A real detective talks about homicide.
He says that people do confess, and that's the way most murders are solved. He talks about what it takes to get a confession out of a suspect. He even mentions the problem of jury trials in the "post CSI" world in which jurors expect convincing evidence to solve a murder. When actually it's witnesses and confessions that do the job.
I had heard years ago that shows like Perry Mason were ludicrous in their depiction of suspects confessing on the witness stand. Maybe the issue there was the location, that nobody really confesses in court.
As an extra bonus, this anonymous detective agrees with me on the death penalty, too. It's nice to know there are guys like this working for the police. If the post is true, of course. This is the internet, after all.
2 comments:
Yes being a Retired NYPD Detective I do agreed about confessions.
They confessed well before the witness stand.The accused rarely tesify.
It takes good listening skills,patience,and knowing things about the accused to get the confession.
So I guess the really silly thing about Perry Mason episodes was that the accused would invariably break down on the witness stand. I guess that was just too melodramatic to resist.
Personally, I think it's great that detectives can get confessions from criminals and dispense some justice without resorting to trial by jury. I say that based on the fact that some jurors (and some judges) have some skewed ideas about justice.
Post a Comment