Essay Sample on Free Confessions in Court: Admissibility & Due Process

Introduction

The free and voluntary confessions would be admissible in the court of law as sources of evidence-based on the fact that the confessions were mot out of intimidation or coercion. For purposes of ascertaining the validity of the free or voluntary confessions by the witnesses or the accused parties, every jurisdiction has the due process that ought to be undertaken or followed with respect to these confessions made ("Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self Incrimination", 2019). The entire aspect of criminal justice primarily relies on confessions made by the defendants in determining whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. The process of criminal justice, therefore, requires the input of the investigating authorities which have the mandate of uncovering all the necessary evidence and presenting the evidence before the court of law for prosecution.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Concerning the US criminal procedures of interrogating suspects, the process has long been faulted based on how they conduct investigations and interrogations. In this regard, the aspect of involuntary confessions has been evident thus violating the constitution which requires that the confessions must be free and voluntary. Coercive interrogations have thus been part of the criminal justice based on the fact that the suspects do not have a chance of explaining how the interrogations procedures are undertaken and the force or intimidation the police officer usually impose on the defendants ("Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self Incrimination", 2019). Under the due process clause, the investigating authorities are required to fairly let the defendants make free and voluntary confessions which are usually instrumental in determining a particular case in the court of law.

The admissibility of particular confessions that would be used in court as some sought of evidence will primarily depend on whether the due process clause is followed to the latter or not. The comparable aspect in this regard is the voluntariness in the confessions made. However, if there is any form of intimidation or self-incrimination as far as the criminal and justice system is concerned, the confessions would be rendered null and void ("Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self Incrimination", 2019). This is because they lack trustworthiness, an aspect that is integral tabling credible evidence before the court of law.

Exclusion of Confessions From Criminal Trials

Confessions would only be adopted in the court of law only if the due process clause was adhered to before it is deemed to be valid or not. Therefore, the confessions would be excluded as part of the evidence upon the realization that the due process clause was not observed and that the defendants might have been subject to coercion or intimidation. The statutory provisions require that for a confession to be held as a piece of valid evidence before the court of law, then then the constitutional or statutory provisions must not be violated. This hence means that the confessions would be excluded from the criminal trials upon violation of the statutory provisions (Turner, 2019). The US constitution contains key provisions that are instrumental in safeguarding people's rights with respect to criminal processes. The exclusion of evidence or confessions would be determined by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the US constitution.

Fourth Amendment

The 4th Amendment sought to protect people from any form of unreasonable searches or seizures. Consequently, the amendment also seeks to regulate the conditions under which warrants would be issued. The search warrants must hence be approved by a neutral magistrate based on the probable cause of the desired investigation. The court perceives that the searching of houses or non-public arrest of people are termed as unreasonable unless the search warrant is followed to the latter. In this regard, the reasonableness of every situation is tested to ascertain whether the provision is strictly followed ("Fourth Amendment." 2019). This provision ensures that the searching of people's property or anything related to criminal justice must be strictly be accompanied by a valid search warrant.

Fifth Amendment

The 5th Amendment is strictly against any form of self- incrimination. This provision, in a nutshell, means that there is no person or individual who is compelled or coerced to become a witness against herself or himself with respect to criminal law. Therefore, this amendment requires that no particular individual would be deprived of his or her life, property or liberty without following the due legal process. In conjunction with this statutory requirement, the 14th amendment was enforced to ensure that every defendant is subject to fair trial and determination of a case based on valid confessions that would be made by the latter. The 14th amendment, therefore, requires that there is no individual who is persuaded, intimidated or compelled to give confessions that would be used before the court of law in determining a case ("Fourth Amendment." 2019). The due process clause is thus the key aspect in the provision of the US constitution and must be adhered to by all means.

Sixth Amendment

The 6th Amendment provision is entirely focused on preventing particular pieces of evidence that were collected or obtained via the violation of any of the defendant's rights. Wherever the 4th, 5th or 14th Amendment have been violated, then the 6th Amendment would be used in airing out all the aspects of criminal justice and determine whether particular pieces of evidence should undergo exclusion or not (Turner, 2019). In situations where violation of defendants' rights is evident, the 6th Amendment takes effect in enforcing certain exclusions.

Penalties Imposed on Civil Servants

With respect to the US constitution, every individual is subject to the country's law in totality and thus every person has an obligation of upholding the rule of law regardless of the position some has in the society. Similarly, the civil servants who violate the rights of other individuals must be persecuted in accordance with the law based on the ground that every person in the US is subject to the rule of law at all times. Some of the penalties that would be imposed on civil servants who violate the rights of the defendants concerning the 4th Amendment would include, facing court trials, termination of work and jail sentence.

The civil servants would be subjected to court trials based on the nature of violations they are linked to concerning the 4th Amendment provision of the US constitution. The court would want to establish the reason behind the civil servants' violation of the defendants' rights through which the court would determine any case facing the public (Turner, 2019). The public servants would as well be subjected to jail sentence based on whether they are guilty or not. Upon the persecution of these individuals, they would be subject to losing their jobs once convicted. Therefore, these civil servants have the mandate of ensuring they uphold the constitution and protect the rights of all the people in the US.

Motives Behind Pressures Exerted on Defendants

The government agents would exert pressure on the defendants based on various reasons which would be confined in the shell of vested interests. There are quite some reasons that would be associated with the existence of continuous pressure on the defendants by the government agents who are assigned the role of running all necessary investigations. Some of these reasons include the desire for promotion based on successful prosecutions a government official would have competed, desire for bribery, fear of the unknown especially where government agents are directly involved in a case and vengeance.

Often performance appraisal of the government officials is based on the successful prosecutions that one has been able to accomplish relative to the evidence tabled before the court of law and equally defending the evidence to the latter. Such individuals who are determined to getting promotions would do anything to get the evidence that he or she dearly needs for purposes of personal gains in one's profession. Some of these agents would do anything possible regardless of whether they are violating the rights of the suspects or not (Turner, 2019). Such civil servants would use tricks, intimidation, deceit or coercion to get any possible piece of evidence that they would comfortably use before the court against the defendants. This thus leads to confessions that would not be admissible before the court of law once this reality is established.

In situations where a police officer or government official for that matter would be attached to a particular case, the investigating team would be bribed to ensure that the defendant pleads guilty by all means, thus protecting the interests of government agents involved in a case. In this regard, the suspect is taken through an interrogation process that is full of deceit, intimidation, and coercion (Turner, 2019). Sometimes, though not very common, some government officials often subject the defendants to torture in the name of fetching evidence but in the real sense it totals up to vengeance.

References

Confessions: Police Interrogation, Due Process, and Self Incrimination. (2019). Retrieved 28 July 2019, from https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/09-confessions.html

Turner J.I. (2019) Regulating Interrogations and Excluding Confessions in the United States: Balancing Individual Rights and the Search for the Truth. In: Gless S., Richter T. (eds) Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial?. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 74. Springer, Cham

Fourth Amendment. (2019). Retrieved 28 July 2019, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment