and the retributive effects of life imprisonment are insufficient for taking a life. While such views are worthy of debate, no empirical research can tell us if the argument is "correct" or "incorrect." Empirical studies can neither answer the question of what specific criminals (or non-criminals) "deserve," nor settle debates over other moral issues surrounding capital punishment.

Decision-Making in Criminal Defense: An Empirical Study of Insanity Pleas and the Impact of Doubted Client Competence

Abstract: * John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia. This study was supported by the Research Network on Mental Health and the Law of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. We are grateful to Carol Holden, Jennifer Balay, and William Meyer for their roles in gathering the data reported here. ** Professor, Department of Law and Mental Health, Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida. *** Associate Professor of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry and of Law, University of Virginia. **** Doherty Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology and Legal Medicine, University of Virginia. *****Senior Research Scientist, Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, University of Virginia. 1 There have been several qualitative studies of relationships between criminal defendants and their attorneys, usually in the context of large public defender organizations. See, e.g., MILTON HEUMANN, PLEA BARGAINING (1978); LISA MCINTYRE, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER (1987); Abraham Blumberg, The Practice of Law as Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession, 1 L. & Soc'Y REv. 15 (1967). These studies have highlighted institutional factors that provide incentives for plea bargaining, and that can erode the defense attorney's ethical commitment to the interests or wishes of individual clients. The present study does not arise out of this empirical tradition and does not view the attorney's role from an organizational perspective. Instead, employing a case-centered, quantitative approach, we seek to identify patterns of attorney-client interaction in relation to a particular type of