Compare and contrast voluntary and involuntary confessions.
500w
In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that the police must inform suspects, before interrogation, of certain constitutional rights. These rights have become popularly known as the Miranda rights. Under the Constitution, specifically the Fifth Amendment, persons accused of a crime, or held in suspicion of a crime, must be informed of their right to remain silent, their right to be represented by counsel, and must be told that any statements they make can and will be used against them as evidence.
Compare and contrast voluntary and involuntary confessions. How did the court apply these concepts to the Miranda decision? Provide and example of when a person is and is not in custody. Is there a difference between an interview and an interrogation? If a person waives his or her Miranda rights, how long is the waiver valid? Can a person change his or her mind? Can the police keep trying to get a suspect to talk until he or she agrees to do so without a lawyer? Should there be any exceptions to the rule that a person is to be informed of their rights? Discuss.
Answer preview to compare and contrast voluntary and involuntary confessions.
APA
