Unit 2 Essay B
Every judicial process is pegged on the premise that the defendant must have committed an offense either willingly or unwillingly. According to Michele, criminal law, a basis of judicial process, a person is held responsible for his/her act as long as no force was exerted on his/her compelling him to act unreasonable (Michele, 2005, p. 56). In this context, the judicial process acknowledges that not all crimes are solvable, and that even those crimes that can be solved at times fail to be cleared due to incompetence, misfeasance, and mental illness or due to other factors attached to memory lapses. In his essay, Kim (2014, p. 2) suggest three important factors that will impact the decision the jury makes concerning a particular criminal case. These factors may be attached to cognitive biases, and the position the defendant takes as far as the case proceedings are concerned (Kim, 2014, p. 2). Holding other attributing factors constant, the challenges a prosecutor might face include perception and memory limitation, intuition as well as heuristic biases. These factors are generalized under personality disorders known as psychopathy.
Within the frameworks of perception and memory limitation, the defendant’s mind is set on aspects of his own awareness and understanding of the circumstances surrounding a particular case. In this context, the defendant is thought to remember or speak what he or she believes is true with the exclusion of the eyewitness. Therefore, Kim (2014, p. 3) believes that the memory of the defendant is actually limited to what he/she believes to be true. Intuition is based on personal habit otherwise called behavior, which again appears to be stronger than reasoning. Intuition entails perception building, information processing, and internally regulated decision making processes. The prosecution side must therefore consider the aspects, such as genes and behavior changes. At times, a person can act out of anger with an intention of defending his/her position. On the other hand, heuristics occur due to retard information processing, or due to distorted judgment. The defendant may claim freedom if for example the judgment made by the jury is faultily analyzed.
Cotton’s reasoning behind such success retail around common factors in criminal law known as the mistaken identity and freedom of choice. Under the concept of mistaken identity, the defendant retains actual innocence, and there are several attempts to undermine every evidence of guilt (Bacigal & Tate, 2014, p. 9). The defendant maintains a non-true identity as claimed by the eyewitness, and as such the defendant has the right to question the memory of the eyewitness under the argument that the mistaken identification was perhaps due to memory lapses. Negligence on the other hand is a characteristic that may contribute less towards bailing a criminal out of the court proceedings (Bacigal & Tate, 2014, p. 10). Even though emotions must have played a big role, the defendant had the freedom to choose all that is right, and act according to his/her conscious.
Bacigal, R., & Tate, M. (2014). Criminal Law and Procedure: An Overview. Cengage Learning.
Kim, P. (2014). Psychopathy, Genes, and the Criminal Justice System+. Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev., 15, 375-375.
Michele Cotton (2005). A Foolish Consistency: Keeping Determinism. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal. Rev., 15, 1-48.