The arrest of the three teenage young men over the murder of the three year old boys in West Memphis Arkansas took place in 1994. The three young men named Jessie MisKelley Jr, Damien Echols, and Jason Baldwin were found guilty and convicted for the killings. Both Jessie and Jason were sentenced to life and on the other hand, Baldwin who was considered as the suspected ring-leader received a death sentence. Later in 2011, the three teenagers presumed an Alford Plea which enabled them to come out of jail as time served. The Alford plea was presumed that one is guilty but did not commit the crime and this is advocated on the defense. The defendant under the Alford plea agrees that there is distinct evidence is affiliated in which the evidence provided could make the judge consider the defendant guilty. This intrusion made the judge to find Jesse, Jason and Baldwin guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Based on the Double Jeopardy Law, the three men could not be charged either and they were left as free individuals in the society.
Two years down the line, issues still emerge regarding the killings of the three 8-year old boys as several people come up with several questions on who might be responsible for the killings. Jessie, Damien and Jason are again presumed guilty under the Alford pleas as they are considered as the x-cons based on the laws of the society. Based on that perspective, the three individuals considered to have participated in the killings and the state declares a cold case. The state of Arkansas does not take into consideration several questions depicted based on the participation of John Mark and Terry Hobbs who are characterized as the stepfathers of the two boys. An assumption on what would have denoted to take place over the re-trial becomes the main essence in this perspective. This brings a contradiction on in the case based between the laws of the state. On contrary, the case concerning the three creates a dilemma as the maybe found guilty of the killings or maybe not guilty because of either police error or law enforcement mistakes involved in that context. The situation is considered challenging as there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt regarding the three young men found guilty and on the same note the two can be can accept to be guilty but they did not commit the crime and that is according to Alford pleas.
The law enforcement community has severally been confronted with a litany of allegations that the police officers have desecrated public trust over and over. This has been experienced in situations where the police are corrupted and change the evidence in some cases. I addition, at some point they use an effective approaches in arrest of some suspects and at some point they end up to convict or jail the innocent people. The rate in which innocent individuals have been arrested has been increased at a very high rate over the years. The entire community has had complain over the same but nothing much has been done over the same to change the situation or make it better. Based on that perspective, the case that incorporates Jessie, Jason and Damien may not be different from the rest. One can argue that there are police errors or enforcement mistakes in that context as the situation seem to be contradicting and changing over time. It is clear that the three young men were first arrested in 1994 over the killings over the three 8-year children and later released. The release can indicate that there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict the three and that is why they were released. Similarly, the approach of employing Alfords law in that case can e also designated as a contradicting perception which does not denounce the three men to have had committed the crime regardless of been said to be guilty.
The police decision making has been identified not to be so effective at some point. According to statistics from different perspectives, it has been noted that the police make mistakes many times and arrest innocent people. Decisions and errors affiliated in many cases have highly been assessed by the growing body of research (Miller, 192). This focus on the decision making by the police while making some critical management incidences. It has been noted that cognitive bias is pre-determined all through the processes. While considering the case involving the killings of the three children can be classified as the police error or the decision making might be affected. This might hinder and contradict the evidence of the case and make false or incorrect assumptions. In addition, this assumption about the three individuals articulates a fresh understanding as to why some cases might excessively delay or affect decision making even when it is vivid evidence about the entire situation.
Understanding the factors that affect issues concerning decision making by the judge or jury depends on the evidence that has been presented. This means that they have to take into consideration of the evidence presumed and assess all the information provided regarding the case. While monitoring the steps in which the three young men are going through, it can be evident that the tactical or strategic levels that have been articulated the understanding levels which affiliate on the decision making by the police or the judges concerning the case. The response from this context makes an accountability that is endured by the officers. John and Jesse might be considered not guilty since from the very first time when they were arrested, evidence provided can not be distinct and that is why they were released while employing Alford laws
Taking into consideration of the police legal advisors who compare and take notes over the case from different perspectives, at one stage or another case can be altered or occurrence of some mistakes. Based on the various speculations that have been ignited by the society, the two step brothers namely, John Mark Byers and Terry Hobbs might be involved in the killings. However, enough evidence has not been generated to so as to find the two individuals guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In addition, the several speculations intruded that evolve from the cases may not be sufficient to claim that the three are guilty or not guilty. However, the evidence designated with the case give an intrusion that indicates the line in which the case is anticipated. Jessie, Jason and Damien might have been aware about the crime but it is evident either that they might have not committed the killings. The assumption in which the stepfathers come into the case can also indicate the evidence provided about the three young men may not have been effective to convict or judge them concerning the killings either. This means that the stepfathers should be thoroughly investigated before making any judgments so that they does not making a wrong decision over the same (Burglin, 151).
