Police detectives have been known to use deception in the interrogation process in an attempt to elicit a confession. For example, Philadelphia Detective Eugene Wyatt falsely told Herbert Haak that his codefendant, Richard Wise, had confessed and fingered him as the actual killer of jogger Kimberly Ernest in Philadelphia in 1995. (A jury acquitted both men in March, 1997.)
In another case, detectives lied about the presence of physical evidence at the scene when they told Florida resident Thomas Sawyer that they found his hair and clothing fibers on the murder victim’s body (in 1989, after spending 14 months in jail awaiting trial, Sawyer’s coerced confession was suppressed and he was exonerated).
In both cases, detectives used deception to elicit confessions; should deception not be used in the interrogation process in an effort to avoid the possibility of false confessions? Why or why not?

Is this homework? We are glad to help, but first you must show that you have thought about and worked on the question. Please post your answer so far.

They do and it is legal, upheld in court

I believe that sometimes deception is necessary to get a confession out of someone. But this is saying that someone actually got away with committing the crime because it was a coerced confession.

I have no idea what your point in posting on AMHD is - this is your second "discussion" question.

Please either post in the discussion boards or ask a question.

Why is this under home schooling?