Unconstitutional Interrogations

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how easy it is to be sympathetic to plaintiffs in a court case but also how important it is to take into account that the defendants are officers of the law, whose duty it is to uphold the law.

From the Paper:

"Throughout history, people who charged that their constitutional rights were violated during arrests and interrogations have brought cases to court. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments have been questioned repeatedly as judges search for justice without failing the police departments. Many of these cases have involved the Miranda rights, which, prior to 1998, were required of police as a precursor to admissible confessions by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona. In 1998, these warnings were a made optional in federal court by a federal statute. The warning had to be read to a suspect upon arrest as follows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before questioning. You have the right to have your attorney present with you during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you at no expense to you. You may choose to exercise these rights at any time."

More papers on Unconstitutional Interrogations:

• Essay # 56826 : "Interrogations and the Sixth Amendment"
• Persuasive Essay # 111237 : "Recorded Interrogations"
• Term Paper # 142669 : "Interviewing and Interrogating"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: