Thoughts on the US Legal System - Essay Example

Forcing an accused to depose oneself under the threat of physical or emotional abuse is contrary to all the essential values attributed to a free and fair trial. The paramount concern in the case of an involuntary confession is not whether the confession is true or false, but whether it was solicited by using fair means or whether it was achieved through threat and violence.

Besides the provisions made in the United States Constitution go against involuntary confession and consider it to be wrong and illegal. The right to counsel facilitated by the Sixth Amendment and the right against self-incrimination facilitated by the Fifth Amendment goes against coerced confessions and as per these amendments, any confession wrenched out through coercion is illegal.

I agree with the given paragraph. It is the nature of the human physical and mental constitution that it is averse to pain and by extending a pain that is physical or emotional in its scope, beyond a limit that is conducive to human tolerance, one could draw out any inappropriate or unethical confession from an accused. Hence, going by the fact that there ought to be a limit to the force and the method that a police officer could resort to, to gain a confession from an accused, for otherwise, the laws about soliciting confessions from the accused will be a mere mockery of the due process. Thereby it is imperative to set a limit on the extent and the method beyond which a confession ought to lose its legal and ethical validity. In that context, the method used by the officer to get a confession from an accused and the impact of that method on the accused need to be codified and restrained by legal provisions, as has been done in the United States Constitution.

In 1966, the Supreme Court made provision for the Miranda warnings that govern the methods that could be resorted to by a police officer to gain a confession from the accused. The Miranda warnings not only extend to an accused the right to remain silent, but it also enjoins the police officer arresting to convey these rights to a suspect or an accused.

I strongly agree with the given paragraph. It is a staunch Western philosophical and ethical dogma that all men are born equal. However, in a pragmatic context, it is a known fact that all men are not born equal and individuals tend to immensely differ in a range of contexts and abilities, whether are they race, education, social status, material wealth, or access to power. However, the dogma that all men are born equal is of paramount relevance in the sphere of law for it is before the law that not only all men ought to be equal, but it is also a must that they have equal access to legal aid and remedies. Hence, the law and order machinery needs to assure that all the accused that come before it for a trial get access to the requisite legal counsel. For in the absence of such a provision, the Western imperative of the equality of all men will lose its meaning or significance and law will become but a convenient tool in the hands of the rich and the powerful which they could readily use to absolve themselves of the wrongs they do or could use it to persecute others who are not powerful or rich enough to have a say before the law. The Western legal approach is based on the equality of a man before a man and the opportunity to have access to the required legal aid and a fair trial is the foundation on which this notion of equality stands.