Do you agree or disagree with this persons opinion? Yes or No? Why or Why not? Please use the course text books as a reference
Title: The American Criminal Justice System, 16th Edition Author: Cole, Smith, & Dejong
Publisher: Cengage
ISBN: 9781337558907
Title: Effective Communication in Criminal Justice
Author: Grubb & Hemby Publisher: SAGE ISBN: 9781506392134
In the textbook I certainly learned more
about Legal Limitations to the Exclusionary
Rule and everything in between which I
thought I understood and did not. I want to
focus on the Miranda Warning and then
discuss some approaches used to obtain a
confession. When an arrest is imminent, and
the subject is not in custody it is not required
to orally provide the Miranda Warning. Upon
coming on the scene of an incident the
Officers have every right to ask a potential
person(s) of interest information regarding
the incident.
Use of the stop and frisk case is based
on a reasonable suspicion which incorporates
several factors such as current criminal
activity, bad conduct or when a person lives
above their means (drugs) and the Officer
talks to the potential suspect who stammers,
has poor eye contact and is sweating during
the conversation. If the suspect volunteers
incriminating information, then the
information may be used in a court of law. We
use this approach in the military when coming
upon the scene of a potential crime and prior
to Article 15 or an Article 32 proceeding. The
investigating officer may interview several
personnel to gather facts and usually soldiers
are supportive and openly discuss the Who,
What, Where, Why and When (5Ws). The goal
is to let the potential suspects openly discuss
the situation and if the Officer has a
reasonable suspicion of guilt, then it is critical
to administer the Miranda Warning.
Additionally, even after the Miranda rights are
administered, the soldier(s) may keep talking
which jeopardizes their cases at either a Field
Grade Article 15 or a Courts Martial preceding.
As a Company Commander many years
ago, I had a situation that required a health
and welfare inspection in the barracks due to
information related to a soldier distributing
drugs. In the conduct of the health and
welfare inspection a large stash of marijuana
was discovered in one of the barracks rooms.
The investigators brought in several subjects
from the barracks that were not in the room
where the marijuana was discovered. It was
determined by asking basic questions the
identity of the potential criminal subjects
without having to use the Miranda warning.
Soldiers are willing to talk and may even want
to proof their innocence or ingratiate
themselves to the leadership. These measures
do work and have been effective tools in
reducing criminal activity within the military. In
the civilian sector the same results can occur if
the Officers are skilled at interrogation techniques and establish a positive rapport
with the potential suspect. First time
offenders may waive their Miranda rights
because the individual wants to show
innocence and may inadvertently make
incriminating comments. Additionally, sex, age
and criminal background play a significant
role in getting potential suspects to freely
discuss circumstances before the rights are
administered. Studies have demonstrated that
Detectives or Officers who have excellent
people skills and show empathy with the
suspects have a greater Miranda waiver rate
in soliciting confessions (Kassin, 2004).
Bottom Line: Having excellent people skills
and interrogation skills are effectives tool in
getting confessions from suspects who waive
their Miranda Warning or discuss details even
after the Miranda Warning is administered.
On the flip side, Detectives and Police Officers
need to be cognizant of the state of mind of a
suspect (high stress) and if they are capable to
waive their Miranda Warning based on age,
maturity, and previous criminal record
