We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
PROTECTING PRISONERS DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS: THE ROAD FORWARD AFTER HOWES v. FIELDS.
- Authors
PARILO, MICHELLE
- Abstract
In 1966, in Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court sought to mitigate the inherently coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogations to protect victims from involuntary self-incrimination. In analyzing custody for Miranda purposes, courts look at whether a reasonable person would feel that his freedom of movement had been restricted. When conducting this analysis for a prisoner questioned during incarceration, courts should thoroughly consider the negative psychological effects of prisons in order to understand the prisoner's mindset. The Court had the opportunity to do so in Howes v. Fields, but it instead minimized the coercive effects of prisons. Moreover, the Court's finding that the prisoner in Howes was not in Miranda custody is inconsistent with its past holdings. This Note argues that, in the future, courts should consider with greater nuance the negative effects of prisons in order to protect prisoners from making involuntary confessions.
- Subjects
UNITED States; MIRANDA v. Arizona; HOWES v. Fields (Supreme Court case); POLICE questioning; SELF-incrimination; FREEDOM of movement; CIVIL rights; CONSTITUTIONAL law
- Publication
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice, 2013, Vol 33, Issue 1, p217
- ISSN
2165-5235
- Publication type
Article