The Rag And Bone Shop Analysis
The Rag and Bone Shop – Opinion Essay Draft Jason Dorrant was an unlikely candidate for the murder of seven-year-old Alicia Bartlett; he was young, shy, and tended to keep to himself, yet, the Monument Police Department targeted him as their prime suspect after no other leads were found and enlisted the help of one of the greatest interrogators, perhaps the greatest, by the name of Trent, to head the interrogation of the boy. Motivated by a promise of position and power, Trent sets to work on Jason to discover his guilt, or lack thereof, and is soon so consumed by his ambition that he feels he must obtain a confession from Jason at all costs, even if that means a false confession. Being the masterful interrogator that he is, Trent makes quick work of it and, despite knowing the contrary, successfully coerces the boy into a confession of his guilt (Cormier). This is a fictional story that takes place in The Rag and Bone Shop, but we must ask ourselves if this could truly happen today, in reality? Are there not laws that prohibit this kind of action against young children and can an interrogator
…show more content…
really become so corrupt that they lose sight of the justice system? I my opinion, the scenario that played out in The Rag and Bone Shop, while a peculiar one, is one that, given the right circumstances, could happen and has happened before. Take this real-life story as an example:
On the evening of January 20, 1998, someone stabbed twelve-year-old Stephanie Crowe to death in her bedroom. After a brief investigation in which they found no evidence of forced entry, police turned to Stephanie 's fourteen year-old brother, Michael, as their primary suspect. Two officers questioned Michael for eleven hours, during which time they repeatedly lied about the case against him to convince him that he had killed his own sister. The interrogators told Michael that they had found a knife, covered with Stephanie 's blood, in his bedroom, and they suggested that his hair was found in her hand. They also subjected him to a "computer voice stress analyzer" (which he supposedly failed), telling him that it was an accurate test of a person 's honesty.
In reality, there was no knife, no blood, no hair, and no scientific basis for believing that the voice analyzer proved anything at all." Nonetheless, faced with the seemingly overwhelming evidence against him, Michael finally broke down and confessed to the crime…(McMullen 972). Having nowhere else to turn, the interrogators lied to Michael and convinced him that they had substantial evidence against him, enough that could convict him of the murder of his sister. Trent did the exact same thing to Jason. He told him that they had evidence against him and that “[n]o one else [fit] the profile” when in fact, they didn’t have anything except the connection between Alicia and Jason as friends, which is hardly enough to convict anyone of murder (Cormier 135). Jason was also told that he may be given some leniency; that, should he confess, he might have “a better chance to minimize the case against [him]” and that the peoples of the court would understand and sympathize with him because everyone loses their temper every now and then (Cormier 140). This promise of less time or an easier conviction is an excellent ploy used often by interrogators of all kinds and there is nothing keeping them from using it - “specific categories of deceptive tactics, such as implicit police promises of leniency
(or even non-prosecution) are not per se unconstitutional” (McMullen). Now, there are laws in place to protect a suspect from unknowingly convicting themselves, namely the Miranda Rights or more commonly known as the Miranda Warning – the warning given to someone when they’re arrested (e.g. you have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you in a court of law, etc.). However, “a properly Mirandized suspect who nonetheless chooses to speak to police is thus fair game for all manner of deceptive interrogative tactics” (McMullen). Thus, if Jason had been given his Miranda Rights, then he was fair game for Trent and his lies and misguidances. But, the questions remains, was Jason properly “Mirandized?” “’I appreciate your cooperation, Jason’…’I hope I can help. I’ll do my best’” (Cormier 79). Jason was participating voluntarily in the interrogation (although, as he understood, it was just questioning) and wanted to be as much help in the case as he could. Alicia was his friend and he didn’t want to let her down. Jason was also asked if he could record their conversation and if was fine without consul, which Jason obliged to both (Cormier 80-81). In a sense, Trent fulfilled the required Miranda Rights and caught them on record for the jury to hear, which left all avenues of interrogation open to him. In the end, though, I think this story comes down to one important question, are there really people in Trent’s position who would be willing to do what Trent did to Jason?
Trent put aside right and wrong in order to “write [his] own ticket” (Cormier 76). He was willing to sacrifice the life of a little boy to gain a promotion or a good word from the Senator when applying for his next job. And, unfortunately, there are people like that in our world. People who abuse their position of power for personal gain like this officer: “’the officer used his official position while working off-duty for the towing company to solicit on-duty officers’ tows for him that would result in his personal profit’” (NWI Times). This officer was willing to put aside the law to a few extra dollars in his pocket, how much further would someone go with a potentially life changing career in
sight? The hypothetical situation Jason was thrown into has happened before, and it’ll happen again until laws are changed and corrupt officials are removed from office. The confession was legally obtained, as Jason volunteered to partake in the questioning and was given the choice to have a representing adult with him. Trent stayed within his bounds as an interrogator, as they can lie to and deceive the suspect to work towards their goal of obtaining the truth. However, Trent went beyond that and obtained a confession, whether it was truth or not. He was working for himself, not Jason, and not the Bartlett family, just as many corrupt officials would do if given the option.
