English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Experience with the Eighteenth Amendment should have taught us that government works best when the behaviors prescribed or prohibited by law approximate those which are widely approved or disapproved in actual practice. At least, the legal prescription of behavior cannot depart too far from general practice and acceptance without the rise of unintended reactions and unexpected problems. This is particularly the situation with respect to use of third degree practices by the police. The term "third degree" refers essentially to those practices designed to influence suspects and witnesses to make "true" statements about some violation of law. In the nature of things, the "true" statement will be the truth as the enforcement officer can see and use it. Law enforcement agents tend to indulge in the assumption that the obtaining of a "confession" under circumstances permitting it to pass muster in criminal trial courts is a valid exercise of discretion. The line bounding this sphere of official discretion, as drawn by constitutional and statutory prescriptions, is not entirely precise; and its detail is being continually modified by the courts in cases brought before them. But beyond the indefinite range of practice legally recognized as valid discretion is a further range of practices even more indefinite. It is common knowledge that the police often go considerably beyond the law in attempting to secure "confessions." Police officers will tell you that such practice is necessary to secure results. Clearly they have some basis for their contention. One may suspect, too, that private citizens approve some of these extra-legal practices. Doubtless also, those suspected of violation of law expect to encounter some extra-legal practice and even deem the experience, within reason, to be fair enough. However, there are times when extra-legal practice goes to extremes; and occasional cases arise where severity of practice produces results which are more intolerable than the original offense. The actual law gives inadequate guidance, for its formal ap-

Approval and Disapproval of Specific Third Degree Practices