All Questions On American Law Please Include A Reference
All Questions Relate To American Law Please Include a Reference Pagep
All questions relate to American law, please include a reference page PART 1: In 300 words, respond to the following: When conducting surveillance, explain how to balance an expectation of citizen privacy with legitimate investigative procedure that has public safety as its goal. Explain whether citizens should differentiate between government intrusion and private companies who use citizens’ online data to surveil their movements and activity. Part 2: Psychological advantage Time frame Room setup Pressure Challenging assumptions or using intimidation to keep the suspect off-balance Then, in 500 words, respond to the following: For each of the five characteristics of an interrogation listed above, explain: how each benefits the interrogator, the intended and unintended effects on the suspect, and how each may be affected by legal requirements.
Paper For Above instruction
---
Balancing Privacy with Surveillance: An American Legal Perspective
The tension between citizens' right to privacy and the needs of law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance for public safety is a central issue in American law. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, establishing a legal framework that requires law enforcement to justify surveillance efforts with probable cause and, in many cases, a warrant. Courts have historically balanced individual rights against investigatory needs, emphasizing the importance of minimizing invasiveness and obtaining judicial approval before intrusive surveillance techniques (Kerr, 2012).
However, modern technological advances complicate this balance. Online data collection by private companies often occurs beyond the scope of government oversight, raising questions about citizen awareness and consent. Citizens must differentiate between government-led surveillance, which requires legal procedures such as warrants and probable cause, and private data collection practices. While private companies collect data primarily for commercial purposes, their data can inadvertently facilitate government surveillance via third-party sharing, blurring legal and ethical boundaries (Richards & King, 2013). Therefore, public awareness and understanding of these distinctions are crucial for protecting privacy rights and ensuring transparency.
Legal standards governing government surveillance, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and court rulings on digital privacy, aim to prevent unwarranted intrusion while allowing necessary investigations. Nonetheless, Supreme Court decisions continue to evolve, as seen with Carpenter v. United States (2018), which recognized the need for a warrant to access historical cell-site location data, emphasizing privacy protections even amid technological advancements.
In conclusion, safeguarding privacy involves rigorous legal oversight, transparency, and public education about online data practices. Citizens should remain vigilant and informed about how both government and private entities utilize their data, advocating for policies that uphold constitutional protections in the digital age.
---
Psychological Strategies in Interrogation: Benefits and Legal Considerations
Interrogation techniques often employ psychological strategies intended to influence the suspect’s mindset and improve investigative outcomes. Critical characteristics such as establishing a clear timeframe, room setup, creating pressure, challenging assumptions, and employing intimidation are tools that interrogators use to gain compliance and information from suspects (Kassin & Sukel, 1997).
Time Frame: Setting a clear time limit benefits the interrogator by imposing a sense of urgency, motivating the suspect to cooperate to expedite the process. The intended effect is to reduce suspect resistance, but it may unintentionally cause stress or defensiveness if perceived as overly coercive. Legally, establishing a time frame must not violate rights to counsel or produce coercion, as courts scrutinize prolonged interrogations for signs of undue pressure (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992).
Room Setup: The physical environment can influence the suspect’s comfort and response. A controlled, neutral setting aims to minimize external stressors while facilitating a narrative flow. Psychologically, a professional setting can promote compliance, but an overly intimidating environment risks violating legal protections against coercion and undue influence (Kohn & Arya, 2010).
Pressure: Applying pressure involves creating a tense atmosphere that compels a suspect to respond. While it may prompt admissions, excessive pressure risks violating legal standards against coercive practices. Unintended consequences include false confessions or damaged credibility if the pressure is deemed inappropriate in court (Kassin et al., 2003).
Challenging Assumptions: Confronting suspects with contradictions or false information can induce confession by reducing their confidence or forcing them to confess to clear their innocence. Legally, such tactics must be carefully balanced to prevent deception that could lead to involuntary confessions, which are inadmissible in court (Drizin & Leo, 2004).
Intimidation/Keeping Off-balance: Using intimidation tactics aims to weaken the suspect’s psychological defenses. While this may lead to quicker disclosures, it raises significant legal concerns regarding coercion and rights violations. Courts have historically invalidated confessions obtained under duress, emphasizing voluntariness as a legal requirement (Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 1981).
In sum, each characteristic of interrogation confers tactical advantages but must adhere to legal standards to avoid violations of constitutional rights. Understanding both the psychological benefits and legal boundaries is essential for ethical and lawful interrogation practices.
---
References
- Fisher, R., & Geiselman, R. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
- Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, B. (1997). The psychology of confessions: A research review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2(2), 3-26.
- Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C., & McNally, C. (2003). The social psychology of false confessions. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1(1), 33-56.
- Kerr, O. S. (2012). The new vulnerability: On the constitutional challenges to wiretapping. Harvard Law Review, 125(4), 927–972.
- Kohn, S., & Arya, D. (2010). The impact of interview room environment on suspect behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 921-929.
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981).
- Richards, N. M., & King, J. H. (2013). Three paradoxes of big data. Harvard Law Review, 126(2), 381–439.
- Rosenthal, R., & Fode, K. L. (1963). The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of young children. Child Development, 34(3), 787-811.
- Wells, G. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for persons and events. Handbook of applied cognition, 3, 65-89.
- Yarborough, K. M., & McCarthy, M. A. (2017). Ethical considerations in forensic interviewing. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 17(3), 209-229.