Many aspects regarding policing have changed; however, one element that has remained comparatively unchanged is the presence of corruption today. The misuse of power by a police officer performing to fulfill personal the necessary requirements in protecting innocent people is not effectively affiliated. This is because of the major forms of corruption that has been constituted. In the criminal ground possible cause is significant in two elements. First, police has to provide the probable cause of any assumption before any arrests takes place. Second, mostly the criminal cases provided in courts should equally find that possible cause exists so that one can articulate a believe that the defendant cis guilty in regard to committing the crime before going a head to prosecute the defendant. There is some exclusion to these general rules either as the police may concisely detain or determine a limited search of the individuals in a public place in case they have reasonable suspicion that the individuals has committed a crime. In that perspective, a reasonable suspicion can be counted as belief that is less than possible cause. The needs of possible cause for a search and appropriation can be taken as evident. The three young men can be put in a similar situation regarding the killings that took place in that arena (Gooch, 72).
Probable cause regarding the case of Jessie, Damian and Jason can exist while there is some consideration of doubt as to the individuals’ guilt. In that perspective, the courts take care to assess the actions of police in the setting of how they come up with the evidence, balancing the safeties of law enforcement alongside the interest of individual liberty on finding whether possible cause present for the arrest. Legislatures can uphold statutes connecting to probable cause.
The police officers in regard to law enforcement setting in the society currently are advocated on protecting and serve the public interest based on the law. This means that the police officers should be responsible in protection both individuals and work based on the law to equally protect the innocent people and this can only be articulated by providing effective evidence genuinely so as to solve crimes, defend the lives. In that perspective, the conditions are generated in which individuals can pursue their own issues without meddling the evidence provided. With the involvement of the police in this context, they should be ready to provide the vivid evidence before the pre-trials and this will help not to prosecute the wrong people. The three young men might be guilty; however they did not commit the crimes that they have been arrested for. This means that someone else might have committed the crime and has not been yet identified. On contrary, the three young men might or might not been aware or involved with the crimes that they have been arrested for and that is why there is public concern over the same issue. The three young men being arrested and released equally articulates contradiction and brings up several questions in the society as most individuals might not be aware of what is taking place. Therefore, it means that they court has to take responsibility in bringing the criminals into justice. This can be done by using the law and equally providing the right information and also following the right procedures to make the processes a success (Library of Congress Subject Headings, 126).
It is evident that police errors have cost a lot most of the innocent people in several dimensions. An effective situation in regard to the cases attributes to a positive effect on a society through effective procedures. For instance, proper interrogation and employing effective procedures in ensuring they have the right criminal should be the major intrusion that should always be taken into consideration. This will help to protect innocent citizens and making the policing processes effective. The Police brutality in the society makes the most people to resist authority. This will possibly result to rioting in cases and other relevant issues. The reviewing all of the court testimonies, documents, evidence, and extra accounts that the real jury did not have access to will be significant in determining the entire situation. This means that the arrest of the three young men over the killings should be anticipated in the right procedures with no biases so that they can equally make the citizens have confident on the law and avoid some burning questions.
Library of Congress Subject Headings. Washington: Library of Congress, 1975. Print.
Burglin, Paul, Barry Simons, and Ed Kuwatch. California Drunk Driving Law. Costa Mesa, CA: James Pub, 2004. Continually updated resource.
Gooch, Graham, and Michael Williams. A Dictionary of Law Enforcement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.
Miller, Roger L. R, Frank B. Cross, and Gaylord A. Jentz. Essentials of the Legal Environment. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Richardson B. Gaylord A. Jentz. Essentials of the Legal Environment. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.