I find it kind of hard to understand all of Brooks' idea considering how dense it is and how much he wants to cover. Nevertheless, I particularly enjoyed reading the cases he presents. In this particular chapter that I selected, it is interesting to me how the police uses persuaded confession to force people, that might even be innocent, to confess their crime. Particularly in the cases of Peter Reilly and Edgar Garrett. In both cases, the police present to suspect that they know he did the murder and have evidences for it. Using their memory gap. They fill in those gap with detail of murder and slowly makes them think that they actually did the murder. These techniques seem to me a form of psychological attack. Suspects are assume guilty even before evidence of guilty is found. The police, showing confidence in their "evidence" makes the suspects aware of some possible guilt. This starts the break down of the dam. Once their defense weaken, the police fill them in with details of the murder to rebuild the scenery.
Another idea that set me thinking was the part where he mentioned the confession through torture. He mentioned how confession at the point where the victim is stripped and showed torture tools are consider of free will and those after torture are needed to be repeated the next day. This let me think what exactly is free will in confession. The confessor know that their confession can be use to condemned themselves or that they are asked to confess. This leads to another idea he presented in the previous section, the only authentic confession is those of individual confessional discourse.
Hey Wei Wen! For someone who is confused about the text, I think your response brings up some interesting points. I really liked the subject of whether or not there is free will in confession. In interrogation, many suspects are manipulated because the police is not trying to understand the suspect’s point of view. There is a preconceived story and all they want is to have get a confirmation. The suspect does not even get a chance. As far as “free will” goes, I’m not quite sure we can say that suspects always have their rights protected. This subject is often dismissed because we are in a democracy and our system is very different from traditional, totalitarian interrogations. Even though we condemn physical torture, there are still similarities in our practices and motives, especially because there is a preconceived truth. There are loopholes with language and psychology. The Miranda rights, to some authorities, are seen as a limitation on the police department, but eventually, they found their way around it. However, there is always a counterargument. What if the suspect is really guilty? Are the interrogation practices then justified? Some may say that the effort for justice overrides the manipulation of the prisoners.
ReplyDelete