Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2005
Publication Title
Oklahoma Law Review
Abstract
Torture as a past and present tool of interrogation in Iraq threatens to undermine the country's struggle towards democracy. In confronting the substantial task of reforming interrogation practices and their public perception, Iraqis may draw valuable lessons from the United States' experience with the constitutional regulation of the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases. After reviewing the constitutional bases relied on by the U.S. Supreme Court to exclude confessions, this Article argues that writing Miranda-like rules into the Iraqi constitution would go far in alleviating the especially coercive environment of custodial interrogation in Iraq and restoring public confidence in the interrogation process. For example, adopting the core Miranda rights to silence and counsel as well as its requirements to warn would help shift control of the interrogation process from the state to the individual, and make Iraqis aware of their rights under the new regime. Furthermore, adapting Miranda's public safety exception and exclusionary reach to accommodate the security situation in Iraq would strike a viable balance between freedom from private violence and freedom from the state. Finally, excluding confessions obtained involuntarily or in violation of some more specific standard would help deter abusive practices that nonetheless may satisfy the adapted Miranda rules. Even if widespread compliance comes later rather than sooner, writing Miranda-like rules into the Iraqi constitution at least would supply, for more receptive times, an enduring legal framework for protecting the integrity and dignity of individuals under interrogation.
Volume
58
First Page
37
Recommended Citation
Joseph T. Thai, Constitutionally Excluded Confessions: Applying America's Lessons to a Democratic Iraq, 58 Okla. L. Rev. 37 (2005).