Research Paper on:
Interrogation Rooms and the Mandatory Presence of Cameras

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
anything to shake a confession out of the suspect, and the other, mellow officer tries to protect and "help" the suspect. And then there is the reality of brutal police  activity such as Rodney King, and other incidents, that demonstrate police officers will go to great lengths in order to elicit a confession or let go of their own pent  up rage. And while that is troublesome, it does seem that all too often coercive interrogation tactics are used by police officers. The problem is nothing new. That is why  there is Miranda. Now, a suspect must be informed of his or her rights upon arrest. Yet, whether or not those rights are waved are sometimes questionable. Does the mere  utterance of the term "lawyer" mean that a suspect wants a lawyer, or does the interrogation continue even before the suspect is given a telephone? While Miranda protects citizens somewhat,  coercive interrogation techniques appear to be prevalent. A student writing on this subject has in fact recommended that the only way to fight such tactics is to amend the Constitution.  A student writing on this subject proposes an amendment to expand both the 5th and 14th amendments, that would make it mandatory for video and audio recorders to  be in the interrogation rooms. This would aid in preventing excessive coercive practices that are often used by law enforcement officers. The fifth amendment states that a person shall  not be compelled to be a witness against himself and it is that provision that formed the basis of the Supreme Courts decision in Miranda v. Arizona (Petrowski, 2001). More  recently, Dickerson v. United States expanded the definition of the impact of Miranda in respect to interrogations (2001). The Dickerson decision elevated warning requirements in