Essay Topics

Criminal Justice
Name
Institution
Course
Date

The rape trauma syndrome
Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS) is a medical term that is used to describe the reactions and responses that rape victim experience. It is the psychological trauma that victims of abuse experience. These responses reported by rape victims include emotional, physical and behavioral reactions. RTS is used to describe the normal and natural reactions that a psychologically healthy person has once they become victims of rape, and hence they do not constitute a mental disorder or illness. Ann Burgess and Lynda Holmstrom developed the theory of RTS in 1974.
RTS identifies three stages that a rape victim goes through. The first is the acute stage, then the external adjustment stage and finally the renormalization stage. The acute phase occurs after the rape and the durations it last varies for different victims. Some of the emotional reactions that are experienced during this stage include feelings of shock and disbelief. Once the sense of shock begins to decline, the victims experience fear of physical injury or death. The victims can have feelings that range from humiliations to guilt, shame, and self-blame (Coppin, 2000). Some victims may mask and hide there, and hence they will appear calm and unaffected by the assault. Physical reactions during this stage include feeling of soreness all over their body and feeling of pain in specific areas targeted by the assailants in the sexual assault.
The external adjustment step involves underground stage were the victim attempts to return to their normal lives as if nothing had happened.

They try to block what they experienced from their minds, and they may not want to talk about the ordeal. The reorganization stage then follows it where the returns to the emotional turmoil. In the renormalization stage, rape survivors start adjusting. They no longer have negative feelings such as guilt and shame. They also stop blaming themselves. Prosecutors employ RTS to educate the jury on the mental impacts of sexual abuse and to eliminate stereotypes regarding rape.
Children’s rights when testifying
Children are considered to be qualified to be witnesses in most states and federal courts. Prosecutors’ actions during criminal proceedings may have a direct impact on a child’s safety hence the need to protect children when they are testifying. The 18 U.S. Code 3509 was ratified to make available tools that can be employed by jurors to lessen any probable harm that may be prompted to kid witnesses having to re-experience the distressing events (“18 U.S. Code § 3509 – Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights | US Law,” n.d.).
It may be traumatic and intimidating for a child to appear and testify in a courtroom full of people and the perpetrator of the crime. Hence in some circumstances the use of an alternative to courtroom testimony is necessary. This involves the use of closed circuit television or taking the deposition of a child witness pre-trial. Also, a child can testify while the courtroom is closed so that people with no direct interest in the case such as the press are not present when the child is testifying.
Children witnesses also have a right to have their identity protected. The 18 U.S C 3509 law ensures the privacy of the witness is observed. Hence all documents containing the witness name or item that can identify the child are supposed to be kept in secure places. This is done by filing documents that can reveal the identity of the child under seal or by requesting a protective order. Child witnesses should be accompanied by adults who are mandated with offering the minors psychological support.
The roles psychologists can play in child custody cases
In any child custody case ensuring the child’s best interests are protected. This can only be done by having psychologists working together with the attorneys. A psychologist is critical, especially in high conflict child custody cases. Such cases are complex and even involve the allegation of abuse (“Role of Behavior Therapists in Child Custody Cases. – PubMed – NCBI,” n.d.). Psychologists work to identify any form of abuse, and they also educate victims’ parents on how they can safeguard their children against abuse.
Forensic psychologists are primarily used in child custody cases to evaluate the parents involved in the custody cases. The forensic psychologists can see signs or traits in the parents who may not be good for the child which are hidden. Psychologists are mandated with carrying out research on child witnesses and their guardians to establish challenges that are likely to impact the kids. Psychologists can detect any behavior patterns that is related to unhealthy relationships and which can end in potentially dangerous situations for a child.
By examining the parent’s behavioral patterns, psychologists can make specific opinions about them. The psychologists can observe behaviors such as alcoholism or drug abuse, physical abuse and neglect, physiological abuse or even signs of mental illness. They also gather and study data which they will use to make recommendations to the court. Psychologist offers fair treatment to all parties involved, and they use and administer the same procedures consistently to each of the parties involved. Psychological testing provides helpful information that is used in making decisions in the custody cases. Hence it is important for the psychologist to carry out the appropriate tests and they should present the evidence and tests results objectively. Hence psychologist plays a major role in ensuring that the best decision is arrived at when solving child custody cases.
Can eyewitness testimony contribute to wrongful convictions?
