It's actually rather unfair to blame him, since cops didn't legally have to mirandize anyone prior to 1966- an average citizen would have no idea what to expect or how they should react under the circumstances, as they had virtually no guaranteed rights to protect. At that point in time he would have had no logical reason to expect a lawyer present, a phone call to anyone, including his wife, or even to be told what crime he was supposedly being arrested for prior to interrogation. As ludicrous as that seems today, this sort of thing was standard practice back then. As to why they would think an armed robber would show up a third time and offer up his personal information, the short answer is that A) the bank tellers, apart from being stupid, were too cowardly to really look him in the face before fingering him and B) the cops simply didn't care enough to sacrifice an easy conviction- he was conveniently lacking a provable alibi and they had no real incentive to put forth the effort of an actual manhunt.
reply
share
dannieboy20906
7 years ago
The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona did not guarantee any rights to the accused that were not already guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution at that time. The change that was forced by the decision was that the police were required to positively inform the accused of his rights and offer him the opportunity to engage legal representation prior to any questioning.
At the time the story takes place, as well as during the filming and when it was released, the accused was not required to make any statement to the police, was entitled to ask for and receive legal representation, and had a right to a 'phone call.'
As far as using subterfuge, psychology, and outright deception to elicit information up to and including a confession, the police still do that.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
reply
share