Research Paper on:
Practices of Interrogation and Police Officers

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
defendant, the success of which would often ensure a conviction. Well into the 1960s, strong-armed police interrogation tactics were commonplace. They included extreme physical and emotional intimidation and  more often than not the use of force in the form of beatings. As Jerome H. Skolnick, law professor at Berkeleys University of California and the author of Justice  Without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic society, and Richard A. Leo, a graduate of the Berkeleys University of California Law School and a widely published police interrogation researcher, observed  in their 1992 article, "The Ethics of Deceptive Interrogation," which was first published in the procedural journal, Criminal Justice Ethics, "It was not so long ago that American police routinely  used physical violence to extract admissions from criminal suspects" (p. 3). Skolnick and Leo (1992) point out in their chronicle of the how interrogation process has evolved that until  the 1930s, the judicial system often turned a blind eye to aggressive interrogations, that is until the 1936 case of Brown v. Mississippi, in which "three black defendants were repeatedly  whipped and pummeled until they confessed" (p. 36). However, the law enforcement landscape was forever altered with the 1966 landmark Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona, which imposed carefully  define limits on how far police interrogations could go. According to Miranda, police must immediately inform a suspect of his rights (such to remain silent or request legal counsel)  and that if he "voluntarily" and "knowingly" waives them, police questioning can commence (Skolnick and Leo, 1992, p. 3). However, have these so-called Miranda rights actually given the suspects  the upper hand in controlling the interrogation process? There has been increasing speculation as to whether or not strong-armed tactics should be resumed to tip the scale of justice