Preview

Interview and Interrogation.

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1599 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Interview and Interrogation.
Discuss the difference between the terms interview and interrogation

The main differences, between interview and interrogation are that an interview is conducted in a friendly or social able atmosphere where a witness is more comfortable physically and psychologically. However, when a possible suspect is questioned in an uncomfortable atmosphere, where he or she is under psychological stress and pressure, it is an interrogation.

Identify the rule when Miranda Warnings are required

When the police arrest a suspect and want to ask questions, the law in the United States requires law officials to issue specific warnings, (Miranda rights) to the person being arrested, or the statement will fail to be admitted into evidence. This rule and protocol was put in affect to properly protect the constitutional rights against forced self – incrimination and to secure the assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings. Even though these rights have been in effect since the signing of the Bill of Rights, the warnings incident to arrest developed 200 years later as a way of protecting the rights from encroachment by over aggressive law officials. (Ehow, 2012)

Discuss the legal implications of the term in custody

The term “In Custody” can be very flexible and may mean actual imprisonment, incarceration, physical imprisonment, and/or manual possession. In order for a person to be entitled to Habeas Corpus relief, which provides for release from unlawful confinement in violation of constitutional rights, he or she must be in custody. Custody in this context is the same as restraint of certain liberties, and does not always mean actual incarceration. People who are on probation or who have been released on parole are also in custody for purposes for Habeas Corpus proceedings.

Explain and discuss the recommended setting for an interrogation.

Successful interrogations mandate that interrogators, not subjects, control not only the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Janet Ainsworth’s journal article, “’You Have the Right to Remain Silent. . .’ But Only If You Ask for It Just So: The Role of Linguistic Ideology in American Police Interrogation Law,” addresses the complexities that arise when attempting to invoke Miranda rights. Ainsworth begins the article by explaining how the Miranda rights were established as a compromise with its initial goal to alleviate pressure from those detained. She references the Davis v United States case as a key example due to its ruling which held that Miranda rights could only be invoked when the language used by the arrestee has a clear and unambiguous meaning.…

    • 426 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Miranda v. Arizona case is considered to be one of the most important and famous cases in modern law history that provided the foundation for some important legal provisions. It occurred in 1966 in Arizona, when a young man named Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, was charged with robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a young woman several years prior the trial (Zalman, 2010). Before the suspect was interrogated, the police did not inform him of his constitutional right to remain silent which allowed the interrogators to get the confession. Given that this case provided the foundation for the right to remain silent, it became very famous and important. The present paper attempts to analyze the…

    • 140 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Reynold Lancaster discussed how the Miranda warning is used by police officers and other law enforcements when they arrest a person of interest. The Miranda warning allows the officers…

    • 326 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling of Miranda v. Arizona set a precedence on how future suspects would be interrogated. It makes complete sense to advise a person that is being interrogated that he or she has a right to remain silent during interrogation and that he or she has the right to have counsel present during an interrogation. It's also important that the suspect be fully aware and full understand his or her rights before the interrogation begins. -WRITTEN AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION-METHODS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT By Harvey Wallace and Cliff Roberson(CHAPTER 9 PAGE 136)…

    • 341 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona 1966

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Arizona made requirements that the law had to follow, which stated law enforcement officials must follow protocol before questioning suspect in custody. “These rules specified that a suspect must be read the “Miranda warning,” now famous from police shows on television, and then must be asked whether he agrees to “waive” those rights. If the suspect declines, the police are required to stop all questioning. Even if the suspect waives his rights, at any time during an interrogation he can halt the process by retracting the waiver or asking for a lawyer. From that point on, the police are not allowed even to suggest that the suspect reconsider” ("National Center for Policy Analysis", 1996). Since the requirements were made and law enforcement has to abide by the facts of the impact, they have found that it is more complicated to get the offenders to admit to wrong doing with a confession. After the decision of the Miranda rights, various states in the US had a percentage drop of individuals whom actually confessed. With the states having so many individuals accused of a crime and the Miranda rule taking effect, they found that it makes it complex to solve the crime at hand. Since that present time the rates of solving crimes have drastically changed and have concurrently stayed that way from that time to current. Knowingly not be able to solve as many violent or property crimes, less convictions have become a tough issue. The effects of the…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    miranda v. arizona

