Unethical Conduct of Homicide Detectives

Homicide detectives often deploy unethical and improper investigatory tactics to secure convictions of wrongly accused persons. Flynn’s (2019) article outlines how law enforcement agencies fabricated evidence, falsified witness statements, and coerced a single onlooker to make a false identification, which sent Johnson Lamar to prison. Although homicide investigators are highly competent and specially trained, the pressure to resolve and incriminate a culprit often pushes them to operate unethically.

Johnson Lamar was convicted for life in the State of Missouri over the murder of Marcus Boyd. Prosecutors and the investigating officer, Joseph Nickerson, falsified witness statements and pressured a lone onlooker to make a false identification to help convict Johnson, despite his innocence (Flynn, 2019). Nickerson, the single detective who investigated the incident, authored four fallacious police reports repudiated by the witnesses sworn under oath. Moreover, Greg Elking was the only eyewitness who was sitting with Boyd at the time of the shooting and received over $4,000 for facilitating Johnson’s wrongful implication, despite the written confession from the victim’s real killers (Flynn, 2019). Although Greg never saw Boyd’s shooters, Nickerson wrote in his report that the witness positively identified Johnson. However, Greg only recognized Johnson after the officer had directed him the number to pick from the lineup (Flynn, 2019). Ultimately, Johnson was imprisoned for life based on Greg’s false identification.

Johnson’s imprisonment over Marcus’ murder highlights the climax of unethical conduct by homicide detectives. The manufactured witness statements, paying an onlooker to give fabricated evidence, and concocting testimonies were monumental professional misconducts which undermined the possibility of convicting Boyd’s shooters. Consequently, the real perpetrators of the felony were left free to commit other crimes. Therefore, the police and prosecutors failed to conduct competent investigations due to the various ethical breaches and professional misconduct.

Reference

Flynn, M. (2019). To win a murder case, police and prosecutors made up evidence and secretly paid a witness, St Louis DA finds. The Washington Post.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, February 25). Unethical Conduct of Homicide Detectives. https://studycorgi.com/unethical-conduct-of-homicide-detectives/

Work Cited

"Unethical Conduct of Homicide Detectives." StudyCorgi, 25 Feb. 2022, studycorgi.com/unethical-conduct-of-homicide-detectives/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2022) 'Unethical Conduct of Homicide Detectives'. 25 February.

1. StudyCorgi. "Unethical Conduct of Homicide Detectives." February 25, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/unethical-conduct-of-homicide-detectives/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Unethical Conduct of Homicide Detectives." February 25, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/unethical-conduct-of-homicide-detectives/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2022. "Unethical Conduct of Homicide Detectives." February 25, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/unethical-conduct-of-homicide-detectives/.

This paper, “Unethical Conduct of Homicide Detectives”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.