Beyond Torture: The Nemo Tenetur Principle in Borderline Cases
Luis E. Chiesa
Abstract
Open-access reader
Luis E. Chiesa
Abstract
Open-access reader
The Latin phrase nemo tenetur seipsum accusare means roughly “no man has to accuse himself.” It is the basis of our rights against self incrimination and forced inculpation. It protects against three practical problems associated with confessions: (1) untrustworthy confessions; (2) involuntary confessions; and (3) confessions provoked through unacceptable force. This article argues that the Nemo tenetur principle was intended primarily to avoid the third problem: confessions obtained through improper methods. It examines the arguments for and against justifying the principle as a protection against either untrustworthy or involuntary confessions. The article also develops a framework to aid in the identification of improper methods of interrogation. Finally, it concludes by applying this framework to three hypothetical cases and arguing that only confessions obtained through unacceptable force should be barred.
OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The Latin phrase nemo tenetur seipsum accusare means roughly “no man has to accuse himself.” It is the basis of our rights against self incrimination and forced inculpation. It protects against three practical problems associated with confessions: (1) untrustworthy confessions; (2) involuntary confessions; and (3) confessions provoked through unacceptable force. This article argues that the Nemo tenetur principle was intended primarily to avoid the third problem: confessions obtained through improper methods. It examines the arguments for and against justifying the principle as a protection against either untrustworthy or involuntary confessions. The article also develops a framework to aid in the identification of improper methods of interrogation. Finally, it concludes by applying this framework to three hypothetical cases and arguing that only confessions obtained through unacceptable force should be barred.
Key concepts: Confession (law), Suspect, Interrogation, Voluntariness, Torture, Law, Falsity, Psychology