ipl-logo

Forced Confessions

666 Words3 Pages

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 …show more content…

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

Show More
Related
531 Words | 3 Pages

Case Brief Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: The Miranda warning, which informs criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney while they are in police custody or being questioned in a detention facility, was created by the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was brought by Ernesto Miranda, who was detained under the charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. He wasn't told of his right to an attorney or the right to remain silent before being questioned by the police, so Miranda admitted to the crimes while being interviewed. The confession was admitted into evidence during the trial, and Miranda was found guilty. Procedural History: After Miranda was convicted, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court who reaffirmed his rights had not been violated.

Read More
734 Words | 3 Pages

It was later noticed upon an appeal to the state Supreme Court that the officer who arrested Miranda, did not state his basic rights and was affirmed. (legaldictionary.net, Procedural History). This also means that Miranda couldn’t be set free because he did not ask to have an to be attorney present. But, Miranda and other defendants with similar cases petitioned to the United States Supreme Court to reevaluate the case and to have another ruling. The overall ruling of the final case to have it mandatory to read these specific rights was passed and are vital to the process of being arrested and

Read More
1061 Words | 5 Pages

Later he got 20 to 30 years in prison for assaulting and armed robbery. Later his lawyer appealed to the United States Supreme Court of Arizona asking if he was given the rights while being arrested. On June 13, 1966 their appeal was accepted and the court agreed on hearing him because as it turns out he was interrogated for 2 hours without knowing that he has the right to remain silent (5th Amendment) (United States Courts, 2017), and the right for a lawyer (6th Amendment). “Miranda v. Arizona” was called that because the police made a mistake and it was the police of Arizona which made it go farther to the Supreme Court which is bigger that's why the state counts. (United States Courts, 2014).This is why the case began.

Read More
528 Words | 3 Pages

Throughout the 1900s, the critical motion of the Civil Rights Movement greatly influenced society. The various cases that were introduced in courts impacted the fight for equality as well as the creation of stronger laws. A powerful case in this era was Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, a man that confessed to accusations was set free because he was not advised of his rights to remain silent and request a lawyer. The ruling of this case shows the fulfillment of the legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination by showing the importance of the Fifth Amendment, the signifcance of the right to an attorney, and that under the law, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Read More
1163 Words | 5 Pages

In this case, those tactics were pushed to the extreme. The interrogators showed complete dominance in order for Miranda to confess. The Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation declares, “He must dominate his subject and overwhelm him with his inexorable will to obtain the truth” (Document F). In this examination, the rudiments of investigations over-stepped their “dominance” and nearly forced a confession. The accused must be informed of their rights to avoid this mistreatment, otherwise the person suspected is practically compelled to speak, even though they might not do so normally (Document G).

Read More
883 Words | 4 Pages

Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).

Read More
1023 Words | 5 Pages

Arizona case argued whether or not “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect” (Oyez). Miranda, after two hours of interrogation, gave a written confession to the police saying that he was guilty. However, the police did confess that they had never informed Miranda of his Fifth Amendment rights, which included a right to an attorney, and because of this, the argument was made that the police had violated Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights. Warren, who was a part of the majority, in this case, decided in favor of Miranda, and that “the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place” (Oyez).

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

The supreme court overturned the ruling saying that a defendant, “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires ( Miranda v. Arizona SCOTUS 1).” The supreme court ruled this in order to protect suspects from being pressured by law enforcement to incriminate

Read More
524 Words | 3 Pages

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 ruled that Ernesto Miranda is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against

Read More
1144 Words | 5 Pages

For nearly fifty years police have been reading suspects their rights because of a landmark 1966 United States Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their Constitutional right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. This protects the individual from self incrimination and if they were to speak it would be on their own free will. The United States Supreme Court has changed the way police conduct their duties to this day, while protecting an individual’s rights. Ernesto Miranda was convicted of his first crime while in eighth grade.

Read More
792 Words | 4 Pages

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), holds an important position in the United States law history of suspects, giving some the right to preserve their innocence and others the chance to remain silent even if they are guilty. To be a free, just nation, there lies many important responsibilities upon the lawmakers of the nation, which leads them to consider every single fact relating an individual’s rights. I personally give my stance in the favour of this decision. There are many important cases related to fundamental rights of fairness of the suspects in the United States history such as “Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 and Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, but Miranda v. Arizona was granted the top position by U.S. government. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963, being charged of kidnapping and rape.

Read More
1125 Words | 5 Pages

In order to better understand how torture is used in the Salem Witch Trials, it is necessary to examine the usage of torture and interrogation in the modern

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

Even though what Miranda did was a violent and horrible action. His trial still brought up controversy in the court system which later turned into a Miranda warning card that police stations around the country use to this

Read More
134 Words | 1 Pages

Torture was used as a device in order to extract confessions, prolong death, force confessions, punish suspects, satisfy personal hatred, or even frighten opponents. Today, interrogations are used in order to obtain the data needed. Interrogation is the act of questioning a suspect either formally or aggressively. The more aggressive side of interrogations involve techniques that put the suspect under a series of distress. Medieval torture techniques influence today’s interrogations.

Read More
3015 Words | 13 Pages

One of the most serious abuses of governmental power that the Framers sought to prevent was the imprisonment or detention of citizens without an indication of why they were being held. The Supreme Court in Fay v. Noia further declared that the “government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man 's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to confirm with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release” Applicable Self Incrimination In addition to the guarantee of a jury trial, the Fifth Amendment states that no person "shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself." The accused, however, cannot simply avoid testifying because of potential embarrassment. Rather, they must have a legitimate concern that their testimony will contribute to their conviction of a crime.

Read More

More about Forced Confessions

Related Topics

Open Document