Lawrence S. Wrightsman and Mary L. Pitman
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199730902
- eISBN:
- 9780199776986
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730902.001.0001
- Subject:
- Psychology, Forensic Psychology
In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law-enforcement officers were required to inform criminal defendants about their rights to remain silent or have an attorney present during their interrogation. ...
More
In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law-enforcement officers were required to inform criminal defendants about their rights to remain silent or have an attorney present during their interrogation. In the 40 years since the inception of the “Miranda rule,” its anticipated effect has not been realized. The purposes of this book are to examine the reasons why the goal of the authors of the Miranda ruling has not been met and to identify procedures that move the criminal justice system closer to this goal. Separate chapters deal with four causes: the limitations and compromises in the original decision, the problems in comprehension of the Miranda warnings by various vulnerable populations (adolescents, non-English speakers, the deaf, and the mentally-challenged), the decisions subsequent to the 1966 decision that have eroded its breadth and application, and the efforts by police to avoid the curtailments from the ruling. The final chapter examines possible remedies such as requiring the presence of an attorney when the rights are given and videotaping the entire interrogation.Less
In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law-enforcement officers were required to inform criminal defendants about their rights to remain silent or have an attorney present during their interrogation. In the 40 years since the inception of the “Miranda rule,” its anticipated effect has not been realized. The purposes of this book are to examine the reasons why the goal of the authors of the Miranda ruling has not been met and to identify procedures that move the criminal justice system closer to this goal. Separate chapters deal with four causes: the limitations and compromises in the original decision, the problems in comprehension of the Miranda warnings by various vulnerable populations (adolescents, non-English speakers, the deaf, and the mentally-challenged), the decisions subsequent to the 1966 decision that have eroded its breadth and application, and the efforts by police to avoid the curtailments from the ruling. The final chapter examines possible remedies such as requiring the presence of an attorney when the rights are given and videotaping the entire interrogation.
Tim Bakken
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- October 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780198723301
- eISBN:
- 9780191789700
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723301.003.0020
- Subject:
- Law, Criminal Law and Criminology, Legal Profession and Ethics
To counteract the danger of conviction on grounds of a complainant’s/witness’s false, or honest, but mistaken, testimony, adversarial systems might adopt a plea of ‘innocent’, whereby accused persons ...
More
To counteract the danger of conviction on grounds of a complainant’s/witness’s false, or honest, but mistaken, testimony, adversarial systems might adopt a plea of ‘innocent’, whereby accused persons could compel more rigorous investigations. The presumably innocent accused would consent to be interviewed to ensure that he or she is asserting such a claim in good faith. Through ‘innocence procedures’, the accused could compel investigators to delve more deeply into the accounts of witnesses whose testimony is the predominant (or only) basis for conviction. Instead of focusing on whether prosecutors can prove guilt at trial to a certain standard, the investigation stage would deploy inquisitorial procedures and have truth as its purpose. Few innocent people would be convicted if investigators were to possess all of the facts. In effect, innocence procedures would require prosecutors to obtain more facts before convicting an innocent person on the basis of one witness’s testimony.Less
To counteract the danger of conviction on grounds of a complainant’s/witness’s false, or honest, but mistaken, testimony, adversarial systems might adopt a plea of ‘innocent’, whereby accused persons could compel more rigorous investigations. The presumably innocent accused would consent to be interviewed to ensure that he or she is asserting such a claim in good faith. Through ‘innocence procedures’, the accused could compel investigators to delve more deeply into the accounts of witnesses whose testimony is the predominant (or only) basis for conviction. Instead of focusing on whether prosecutors can prove guilt at trial to a certain standard, the investigation stage would deploy inquisitorial procedures and have truth as its purpose. Few innocent people would be convicted if investigators were to possess all of the facts. In effect, innocence procedures would require prosecutors to obtain more facts before convicting an innocent person on the basis of one witness’s testimony.
