Forced Confessions

The ruling in Miranda does fulfill with the tradition that people have the right of protecting themselves from self-incrimination by assuring it and letting individuals know that they have that right. Without this protection, there could be forced confessions from individuals either through threats or harm. The concept of not self-incrimination goes way back, with an example in the 1655. One of the laws of the Connecticut Colony states that no person shall be tortured to confess against themselves. This includes any circumstance and reveals how ingrain the idea of protection against self-incrimination is in our history. It is important to note that there are no exceptions to this law. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641 on the other

One such example comes from Cotton Mather, which in On Obtaining Confessions of Witchcraft, is noted for advising the judge to use torture, claiming it is the best way to get a confession of using witchcraft. This is an extreme example of why it is necessary to reify and make clear that individuals do have the right of protecting themselves from self-incrimination. Not only can physical harm be used, but also intimidation as it is mentioned in Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, a manual advising investigators. The manual advises that through “[The investigator] must interrogate steadily and without relent, leaving the subject no prospect of surcease.” This can lead to a confession without “resorting to duress or coercion…”, but it can still be seen as a way of mental torture. This is stated in the statement from the Majority Opinion from the Miranda v. Arizona that “this is not physical intimidation, but it is equally destructive of human dignity”. It also claims that because the “Fifth Amendment” is so fundamental and ingrained in our judicial system that it is necessary to lead individuals that they have that