The murder of three kids: A terrible thing in and of itself, but the tragedy in West Memphis didn't stop there. On May 6, 1993, three young boys were found dead in a West Memphis creek after having been reported missing the day before. With leaps of judgment, West Memphis law enforcement quickly placed three local teenagers in the spotlight of the investigation; Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley. Local law enforcement was adamant 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. The misleading bias early in the investigation was only the beginning of the problems with the case that became known as "The West Memphis Three." " In addition to the numerous problems associated with this case, the defects of the justice system have clearly emerged, with more than unfortunate consequences for the three friends. And although it took more than enough time, in recent years the Three have been released from prison following new evidence found in DNA testing, but that does not 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 all incarceration of three teenagers who lost more than eighteen years of their lives. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Memphis Three, one of the most notable was the poor investigation conducted by the police. From the beginning, the police officers involved in the investigation believed that the crime was part of a cult ritual. I start on a single track 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 in their belief that a satanic ritual was the reason for the three boys' deaths. Following their single-track trail, the police not only questioned Echols once or twice, but questioned him a multitude of times over the course of a month. (Leveritt) In fact, the police interviewed Echols more frequently than anyone else, all the while claiming that he was not a real suspect, but just a media outlet. When their continued pressure on Echols didn't serve their purposes, they ended their terribly misguided investigation by targeting Misskelley for interrogation. Despite the fact that Misskelley had a recorded IQ of 72 – classifying him as borderline intellectual functioning – they continued. If that wasn't enough, the police interrogated Misskelley alone, without his parents present. His interrogation lasted 12 hours, during which he eventually confessed, but later revealed that he had been intimidated, coerced, threatened and suffered from fatigue during that period. Misskelley also states very clearly that she was “afraid of the police” during her confession. Not only was the investigation conducted extremely poorly, but concrete evidence pointing to Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley was lacking. No DNA of the three friends was recovered from the crime scene or from the victims' bodies. Overall, the investigation was conducted in a very mediocre and unfair manner, with the police having had their sights set right from the start. In addition to the issues already present in the case itself, flaws in the justice system were also clearly present. First of all, the police involved in the investigation should never have been allowed to behave as they did. They harassed Echols for a month, based solely on their prejudices and pre-formed ideas they had about the case. When this does not haveworked for them, they targeted a teenager with a borderline mental disorder for their investigation. As I mentioned earlier, the police had also only interviewed Misskelley. Not only was Misskelley alone, without legal representation or his parents, but the police were never given explicit permission from his parents to question him. Furthermore, when Misskelley recanted his confession and said he was coerced, he also claimed he never fully understood his Miranda rights, which are a requirement of law. Furthermore, the case against the West Memphis Three was never established or supported by concrete evidence. The case against the Three was based on a false confession, extorted by the police. The prosecution also relied heavily on the testimony of a medical examiner whose investigations proved to be very poorly executed. With all of these factors present in the case, the jury still found the defendants guilty. This in itself is evidence that there are flaws in the system and may even arise from the jury. Jurors are not legal experts, nor has any juror lived the same life and had the same experiences as another. They come from different backgrounds, which have shaped how they approach problems and ideas differently, and they are all human beings who can make mistakes. There will never be a time when these false beliefs and flaws within the system will have completely disappeared, but steps can certainly be taken to reduce the possibility of this occurring. One of these, which is now more easily achievable with improvements in technology, is the requirement for hard evidence. With many technological advances that have occurred and continue to be developed, it is now much easier to find evidence that proves the guilt of one or more defendants. Regardless of the case, it should be a basic requirement for convicting someone that there is some evidence that proves that the defendant or defendants committed the crime beyond a shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, I believe that some improvements should be made to the jury system. One way that could advance the system – if implemented correctly – is to allow jurors to ask questions of witnesses during a trial. Yes, this is drastically different from traditional jury conduct, and you could argue that jurors are asked to take a passive position during trials, but I think it could improve the system. If properly put in place with the right rules and restrictions, and if jurors were able to ask questions during a trial, it could help the jury reach a greater understanding of the case they are a part of – and a more informed verdict. After all of this, on August 19, 2011, Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley were released from prison following a plea agreement made 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 of being innocent. Under the agreement, they were sentenced to 18 years and 78 days and received a suspended sentence for 10 years. This means that if they commit another crime within 10 years, they can be sent back to prison for 21 years. This is finally a step in the right direction for the case. Most importantly, as Echols says, “[The deal] is not perfect, it's not perfect in means and means, 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 sit in prison and do it. (West Memphis Three) It is abundantly clear that most who have followed or reported the case believe that great injustices were present and that the conduct of the police in the investigation - as well as the prosecution - was outrageous..