How Interrogation Worked Before Many Important Cases

Many of today’s interrogation models being utilized in police investigations have an impact on false confessions. The model that has been in the public eye recently is the social psychological process model of interrogation known as the “The Reid Technique.” There are two alternatives used by the police today to replace the Reid Technique, one is the PEACE Model and the other is Cognitive Interviewing. These methods are not interrogation techniques like Reid but interview processes.

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

Although some shows may show police officers using any means necessary to get a confession from people they take in for questioning, that is not the case. During police questioning there is no abuse allowed, they can’t use threats or coercion, and they can’t make any deals or promises with the suspect. If they have done any of these things to get a confession, then the confession can be thrown out and the police officers can be punished. The only lee way that police officers do have when questioning a suspect is that they can lie to the suspect. Besides deception, there is nothing else that they can do. When police officers are questioning a suspect that is a minor, they should have a parent with them; especially if the child asks for their parents. The lack of parental consult can also cause a confession to be thrown out.

This is an important debate for people accused of a crime because these rights could mean the difference between freedom and imprisonment. The two positions argue whether or not suspects should be read their Miranda Rights. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration. For example, evidence indicates that these rights could help guilty suspects avoid punishment. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that they will not. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that suspects should be read their Miranda Rights is the stronger position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that these rights

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

Renegotiation of reality occurs when, by virtue of the institutionalized process of police interrogations, the suspect perceives that his initial reality holds no value to the interrogator or to the outcome of the interrogation, when he lacks agency to defend his reality, and when there is no other option. In this paper, I will illustrate how each of these factors facilitates false confessions and will use the Norfolk Four case as my vehicle for exploration and analysis.

Police interrogate suspects on a daily basis, but how can they tell if the confession is real? We have all heard, at one time or another of someone confessing to a crime they didn’t commit. Then your next thought is “I would never confess to something I didn’t do”. The only way you can be a 100% sure of that is if you have been through an interrogation before. This paper is going to define “confession” and tell how an innocent person will confesses to a crime they didn’t commit. This paper will also show the history of interrogations.

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

“The wall street Journal noted in Sept. 8, 2013 report, National Registry of Exonerations statistics suggest that young people in particular are more prone to admitting guilt for crimes they did not commit. Thirty-eight percent of exonerations for crimes allegedly committed by youth under 18 in the quarter century involved false confessions.” (John Wihbey and Margaret Weigel,2015,Para.3) False confession is the admission of being guilty for a crime that they did not commit. In the interrogation, Police officers may question witness or victims who may have information on a specific crime. The officers may lead a group of questions about the event or evidence of the crime scene. The suspects or victims may know information about it, however,

The goal of this research paper is to remind people that as long as one can fulfill the duties of being a citizen in the United States of America then there are rights that protect one from the government. One could imagine what the world would be like if there were no Miranda rights. Government would take complete advantage of that and others could assume that prisons would really become overcrowded and taxes would shoot up even higher due to the absence of Miranda rights in the criminal justice system. One could assume that life in fact would not be as sweet and worth living knowing that the police can haul someone into jail and interrogate that person until a confession surfaces due to duress. Others have said that Miranda rights saved lives, some even say that without it the criminal justice has failed the citizens of the United States, this is the purpose one seeks the answers to these burning questions.

The law enforcement official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspect understands his right to maintain silence. The law enforcement official must then say “Anything you do or say can and will be used against you in a court of law”. Again, the official must obtain verbal or written verification that the criminal suspects understands what is being said to them. The next statement is “You have the right to an attorney before speaking or have an attorney present during any questioning now or in the future. Again, verification of understanding must be established. That statement is then followed by “If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you choose. The next Miranda right states that “ If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. The last Miranda right specifically asks “Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?” Again after each and every statement given by the law enforcement official verbal or written verification that the suspect understands must be obtained.

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”

Almost everyone who has seen a cop television show or movie has heard the saying “You have the right to remain silent”. In America, people are raised to believe that the justice system never fails, and that no matter what happens justice will always prevail, though for some people this safety net has failed them. Since the late 1980s six studies have documented 250 interrogation-induced false confessions. Police-induced false confessions are the result of multistep process and sequence of influence, persuasion, and compliance. Imagine that a solider of the U.S. military is brought in for questioning, kept locked up for sixteen hours in an interrogation room, constantly threatened with the death penalty if they did not confess to the crime, and the whole time left without representation. In 1997 this was the case for four individuals from Norfolk, Virginia held without representation and forced to give false confessions.

One of the best training programs to implement into the police department is the Reid interrogation techniques. Interrogation and interviewing techniques became popular in 1947 by John E. Reid and Associates. Joseph P. Buckley stated that “The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation is now the most widely used approach to question subjects in the world (Buckley P. J., 2000).” There three- parts to the Reid process for solving a crime. The first stage that should be taking is to collect and analyze relative information from the crime scene thing that offers insight to the possible suspect and determine the direction an investigation should take. The second stage of the process interviewing people of interest using Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI) (Buckley P. J., 2000). The Behavior Analysis Interview is a non-accusatory process that allows detectives to interview a suspect using a question and answer procedure to provoke a suspect to show non- verbal truthfulness or deception. The third stage, if the offender has not admitted to the crime an accusatory interrogation is administered (Leave no marks, 2007). The Reid interrogation technique is believed to be a fail proof technique ,however, there are some reservations against using this technique on juvenile offenders (Constitutional Law(n.d). Implementing the Reid technique into the police departments learning curriculum will truly

Juveniles, particularly younger juveniles, are unable to comprehend the Miranda warning, and, by extension, exercise their Miranda rights, for biological reasons, specifically their developmental immaturity. According to Rogers et al.’s study (Rogers, Blackwood, Fidducia, Steadham, Drogin, & Rogstad 2012), Miranda warnings are inherently incomprehensible to juveniles because they demand an advanced level of reading comprehension most often not yet attained by the juveniles. The study consolidated a sum of 293 juvenile Miranda warnings issued in 238 counties in 38 states and used the Flesch-Kincaid, a commonly accepted estimate of grade level used in other Miranda-related research and that corresponds with standardized reading tests, to gauge grade-level estimates. Rogers et al. found that 2.2% of Miranda waivers were written at a college graduate level, 5.2% necessitated some college preparation, and 52.1% of Miranda warnings necessitated at least an eighth-grade education, which poses a significant threat to particularly underserved preteen suspects. Only 7.3% of juvenile warnings were marked as easily comprehensible or at below a fifth-grade education level, which would optimize juvenile comprehension. It’s significant to note that juveniles cannot then intelligently waive their Miranda rights if the language exceeds their reading comprehension level. Grisso et al. demonstrate this understanding of juveniles’ developmental immaturity in their comprehensive study concerning