Mark describes how the process of police interrogation works, from the perspective of an experienced criminal defence lawyer. He points out what an inherently fragile method this can be if there is no video recording of these proceedings, disadvantaging both the police and the those being interviewed.
He also discuses the significance of the Miranda warning - part of which pertains to the right to silence. This right should be given verbally to suspects in custody or during a custodial interrogation by the police. Often, police may continue a monologue at the point when the suspect exercises this right, hoping that the interviewee will come back into the interrogation with self-incriminating statements. You may well not be aware of the fact that if you engage further with your interrogators at this point you may incriminating yourself further.
You may also need to be aware that there are few rules that constrain the police in their verbal tactics. They may lie, or they talk about having evidence they don’t have. They will be proceeding from an assumption of guilt, and a confession will mean that they have succeeded. The process of ‘breaking down’ the suspect over time - repetition of the amount of evidence against the person, the horrors of prison, how sad it is that the suspect will be separated from their loved ones etc. It has been proven that sometimes even innocent people will confess to end this pressure.
Mark questions the legitimacy of a process that proceeds from an assumption of guilt, and he makes the point that many people have been caught up in a system in which they have inadvertently implicated themselves.
He acknowledges that many of those in that end in the ‘box’ are guilty - but he cautions that if you end up being interrogated, be very aware of how easy it is, even if you are innocent, to end up in court on on a guilty plea.