Inadmissible confessions under s 76(2) of PACE is acquired through oppression or in a way likely to render the admission unrealistic and unreliable. Usually, inadmissible confessions occur when law enforcement agencies and prosecutors employ illegal mechanisms to obtain evidence or confession from a witness to victimize the defendants. If law enforcement agencies or prosecutors use this method, defendants can leverage the Miranda laws to know and understand their rights. The Miranda law allows the defendant to remain silent suppose law enforcement agencies or the prosecutor use illegal or improper ways to obtain evidence ( Yuan, 2018) . Therefore, the prosecutors should at all costs ensure that only legal techniques or mechanisms are utilized to obtain evidence against the defendants. In some instances, coercion is employed by law enforcement officers like police officers to obtain evidence resulting in self-incrimination confession. To enhance credibility, trust, and transparency in the judiciary systems, the prosecutors should discourage or refuse self-incrimination in any case present before the court to prevent the defendants from inadmissible claims. Usually, prosecutors present inadmissible confessions to victimize defendants without providing warning against self-incrimination. Hence, prosecutors should always present admissible confessions to enhance the judiciary system's credibility, transparency, and reliability.
Prosecutors should Exclude Unfair Evidence per Section 78 to encourage Admissible .
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was purposed to unify police powers under a single code of practice and balance the defendant's rights or individual police power. Based on the provision of this act, prosecutors should exclude or avoid acquiring evidence against the defendants through illegal mechanisms that undermine the defendant's human rights ( Yuan, 2018) . To achieve this, a confession should not be grounded on the incrimination section to favor or protect the defendant but should be based on facts about the case. Any evidence presented before a court of law should not favor either the defendants or the plaintiff. According to constitutional law, PACE 1984 s 76, the evidence presented by the prosecutor should not be biased or based on personal opinion to favor any party involved in the case. Doing so aid in enhancing the credibility, transparency, and reliability of court judgments because they will be grounded on the facts and nature of the case. Under such situations, inadmissible confessions will not apply.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Suppose prosecutors avoid using unfair means such as intimidating the defendants to obtain evidence; it will be possible to enhance credibility, transparency, and reliability of court cases because all confessions will be based on facts rather than intimidations or unfair means. To achieve this goal, defendants should always use the right to remain silent in courtrooms and refuse to answer judges they are accused of to prove that some pronouncement by the prosecution or law enforcement officers is false.
Despite constitutional law, PACE 1984 s 76 is encouraged to eliminate inadmissible confessions by the defendants; some prosecutors oppress defendants through various means to plead guilty ( Yuan, 2018) . Under such circumstances, confessions are termed inadmissible because they are obtained through illegal means to prove that the defendant is guilty. Suppose the prosecution chamber does not have enough evidence to confirm that the defendant is guilty ( Ngov, 2018) . In that case, he or she should be freed rather than using inadmissible confessions and non-constitutional methods to prosecute the defendant. Similarly, the PACE 1984 s 76 provision outlines the prosecutors should not undermine the plaintiff by providing confessions that prove that the defendants are not guilty of the accused offense.
Often Prosecutors Present Confessions without Warning against Self-Incrimination
Another factor that adversely influences the prosecution process is when prosecutors use some confession without warning against self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally through sharing information that does not relate to the case but is sensitive to prove that accused is guilty. Suppose prosecutors employ this mechanism, the defendant should term this inadmissible confession and remain silent about the issue. Under such circumstances, the Fifth Amendment will be applied to prevent the accused from answering any form of crime that does not relate to the current case based on inadmissible confessions by the prosecutors ( Ngov, 2018) .
Furthermore, the 384 U.S. 436 (1966) protects the defendant from testifying against any form of crime based on inadmissible confessions. Such cases are considered inadmissible confessions because they are grounded on self-incrimination with the ill intention of undermining the defendants. According to the 384 U.S. 436 (1966), all prosecutors' confessions must comply with the provision of the Miranda law about protecting human rights.
Additionally, the defendants should play a key role in rejecting inadmissible confessions during the prosecution process by denying any false confessions made by prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and the plaintiff ( Ngov, 2018) . Defendants should refuse such intimidations in courtrooms to promote transparency and credibility of court cases. The defendants can apply the right to remain silent to show that they disagree with the prosecutor's pronouncement about the issue.
Prosecutors should accept Confessions Made without Self-Incrimination as Entrapment .
According to constitutional law, PACE 1984 s 76, any confession made in a court of law should be free from self-incrimination. Therefore, prosecutors should always warn all parties engaging in a case against self-incrimination. Similarly, they should consider confessions that do not warn against self-incrimination as an entrapment because they may be based on intimidation, threats, coercion, and violence to achieve a specific goal ( Ngov, 2018) . When prosecutors warn all parties involved in a case against self-incrimination, it will be possible to promote transparency, reliability, and credibility of court cases because all confessions used to make a ruling will be based on facts and evidence.
Besides, considering false confessions an entrapment will guarantee justice in a court case because evidence used in court will directly correlate to court proceedings rather than assumptions, intimidations, or threats. It also ensures that the evidence collected during an arrest is used during the prosecution process. As a result, the former assures consistency because no alteration of evidence collected prior is permitted ( Ngov, 2018) . Therefore, the prosecutors should always remain firm and declare any alteration or attempts of changing initial confessions an entrapment. In doing so, prosecutors will gain public confidence about court proceedings. Similarly, it will promote justice in the prosecution process and guarantee all parties fairness hearing and judgments.
Conclusion
In summary, prosecutors should discourage or refuse the use of self-incrimination in any case present before the court to prevent the defendants from inadmissible claims. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was purposed to unify police powers under a single code of practice and balance the defendant's rights or individual police power. Prosecutors should exclude or avoid acquiring evidence through illegal mechanisms that undermine the defendant's human rights. Any evidence presented before a court of law should not favor either the defendants or the plaintiff. Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself by sharing information that does not relate to the case but is sensitive to prove that the accused is guilty. The Fifth Amendment protects the defendant from testifying against any form of crime based on inadmissible confessions. Prosecutors should always warn all parties engaging in a case against self-incrimination.
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.
