3 years ago
What protection does the Constitution provide against self-incrimination?
Can you intelligently allow yourself to be self-incriminated?
Do forced or deceptful confession produce systematic abuse?
Should evidence be more important than confession in a trial?
When should you ask for a lawyer?
Do forced or deceptful confession produce systematic abuse?
Should evidence be more important than confession in a trial?
When should you ask for a lawyer?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
The Fifth Amendment provides that you cannot be forced to provide evidence against yourself (caps added):
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
However, this does not mean that the police cannot trick you into incriminating yourself. They are allowed to lie to you. For example, they can tell you that there is a witness next door who is saying right now that she saw you commit that crime, even if no such witness exists.
Anything you say can be used against you. That doesn't just mean things you say about the crime, it means ANYTHING. If the police ask you where you were last night, and you honestly say you were in New York City, there could be a witness who honestly believes he saw you in Boston committing a crime. Right there, you have incriminated yourself. An unbiased and (presumably) honest witness is saying that he saw you committing a crime in Boston, and you just told the cops you were in NYC. So the police believe that you are lying to them already, and it's going to look very bad for you if it goes before a jury.
So when do you ask for a lawyer? RIGHT AWAY.
This page has a GREAT video about this exact thing. It's a long couple of videos, but definitely worth watching. It's a law professor and a police officer both agreeing that anything you say can and will be used against you.
http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
However, this does not mean that the police cannot trick you into incriminating yourself. They are allowed to lie to you. For example, they can tell you that there is a witness next door who is saying right now that she saw you commit that crime, even if no such witness exists.
Anything you say can be used against you. That doesn't just mean things you say about the crime, it means ANYTHING. If the police ask you where you were last night, and you honestly say you were in New York City, there could be a witness who honestly believes he saw you in Boston committing a crime. Right there, you have incriminated yourself. An unbiased and (presumably) honest witness is saying that he saw you committing a crime in Boston, and you just told the cops you were in NYC. So the police believe that you are lying to them already, and it's going to look very bad for you if it goes before a jury.
So when do you ask for a lawyer? RIGHT AWAY.
This page has a GREAT video about this exact thing. It's a long couple of videos, but definitely worth watching. It's a law professor and a police officer both agreeing that anything you say can and will be used against you.
http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. However, it sounds like the prosecutors (and possibly the judge) should have made it crystal clear to the jury that the police are allowed to lie.
A confession is not enough evidence for a conviction. But obviously it carries a huge amount of weight. That's why I think it's important to videotape police interrogations. It can show the jury whether the confession was forced or coerced in some way.
The Sixth Amendment covers the other issues you brought up.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Do you have a right to face your accusor?
Do you have a right to cross examination?
Do you have a right to have a judge preside?
In one case, a juror was surprised that the jury rule for the defendant because they didn't believe the police were telling the truth. (Spano vs US)
The constitution seems to recognize the invalidity of a forced or false confession when determine guilt or innocence and relies on rules of evidence, a judge, and jury. Justice should be impartial, let the evidence stand by itself.