Summary: False Confessions During Police Interrogations Ans Measures To Prevent Them

Read the summary and the most important questions on False Confessions during Police interrogations ans measures to prevent them

• 2 Artikel 1

  This is a preview. There are 19 more flashcards available for chapter 2
  Show more cards here

• Why is police interrogation a critical stage in a criminal procedure?

  1. The information obtained determines for a large part the way the police investigation develops; which witnesses will be interviewed, which scientific tests will be carried out, etc. 

  2. in many states any statements made to the police can be used as evidence on which to base a conviction. 

• What is one of the possible means to prevent false confessions?

  To give suspects the right to consult a lawyer prior to police to police questioning and/or to have him/her present during the questioning. 

• What were the results of the decision of the Salduz case by the Grand Chamber?

  This differs in each country since the wording of the decision weren't clear, so difference consequences were attached to it. Some said there shouldn't be hasty conclusions drawn because :

  1. The court rules on a case to case basis, so no general conclusions should be drawn.

  2. The court has nog been clear in the use of the term access to a lawyer. 

• What is Beijer's interpretation of the Salduz case? 

  The Court did not unequivocally guarantee suspects the right to have counsel present during police interrogation.

• Which types of false confessions may occur? 

  1. coerced-complaint : false confessions in which harsh and leading questioning lead an innocent suspect to confess in order to escape from the interrogation or police custody. 

  2. coerced internalized confessions : the suspect comes to believe that he actually committed the crime. 

• When are false confessions more likely to occur?

  In a small but significant category of high profiled cases in which the police have no suspects other than the one who is subjected to interrogation. Because the police is being pressurized to solve the crime, they are likely to overestimate the probability of a suspects guilt; this may influence the chosen interrogation tactics and strategies used. 

• What requirements were established in the Miranda Case?

  The defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. The court added in the Miranda case that the defendant may waive this effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.

• Why did the Court in Miranda see the warnings of such importance?

  To safeguard the fifth amendment. The text in this amendment is very unclear. Though the court did not add much to the explanation of the fifth amendment, it simply returned to its decision in Bram v US. 

• Why are the warnings against self incrimination not that effective as thought?

  1. Suspects do not always understand the implication of the warnings or the concept of waiver.

  2.Suspects do not realize that their oral testimony could be used as evidence in court.

  3. Suspects waived their right simply because they erroneously concluded that keeping silent would not be well perceived and would ultimately damage their chances in court.  

• In later cases the Court has limited the applicability of Miranda warnings, explain.

  - Statements taken in violation of the Miranda warnings can nevertheless be used by the prosecution to undermine the credibility of the defendant, if this testimony at the trial differs from his previous statements. 

  
  

  - The Court also allows police to use leads acquired from an interrogation of the Miranda warnings

  
  

  - If real evidence obtained by a violation of the Miranda requirements would have been discovered anyway, it may be used as evidence.