Criminal justice class ( Police deception during interrogation)

History In the past, there were no common laws that limited the use of deceptive interrogation techniques. However, in the 18th and 19th century, there was an increase in judicial concern over the use of abusive means in obtaining confessions from suspects as evidence in court. In the year 1783, a court in England made the first ever decision to exclude a confession obtained through torture. In the 19th century, an American court followed in the footsteps of the English. Soon, the use of a confession obtained through physical or psychological torture was not allowed (Magid, 2000). Police deception was first discussed in the Supreme Court in the year 1959. The court realized that some false confessions were obtained as a result of fatigue, official pressure, and aroused sympathy resulting from police deception during interrogation (Leo, 2008). In 1966, the court insisted on the application of the 5th amendment’s protection from compulsory self-incrimination during interrogation by the police. The introduction of Miranda rights further complicated the applicability of deception during interrogation. Despite these rulings, there is no law prohibiting the use of deception during interrogation. Ethical Concern Deception techniques used in police interrogations vary widely. … seriousness of the implications of the crime, threats, promises about less jail sentence in the case of collaboration, and claims of the existence of a valid witness (Leo, 2008). All of these forms of deception are considered to be legal. According to Magid (2000), there arebfour assumptions made when using deception in police interrogations. The first is the assumption of guilt. Police officers work with the assumption that the suspect is guilty until proven otherwise. Secondly, the officer assumes that the suspect is dangerously guilty. The officer should be ready for danger and know that the one who has much to hide will be the hardest to get information from. Police officers deal frequently with the worst of people, situations, and places and must handle them in a context of assuming they are dangerous. In this ‘great guilty place’ the police officer understands that people have committed many crimes for which they were not arrested, obligating the police officer to feel guilty. There are various reasons for which testimonial deception might be undertaken during suspect interrogations. Some of them are signs of corruption, such as the criminal conduct of the investigator to cover up for their investigative incompetence. It can also be motivated by the wish to make sure that those who are either morally or factually guilty face justice. Police officers only have the task to deal with factual guilt and not legal culpability (Leo, 2008). This way the final say on the eligibility of evidence collected during interrogation lies with the jury. When the systems work correctly, it means criminals get what they deserve, society gets protection from probable lairs and predators and thus liberty is secured. There are various reasons for which testimonial deception might