In the case of Jake and Ginger, Officer Ross and his colleague fail to follow the correct protocol needed for an effective interrogation to occur. All accused persons deserve to know the full legal implications they may encounter in case of an arrest. However, how officers Ross and his colleague question Jake and Ginger indicated that they had a conflict of interest in the case. According to the law, all parties must be present in an interrogation to initiate a sense of impartiality. When Jake decides to know why the police officer had visited him, Officer Ross quickly deflects the question and says that a neighbor complained about a disturbance (Givens, 2016). Officer Ross was not coming out clear to Jake on why he was there. The dispatch call shows that Ginger complained of the beatings she was getting from Jake and wanted the officers to come and make an arrest. Also, there is deception in the interrogation between Jake and the officers to get a confession. When officer Ross lies to Jake on the reason for him coming over, Jake does not feel obliged to cooperate in the interrogation because the officers are not honest with him. Officer Ross shows biasness in the case by not allowing Jake to listen to what Ginger has to tell the other police officer. Jake thinks that the information given by Ginger is twisted and fabricated to suit her interests. Ginger may decide to give false confessions to the other officer that may incriminate Jake (Grisso, 2017). Over the past years, many convicted felons got acquitted by non-DNA or DNA evidence showing that false police confessions are the primary cause of wrongfully convicting innocent people. Ginger having a private conversation with the other officer, indicated a sideshow to incriminate Jake. The questioning and eventual arrest of Jake by officers Ross and his colleague were not constitutional because they did not abide by the 5 th amendment. According to the law, the police need to initially offer an arrest warrant for a suspected crime and issue the accused with an opportunity to explain themselves after a clear explanation of the Miranda rights. However, Jake's interrogation happens without an apparent reason for what transpired to warrant the arrest. The police fail to offer Jake a Miranda warning before questioning and arrest (Groenendijk , 2018). Jake feels deprived of his constitutional rights and therefore refuses to cooperate with the officers. Ginger may have given the police an exaggerated report of what happened, making Jake look like a complete criminal (Irving & Hilgendorf, 2016 ). When Jake demands to have his attorney present in the questioning, officer Ross quickly ends the interrogation knowing that Jake was aware of his rights as an arrested person. In conclusion, the last two detectives who take over Jake's case follow the law's due process by giving Jake a written form of his Miranda rights. The reason for the privileges is to protect citizens against the law enforcement from forcing or coercing them against questions that may result in incrimination (Johnston, 2017). The purpose of developing the Miranda rights was to protect the 5 th Amendment right against forceful incrimination and accord a lawyer with the 6 th amendment right. Therefore, Jake feels obliged to cooperate with the detectives instead of Officer Ross after clearly understanding his rights as an arrested person. According to the American constitution, all detained persons have the right to remain silent, and the officers should explain to them the consequences of what they say may get used in court. Also, the persons have the right to an attorney present during questioning, and if they cannot afford one, the state should offer them one (Moston et al., 2018). Jake understood all the rights and eventually decided to cooperate and give a full confession to the assault charges levelled against him.
References
Givens, R. A. (2016). Responding to Violence Through Order and Justice: Evolution of Rules Concerning Interrogation. NYLF , 14 , 780.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Grisso, T. (2017). Instruments for assessing understanding & appreciation of Miranda rights . Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.
Groenendijk, J. (2018). The logic of interrogation: Classical version. In Semantics and linguistic theory (Vol. 9, pp. 109-126).
Irving, B., & Hilgendorf, L. (2016). Police interrogation: A case study of current practice . HM Stationery Office.
Johnston, T. S. (2017). The Judges' Rules and Police Interrogation in America Today. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science , 85-92.
Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., & Williamson, T. M. (2018). The effects of case characteristics on suspect behavior during police questioning. The British Journal of Criminology , 32 (1), 23-40.
