Police Pressure And Police Coercion
Police Pressure and Police Coercion
Interrogation is described as the process through which an interrogator induces a person being interrogated into providing statements against his or her own best interest. Police interrogators main aim is to obtain confessions from suspected criminals. In achieving this goal the police have in instances used pressure and coercion while interrogating suspected criminals. It is often difficult to get a confession even from a guilty suspect which makes the goals of an interrogation more difficult. It is in this line that makes the interrogation process deemed coercive. According to the United States constitution, police interrogators have been disallowed to use physical force although police pressure such …show more content…
For example the police could claim to have eye witnesses, finger prints or DNA, and or accomplices who are pointing fingers at the suspect. The information used while pressuring the suspected criminal to confess may be true or not. The benefits of a confession to a suspect can only be implied but cannot be guaranteed.
Coercion on the other hand involves threats or infliction of pain, torture or physical violence upon a suspect in order to obtain a confession. Police may also threaten to arrest family members of a suspect who fails to confess. A suspect may also be deprived off basic needs such as sleep, food and even shelter. Use of threats, physical violence and deprivation of basic needs may make a suspect to confess which is against the Miranda rights. Importantly psychological coercion is prohibited but officers are allowed to apply moral and psychological pressure (Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, …show more content…
It should be noted that in many cases it 's only the guilty who confesses. Use of trickery and deception exposes human weaknesses. The stress levels arising from psychological manipulation due to dominance, control and dependence by the police end up making even the hardened criminal to confess (Blandon, Sperry & Leo, 2010). As such the deception of maximizing and minimizing the consequences of the crime committed and in cases shifting blame on others provide a leeway for suspects to confess. The interrogator therefore requires having the right combinations of circumstances or consequences pertaining to the suspects’ experiences and
Interrogation is described as the process through which an interrogator induces a person being interrogated into providing statements against his or her own best interest. Police interrogators main aim is to obtain confessions from suspected criminals. In achieving this goal the police have in instances used pressure and coercion while interrogating suspected criminals. It is often difficult to get a confession even from a guilty suspect which makes the goals of an interrogation more difficult. It is in this line that makes the interrogation process deemed coercive. According to the United States constitution, police interrogators have been disallowed to use physical force although police pressure such …show more content…
For example the police could claim to have eye witnesses, finger prints or DNA, and or accomplices who are pointing fingers at the suspect. The information used while pressuring the suspected criminal to confess may be true or not. The benefits of a confession to a suspect can only be implied but cannot be guaranteed.
Coercion on the other hand involves threats or infliction of pain, torture or physical violence upon a suspect in order to obtain a confession. Police may also threaten to arrest family members of a suspect who fails to confess. A suspect may also be deprived off basic needs such as sleep, food and even shelter. Use of threats, physical violence and deprivation of basic needs may make a suspect to confess which is against the Miranda rights. Importantly psychological coercion is prohibited but officers are allowed to apply moral and psychological pressure (Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, …show more content…
It should be noted that in many cases it 's only the guilty who confesses. Use of trickery and deception exposes human weaknesses. The stress levels arising from psychological manipulation due to dominance, control and dependence by the police end up making even the hardened criminal to confess (Blandon, Sperry & Leo, 2010). As such the deception of maximizing and minimizing the consequences of the crime committed and in cases shifting blame on others provide a leeway for suspects to confess. The interrogator therefore requires having the right combinations of circumstances or consequences pertaining to the suspects’ experiences and