Self-Incrimination Document A From Miranda V. Arizona

DBQ
Name:
History:
Instructor:
Date:
Miranda V. Arizona
self-incrimination document A from Miranda V. Arizona, it is unlawful for the legal force to employ torture in order to lure the victim into a confession. Lawfully, by trial, the accused should first be convicted. If they are found guilty, they are then liable to be ‘tortured.' The torture, however, should be humane.
Connectcut law according to document B differs from Massachusetts body of liberal provision in that, it burns torture completely. The latter allows torture is some circumstances but only done in a humane way. Cotton Mather, according to document C, urges the judge, that for a witch to confess, they must be confused. The confusion here will be caused by torture. In other words, the judge must torture the witch to draw a confession from them. Document D highlights the warning by Patrick Henry against the Congress power as brought in the proposed federal constitution. In his warning, he says that the power granted to the Congress will be used as an excuse to employ torture methods to the accused without good intentions. He also perceives torture as not only a method of information extraction but also for additional punishment. This is where the fear of being punished comes in.
According to document E, criminal charges are highlighted in the fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution. This is for instance if for the case of Earnest Miranda, if he was caught by someone for kidnapping and raping someone, then it happens that the police are summoned, and they respond, he should be stated for Miranda Rights before taking any other action. This is because anything that the suspect will be said will be used against them in the court of law.
The court according to document G defines compelling influences as an environment whose interrogation purposes to subject the suspect to the examiner’s will forcefully. What this means is that the accused loses the power to the examiner as they fully control them. The court says that it is not even about physical intimidation but can be equated to human dignity destruction. The contradiction seen by white in Document H is that any information given by the accused without the lawyer is viewed as ‘tainted.' But there are times when the accused asks not to have a lawyer. He wonders what should be done in this case.
Harlan, as given by document I, perceives Miranda's logic as a derivative of the sixth amendment. This was, however, a part of the consideration of the court thus making the decision of the majority flawed. To him, his thoughts told him that there was no coercion and this leaves him wondering why people wanted Miranda. Enacting the warnings from document J, the requirement that the police read the Miranda Warnings to the suspect is a definite fulfillment of the two amendments; the fifth and the sixth. The content of document K shows that the cartoon's views are that a person is responsible for their confession and they should expect it being used against them.
<...