Suspects protection from self-incrimination
Regarding scenario one, the Fifth Amendment was violated by officers Polanski and Evans. First, the police did not offer Bruce the suspect, with the Miranda warnings. Secondly, the criminal was subjected to double jeopardy. The act of the police commenting on how devastated they are due to the murder of the four-year-old girl was the first prosecution the criminal received. Besides, the criminal emotionally suffered since he wept and confessed to killing the girl. Likewise, in the second scenario, the Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Karen did not receive the Miranda warnings.[U1] The questioning took place before the criminal receiving information on the same, and she had the right to remain silent or even ask for an attorney. In regards to the third scenario, no violation occurred since the suspect Walter knew his Miranda warning and also decided to stay silent for four hours. His confessions were valid to be used since he understood his rights and wished to confess.
A remedy to such violation is the implementation of the right to protection against self-incrimination. Self-incrimination is whereby a suspect blames[U2] or confess to doing a specific crime. The court should protect suspects from self-incrimination by doing further investigation to come up with concrete evidence.
An example of a case conducted in Texas court is that of Genovevo Salinas of 1992. Salinas was a murder suspect during the investigation conducted by the police of Texas. During the investigation, Salinas cooperated with the police through answering their entire question. However, when he was asked if the casing found in the scene of a murder would match his shotgun in his house, he went silent. Due to his silence, he was charged, tried, and convicted of death based on the evidence of his silence. Unfortunately, the court violated the Fifth Amendment policy about the right to protection against self-incrimination.