Eyewitness testimony is one of the most used evidence in courtrooms. Eye-witnessing provides essential information, but at times it will give rise to the wrongful conviction of the defendants. In several cases, DNA testing has proven that eyewitness testimony and identification to be inaccurate. Eye witnesses can wrongful identify a person hence aiding in convicting offenders wrongful. Three-quarter of eyewitness convictions has been overruled after obtaining DNA evidence. In thirty-eight percent of eyewitness proof, innocent individuals have been severally (“Reevaluating Lineups: Why Witnesses Make Mistakes and How to Reduce the Chance of a Misidentification Innocence Project,” n.d.). DNA testing is used in few cases hence implying eyewitnesses will continue contributing to increased wrongful verdicts against innocent individuals.
Eyewitness evidence is easily corruptible since the human mind cannot replay events in a logical sequence. The observer’s memory can be prejudiced and altered in ways to contribute to wrongful convictions. The witness’s memory should be carefully handled to avoid modifying it. Cases of wrongful conviction due to eyewitness testimony could have been prevented if measures were put in place to make police lineup procedures reliable. To reduce such cases reforms have been established. This includes the use of double-blind presentation were the administrator of a lineup does not know who is the suspect. The other is including non-suspects who resemble the eyewitness description. Such reforms should be implemented in all the states since wrongful convictions do not benefit anybody and anything that can be done to prevent an innocent person to be jailed should be applied.
The role of police examinations in generating revelations
Revelations by a perpetrator are the most detrimental proof that can be embodied in a trial. Interrogations are used by the police to get more information about a case that will further the investigation and to induce the suspect to confess. Though most police feel that interrogations should be used to get an admission of guilt, their basic function should get information that will further the investigation.
The police role in generating confessions while carrying investigations is to get the admission in a legal manner. It is not beneficial for a police officer to get a confession that is not admissible in court. While the police are interrogating a suspect, they should do it in a manner suggesting they are seeking the truth rather than trying to get an admission of guilt. The tactics used by a police officer while carrying out an interrogation should be legal.
Legal strategies that are employed by law enforcers to get confessions range from taking advantage of a suspect’s feelings to misrepresenting facts hence making the perpetrators confess. Tactics that are considered to be illegal include the use of physical abuse and torture, use of threats of harm failing to notify the suspect of their Miranda rights, asserting certain types of psychological influence on the suspect and subjecting the suspect to prolonged isolation or even depriving them food or sleep.
For police to generate confessions that are admissible in court, they should not carry out any coercive interrogation. To make the confessions more reliable, they can involve psychologists who assist in the interrogation process. Psychologists can help the police by educating them on how they can make the interrogation process more credible.
The effects of pretrial publicity
Pretrial publicity involves the attention that criminal cases get from the media. Understanding the effects of pretrial publicity on the parties involved in a case is important. With the establishment of faster communication in the recent years, pretrial publicity has been on the rise, and it has become almost impossible to regulate. Every person deserves a fair trial and it is important for the jury to have the case presented to them with their minds open and unprejudiced.
Pretrial publicity exposes the jury to a lot of opinions that may influence or threaten their impartiality. When requests are made to limit pretrial publicity the argument is that the jurors’ conclusions might be based on what the media is reporting and not the evidence and arguments made during the court proceedings. Research conducted by psychologists indicates that to some extent pretrial publicity can affect jurors’ pretrial perceptions (Ruva, 2010). The jury verdict can be influenced even after they have heard all the evidence. The jury may also have a negative opinion about the party who is consistently portrayed by the media in a negative manner during the pretrial publicity.
Jurors and judges claim that exposure to pretrial publicity did not in any way influence their decisions yet they also say that they believe that the pretrial publicity influenced other people perception of the case. It is important to acknowledge that pretrial publicity can influence a trial. Even the jury that being exposed to certain information before the trial does not influence their decisions it is important that no chance is taken. Courts should control possible pretrial publicity through methods such as issuing gag orders or restricting media coverage. This ensures that all parties get a fair trial.
References
18 U.S. Code § 3509 – Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights | US Law. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3509
Coppin, C. B. (2000). Everything you need to know about healing from rape trauma. New York: Rosen Pub. Group.
Reevaluating Lineups: Why Witnesses Make Mistakes and How to Reduce the Chance of a Misidentification Innocence Project. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2016, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/reevaluating-lineups-why-witnesses-make-mistakes-and-how-to-reduce-the-chance-of-a-misidentification/
The Role of Behavior Therapists in Child Custody Cases. – PubMed – NCBI. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2016, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2274467
Ruva, C. (2010). How Pretrial Publicity Affects Juror Decision Making and Memory. New York, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers.