NCJ Number
74422
Journal
British Journal of Law and Society Volume: 6 Issue: 2 Dated: (1979) Pages: 219-234
Date Published
1979
Length
15 pages
Annotation
The concepts of guilt and responsibility as they relate to confessing to murder in British society are discussed; public reaction to criminal and deviant behavior is highlighted.
Abstract
In Great Britain, it is generally recognized that murder has three characteristics: it is comparatively rare, there is a high detection rate, and the motives for a majority of murders are exaggerated versions of recognizable experiences which most individuals can understand readily. Thus, ordinary people can identify with the circumstances which lead to the possibility of murder. Confession is normally considered to be a private act of contrition for wrong doing, during the course of which an individual accepts resopnsibility for the offense and demonstrates the possession of a conscience. In the legal sense, English law has for centuries insisted upon voluntariness, disinterest, and spontaneity has characteristics of a valid confession. In addition, the law distinguishes between justifiable and nonjustifiable homicide confession as an important guide to the presence of criminal intent or the strongest sense of guilt. With moderinization of the penal system came the tendency for religion and law to drift apart in institutional and ideological terms, as indicated by the meaning of confession today. The three functions of institutionalized confessional practices now include detecting murders for the purpose of punishing, repairing certain deviant acts, and offering the offender an opportunity for moral regeneration. Confession thus highlights the contradictory aspects of law as simultaneously being a system of social inclusion and social exclusion. Further evidence of this claim can be taken from the differential reaction of a crowd at an execution. Thus, it is suggested that the labeling theory which assumes the existence of a uniform public opinion with regard to deviant behavior is, in many instances, invalid. Thirty-nine footnotes are provided.