Verified Document

Voluntary Statement And Corrections Research Paper

Custodial Interrogation vs. Voluntary Statements In legal and criminal justice terms, as well as in their application in everyday life, there is a considerable degree of distinction between a voluntary statement and custodial interrogation. Nonetheless, there are a number of key similarities between these terms. Both of these proceedings (the issuing of a statement and an interrogation while in custody) can incriminate. Moreover, it is also possible for what begins as an opportunity to issue a voluntary statement to end as an instance of custodial interrogation. One of the key differences between these proceedings is the liberty of the person issuing administration to either federal, state or local authorities.

A voluntary statement is made to the aforementioned authorities without an individual being compelled to make a statement. Frequently, voluntary statements are made at will on the part of the person making them. Individuals may choose to go to a police station and comment on a criminal investigation, a potential criminal investigation, or other areas of interest to law enforcement officials. Oftentimes there is a degree of spontaneity involved with the issuing of these statements. Individuals are not required to make such statements, and make them because they want to do so. Due to this aspect of voluntary statements, they are frequently not accompanied by the presence of a lawyer. Additionally, they are typically not made while an individual is under arrest. Subsequently, these statements do...

Parts of this document are hidden

View Full Document
svg-one

This sort of detainment can take place in formal settings such as police headquarters, in addition to informal settings such as in a police vehicle. One of the most notable indicators of a custodial interrogation is if one is under arrest. When one has been arrested, any statements that one makes to the authorities are part of a custodial interrogation. It is pivotal to realize that individuals can have the advisory of an attorney when they are subjected to custodial interrogation. Moreover, they should be read their Miranda rights prior to a custodial interrogation. Part of the Miranda rights informs individuals that they actually have the right to seek legal counsel prior to speaking with law enforcement officials -- and, thereby, partaking in a custodial interrogation. If individuals are not appraised of their Miranda rights, then the information they yield during a custodial interrogation (specifically the things they have said) can be considered inadmissible in a court of law (Duke Law Journal, 1978, p. 1497). In such instances, it is possible for individuals to go free.
The pivotal distinction between a custodial interrogation and a voluntary statement is the freedom allowed to the individual speaking with authorities. People must be…

Sources used in this document:
References

Duke Law Journal. (1978). Note: Custodial interrogation after Oregon v. Mathiason. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu / Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2689&context=dlj
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S.
Words: 723 Length: 2 Document Type: Term Paper

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements without the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination (Summary pp). The decision reads, "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer

Miranda V. Arizona Supreme Court Case 1966
Words: 1920 Length: 5 Document Type: Term Paper

Miranda Rights To most people, the case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is synonymous with the Miranda warnings given to accused criminals. People understand that Miranda means that a criminal defendant has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Although Miranda warnings do inform defendants of those rights, the Miranda decision is not what created those rights. In fact, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,

Miranda V. Arizona Case Brief
Words: 1924 Length: 6 Document Type: Term Paper

The Court also stated that if an individual indicates at any time that he wants to remain silent, the interrogation must stop; any statement taken after this time is the product of compulsion. Silence can never constitute a valid waiver. Dissent: Justice Clark's dissented in three of the decisions, but concurred in one. He found that police coercion was not sufficiently established to justify the extent of the majority's decision.

Brief This Case Miranda V. Arizona
Words: 1201 Length: 3 Document Type: Term Paper

Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966) This case was first brought in district court against Ernest Miranda after a rape investigation led authorities to question him. Under questioning, Miranda admitted to raping a young girl and signed a written confession. The case was heard in Phoenix district court and Miranda was adjudicated as guilty. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Miranda's appeal, finding him guilty once again. The U.S. Supreme Court

Miranda Vs. Arizona
Words: 1279 Length: 4 Document Type: Term Paper

Miranda Issues in Law Enforcement In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Ernesto Miranda, who had been arrested by Arizona police on suspicion of rape. The suspect confessed to the crime after two hours of questioning by police while in their custody, without ever having been advised of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination or his 6th Amendment right to legal representation before such questioning. Ever since the Miranda

Patriot Act and 911 Commission Exclusionary Rule and Miranda V. Arizona...
Words: 4312 Length: 9 Document Type: Term Paper

Corruption exists within all aspects of government, and has since early civilization. While many steps have been taken to prevent such corruption in other areas of the world, the United States has recently introduced legislation that has the potential to actually increase the amount of possible corruption, particularly in reference to police officers "enforcing" the law. This paper will discuss the U.S.A. Patriot Act and its follow-up legislation, the Domestic

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now