Police Interrogation Cases

Police interrogation of criminal suspects by the police must be conducted in compliance with certain legal requirements. One penalty for noncompliance is the rejection of a confession as evidence at trial.

The long standing requirement that a confession must be a voluntary one before it may be used as evidence in a criminal case is based upon the principle of protection of the innocent. There can be no valid objection, therefore, from anyone, to the continued existence of the requirement of voluntariness. The clearest example of an interrogation practice that will void a confession is the infliction of physical force or pain upon the person under interrogation. This is also true as regards indirect physical harm; for instance, an unduly prolonged interrogation or the deprivation of food, water, or access to toilet facilities for an unreasonable period of time. Similarly, an interrogator’s promise to a suspect that if he confesses he will go free, or receive a lenient penalty, may also induce an innocent person to confess rather than risk being convicted and severely punished. In addition to the legality of employing trickery and deceit in the interrogation of criminal suspects, there is another issue that warrants …show more content…
Recognizing the psychological effectiveness of a threat to elicit confessions, some interrogators have used procedures which only imply threats. By doing so, they hope to protect themselves from allegations that they threatened the suspect, and yet hope to reap the same psychological gain as when using an actual threat. The trustworthiness of a subsequent confession must be questioned. Implied promises of leniency fall into the same category as implied threats, in that they could cause an innocent person to