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
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.
Miranda Rights became a United States Supreme Court decision in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona), in which the high court made a decision in favor of and upheld that the Fifth Amendment rights of Miranda were violated. The Miranda ruling gives suspects the right to remain silent and not speak to any law enforcement as a means to prevent self incrimination, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, if an attorney is requested and the defendant can’t afford one, there are provisions in Miranda for an attorney to be appointed to defend the individual.
...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 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:
Friedman, S. (2014, March 10). You have the right to ... not much: Why are there no 'Miranda rights'
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.
...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 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
...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
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).
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.
As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:
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)