...so #4 will not be valid.

because officers should not be able to lie to suspects. The decision was a work around Miranda, and it should stop.

and then you lie to saith suspect about evidence you really do not have, and get that suspect, out of fear, or ignorance, to give you a false confession. This is especially the case with people who come from low income levels.

It is not me saying this by the way.

Conservatives are starting to talk of this as a problem

http://www.davekopel.org/CJ/OpEds/Miranda.htm

But also liberals

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2000031700

And then there is this lovely exception that has been entered to Miranda by a SCOTUS decision

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-emergency-exception-the-miranda-rule.html

By the by, the ACLU oppose this with good reason, imho.

and they don't ask for a lawyer before continuing the interrogation, they've screwed themselves. That's on them, not the police.

Lying to a suspect doesn't force that suspect to talk, they do that all on their own.

Lying to somebody to elicit a confession is not a spontaneous statement and might be called tainted evidence, and a good lawyer will keep that out of court.

have you ever talked to people who have been arrested and the kinds of pressures cops put on them? Becuase I have, and this is not Criminal intent, or CSI. Cops need to be rained in. There is quite a bit of misconduct going on.

didn't have to confess. If they choose to confess after being read their rights, I'm not feeling too sorry for them.

this is not quite officer friendly here.

The only way for a suspect to talk "all on their own" is for the interrogator to not ask questions, not make any suggestions or give out any information, truthful or not to the suspect. In other words..it doesn't happen. Just because a suspect for whatever reason talks to the police without legal representation...that doesn't mean any tactic short of physical intimidation or contact is OK.

and refuse to answer? No amount of lying can force someone to confess.

with all due respect.

just agree to disagree on this issue.

a few years back we had a cop who told us a story of a textbook spontaneous statement, Their suspect was so proud of the hidden compartment where the stash of drugs were, that he told them where it was, and how to open it and then dared the officers to find it. That was purely spontaneous and not too bright. Oh the officers were not looking for the stash... in fact they had no idea.

Now if they had told the suspect they found it (never mind they did not) and wanted the suspect to show them how to open it up... that be different.

Some suspects ain't too bright. But that does not give the cops license to bully, threaten and lie. Oh wait, it should not, and the SCOTUS screwed the pooch with that decision. Most of us would be facing perjury charges for some of the stunts cops pull

See how that'd work?

from a suspect by lying about non-existent evidence that tied the person to a crime. Most of these suspects have a mental disability or a low IQ.

There should also be a limit on the length of time a suspect could be interviewed at a stretch like an interrogation that goes on for 6 hrs or more where a suspect is lied to repeatedly and repetitiously told they are guilty just to wear them down.... Then telling a suspect things like "just sign this confession and we'll let you go home".. that starts to sound attractive whether your guilty or not.

... Anyone who signs a confession for an act they didn't commit deserves what they get.

NO INNOCENT PERSON deserves to be convicted regardless if they are mentally handicapped or not...

False Confessions or Admissions
http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction/false-confessions-or-admissions

Actual children and not teens...

or severely depressed and meds are withheld, or the police interrogate someone for 10 straight hrs and promise them nothing will happen or they can go home if they confess... you're ok with that?

What if you're innocent but the police sound so convincing that they have evidence to convict you that you confess to a lesser crime to avoid a harsh punishment. It happens.

The False Confession of Damon Thibodeaux

http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction/false-confessions-or-admissions

If someone says 20 percent? What will happen? If someone says 60 percent what will happen. It actually is hard enough getting convictions in the CSI watching population where juries expect a miracle from the prosecutor to convict.

It will prevent a witness from saying they "think" that a person is the perpetrator then coming back 6 mos later on the stand and saying a person is "absolutely" the perpetrator. Happens all the time. The witnesses first impression should carry the most weight..not what they believe 6 mos or a year later.

it would cut it down.

Problem is now that even in egregious cases of police misconduct, they skate.

No way on 3 & 4

now. In fact it is considered quite unreliable.