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 Arti
cle 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