Why Should Government Be Limited on How and When It Asks Questions - Coursework Example

First, the Fifth Amendment states that: “No person shall...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 324). If the government is not limited in this aspect, it will be easy for them to “force (coerce) people to answer questions that would cause them to look guilty of a crime” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 324). The government's limitations on this matter are even emphasized when “By the middle of the 18th century, English courts began to limit the admissibility of confessions” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 326). This is to prevent the occurrences of “confessions...obtained by any manner, including force or the threat of force” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 326). Not limiting the government's ability to how and when it asks questions opens an avenue for abuse and arbitrary actions.
How do you feel about police “encouraging” suspects to talk by threatening or using physical force or otherwise intimidating them?
Despite arguments that the ends can justify the means, one has to keep in mind that regardless of the motivation, individual rights should be, first and foremost, protected, because, personally speaking, it cannot be said that a government can protect the rights of a nation if that government is unable to first protect the rights of the individual. I truly cannot see how justice can be served if the foundation of such “justice” is already unjust. As mentioned in the book: Approximately 80 percent of criminal cases are solved by less than a full confession, and a study on the success rate of current police interrogation techniques indicated that police interrogations produce at least some incriminating information in 45 to 65 percent of cases. (qtd. in Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 326)
This could mean that if done properly, interrogation techniques can do the job already, so there is really no need to apply force or the threat of force. In the rest of the cases, more diligent police work --- like searching for physical evidence --- could work in areas where interrogation did not provide much help.
Does the Miranda decision impede police work?
It is said that “because of [the] Miranda, substantial numbers of criminal convictions are lost each year” and that it “may be the single most damaging blow to the nation's crime-fighting ability in the past half-century” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 330). However, it is also said that:
Miranda...changed the analysis of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination from a totality of the circumstances test for voluntariness to whether those subjected to custodial interrogation by police were advised of their rights...[but] Miranda has not completely displaced the due process/voluntariness standard. (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 331)
Therefore, the Miranda may have made police work tougher, but it does not absolutely impede police work. This is because “When a Miranda violation cannot be used to support an attack, voluntariness still can” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 331).
Would a different result occur, given exactly the same circumstances of the interrogation, for what a private security officer could do as opposed to what a city police officer must do?
Private security officers such as security guards or even rent-a-cops “are not required to advise suspects of their Miranda rights” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 360). City police officers are required to issue the Miranda warning to “individuals they had in custody, before questioning them” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 331). This could definitely cause a different result in the interrogation because a person in custody might say self-incriminating statements during the interrogation by a private security officer, that would otherwise have not been said if the person is issued (reminded of) the Miranda warning (rights). However, it should be considered too that confessions gathered by private security people do not really put the individual in an atmosphere that is police-dominated. The Supreme Court said that “Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it” (Harr, Hess, and Orthmann 334). This is why the Miranda warning is very necessary for law enforcement officer interrogations.