Final answer:
The act of interrogating suspects without informing them of their Fifth Amendment rights, including the protection against self-incrimination and right to counsel, is a significant legal handicap. This violation of rights, exemplified by not reading Miranda rights, can have severe consequences for the admissibility of evidence and is considered unconstitutional. Instances of such practices raise concerns about the economics of discrimination and equity in the justice system.
Step-by-step explanation:
When interrogating a suspect, various factors can handicap the interrogator, but if the context of the question pertains to legal procedures, a major handicap would be lacking knowledge of a suspect's rights as protected by the Fifth Amendment. This amendment ensures protection against self-incrimination and guarantees the right to legal counsel. Particularly, the Miranda rights must be read to the suspect to inform them that they have the right to remain silent, anything they say can be used against them in court, they may consult an attorney, and if they cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided. Failure to advise a suspect of these rights can render any obtained confession inadmissible in court and significantly weaken the prosecution's case. The predicament presented raises issues concerning racial profiling and the potential violation of the Fifth Amendment through interrogation without counsel.
Moreover, the scenario portrayed echoes elements of the Prisoner's Dilemma, a fundamental concept in game theory, where suspects must weigh the decision to 'cooperate' with each other by remaining silent, or 'defect' by informing on one another. Not informing suspects of their rights further complicates this dilemma. Additionally, real-life applications have shown that practices such as these can lead to significant disparities in legal outcomes for marginalized groups, raising concerns about the economics of discrimination within the justice system.