Karendeep Kandola Ms.Gonzales Evidence Humphreys University August 24,2017 Self incrimination is an act of which one is exposing themselves, usually by making a statement about a accusation. Self- incrimination can either occur indirectly or directly. Indirectly means when information of self incriminatory nature is disclosed from an individual voluntarily without any pressure from another person. Directly means that information that was obtained was due to interrogation of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed. Criminals that have been accused can not incriminate themselves. They have a choice in whether they would like to speak to a police officer or any other authorities. If they chose not to speak …show more content…
United States was about Westover had was arrested by police officers in Kansas City. Westover was a suspect to two Kansas City robberies and was taken to the police station. The FBI was also looking for Westover for a felony charge in California. Westover was interrogated at the police station the night of arrest as well as the next morning by police officers. The FBI agents had decided to continue the interrogation as well at the police station for two and half hours of interrogation by the FBI agents. Westover had signed two separate confessions that had been prepared by one of the agents about two of the robberies in California. Westover had been convicted of the robberies and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison on each count.California v.Stewart was a case about purse snatch robberies which had lead to victims dying. Stewart was arrested at his house. Police had also arrested Stewart’s wife and three people people who had been visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell for the next five days, and was interrogated on nine different occasions. During, the ninth interrogation session, Stewart had stated he did rob the deceased but it was not his intentions to hurt her. Police then had released the four. During trial, Stewart's statements had been introduced. He was convicted of robbery and first degree murder. Stewart was sentenced to death. In all four of these cases, the defendant had been questioned by police officers, prosecuting attorneys, and …show more content…
Under the 14th Amendment, due process requires confessions that are obtained by police officers must be voluntary. If violating due process rights it will make the confession statement inadmissible in court. Courts must prove that the voluntary confession be proven using the ‘’preponderance of the evidence’’ standard. Which means that the confessions and statements must be voluntary. Rogers v. Richmond was about a case regarding Roger who was convicted of murder. He had claimed that two of his confessions were obtained by coercion were admitted as evidence over Rogers objection. Which is determining if the confessions are voluntary. Trial court and the State Supreme court had considered whether the confessions are reliable. Roger had applied to the Federal District Court claiming his conviction violated the Due Process of the Fourteenth
Arizona was not necessary to the decision. Justice Stevens both concurred and dissented in part of the judgments. Stevens claimed that recording the confession doesn’t mean it is involuntary or that it doesn’t follow the Due Process Clause. Stevens believed that Connelly’s incompetence to stand trial meant he could have been incompetent to waive his rights. Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented and also believed that Connelly’s mental state was a reasonable factor in determining the validity of his waiving of rights. They thought that a confession given by a defendant who is mentally ill is one not given under a clear state of mind and is not voluntary. Without his confession, officers would have never obtained valid evidence to convict him of murder. Due process requires independent collection of evidence that would contribute to a conviction. Since there was no police misconduct, the evidence gathered had to be because of Connelly’s free, voluntary, confession but he was not able to make an intellectual decision at that
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
However, with every rule there also exceptions like: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, and Berghuis v. Thompkins. Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police, the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises and or coercion.
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
Miranda argued that his rights were violated because he admitted to the crime without knowing his rights, which should have been said to him when he was arrested. He claimed that the police had obtained his confession unconstitutionally. (Gitlin) He also mentioned that the police admitted to not telling him his rights. He reminded the Supreme Court that the...
Carcasses attract scavengers. The Guilty Party by O. Henry showcases the untimely death of a girl of twelve, Liz. Above Chrystie Street on the east side, a strange bird stalks the children of the playground. Although people say it’s a stork, locals call it a vulture. In this case, Liz is the carcass that the vulture sets its eyes on.
The Artful Deception of Socialistic Practices in The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin
Examining why people commit crimes can be quite difficult because there can be a million reasons as to why a individual would want to commit an illegal act. Some people are forced to commit a crime with justified reasons, some people commit petty crime as a way of survival and some people commit crime for self-assurance purposes.
Using Forensic Psychology “Comes from the word "forensic" comes from the Latin word "forensis," meaning "of the forum," Where the law courts of ancient Rome were held” (ABFP). Having many different branches of forensic psychology in 2001 the American Psychological association named it a branch of clinical psychology. Forensic psychology is the study or practice of the law and expands to all aspects of law enforcement. Working closely with the court forensic psychologist is typically appointed to assess the client and their mental state, and determine the client sanity level before entering the court room.
Psychology is known as the study of the mind including human behaviors and processes that the mind goes through. However, psychology is a board major in which a student must specialist in order to further pursue a career that is designed for them. Forensic psychology is a narrow focus of the broader field of psychology, which requires a degree and a strong community to obtain a desired salary. With this field, a forensic psychologist works in a field of both law and criminal investigation. Therefore, this specialty allows for a mix of both psychology and the law to someone interested in both career paths.
Confidentiality is defined as the protection of personal information. It means keeping a client’s information between the health care providers and the client. Every single patient has the right to privacy regarding their personal information from being released to anyone outside of their health care providers. Health care providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to protect all information regarding patients by not disclosing their information to anyone without their written consent from the patient.
Honesty and integrity are very important in the medical field. We as healthcare workers are given such trust and responsibility. We should always strive to do our best and when faced with tough situations. When we don't always know what to do or the proper way to react we should always be honest. Let our superiors know what is going on and ask for advice when we need to. This would show that we are honest. When we come into contact with patients they rely on us to do the right thing and always perform our job with integrity. Often people’s lives are in our hands. We have to care about the patient and care about our job in order to continue to provide quality care. If someone hates their job they are not going to give their best in every way they can. The medical field is not a place for that person.
Admit it: You 've lied. We all have at some stage or point in our life. Whether you 're asserting your feelings, getting it off your chest or just being plain and distinctly honest, the truth about honesty is that honesty isn 't always the best artery of choice. What 's more, striving on the avenue of complete disclosure can drive an unwanted wedge and result in permanent closure on a relationship. Today, the consequences of lying are often veiled from reality, the unvarnished truth is, we don 't need weapons to fatally hurt those closest to us as the act can be equally carried out with the sharp verbal cuts of a truthful tongue.
Can you remember the last time someone lied to you? Or how about the last time you lied to someone else? Did you ever stop and ask yourself why? There are so many different reasons that a person might lie. Maybe a lie about something to keep oneself out of trouble, or even a lie to impress other people. But either way there are always going to be serious consequences or effects of lying.
Honesty is a characteristic that everyone should possess. However, being honest is a difficult task for many people. Living honestly means allowing a person’s true self to be exposed to others. Honesty is considered owning up to one’s wrongdoings and not lying, cheating, or stealing. Being honest is a trait that many people believe is obsolete. Even though every person interprets honesty differently, it all stems back to telling the truth. Being honest allows a person to earn respect from their peers. Honesty is allowing oneself to be completely exposed by being truthful.