This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Ma, Y. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Comparative View of the Law of Interrogation

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York

Forty years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court fashioned the Miranda procedure to safeguard the rights of suspects subject to police interrogation, the procedure and its exclusionary remedy were considered an American novelty. Few countries then required the police to issue preinterrogation warnings, and it was rare for courts to exclude confessions on the grounds of procedural violations. The past forty years have seen significant changes in the criminal justice landscape on the world scene. Today, the concept of preinterrogation warnings is widely accepted, and failure to issue the required warnings in many countries constitutes a ground for exclusion. This article explores the development in the law of interrogation in England, Canada, France, Germany, Russia, and China. The American Miranda procedure is used as a reference point to highlight the similarities and differences between American and other countries' practices.

Key Words: police interrogation • preinterrogation warnings • England • Canada • France • Germany • Russia • China • United States

International Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 5-26 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1057567706298912


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?