Law enforcement in the United States is counted with confronts of organizing an ethnically and religiously assorted population. With the initiation of ambiguities and courtroom technicalities, the field officials have to pursue the constitution in all phases to send the guilty to prison.
Interrogation of an indicted suspect is frequently an instrument used by law enforcement to obtain a confession. Many methods are used by police investigators in attempts to obtain a confession during an interrogation. The foundation of interrogations, in my opinion, is aimed at finding the truth. One notes certain limitations in determining whether the confession obtained was voluntary.
The limitations governing the police relate to the due process test and that of confessions obtained during custodial interrogations. Many of these interrogations are questionable or in violation of Miranda. Whenever a question is as to the possibility of violation of any limitations in an interrogation, prosecutors usually seek to use impeachment.
According to the text, “Brian v. the United States” the Supreme Court held that for a confession to be voluntary, it must not have been extracted by or obtained by any sort of threat or violence, nor could it have been obtained by any means of direct or implied promises, no matter how slight. The issue at hand, in this case, involved the totality of circumstances in assessing the volunteerism of the confession. (Williams, p – 209)
The next issue at hand when dealing with custodial interrogations is Miranda. Miranda was developed due to issues involving the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda process was established to ensure that the suspect was adequately and effectively advised of his or her rights, and to ensure that the exercise of these rights was fully honored by the police.” This was an apparent attempt of the court system to recognize or overcome the obvious pressures of police power placed on individuals during the interrogation process. These Miranda warnings are required before any custodial interrogations.
These legal issues pertaining to the limitations of police interrogations have caused many questions by advocates of police who interrogate suspects on a regular basis, as well as attorneys and lawyers who actively defend this individual in court. As some of us are law enforcement officers, it is believed that police should utilize all the legal tactics at hand in order to obtain a lawfully, non-coerced confession. These tactics often include the “good cop-bad cop” routine. In our opinion, this tactic gives the police a sympathetic approach, but also offers an approach favorable to their intention, to obtain a confession. It is agreed this may seem like psychological coercion, but it strengthens the police’s vantage point. (Hahn, pp 13-15)
In today’s judicial society, judge and jury, the courts consider a confession to be a very important piece of evidence. The law enforcement agencies comprised of detectives, police investigators, and prosecutors, rely heavily on this evidence when attempting to solve crimes. Obtaining this evidence is critical even though the practices of police during this process sustain numerous amounts of criticism particularly on the legalities of how the confession was obtained during the interrogation process.
In an article by P.J. Van Koppen wrong and right interrogation practices are discussed. According to the article, the police should be monitored and obligated to focus not only on obtaining just a confession but should be required to enhance good interrogation techniques in order to prevent many injustices of the criminal justice system. He believes to obtain just a confession is not correct, but that there should be sufficient evidence existing to support the confession. Confessions are often difficult to obtain and a real source of frustration because many criminals tend to offer a lack of motivation to cooperate. This lack of cooperation may hinder the investigation process and cause the information-gathering process by investigators to become time-consuming. The investigator’s interrogation techniques may cause pressure on the suspect thus creating a risk of the suspect offering a false confession or statement that may and generally will be used against them. (Feld, p-219)
The efforts of many human rights advocates, as well as legal guidelines, are to ensure that police interrogations are ethical and in compliance with the legal requirements. The legal boundaries are focused on denouncing physical and psychological abuse in order to obtain the confession. When officers abide by the guidelines, interrogations can produce valuable, useful evidence that can be used to properly prosecute criminals from the streets to the courtroom.
Police receive confessions mostly through the interrogation of the suspect. Police detain a suspect and read the suspect their Miranda Rights. The Miranda Rights inform the suspect what rights they have while under questioning by police. The main rights they are informed about are the right to have an attorney and the right to remain silent. The suspect has the right to be represented by an attorney during interrogation. Three out of four people waive their Miranda Rights. This means that the suspects elect to speak to police during interrogation without an attorney. Approximately 62% of suspects interrogated give confessions. American law enforcement personnel are very good at interrogation. Comparing them to Germany’s law enforcement, which produces a 38% confession rate; individuals are probably the leaders of the industrialized world (Gohara, p-791).
One big problem with interrogations is the false confession. Sometimes suspects under interrogation confess to crimes they did not commit. Police sometimes lie, fabricate evidence, or otherwise coerce a confessor. It then must be determined by judges and juries whether the confession was voluntary or coerced and may have made an innocent person confess. A few boundaries to be followed that police have when interrogating suspects. They cannot promise immunity or use brute force. Deprivation of food and sleep, prolonged isolation is also not allowed. If the police conduct any of these types of activities, the confession will probably be inadmissible. Failure to give the suspect Miranda rights can also make the confession inadmissible along with the denial of counsel. If a confession is obtained within the guidelines, it will be the “holy grail” of law enforcement (Gohara, p-791).
In conclusion, due to the ever-changing world of crime, law enforcement has to strive to keep the balance of protecting society and respecting the individuals who comprise it on an even plane. New technology is very important to solving crime, excluding the field officials who inspect are the genuine forefront.
Works Cited
Feld, Barry C. “Police Interrogation of Juveniles: An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 97.1 (2006): 219+.
Gohara, Miriam S. “A Lie for a Lie: False Confessions and the Case for Reconsidering the Legality of Deceptive Interrogation Techniques.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 33.3 (2006): 791+.
Hahn, Harlan, and Judson L. Jeffries. Urban America and Its Police: From the Postcolonial Era through the Turbulent 1960s. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado, 2003.
Williams, James W. “Interrogating Justice: A Critical Analysis of the Police Interrogation and Its Role in the Criminal Justice Process”.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 42.2 (2000): 209.