The Pros And Cons Of Interrogation

Courts have determined that police are allotted broad discretion as to the techniques and tactics they are allowed to engage in when interrogating a suspect, with the exception of threats of violence and promises of leniency. However, an increasingly prevalent problem arises that the courts have yet to respond to by consensus, and that is the problem of when non-public details that become a part of a suspect’s confession originate from the interrogating detectives and not the suspect themselves. The current system fails to apply important developments in the management of errors and quality control that results in miscarriages of justice.

Wrongful convictions remains one of the most serious miscarriages of justice, violating the most fundamental

There exists a generally accepted presumption that humans lie. Yet, in the context of criminal interrogations practices have demonstrated humans can lie when they deny culpability; however, when they admit guilt it is inherently truthful. Because of this: (1) Trial judges tend to presume that defendants who have confessed, are guilty and rarely suppress confessions; (2) Jurors are also unduly prejudiced against defendants by confessions; and (3) there is a presumption of truthfulness unless they were elicited through physical coercion or given by a defendant who is mentally ill.

This does not present an issue unless certain miscarriages of justice arise, one being false confessions. The problems that arise out of false confessions usually do not become an issue until the confession is entered into evidence at trial, with the exception of plea bargains. But it is reflected in the substantial case law surrounding false confessions that little can be done during trial, outside of suppression, without prior checks. The question remains how a confession becomes