Reference no: EM133495294

There are however, several techniques routinely practiced in suspect interviews that some might view as borderline "unreasonable" in regards to violating a suspect's inherent rights to self-incrimination. These would include:

Lying to a suspect to elicit a confession,

Telling the suspect that a co-defendant has already confessed or has implicated him/her in the crime,

Advising the suspect that you have evidence that you don't (DNA, Video),

Providing false results from a polygraph or CVSA exam,

Showing graphic crime scene photos to a suspect,

Conducting interviews that last 6 or more hours,

Threatening a stiffer sentence of incarceration if a confession isn't given,

Pretending to empathize with or befriending the suspect and stating that you understand and agree with why they committed the crime and can understand, maybe even agree with their reasoning. which of the above techniques, if any, do you feel are unethical or "cross the line" when it comes to potentially violating an individual's constitutional rights? Do the courts have it wrong here on any one of the techniques in your opinion? If so, why? Should it, or does it matter who the person is or the crime they are suspected of committing? What if the person is a career criminal? What if the victim of the crime was a young child who was brutally raped and murdered? What if there is little or no physical evidence or witnesses and your entire investigation is dependent on a suspect confession?