Works Cited
Cormier, Robert. The Rag and Bone Shop. New York: Random House, 2001. Print.
NWI Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. .
McMullen, Patrick M. "Questioning The Questions: The Impermissibility Of Police Deception In Interrogations Of Juveniles." Northwestern University Law Review 99.2 (2005): 971- 1006. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Mar. 2013.
really become so corrupt that they lose sight of the justice system? I my opinion, the scenario that played out in The Rag and Bone Shop, while a peculiar one, is one that, given the right circumstances, could happen and has happened before. Take this real-life story as an example:
On the evening of January 20, 1998, someone stabbed twelve-year-old Stephanie Crowe to death in her bedroom. After a brief investigation in which they found no evidence of forced entry, police turned to Stephanie 's fourteen year-old brother, Michael, as their primary suspect. Two officers questioned Michael for eleven hours, during which time they repeatedly lied about the case against him to convince him that he had killed his own sister. The interrogators told Michael that they had found a knife, covered with Stephanie 's blood, in his bedroom, and they suggested that his hair was found in her hand. They also subjected him to a "computer voice stress analyzer" (which he supposedly failed), telling him that it was an accurate test of a person 's honesty.
In reality, there was no knife, no blood, no hair, and no scientific basis for believing that the voice analyzer proved anything at all." Nonetheless, faced with the seemingly overwhelming evidence against him, Michael finally broke down and confessed to the crime…(McMullen 972). Having nowhere else to turn, the interrogators lied to Michael and convinced him that they had substantial evidence against him, enough that could convict him of the murder of his sister. Trent did the exact same thing to Jason. He told him that they had evidence against him and that “[n]o one else [fit] the profile” when in fact, they didn’t have anything except the connection between Alicia and Jason as friends, which is hardly enough to convict anyone of murder (Cormier 135). Jason was also told that he may be given some leniency; that, should he confess, he might have “a better chance to minimize the case against [him]” and that the peoples of the court would understand and sympathize with him because everyone loses their temper every now and then (Cormier 140). This promise of less time or an easier conviction is an excellent ploy used often by interrogators of all kinds and there is nothing keeping them from using it - “specific categories of deceptive tactics, such as implicit police promises of leniency
(or even non-prosecution) are not per se unconstitutional” (McMullen). Now, there are laws in place to protect a suspect from unknowingly convicting themselves, namely the Miranda Rights or more commonly known as the Miranda Warning – the warning given to someone when they’re arrested (e.g. you have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you in a court of law, etc.). However, “a properly Mirandized suspect who nonetheless chooses to speak to police is thus fair game for all manner of deceptive interrogative tactics” (McMullen). Thus, if Jason had been given his Miranda Rights, then he was fair game for Trent and his lies and misguidances. But, the questions remains, was Jason properly “Mirandized?” “’I appreciate your cooperation, Jason’…’I hope I can help. I’ll do my best’” (Cormier 79). Jason was participating voluntarily in the interrogation (although, as he understood, it was just questioning) and wanted to be as much help in the case as he could. Alicia was his friend and he didn’t want to let her down. Jason was also asked if he could record their conversation and if was fine without consul, which Jason obliged to both (Cormier 80-81). In a sense, Trent fulfilled the required Miranda Rights and caught them on record for the jury to hear, which left all avenues of interrogation open to him. In the end, though, I think this story comes down to one important question, are there really people in Trent’s position who would be willing to do what Trent did to Jason?
Trent put aside right and wrong in order to “write [his] own ticket” (Cormier 76). He was willing to sacrifice the life of a little boy to gain a promotion or a good word from the Senator when applying for his next job. And, unfortunately, there are people like that in our world. People who abuse their position of power for personal gain like this officer: “’the officer used his official position while working off-duty for the towing company to solicit on-duty officers’ tows for him that would result in his personal profit’” (NWI Times). This officer was willing to put aside the law to a few extra dollars in his pocket, how much further would someone go with a potentially life changing career in
sight? The hypothetical situation Jason was thrown into has happened before, and it’ll happen again until laws are changed and corrupt officials are removed from office. The confession was legally obtained, as Jason volunteered to partake in the questioning and was given the choice to have a representing adult with him. Trent stayed within his bounds as an interrogator, as they can lie to and deceive the suspect to work towards their goal of obtaining the truth. However, Trent went beyond that and obtained a confession, whether it was truth or not. He was working for himself, not Jason, and not the Bartlett family, just as many corrupt officials would do if given the option.
Works Cited
Cormier, Robert. The Rag and Bone Shop. New York: Random House, 2001. Print.
NWI Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2013. .
McMullen, Patrick M. "Questioning The Questions: The Impermissibility Of Police Deception In Interrogations Of Juveniles." Northwestern University Law Review 99.2 (2005): 971- 1006. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Mar. 2013.