Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
differences between interviewing and interrogation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: differences between interviewing and interrogation
Discuss the differences between the terms interview and interrogation. Interviewing is talking to people, who are not suspects in a crime but who knows something and knows who is involved in the crime. Also getting their information, and asking questions to them, and knowing when to translate or interpret. The main people involved when getting information at a crime scene is the witnesses, criminal and the accuser (Orthman, Hess, 2013). Interrogation questioning of the suspects, once the suspect is known of their identity and where they reside the person who is the participant of the crime could make a statement, confession, refusal, corroborated with self-supporting documentation that could yield a guilty allegation or it could gather a determining guilt (Orthman, Hess, 2013).
Identify the rule when Miranda warnings are required. Most citizens believe that if they are arrested and not read their Miranda rights then they can leave without punishment, not the case what so ever. In situations that the police neglect to read a suspect their rights the prosecutor can’t use anything the suspect says and use it as evidence against them in court (Nolo Law for All, 2013). It doesn’t matter if the person is in an interrogation, on the street, in a bathroom, or downtown, and or at a sporting event.
Discuss the legal implications of the term in custody. If a person is in custody, under arrest, the police have to read them the Miranda Rights, especially if they want to question them and use it as evidence in their trial. If the person is not in custody, under arrest, the Miranda warning is not required and information the person gives will be used in a trial if the person is charged with the crime committed. In custody is usually ...
... middle of paper ...
...ls, less likely to make a false statement. Separate the witnesses so they can’t come together with their stories, which give the officers a chance to have real answers instead of having false reports. It’s not unusual to have a witness who is not ready to tell them what they have seen, in fear that they might have to appear in court and testify against the suspect and also which would take away from their job and making money and also they fear that the criminal will find way to strike back for their information (Orthman, Hess, 2013).
Works Cited
Nolo Law for All (2013). Miranda Rights What happens if Police Don’t Read your Rights.
Retrieved from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-Miranda-warnings-29930.html
Hess/Orthmann, C., & Matison/Hess, K. (2013). Criminal investigation. (Tenth ed., p.g 187-
192). New York: Delmar Cengage Learning
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (The Consitution of the United States, Article I) In conclusion,this can prove why miranda rights are important to american society with three reasons that are due process, provide a free attorney,and cops warning to citizens.Miranda rights are a prerequisite piece of information for citizens and police,citizens need to remember their miranda
Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can no t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest and subsequent questioning and investigation may continue. These are liberties that were afforded to suspected criminals in the Miranda Vs Arizona. However, with every rule there also exceptions like: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, and Berghuis v. Thompkins.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
Friedman, S. (2014, March 10). You have the right to ... not much: Why are there no 'Miranda rights'
The legislative branch is the branch that makes the law, for the good of the people through congress. They declared that any arrested or suspect in custody was to be read and completely understand their rights from the Supreme Court which they agreed too and redirected back to the judicial branch. Yet they make it clear to the officers that they do have to read them and make sure that they understand all of their rights. To know that they understand the officer would ask them do you understand and most would expect a yes or no answer. Many officers would recite the speech in a second language, most commonly Spanish.
Most people believe that all interrogators are trained to use mental and physical abusive tactics because it appears on the media and news so often, therefore making it believable to blame them for false confessions. “Interrogation is derived from the latin roots inter (in the presence of) and
Skolnick, J. H., & Leo, R. A. (1992, January 1). The ethics of deceptive interrogation. Criminal Justice Ethics, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The ethics of deceptive interrogation.-a012396024
The Miranda warnings stem from a United States Court’s decision in the case, Miranda v. Arizona. There are two basic conditions that must be met for Miranda warnings to be required: the suspect must be in official police custody and the suspect must be under interrogation. The suspect goes through a booking process after an arrest. The suspect will have a bond hearing shortly after the completion of the booking process or after arraignment. The arraignment is the suspect’s first court appearance to officially hear the charges filed against him or her and to enter a plea. The preliminary hearing or grand jury proceeding determines if there is substantial evidence for the suspect to be tried for the crime charged. In this essay, I will identify and describe at least four rights afforded criminal defendants at the arrest stage and during pretrial. I will analyze the facts presented and other relevant factors in the scenario provided. I will cite legal authority to support my conclusions.
What are the reasons given for this were to happen? In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, of Phoenix, Arizona, he was arrested in connection with the rape and kidnapping of a cinema usher 18 years old. in his arrest the peace officer does not
What does this mean to you? Well if you are ever arrested for being suspected of a crime, the police are legally obligated to advise you of your Miranda rights. If they do not do this and they start to ask you questions, and interrogate you, then anything you say cannot be used against you in court, and you could have the charges dropped. The police are not supposed to question you at all unless you have been read your Miranda rights and you then waive those rights. You can waive your rights either verbally tell the officer you waive your rights, or by signing a rights waiver form.
From the moment an innocent individual enters the criminal justice system they are pressured by law enforcement whose main objective is to obtain a conviction. Some police interrogation tactics have been characterized as explicit violations of the suspect’s right to due process (Campbell and Denov 2004). However, this is just the beginning. Additional forms of suffering under police custody include assaults,
In 1966, American police procedure was changed by what is known today as the Miranda Rights. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a twenty three year old Hispanic American with an eighth grade education was arrested for kidnap and rape. (Paddock) He was identified by the victim of the crime in a police lineup. After he was identified, he was taken into police interrogation for two hours. When he was arrested, he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. He was also not informed of his Sixth Amendment right to have the assistance of an attorney. In the first part of his interrogation, Miranda denied having any involvement in the crime, but after two hours he confessed to the crime in writing. (Street Law)
The decision requires law enforcement officers to follow a code of conduct when arresting suspects. After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them. These rights are known as the Miranda Warnings and include:
The case of Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) is one of the most important cases in history. It brought about prominent rights that are still existent today in 2015 regarding interrogations and custody. The results of this case are still seen in the current criminal justice system. However, even though the rights that were given to the system by the court, there are still instances today in which these Miranda rights are violated. The concept of Miranda has evolved a lot from a court case to a code used by law enforcement during custodies and investigations.