When a suspect is not a threat or could not do any harm to the police officer and other people, the harm caused by failure of his arrest does not justify the use of deadly force. However, if the suspect showed any signs that he might be threat to the officer especially when he has a weapon, the use of deadly force may be allowed only if necessary to avoid the suspect from getting away. If possible, warning may be given. The Fleeing felon rule (Garner) is a rule about fleeing felons which points to the running suspect as a felon who might cause danger or is a threat.
If this happens, police officers should not think twice if the fleeing person is a felon. If the use of deadly force is inevitable, the officer must justify the use of it (“Criminal Procedure 1”, 2000). B. Institutional Limits There are a lot of institutions that are very particular with the use of force. Police departments and the FBI have a complete guide regarding the use of force. In fact, most departments provided the information about the level of force that can be used based on the level of the suspect’s violent behavior.
In the 1970s, police departments have been taught to have control regarding high-speed chases. They are only allowed to conduct hog-speed chases only if the suspect is involved in dangerous crimes. Although the FBI seems to have all the authority when it comes to the use of deadly force, there are also its limits. FBI rules compel forthcoming death or serious injury. They also have their limitations when it comes to crimes involving threat, serious physical injury or death.
Since many crimes, like stealing, have nothing to do with the threat of serious physical injury, this rule may be better than the felony rule. (“Criminal Procedure 1”, 2000) Miranda Doctrine The ideal world of Miranda desires people who wish to remain silent to do so and the people who wish to speak to do so. These people who chose to speak may opt to confess or prove themselves not guilty. The concept of Miranda presumes that police interview is naturally coercive. However, it is considered a violation to the 5th amendment if a confession is proven to be forced.
In order to prevent these violations, a prophylaxis is needed because it may or may not be proven that some of the confessions were, in fact, not forced at all (Meares, 2002). A. Miranda v. Arizona It is a requirement for procedural safeguards to make sure that custodial interrogation is not coercive regarding confession since it is mentioned above that interrogations are inherently coercive. Before interrogating, the suspect must be told that he has the right to remain silent. If the suspect happens to surrender, the information given can be used against him.
On the contrary, he has the right to call an attorney. The suspect may or may not claim the allegations but if he opt to remain silent or chose to defend himself to prove that they are not guilty, the interrogation must stop. These rights are also included in the 5th amendment. If the suspect happens to fail in consulting an attorney, the right to remain silent may not be insisted by the suspect. If the suspect succeeds in consulting a lawyer, the attorney must always be present everytime the suspect is being interrogated.
Some disadvantaged people, especially the poverty-stricken ones, have their lawyers appointed to them. In fact, they are provided with some of the finest lawyers available. On the contrary, it is not mandatory for police stations to have station house lawyers. There are some problems regarding these rights like White’s problem. “How can the Court ever accept his negative answer to the question of whether he wants to consult wants to consult his retained counsel or counsel who the court will appoint?
” If the interrogation is, by nature, compelling, won’t this answer be necessary? It may seem not really important but this is a serious problem. If there is enough proof fro waiver, lawyers in station houses must be compulsory. This is a more serious problem if there is in fact a high standard of proof for waiver – then “station house lawyers” are in fact required. However, following case laws suggests that the standard of proof for waiver is not that high enough to require station house lawyers (Meares, 2002). Conclusion
Criminal procedures are very crucial since lives of people are at stake. The use of deadly force during arrests might be justifiable but must not be used if possible to secure the safety of both parties. Also, proper measures during arrests and interrogations must be observed so that the police can perform their functions correctly. Sometimes, these measures are not done properly that is why certain problems arise in criminal procedures. To avoid this, citizens must cooperate and the police must not overuse their authority and power.