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda Warning: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Over the years the Miranda rights are used to ensure justice and preserve liberty ever since the case Miranda v. Arizona. All though people may see the Miranda Rights/ warning as an act of not trying to ensure justice it is because if we didn't use them today then there would be many more cases like Miranda v. Arizona and lead to a corruptio in our police stations atound th…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Court maintained that the defendant's right against self-incrimination has long been part of Anglo-American law as a means to equalize the vulnerability inherent in being detained. Such a position, unchecked, can often lead to government abuse. For example, the Court cited the continued high incidence of police violence designed to compel confessions from a suspect. This and other…

    • 582 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Janet Ainsworth

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In Janet Ainsworth’s article, “‘You have the right to remain silent…’ but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law,” she explores the linguistic complexities of legal language, specifically the usage of the Miranda Rights in interrogation.…

    • 479 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs. Arizona

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Miranda warning (often abbreviated to "Miranda," or "Mirandizing" a suspect) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused are aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview.…

    • 285 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    quiz week 3

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages

    During the interview, officers acquire information about the witnesses and their needs, worries, anxieties, and approaches. Investigators can later use this material to arrange questions and arguments to use during interrogations. During the interview process, people answer…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Different ways of interrogations are used by officers to deal with suspects. Most often we do not know what is going on inside the interrogation room. The main purpose of the interrogation is to get possible answers that pacify their need of evidence to the case. Police are most criticizes of their way handling interrogations during custodial questioning which often uses deception to get whatever evidence needed. According to Skolnick and Leo there are eight types of interrogations deceptions. Interview versus interrogate which is the most subtle way of deception. Most often overlooked strategy the police always employ on suspects. By telling the suspects that he is free and can leave any time thus engages him to voluntary answering of questions that otherwise be considered an interrogation into a non-custodial interview. Miranda Warning, in order for a questioning to be custodial, police recite their Miranda rights. This routinely delivered phrase is always delivered in a recital flat monotone of voice that makes this warning a bureaucratic ritual. Police sometimes used this warning to soften up suspects. The Court in Miranda that police cannot trick or deceive a suspect into waiving Miranda rights. The misrepresenting the nature or seriousness of the Offense which police exaggerate, overstate or understate the offense in order for the suspect to compel in answering questions during custody. Role playing where police play the role of a compassionate friend, bother or father figure who understands the suspect’s situation in order to have their trust then later on seek the opportunity to let the suspect confess for the good of the investigation. Misinterpreting the moral seriousness of the offense is the heart of the interrogation method that propounded by Inbau, Reid and Buckley’s influential police training manual. Police interrogating the case offer suspects excuses or moral justification for their misconduct by providing the suspect with an external attribution…

    • 685 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    The enhanced interrogation techniques have great impacts on the process of investigation and may provide better opportunities to the investigators to get their desired information. The proceeding paper incorporates the basic concept of enhanced interrogation techniques. The proceeding discussion also demonstrates the pros and cons of enhanced interrogation techniques.…

    • 2137 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Miranda Rights are part of a preventative criminal procedure rule that states law enforcement are required to administer Miranda Rights to an individual who is in custody and is subject to direct questioning for a criminal violation of law. When a person is detained or taken into custodial arrest and interrogated for a criminal offense, if he or she wishes to remain silent the individual must expressly state that he or she chooses to remain silent. In addition, if the individual asserts that he or she wishes to speak to an attorney or have an attorney present, police must then cease interrogations and wait until…

    • 524 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The criminal justice system works in such a way that certain behavior or actions are legislated as a criminal offense wherein the state or the federal government can prosecute an offender even if only being suspected. In this case, there exists rules or limits into which protection are of highest concerns. It does not only apply to civilian suspects but also extends to actual prisoners, and to those who are on parole and under probation. But in reality, it has become a worldwide issue in terms of illegal searches. It has even been stipulated in the U.S. Constitution 's Bill of Rights stating that these restrictions start on the premises of the rights to refuse to testify against oneself, the right to confront one 's accuser and the right to a trial by jury for people charged with crimes. But these federal protections may not always seem to hold especially when police enforcers are dealing with prisoners, people on parole and on probation status. This happens because the jurisdictions regarding these matters depend on the ruling court. The court regulates and decides whether the legislative rule, court practice or police action is permissible under the federal and state constitutional law. From here, we can say during the course of searches, we should be aware and vigilant of possible violations by the apprehending police officers. In such cases, knowledge of the legality, technicality and the law should at least be required or at least explained to the person being searched. As mentioned a while ago, the case becomes quite sensitive for people who are imprisoned, on parole and under probation. The situation for them is very difficult in the sense that they are…

    • 2812 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays