Carter Smith
Kristen Oleksik
AJS 216
John Henry Knapp Case Study
What is justice? This may seem like a simple question to answer but for many in today’s society it is not. Individuals throughout society have their own distinctive explanation of justice. It is a word in which, to every person, has a different meaning. So does justices mean releasing a criminal or protecting a person’s rights? In the case of Knapp vs. state many of these questions were raised, people though how can a dad kill their own child and would the dad walk away free or would the justices be served.
It all started with John Henry Knapp that was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree by a jury on November 19, 1974. John …show more content…
The officer in charge was Sgt. Robert Malone, who asked appellant if he would accompany them to the Knapp residence for the purpose of re-enacting the events of the morning of the fire as best appellant could recall them. The appellant cooperated with Sgt Robert Malone and agreed to go, he was driven there in an unmarked police car by the officers. Upon their arrival at his residence, the appellant was again advised of his Miranda rights again. Either on their way to the substation or shortly after their arrival there, the police offered appellant some food, but he refused it. After going through appellant's story and demonstration again (regarding discovery of the fire) at his residence, Malone took him back to the Mesa substation for the express purpose of interrogating him further to cross match his story with the evidence or the reasonable cause of how the fire started. During the questioning period, which lasted three hours, the appellant was given his rights to leave anytime, which he obtained soft drinks from a machine, unaccompanied was allowed to use a restroom facility, and was unaccompanied able to smoke cigarettes as he pleased. It was pointed out to appellant during this interrogation that the police believed the fire to have been purposefully set, that the children themselves had been excluded (by fingerprint analysis and the fact that no fuel container was found in the room), which left them with two suspects the appellant and his wife as possible perpetrators. One of the question in the interrogation was if the appellant’s wife would be capable of having the fire started and the appellant answered, no she wasn’t. He was then advised that, that the only suspect left would be him. At first, the appellant denied starting the fire, but eventually said that it was possible he had done it, but if he did, he didn't remember