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
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
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.
The Miranda Warning, is the requirement set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona June 13, 1966 that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: the right to remain silent, the right to be told that anything he/she said while in custody can and will be used against him/her in a court of law, and that he/she has the right to legal counsel. The Miranda Warnings inform the arrested of constitutional rights and are intended to prevent self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Neubauer 2002).
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:
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
Miranda rights, also known as the Miranda warning, is a warning given by police in the United States to suspects in custody before they are interrogated. The name Miranda rights comes from the case Miranda v. Arizona, where the Supreme Court held that the admission of incriminating statements by a suspect who has not been read their rights, violates one's right to counsel. Therefore, if a police officer does not inform a suspect of their Miranda rights, they may not interrogate that person and cannot use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a court of law (Miranda Warning, 2014).... ... middle of paper ... ...
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed to you” This may be differ from state to state as long as the concept is conveyed they was read their rights. Miranda Rights is mandatory across the United States due to the Miranda v. Arizona. In the following will explain what the 3 branches Judicial, Executive, and the Legislative have done to enforce this law or to change it, as well as the effect on the people.
This source explains the rights that should be told to a suspect that is arrested, the fifth and Sixth Amendments. It also explains how Miranda was identified as the criminal and what happened in the interrogation room. This source helped me understand the specific amendments that apply to Miranda Rights.
...nforcement. Officers had an upper hand when suspects did not know their rights making it easier for them to sneak tactics through to get confessions. Another reason they it as a disadvantage was because according to the dissent “some cases cannot be solved without confessions”. Also they implied the “welfare” of our society was at stake because it would let criminals run free, if the Miranda rights weren’t stated to them correctly. This was a “hazardous” experiment which could have a dismal outcome and prove to be very ineffective in the future. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion on the way the police officers had treated suspects amendment rights were “exaggerated” and that the outcome was only to favor the accused more favorably.
The actual Miranda warning is very short and covers all of person’s rights. The actual Miranda warning is as follows:
...ained in their questioning. Officers commonly have small cards with the Miranda warnings on them so they don’t forget or skip over a part of ones right, if this does occur evidence still cannot be properly obtained because the person was not fully warned of all their rights. Currently, the only unwarned questioning that can occur is if the officer believes the public is in some type of danger. For example, if police come across a man standing in a convenience store that fits the description of recent thefts in a nearby neighborhood and the man runs once police confront him and is later caught and searched, when upon the search they realize he has an empty shoulder holster. In this scenario the public is in potential danger, the police can ask him where the gun is hidden without reading the man his rights and it would not be violating his Fifth Amendment rights.
The cost is impressionism; the ability to be altered and contaminated inadvertently. Eyewitness testimonies can give insight into an event that has occurred but it can also cause misdirection. This is especially true in witnesses recounting events to someone in a position of power in which they feel a strong requirement to help the interviewing officer. They can feel both overwhelmed and overzealous in attempting to offer aid. To add to the complexity, the officer has a great deal of responsibility in such a situation to ensure that the word choice they use and the questions in which they are asking are not altering the highly suggestible witness’s memory. It is a delicate combination of strategically placed neutral open and closed ended questioning that will subsequently deliver the most efficient and reliable eyewitness
Every time someone is handcuffed, they are not always read their Miranda rights. When a suspect gives out information to any law enforcement staff, they are not always quizzed; furthermore, some details are volunteered. Officers of the law should know when Miranda rights are to be read; however, there are exclusions under “Miranda”.