Two legal questions in contemporary law

Confessions and Interrogations

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, under its "due process" clause, protection from the use of involuntary confessions. A confession is considered to be involuntary if the confession was not obtained from a rational intellect and a free will. ("Confessions") In other words, a person must consciously know what they are confessing to as well as freely admit to it. This definition includes a prohibition on confessions that are physically coerced (such as torture), but also against psychological ploys that are deemed to be coercive. In fact, coercion by the police is the necessary factor in determining whether or not a confession is involuntary. This means that the circumstances of the confession are the main issue, and if they are found to be coercive, then the confession is not admissible. ("Confessions")

In a world where torture has become a common means of gaining information, especially in cases considered to be terrorism, police coercion is something that the innocent public must be protected against. There are too many cases of forced confessions being overturned years later and innocent people being set free after years of imprisonment. While it is important to convict the guilty, it is even more important to protect the innocent. If an innocent person is forced to confess to a crime they did not commit, then two crimes have taken place with no justice.

Part 2

The Miranda warning is a statement that the police must give a person which informs them of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination. (Salzburg 2009) In other words, a person has the right to remain silent. While it also maintains other rights, the right to an attorney for instance, for the sake of an argument involving the functional equivalent of an interrogation this is the important factor. Police interrogations, those conversation between suspects and police in which police intend to illicit a confession to a crime, are not allowed before informing a suspect of their Miranda rights. At the same time, the police are fully allowed to question a suspect if their intention is to simply gain information and not try to get a confession. (Salzburg 2009) If during their questioning a suspect happens to confess to a crime, without any intention on the part of the police to get that confession, then it is usually allowed. But if the police intend to use their questioning performed prior to Miranda warnings in order to illicit a confession from a suspect, then it is considered the functional equivalent of an interrogation.