2006•bepress Legal RepositoryRequires access

Detention for the Purpose of Interrogation as Modern "Torture"

Rinat Kitai‐Sangero

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

Although the Court in Miranda stated that custodial interrogation is designed to undermine the will of the interogee, it has not prohibited the admission of confession given under such circumstances. It rather assumed that it is possible to dispel the pressures of a custodial interrogation by means of proper safeguards. The article claims that there is no plausible way to dispel the coercive atmosphere engendered by a custodial interrogation. Custody today constitutes a refined version of torture used in the past in order to extract confessions. Consequently, the confession of a suspect under circumstances of custodial interrogation is involuntary and should not be admitted at trial. Treating a custodial confession in this manner is justified by the two main rationales underlying the requirement of voluntariness: 1) ensuring the reliability of the confession, and 2) protecting the right of the suspect to reach an autonomous decision.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Although the Court in Miranda stated that custodial interrogation is designed to undermine the will of the interogee, it has not prohibited the admission of confession given under such circumstances. It rather assumed that it is possible to dispel the pressures of a custodial interrogation by means of proper safeguards. The article claims that there is no plausible way to dispel the coercive atmosphere engendered by a custodial interrogation. Custody today constitutes a refined version of torture used in the past in order to extract confessions. Consequently, the confession of a suspect under circumstances of custodial interrogation is involuntary and should not be admitted at trial. Treating a custodial confession in this manner is justified by the two main rationales underlying the requirement of voluntariness: 1) ensuring the reliability of the confession, and 2) protecting the right of the suspect to reach an autonomous decision.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Although the Court in Miranda stated that custodial interrogation is designed to undermine the will of the interogee, it has not prohibited the admission of confession given under such circumstances. It rather assumed that it is possible to dispel the pressures of a custodial interrogation by means of proper safeguards. The article claims that there is no plausible way to dispel the coercive atmosphere engendered by a custodial interrogation. Custody today constitutes a refined version of torture used in the past in order to extract confessions. Consequently, the confession of a suspect under circumstances of custodial interrogation is involuntary and should not be admitted at trial. Treating a custodial confession in this manner is justified by the two main rationales underlying the requirement of voluntariness: 1) ensuring the reliability of the confession, and 2) protecting the right of the suspect to reach an autonomous decision.

Key concepts: Interrogation, Confession (law), Voluntariness, Torture, Suspect, Psychology, Law, Criminology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Detention for the Purpose of Interrogation as Modern "Torture" — Research Paper | ScholarLens