This a perfect answer to AC 3.1, for year 12/13 Criminology students. The AC is worth 15 marks, this answer will get you 15/15, helping you to get the best grade possible in your controlled assessment.
Evidence
Evidence is a key source of information, there are two kinds of evidence: physical and
testimonial. For the CPS to proceed to a prosecution, the evidence must be admissible,
reliable and credible. The fact that the evidence firstly has to go through shows to some
extent that it is valid but it is not guaranteed. Expert testimonies are a form of testimonial
evidence and are a key influence in a criminal case and as a result can lead to the jury
basing their verdict purely on this testimony. Such a thing happened in the case of Sally
Clarke where pediatrician Sir Roy Meadows gave evidence that she had killed her children,
instead of the true explanation of the children having died from SIDS. In the Sally Clarke
case, Meadows testified that the chance of the two children from affluent families suffering
from SIDS was 1 in 73 million. He arrived at this figure by squaring 1 in 8500, which was the
true statistic. This led the jury to believe that Sally Clarke must be guilty and resulted in a
miscarrige of justice with Clarke being imprisoned for three years. These cases demonstrate
how expert testimony is invalid as the statistical evidence was both unreliable and
inaccurate. Meadows linked the probability of the 2 children dying from SIDS to winning the
grand national 4 years running to demonstrate the unlikelihood of this happening to the jury.
However, the statistical evidence ignored the fact that the risk of 2 kids dying of SIDS was
greater if the condition was inherited, something which he did not mention in court and
therefore this is invalid because information was withheld from the jury and they were not
given an accurate picture of what could have happened. The jury simply accepted the
evidence as Meadows was a medical expert but he failed to tell the jury that he was not
actually qualified to make statistics as his job was purely coroner. Therefore his testimony
was influential despite being invalid and as a result a miscarriage of justice occurred.
Media reports
The media should always remain objective and impartial. If reports do not do this it is not
valid. Reports may have compromised impartiality and may be subjective to expressing their
own political opinions. The Sun newspaper may contain bias on their political agenda of right
wing politics and the Mirror on left wing, meaning that reporting lacks fairness and accuracy
and thus is not valid. The media has had a negative effect on many criminal cases, where
the media reports were not valid, this was shown in the case of the Hillsborough disaster.
For example, the official inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster was not valid because after
many more inquiries were carried out it was declared media reporting, initial verdicts from
the inquests and police evidence were all invalid and inaccurate. The Interim report by Lord
Justice Taylor 1989 criticised the police for failure to handle the buildup of fans outside of the
grounds as well as criticising them for not reacting fast enough once they were released the
disaster was unfolding. The Interim report was also very critical of Dukenfield, the police
chief, for failing to take effective control of the situation. In addition, this report was critical of
the South Yorkshire police who attempted to blame the ‘late and drunk’ supporters for the
deaths. The director of public prosecution decided no to bring criminal charges for anyone
despite the Taylor report declaring the police failures caused the incident, due to insufficient
evidence against everyone who was there. This contradiction between the Taylor reports
conclusion and the director of public prosecutions decision shows lack of validity between
the two sources as neither can agree on who was at fault and the response to this. The next
issue the Hillsborough disaster faced was the coroner's ruling. The coroner limited how far
the inquest would go by declaring that by 3:15PM all victims were either dead or brain dead,
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper atkinsont137. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,69. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
