The murder of three little boys: a terrible thing in itself, but the tragedy of West Memphis did not end there. On May 6, 1993, three young boys were found dead in a West Memphis creek after being reported missing the day before. With rushed judgment, West Memphis law enforcement quickly put three local teenagers in the investigative spotlight; Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. Local law enforcement firmly believed that the murders of these young boys were part of a satanic ritual, and Echols and his friends fit the bill by being a little different. Misguided biases early in the investigation were only the beginning of problems with the case known as the "West Memphis Three." » Alongside the many issues at stake in this case, the flaws in the legal system shine through, with more than unfortunate consequences for the three friends. And while it took more than enough time, in recent years the Three were released from prison thanks to new evidence discovered during DNA testing, but that doesn't excuse the injustice done to them. There were major flaws in this case, resulting from a poorly conducted investigation, which should never have led to the false conviction and imprisonment of three teenagers who have now lost more than eighteen years of their life. their life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Of the many problems with the West Memphis Three case, one of the biggest was the very poor investigation by the police. From the start, the police officers involved in the investigation believed that this crime was part of a sectarian ritual. From the start, the investigation focused on one path: towards Damien Echols and his friends. Because of his interest in the occult, it was easy for the police to target him and place him as part of their belief that a satanic ritual was behind the deaths of the three boys. Following their unique path, police not only questioned Echols once or twice, but they questioned him a multitude of times over the course of a month. (Leveritt) In fact, police questioned Echols more frequently than anyone else, while maintaining that he was not a real suspect, just a conduit. When their continued pressure on Echols failed to achieve their goals, they ended their woefully misguided investigation by targeting Misskelley for questioning. Despite the fact that Misskelley had an IQ of 72 – which classified him as borderline intellectual functioning – they persevered. As if that wasn't enough, police questioned Misskelley alone, without his parents present. His interrogation lasted 12 hours, during which he finally confessed, but later revealed that he had been intimidated, coerced, threatened and suffered from fatigue during this time. Misskelley also states very clearly that he was "afraid of the police" during his confession. Not only was the investigation conducted extremely poorly, but there was a lack of real evidence pointing to Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley. No DNA from the three friends was found at the crime scene or on the victims' bodies. Overall, the investigation was carried out in a very poor and unfair manner, with the police being single-minded from the start. To add to the problems already present in the case itself, flaws in the justice system were also clearly present. First of all, the police officers involved in the investigation should never have been allowed to behave in the way they did. They harassed Echols for a month, based solely on their prejudices andpreformed ideas they had about the matter. When that didn't work for them, they targeted a teenager with borderline mental illness for their investigation. As I mentioned before, the police had also questioned Misskelley alone. Not only was Misskelley alone, without legal representation or his parents, but his parents never explicitly gave the police permission to question him. Additionally, when Misskelley recanted his confession and said he was coerced, he also said he never fully understood his Miranda rights, which is a requirement of the law. Additionally, the prosecution of the West Memphis Three was never substantiated or supported by concrete evidence. The charge against the Three was based on false confessions, coerced by the police. The prosecution also relied heavily on the testimony of a coroner whose investigation turned out to be very poorly conducted. With all of these factors present in the case, the jury still found the defendants guilty. This in itself is proof that there are flaws in the system, and it may even come from the jury. Jurors are not experts in the law and no one has lived the same life or had the same experiences as anyone else. They come from different backgrounds, which has shaped the way they approach problems and ideas differently, and they are all human beings capable of making mistakes. There will never be a time when these false beliefs and system flaws are completely gone, but steps can certainly be taken to reduce the possibility of this happening. One of them, which is now easier to achieve thanks to technological advances, is the requirement for concrete evidence. Thanks to the many technological advancements that have taken place and continue to be developed, it is now much easier to find evidence that proves the guilt of one or more defendants. Whatever the case, the basic condition for convicting someone should be that there is evidence to prove that the accused(s) committed the crime beyond a shadow of a doubt. Additionally, I think some improvements should be made to the jury system. One way to advance the system – if implemented correctly – would be to allow jurors to ask questions of witnesses during a trial. Yes, it's radically different from traditional jury conduct, and you could argue that jurors are asked to take a passive stance during trials, but I think it could improve the system. If set up properly with the appropriate rules and restrictions, and if jurors are able to ask questions during a trial, it could help the jury better understand the case they are a part of – and to render a more informed verdict. After All On August 19, 2011, Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were released from prison following a plea deal they reached with the District Attorney's Office. Their plea agreement took the form of an Alford plea, in which they plead guilty while maintaining their position that they were innocent. Under the terms of the agreement, they received a sentence of 18 years and 78 days and a suspended sentence of 10 years. This implies that if they commit another offense within 10 years, they can be sent back to prison for 21 years. This is finally a step in the right direction for the business. More importantly, as Echols says: “[The deal] isn't perfect, it's not perfect in itself, but [they] can still try to clear [their] names. The only difference is that now [they] can do it from the outside, instead of having to stay in prison and do it. » (West Memphis Three) It is extremely obvious.