Although this essay ends up agreeing with all the authors, you can havea well-argued paper that disagrees with them. If so, one mightwant to spend more hours developing the objection, so as to guarantee thatone remains being charitable.
- Do not view this as a cookie-cutter. That's, do nottry to copy the actual as a type of this test, paragraph-for-paragraph. How many paragraphs which can be required for summarizing the argument,or supplying a critique, or giving an answer to that critique (if appropriate)will differ from case to case.
- Instead, you need to use this as an example associated with design of paper you're beingasked to publish. Including, once you have identified just what the keypremises associated with author’s argument are, you can communicate them discursivelyas i've done in this sample essay.
- Note the use of subject sentences in paragraphs. This helpsto focus the principle point regarding the paragraph. Note that the conclusionis essentially a re-statement regarding the thesis, which will be appropriate for aphilosophy paper.
Having trouble cutting your paper to within 750 words (offer or take)? Simply click to understand initial versionof this paper which was about 150 terms over limit. It shows whereI cut, to have a good idea of just how to cut down your paper.
Student Name (Scholar Number)
Tutorial: D1.XX (Day, Time)
Tutorial Leader: TA’s name
Word Count: 754 (comes out to just under 3 pages, double-spaced)
Just ConfessionsSaul Kassin and Gisli Gudjonsson, in their article for ScientificAmerican Mind, “True Crimes, False Confessions,” argue that “society shoulddiscuss the urgent should reform techniques that donate to false confessionsand to need mandatory videotaping of all of the interviews and interrogations”(2005, p. 26). After analyzing their argument, i will argue that,although one might object that Kassin and Gudjonsson focus too heavilyon the significance of protecting unlawful suspects, they provide a compellingargument that social justice calls for such reforms as mandatory video-tappingof authorities interrogations.
In developing their situation for the have to reform interrogation techniques,Kassin and Gudjonsson survey some studies about the role ofconfessions in unlawful investigations. For example, these are typically atpains to give you proof that interrogations tend to be impacted by abias on the part of the interrogator. Further concern is available inthe undeniable fact that Miranda legal rights, as based in the US legal system, areinsufficient safeguards, given that suspects, specially innocent people,often waive those liberties. Finally, Kassin and Gudjonsson note thataggressive interrogation strategies can often create false confessions.
What makes these findings most troubling, accordingto Kassin and Gudjonsson, could be the strong correlation between false confessionand wrongful conviction. Trial jurors, we're told, are inclinedto give disproportionate fat to a confessions, also using it to outweighso-called “hard evidence.” As a characteristic instance, Kassin andGudjonsson cite the case of Bruce Godschalk. Even though DNA evidenceproved Godschalk could not happen the rapist, the District Attorneyof the case refused to discharge him from prison, saying that “…we trustmy detective and his tape-recorded evidence” (Kassin and Gudjonsson, 2005,p. 28). This is why tendency on the part of jurors and prosecutors,together utilizing the facts listed above about the possibility unrestrictedinterrogations to elicit false confessions, Kassin and Gudjonssonargue for the have to reform authorities interrogation tactics.
Underlying their argument may be the implicit moralprinciple that social justice calls for that we do everything we are able to tominimize the possible to wrongly convict innocent people. Thismay seem apparent, but one could reasonably concern whether it places toomuch increased exposure of protecting possibly innocent suspects and never enoughon convicting potentially bad crooks. In a perfectly just system,criminals would be delivered to justice and addressed properly,and innocent suspects would be exonerate. But any systemdevised and implemented by humans must handle the fact of imperfection.
The hard moral question we need to ask is howwe are to balance the needs of culture to protect it self from criminalswhile as well protecting the legal rights of innocent individuals. We need to ask at exactly what cost we're willing to limit the ability of policeand Crown prosecutors to prosecute criminal suspects. Imagine,for instance, the next two systems: (1) minimal innocent personsare ever convicted, but a very high percentage of recidivist offendersare in a position to escape conviction, (2) an extremely high percentage of offendersare caught and brought to justice; however, a little but non-negligiblepercentage (say 3percent) of innocent people are unjustly caught inside systemand thus wrongly punished for crimes they never ever committed. Neitherof these is very palatable, however, if forced to select, my intuitions favorresult (2). Obviously, there are numerous variables at the job here, andI do not have the room to delve into a detailed conversation of all of the therelevant trade-offs. My basic point usually social justice requiresnot only that people protect innocent folks from prosecution, but thatwe hold bad persons in charge of their actions.
While i do believe that this is a reasonable stress toraise offered the tenor of Kassin and Gudjonsson’s article, i actually do perhaps not thinkit finally undermines their argument. That is, i do believe one mightreasonably object that they are extremely focused on the possibility of falseconfessions without saying a great deal towards energy of real confessions. But their specific proposal that interrogations be video-taped doesnot appear to reduce the power of police to effortlessly interrogate suspectsand, whenever feasible, to elicit a confession. Indeed, they concludetheir essay by citing a study showing that police largely discovered the practiceof video-taping to be quite useful and not to prevent criminal investigations.
So, even though one thinks that Kassin and Gudjonsson are a little one-sidein centering on false confessions, eventually i believe these authors providea compelling argument for the importance of such reforms as mandatory video-tapingof authorities interrogations.