Police Interrogation Case Study

False Confessions in Police Interrogations

There is much speculation in regard to what occurs during interrogations among law enforcement officials, particularly in instances in which the suspect fails to request the presence of a representative attorney (Beijer, 2010). “The police interrogation is and always will be a critical stage in a criminal procedure” (Beijer, 2010, p. 311). Interrogation results largely determine the next phase of a criminal investigation in regard to the selection of witnesses for interviewing, the specificity of scientific tests that will conducted, and also given the fact that statements made to the police can be used against individuals in a court of law. Obtaining a confession during the interrogation process serves

Arizona (1966) upheld Ernesto Miranda’s fifth amendment rights affording protection from self-incrimination and sixth amendment right to an attorney (Miranda v. Arizona, n.d.). The case of Miranda v. Arizona is critical to this discussion because defendants are not required to respond to the exhaustive, repeated, leading interrogations in which law enforcements officers are permitted and empowered to engage in trickery tactics to coerce a suspect to confess to a crime. As a result of the final Supreme Court ruling in this case, law enforcement officials are required to provide all suspects with the Miranda Warning by informing them of their constitutional rights to remain silent during interrogations, in addition to their right to an attorney. Given the tactics that are reportedly used during police interrogations, it is certainly prudent, in many cases, to invoke Miranda rights and avoid self-incrimination. This leads to an essential component of this topic. Methods by which false confessions may be reduced are now discussed for the sake of promoting

In the United States, police interrogators are permitted to engage in trickery, present false evidence, use leading questions, conduct repeated lengthy interrogations, and otherwise coerce involuntary false confessions from suspects who may well be innocent of the crime for which he or she is accused. Once police interrogators secure a confession, their work is largely over and the case is considered closed. Jurors are highly unlikely to dismiss the evidence of a confession, even in instances in which they are aware that coercion and trickery have been employed by interrogators. Miranda rights afford defendants with the ability to avoid self-incrimination and to have an attorney present; however, false confessions do continue to mar the justice system. Safeguards that may be employed to reduce the quantity of false confessions include exercising Miranda rights and videotaping interrogations in full to prevent selective disclosure of confessions, thereby increasing accountability and ethics. There is no substitute for true justice; therefore, these safeguards are paramount to the beneficence of the legal system on every