Four young boys are missing. The police believe they have been murdered and have apprehended a suspect. They read him his "Miranda Rights" and he says he will not talk to them without his attorney being present. Instead of driving the suspect directly to the jail the detectives drive around the city. They talk at length to each other about how cold and wet it is, and about how sad it is that these boys should be left out in the snowy weather right before Christmas. They also talk about how sad it is that the families don't know what happened to their children. The suspect breaks down in tears and leads the detectives to a shallow grave where the boys are buried. May this evidence ethically and constitutionally be used against the suspect in his murder trial?

Here is my introduction I started (for the protection of the suspect): In regard to topic area three, prompt "B" of the Political Science 352 debate topic, we find it both unconstitutional and unethical that the evidence be used against the suspect. Topic area three, prompt "B" explains a case where a suspect of a kidnapping of four boys is caught by the police. After being read his Miranda Right, driven around and told the sad details of the crime, the suspect begins to cry, and tells the officers where the boys are buried. Although the suspect may have led the officers to the location where the boys were buried, this event cannot be used in trial.

Many people are confused about how our justice system works. There are certain pathways that law enforcement must go through to convict criminals justly. If law enforcement do not use the correct means and channels, they cannot use certain pieces of evidence or cannot reasonably prove someone is guilty.In addition to this, criminals are protected by our constitution among many things. This is done for a few reasons, one of which being to make sure that suspects are not treated as criminals until they are proven to be a criminal, and another being to make sure that certain human rights are guaranteed, even through incarceration. For example, criminals without the resources required to hire an attorney will have one provided for them, guaranteeing as fair a trial as possible. Between the strict rules that law enforcement must follow and the many forms of defense that suspects have, there are many strict guidelines that must be followed in order to convict someone in a constitutional manner. Once again, the strictness of these rules is a way of providing life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness to those who may or may not have committed a crime, regardless of their status. This is something our nation claims with pride. "Innocent until proven guilty." Something we find comforting, that our nation is just, and our rights cannot be stolen or limited without cause.

In this case, the suspect was taken advantage of and many details appeal to the evidence not being able to be used, at least for this case to be held in a constitutionally abiding fashion. Firstly, we are told that the suspect was read his Miranda Rights, but it was never mentioned whether or not he agreed to them. The Miranda Rights were initially created to avoid self-incrimination. If the Miranda Rights are not read by law enforcement, or officially waived by the suspect, any questioning is to be inadmissible in court, as stated by the Miranda Rights. In addition to this, there is psychological issue at play. When presented with the Miranda Rights, it is required that the suspect both understands them and is in an intelligible state when waiving them. So, even if the suspect waived his Miranda Rights, it is unclear as to whether or not the suspect understood them, as the shock of being apprehended may have taken over. In addition to this, the Miranda Rights are not to be waived if police pressure is applied. Agreement to these rights must be fully authentic and independent. It is clear that the officers were trying to manipulate the suspect, as they drove around discussing how sad the crime is, so why is it out of line to say that they did not also coerce him into waiving his Miranda Rights before hand? It would only make sense that they would make sure that the evidence was valid before getting information out of him, so it is likely that they manipulated him into waiving his Miranda Rights if he was not going to do so. In conclusion, it is unconstitutional to use evidence gained through violation of the rights of an individual, even if they are a criminal. So, if there was even a small amount of police coercion in waiving the rights, or a slight psychological discrepancy within the suspect, there is a case against using the evidence gained on that car ride.

Find more biblical (ethical) passages from scripture that supports and back up my introduction. Here are some examples: Scripture Proverbs 18:17 - "The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him." > This suggests that the importance of ensuring fairness in legal proceedings, including the right to legal representation during interrogation.

Proverbs 24:28-29: "Do not testify against your neighbor without cause would you use your lips to mislead? Do not say, 'I'll do to them as they have done to me; I'll pay them back for what they did.'"

Proverbs 28:17: "Anyone tormented by the guilt of murder will seek refuge in the grave; let no one hold them back."

Give me more relevant scripture passages and their explanations towards the topic. If able, put it in paragraphs (text form) and connect it to the introduction, please. Thank you!