Investigative Custody
This is an excerpt from the paper...
This research outlines and then compares and contrasts the differing approaches of the American, English and French legal systems to the investigative custody or pre-trial detention of ordinary criminal suspects (those who are not aliens, spies, terrorists, juveniles or mental incompetents). For historical and constitutional reasons, stricter limits are placed on the ability of the authorities to hold suspects in custody in England and the United States than is true in France. The English system relies primarily on voluntary self-restraint by the police, operating within established judicial case law and, more recently, statutory codification of the rules regarding pre-trial detention. The American system relies primarily on federal and state procedural statutes, all subject to a written Bill of Rights and court decisions safeguarding the rights of the criminally accused. The French operate under a Code of Penal Procedure which affords the authorities, prosecution and police, especially when they act pursuant to the mandates of a juge d'instruction (JI) or investigating magistrate, broad latitude to detain for extended periods suspects in serious cases. In practice, the differences among the three systems are less striking and less protective of the rights of criminal defendants than they are in theory. 1. Historical and Constitutional Framework Codes of Criminal Procedure. Decisions to hold suspects in custody are governed directly by codes of criminal procedure, i
. . .
ning of Persons by Police Officers, was issued which provides: "if the custody officer authorises a person's detention, he is required to inform him of the grounds as soon as practicable and in any case before he is questioned about any offence." An elaborate system was established under which a police constable appointed a custody officer, who must keep a written record of questioning. What then follows are 'gentlemanly interviews' of the suspect, who, while he has the right to have counsel present, may talk all he wants. In R. v. Samuel [1988] 2 WLR 920, a Court of Appeal reversed a conviction based on a confession by the accused where he was denied access to a solicitor for 36 hours. Juss says later cases have watered the Samuel doctrine down, making it unclear whether denial of access to counsel during questioning has any practical effect.
The difficulty with this 'honor system' is that no sanctions are provided for violations of the law regarding questioning of suspects. Traditionally, confessions, before they were admissible or could be used as the sole basis for a conviction, had to be voluntary, which was a question of fact to be determined by the Court. However, the American exclusionary rule under which involuntary o
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Dadano Farron, English American, CPP Arts, Fellman English, Court PACE, Trial Act, England United, Bill Rights, McKeon French, supreme court, criminal procedure, pre-trial detention, provisional detention, criminal defendants, bill rights, 18 usc, english criminal, english courts, criminal justice, rights criminal defendants, codes criminal procedure, 1975 420 103, criminal procedure england, pugh 1975 420,
Approximate Word count = 5765
Approximate Pages = 23 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Investigative Custody
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
