A contemporary axiom made popular in recent times is that benefits often accrue from creating a rapport with law enforcement officers and communicating with them in the event that they require information to aid in investigations. Nonetheless, Professor James Duane begs to differ. In his lecture at Virginia’s Regent Law School, the professor is emphatic in his belief that individuals should never talk to the police (Don’t Talk to the Police, 2012). His radical viewpoint is based on the premise that numerous risks present themselves by simply talking to a police officer. Professor Duane opines that providing police officers with any information during an interrogation setting can possibly lead one to provide a faulty account, officers misremembering the events previously related and resulting in false confessions. The precarious nature of his perspective stems from a high likelihood of police officers combining the sketchy information provided with a faulty eyewitness account. Innocent persons could, therefore, end up being convicted of a serious crime and subjected to maxim penalties for the purported offence. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is explicitly mentioned throughout the video as a legal calling card. This concept offers protection to individuals from being forced to provide incriminating evidence during a criminal proceeding (Brezina, 2011, p. 78). On the other hand, the Rule of Evidences (801 d 2 a) is also relevant in this case. Law enforcement officers have an obligation to use any information provided by suspects against them in court. Moreover, Professor Duane cautions viewers against talking to the police as it may ultimately lead to an unimpeachable witness. In such an instance, the witness will be viewed as credible and can, thus, give testimony before a tribunal.
Order Unique Answer Now