Hi
I’ve come across the following countries that force suspects to reenact crimes to help investigators. There are probably many more. What is the logic there? Is it successful? Other than shaming suspects, does it really necessary? Surely suspects will try to stage a reenactment that makes them look less guilty.
I look forward to your feedback.
Israel
Thailand
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Legal-experts-query-need-for-crime-re-enactment-30208456.html
Indonesia
South Korea
I’ve only seen it work well in prostitution cases.
I’m not sure what the purpose was behind these specific examples. The Israeli one, for example, appears to have happened after the suspect confessed to the crime, whereas the South Korean one appears to have just been a photo op for the police.
There are circumstances in which this could be legitimate. Some courts require a person who pleads guilty to explain the details of the crime. This is done (a) to demonstrate that the suspect actually knows what they are talking about and (b) to resolve any unanswered questions about the crime. I think this is a good idea. If a person claims to be guilty but does not know the details of the crime, their plea should not be accepted. Giving a suspect a tour of the crime scene or providing them the details of the crime is poor methodology because it risks provoking a false confession. (Although some detail-oriented people won’t confess unless they see the cops have pursued every avenue and have an ironclad case.)
The other circumstance where it might be useful is in a disputed use of force. A defendant or witness might be asked to physically demonstrate the situation so that the jury can better comprehend where they were positioned, which direction they were facing, what movements they made, etc. etc.
The Israeli article also mentions that the suspects have not been allowed to meet with their lawyers. That gives you an insight into police methods for sure.
the only logical reason I can think of is to answer more detailed questions about what happened - sort out who did what - who landed most of the fatal blows, who provided the flammable substance and match, who poured it on, who, lit the victim, who was driving, who grabbed the person. Presumably level of initiative and who actually killed the person are important questions for the assignment of guilt and relative sentencing. (As opposed to the USA where the killer turns states’ evidence and gets a lighter sentence so the getaway driver can be executed.)