Supreme Court casts doubts on confessions

[2Design]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-confessions7-2009apr07,0,6190447.story

Justices set aside a man's robbery confession that came after prolonged questioning. A 1968 law says the statement can be used if it was made within six hours after arrest.
By David G. Savage
April 7, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to permit prolonged, secret questioning of crime suspects, ruling that even voluntary confessions may not be used in a federal court if the defendant was held more than six hours before confessing.

Justice David H. Souter pointed to the surprising number of persons who have been shown to be innocent through DNA evidence but had confessed to a crime.

Police questioning "isolates and pressures the individual," he said, "and there is mounting empirical evidence that these pressures can induce a frighteningly high percentage of people to confess to crimes they never committed."

The 5-4 decision upheld a federal rule dating back to the 1940s that says crime suspects should be brought before a magistrate as soon as possible.

*****************************

Not just a problem at gitmo - this is a problem elsewhere

[pleah]

1. K&R

[sinkingfeeling]

2. But yet repeated torturing of a suspect is allowed? And any confession obtained as a result, is

so valid it's worth the torture?

[BeFree]

3. 5-4

That is scary. 4 Justices against justice. 4 human beings who are entrusted to save individuals from the power of the state weigh again against the people and for the state!

It's a wonder we have any rights left with such a small margin of real justices.

[Festivito]

4. No person ,, shall be compelled to be a witness against himself,

Talk about compelled!

No person ,, shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,