Should Hart's Confessions Be Admissible?

This leads us back to the analysis of whether or not to Hart’s confessions should be admissible, there are similar reasoning, but slightly varying answers amongst the Justices. It was agreed that the confession Hart made at the scene of the crime and to Mr. Big should be inadmissible. Yet, in regards to the confession made to the undercover officer, there were differing opinions. The two prominent ones being that after considering a prong by prong analysis of the confessions based on the probative verses prejudicial value that that confession should be determined at a new trial. Or that the confession should be dismissed based on the implied social and financial inducement. I completely agree with those who wanted to dismiss Hart’s confessions to Mr. Big and the confession he made at the scene of the crime. Based on the prejudicial influence
Social exclusion is defined as the ex is social disadvantage and demotion to the marginal members of society. This definition fits well with how Nelson Hart was presented. In their study researchers used cyberball, a virtual ball game originally designed to test the effects of practicing mental visualization on performance, but when tested with a manipulation check; showed that the game did properly induce either social inclusion or exclusion. After this participants were directed to play a trust game with the people who had just included or excluded them. Hillebrandt, Sebastian, and Blakemore noted (2011, p.6) that social inclusion increased trust among participants and might signal willingness for cooperation due to desire to please those who included them. In addition to the possible proneness to manipulation. This suggests that Nelson Hart could have easily been manipulated without any attempt from the police officers, simply because of his desire to do what the operatives