Broad topic: Issues Related To The 4th Amendment
Narrowed topic: Inadmissible Confession (these involve confessions obtained without warning of self-incrimination).
Thesis statement: prosecutors usually present confessions that should be inadmissible. They often present confessions without warning of self-incrimination, and such should be rejected and never be used as evidence in court. Again, inadmissible confessions should not be used to persuade actors in the case; hence, they should be considered as entrapment due to the lack of warning of self-incrimination.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I. Introduction
Some law enforcement officers and prosecutors flout the constitutional law to obtain illegal confessions and evidence from witnesses and end up victimizing the defendants ( Yuan, 2018) . However, defendants can leverage the Miranda laws to understand their rights, and they can even decide to remain silent in case law enforcers and prosecutors try to obtain evidence improperly ( Ngov, 2018) . Coercing defendants to provide evidence through force or by assuring them monetary benefits is illegal as it can lead to self-incriminating confessions. Prosecutors should also identify self-incriminating statements and refuse to use them as evidence in the court of law. Refusing self-incriminating coercions as evidence can protect defendants from inadmissible claims (Article 5. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).
II. Subheading one
a. Prosecutors can exclude unfair evidence per section 78 of the court’s common law, detailing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
b. Nevertheless, a confession must not be based on incriminating parts to favor the defendant by presenting a biased opinion or subjective pieces of evidence per the constitutional law, PACE 1984 s 76.
c. However, some prosecutors oppress defendants to plead guilty by saying things that create circumstances that make the confession reliable. In such cases, the defendant should term the confession inadmissible because the prosecution lacks adequate proof that the confession was so obtained ( Yuan, 2018) .
III. Subheading two
a. some prosecutors present confessions without warning of self-incrimination. Defendants should consider such confessions inadmissible in compliance with the Fifth Amendment that protects individuals from being answerable to any form of crime, be it a capital offense or infamous crime.
b. The Fifth Amendment protects defendants from testifying if the testimony could be self-incriminatory and could eventually prevent the achievement of personal freedom per 384 U.S. 436 (1966); hence, law enforcers must comply with the Miranda rights ( Ngov, 2018) .
c. defendants must reject inadmissible confessions in courtrooms, and if possible, they can resort to the right to remain silent to protect themselves against self-incrimination.
IV. Subheading three
a. prosecutors should consider confessions made without warning of self-incrimination as entrapment, especially if the confession was extracted through threats, violence, or exertion of improper influence.
b. considering the confessions as entrapment will guarantee justice throughout the criminal justice proceedings because every confession the defendant provides during arrest must be considered inadmissible evidence regardless of whether it was made voluntarily.
c. even if law enforcement officers deliberately delay arrests and arraignment, defendants must never evoke incriminating statements regardless of the pressure that comes with the coercion to avoid self-incriminating themselves.
Conclusion
The police and prosecutors must not obtain improper evidence from witnesses through force or enticement to fulfil their interests in inadmissible confessions. Their role should be to arrest suspects and educate defendants on their Miranda laws to help them comprehend their rights, including the right to remain silent. Coercing defendants to provide evidence through force is illegal since it can lead to self-incriminating confessions. Prosecutors should identify self-incriminating statements and refuse to use them as evidence in the court of law. Refusing self-incriminating coercions as evidence can protect defendants from inadmissible claims.
References
Article 5. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (1961, June 19).
Ngov, E. L. (2018). Police Ignorance and Mistake of Law Under the Fourth Amendment. Stan. JCR & CL , 14 , 165.
Yuan, S. (2018). Three Essential Factors in the Effective Implementation of Exclusionary Rules: From the Perspective of Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence in the Investigation Stage. Political Science and Law , 04.
