It should be noted that in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution we read: “"No person…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. During the interrogation of the detained person, a psychological coercive atmosphere is created that directly contradicts the fifth amendment …show more content…
False promises – more or less. In the 1960s the psychological constraints toward relationship with family and relatives, the tactics of interrogation of the suspect without break were used that were making them tired, deceived, and so on. All this was followed by decisions that were protecting the rights of suspects; in particular, the Supreme Court adopted the sixth Amendment in 1963, which implies ensuring attorneys for the suspects financially needed. In the following year in 1964, the court found that the suspect had the right to have an attorney during interrogation. And finally, in 1966, the Supreme Court made a formulation of the necessary warnings of the suspected and required this warning to be given to every person, who was "arrested or otherwise restricted in free action".
The suspects can refuse or abstain from using these rights but only when they consciously know about these rights. In that case, if the police or the interrogator did not give a proper warning about his rights, the Prosecutor's Office has no right to use such testimony against the