Problem:
Help with peer responding to classmate's discussion post and also take on the role of the opposing counsel and ask questions of your "witness".
Case: The Central Park Five
Role: Forensic Psychologist
If called to testify, my qualifications are as follow:
- A PhD in Clinical Psychology
- Specialized research in false confessions
- Experience with various Forensic Psychology cases
- Member of the American Psychological Associations (APA)
Today my expertise will focus on how the pressure of interrogation can lead to an unreliable or false confession, majorly among adolescents.
On the 20th of April, Trisha Meili's body was found in Central Park badly beaten and repeatedly raped. Due to the trauma, she was in a coma for around two weeks and had no memory of the attack (History, 2025). Around the time of the attack, a group of Black and Latino teenagers were in the park and law enforcement quickly shifted their attention to them. They were brought in for questioning and became known as the "Central Park Five"; after more than twelve hours of questioning without representation they all gave confessions. Despite the difference in stories, incorrect case details, and no DNA match, the confessions were a major factor at trial. The confessions were not aligned and likely coerced from lengthy interrogation.
The prosecution relied on the recorded confessions with significant inconsistencies between each story. Past research in forensic psychology shows that young adults and children are susceptible to pressure of authority, sleep deprivation, and continued questioning. Modern day CSI effects lead the public to believe that there will always be DNA evidence present and confession will always be reliable. Despite modern CSI effect, there was no DNA evidence or confirmation of the teenagers' presence. In reality, there are many limitations to evidence such as contamination risk, misinterpretation, and limited data to sample.
Based on my psychological analysis, the confessions of the Central Park Five are consistent with being coerced by law enforcement and have a complete absence of DNA evidence linking them to the crime. Eventually, evidence found at the scene was linked to a sole perpetrator. This highlights that from a scientific and psychological point of view, the original interpretations had a flawed initial interpretation and fell victim to confirmation bias. Need Assignment Help?