The Laws: Dickerson versus United States - Essay Example

Law
Prior to 1966, the police could arrest a suspected perpetrator and totally dismiss the fact that the person had any constitutional rights. This idea was challenged in Miranda. The court held that; a person who is apprehended by the police must be informed of their constitutional rights’ i.e., he has the right to remain silent, anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; the right to an attorney and if he cannot afford one, counsel would be provided to him.

Professor Leo explains the incidence thusly: that suspects are often put into a physical environment –such as a small isolated room-which is designed to make them talk. After the isolation, the appearance of a police officer may seem like a welcome form of human contact, then the police routinely deliver the Miranda warnings in a perfunctory tone of voice and ritualistic behavioral manner, effectively conveying that these warnings are little more than a bureaucratic triviality. (Leo)

Deception, rather than physical force has become the norm for interrogation. There is no law against outright lies or other deceptions on the part of the police during an interrogation. Almost certainly, the prisoner will be told that the prosecutor and the judge will be lenient if he confesses. This is a complete lie. The district attorney will be more lenient if there is no confession, and he can’t make a strong case and therefore has to settle for a plea bargain. Nothing the police promise in the interrogation room is binding on the police, much less on the district attorney.

Huff, et al in Guilty Until Proven Innocent, “Crime and Delinquency, states: “ There are about six thousand false convictions for felonies every year in the United States”. False confessions are one of the major reasons for the conviction of innocent persons. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out, mere delivery of the Miranda warnings serves to insulate almost every confession from a claim that it was “involuntary” or “coerced”. So ironically, Miranda keeps judges and juries from giving any serious consideration to not relying on confessions that are products of sophisticated deception and psychological coercion.

My proposed law would prevent the police from employing deception and presenting outright lies to suspects in their attempts to gain confessions. I would propose that this law be introduced on the federal level (through congress) to enable the adoption of national law, thereby eliminating the circumvention or maneuvering of local or federal courts to manipulate jurisdictional constraints. I would further propose that the law be monitored through a peer-oriented process, which would make it mandatory for all interrogations of suspects to be audio and video recorded. That no confession will be accepted as truth until the entire process has been completely viewed and analyzed by a trained independent master. This person will attest to the procedural accuracy of the process and proclaim the veracity of the statements recorded. There will be fewer if any additional convictions based on false confessions, resulting in fewer convictions of innocent persons.