Question

While the original purpose of the privilege against self-incrimination was to allow criminal defendants to remain silent during their actual trial, now the concern is primarily with the possibility of coercing a confession. Why is that a concern?

A. Involuntary confessions are inadmissible.
B. The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination.
C. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to remain silent.
D. Confessions are never admissible in court.

Answer 1

The concern with coercing a confession relates to the inadmissibility of involuntary confessions, which violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination as evidenced by the Miranda v. Arizona case.

Step-by-step explanation:

The concern about coercing a confession is that involuntary confessions are inadmissible in court. This concern relates to the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that authorities must inform suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, to ensure that any confessions are given voluntarily.

The police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination does indeed violate the Fifth Amendment. Such practices can result in involuntary confessions, which are inherently unreliable and can be the product of pressure or intimidation, thus undermining the justice system's goal of fair trials and due process.