Self-incrimination is where one makes an act to expose oneself when he or she is being accused or involved in charge of crime. Self-incrimination may happen as a result of cross-examination or voluntarily. Furthermore, privilege against self-incrimination is where the person has the right to not say anything or provide any documents or evidence that may lead to the guilty of the person in a crime. The privilege against self-incrimination has always leaded to debate. From the sixteenth century until the late of eighteenth century, the defendant in criminal procedures was not to remain silent but to speak up as it was an opportunity for the defendant to reply to the charge against him (Langbein, 1994). However, in the nineteenth century, the …show more content…
In general, purpose of inquest is to find out the truth, justice and accountability. For example, investigations may be carried out by coroners or judges. The reason they hold inquests are to find out who the deceased is. Not only that, the purpose of and investigation is also to make sure how, when and where did the person died and they will have to register the person’s death. Privilege against self-incrimination is related to the purpose of inquests because every offender naturally have the right to stay silence under the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which this may cause the reason and evidence of death being buried and not being known. In this case, inquests are being held to find out the …show more content…
As mentioned before, the purpose of inquest is to find out the truth of one’s death. The suspects of the investigations are given the privilege of self-incrimination where they may refuse to answer the questions. However, the purpose of criminal trials are to examine the evidence to see whether the defendant have committed the crime . Apart from that, the purpose of trials are also to let witnesses say what happened during the crime. Unlike during investigations, suspects and witness in trials are generally given the chance to defend themselves by refuting the evidence of the government and giving arguments to prove themselves not guilty . For example the case of McDonald's Corporation v Steel &
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
This illustrates the refusal of the rights of victims and the inevitable denial of justice for society. The coronial inquest that was conducted in 2011, corrected some of the initial issues with the investigation. Before the inquest, vital DNA evidence was disposed of, as a result of human error, which meant that the likely suspect could not be identified. As a result of human error the inquest provided some form of justice for society but due to how late it was conducted the family did not receive justice
Jain, M. (2001). Mitigating the Dangers of Capital Convictions Based on Eyewitness Testimony Through Treason's Two-Witness Rule. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 761-790.
... death (as in the case of Hillsborough).In addition to this, section 4 (2) of same act also state that the Senior Coroner is required as part of the investigation to hold an Inquest into the deaths of victims if the result of the death was unknown and unnatural.
This is derived from the rights Americans have to not be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. But, the Fifth Amendment also protects against double jeopardy and gives people charged with a felony the right to a grand jury indictment (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Double jeopardy basically states that if a conviction or acquittal was reached in a criminal case, the person can no longer be tried again for the same offense (Bohm & Haley, 2011). The procedural rights for self-incrimination are also applied to any custodial situations the police conduct. To ensure that statements, or confessions a suspect makes are allowed in court there is a two-prong tests that should be followed. First, is the person considered to be in a custodial situation and two, are the police intending to ask incriminating questions. If yes is the answers to both then the suspect must be read his or her rights. This is known as giving someone his or her Miranda rights derived from the famous case
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda Warnings including; definition, history, importance to society, constitutional issues, and pro’s and con’s of having the Miranda Warnings incorporated into standard police procedures.
The American criminal justice system decided differently in the similar circumstances. The courts endorce the police, detectives and prosecutor’s methods to take confession from defendants during the interrogation at law enforcement agencies office. It was viewed alright for the detectives to use psychological intimidation methods to get confession from the defendants in interrogation rooms. And the courts did not see as if there were any deprivation of defendants rights. During the appeals the courts decided that defendant was informed of his rights and he was willingly and awarely confessing the guilty of crime. 3)The rendering of this decision had constitutional implications in which other Supreme court cases would try to use Miranda rights as precedence or oppose the
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.
In American history, many men and women have been confronted with hardships such as inequality and discrimination. The early American colonist had to fight for their rights: this applied to white men. African American men would have to wait another 90 years befor their rights. Women would have to wait even longer.. Three documents that express a similar desire to obtain freedom, equality, and independence are “The Declaration Of Independence,” by Thomas Jefferson, “The Declaration Of Sentiments,” by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, and finally, “A Disappointed Woman,” by Lucy Stone. The rhetorical strategies of ethos, pathos, logos, diction, analogy, and imagery, help contribute to the authors arguments regarding the themes of freedom, equality, and independence. “The Declaration of Independence,” is an outstanding model of how rhetorical strategies can be used to express the needs of equality.
I hope in this paper I have made people more aware of what exactly are the Miranda rights. It is very crucial to understand these incase you are involved in an interrogation sometime in ones life. You have the rights afforded to you under the constitution, and it is important you exercise those rights.
The right to confront one’s accuser originates from English Common law and dates back to before the American Revolution (Lehman & Shirelle, 2005, p. 86). Four centuries ago, in 1603, Sir Walter Raleigh was accused of treason. There was no witness and the only proof was a written statement (Richey, 2003, p. 2). The prosecutor and judge denied Raleigh a chance to confront his accuser in court. Consequently, Raleigh was found guilty and sentenced to death. It is said by many that Sir Walter Raleigh’s infamous trial is most likely the catalyst for the Confrontation Clause (King, 2010, p. 31) The Salem Witch Trials in Massachusetts also initiated the need for the accused to confront their accus...
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
An Historical Argument for the Right to Counsel During Police Investigation. (1964). The Yale Law Journal, 1000-1057.
...’ testimony at trial. This rule has played a big role in the American system like in the case of Mapp V. Ohio. Ohio police officers had gone to a home of a women to ask her question about a recent bombing and requested to search her house. When she denied them access, they arrested her and searched her house which led them to find allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.
Beowulf, an epic poem known for its use of revenge as a driving force for its characters' actions and events, serves as an excellent illustration of this relationship by exploring it through Beowulf's encounters with Grendel and Grendel's mother as well as through Beowulf's search for fame and glory; all events give an opportunity to examine its intricate web of relationships. Beowulf's courage in battle was fuelled by an overwhelming sense of vengeance. This can be seen through his determination to avenge Hrothgar's people by confronting Grendel; Beowulf says "That is not your business nor anyone's except mine to measure his strength against this monster or prove his worth" to underscore his unwavering resolve (Heaney 677-679). Additionally, his relentless pursuit of Grendel's mother to seek vengeance for Aeschere's death further underscored his dedication: "It is always better avenge loved ones than indulge in mourning" (Heaney 1384-1385).