The Pros And Cons Of Self-Incrimination

883 Words4 Pages
The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been. The Miranda warning was established to fully complete the legal promise of self-incrimination already guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in the Bill of Rights and previous precedents. Despite rights against self- incrimination previously being guaranteed through previous precedents and laws, these rights weren’t always upheld until the Miranda warning. Colonies often had conflicting laws relating to the self-incrimination clauses (Document A). The Massachusetts Body of Liberties only allowed confessions to be obtained through torture if the person had already been convicted through clear evidence of said crime. If an individual was subjected to torture to coerce them to confess, then they were more likely to confess to avoid said torture. In comparison to the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, the laws of

    More about The Pros And Cons Of Self-Incrimination

      Open Document