LogFAQs > #889720128

Sorry to double post, but because this is interesting to me, I think the important thing to consider first and foremost is why that right exists.

The heart of the reason for the right to a lawyer being present existing is so there's in theory a witness to the on-goings of the interrogation, to make sure the police aren't overstepping their bounds, abusing the witness, trying to extort a false confession, clearly misrepresenting what was said, tricking the guy into saying something that wasn't true, etc etc.

So the first thing you should consider when thinking "well, the suspect deserved a right to a lawyer being present" is "was there any suspicion the police did anything outright shady during the interrogation process?" Now me, personally, I don't find it shady to not actively sabotage your own interrogation by explicitly telling the suspect what to say.

And if there's no suspicion or reason to believe any of that stuff was taking place, and a confession occurs, then literally the only reason you'd want to argue vehemently for that rule is to protect criminals. Like, you realize that, right? You should have absolutely have some sort of something resembling a reason to suspect a false confession before assuming a confession is false. Given the information we have on this case and how the interrogation went, there's a world of difference between this one and the one in Ashethan's post.

I mean, if you start to accumulate even a suspicion that maybe something untoward went on there, then yeah, you do it, but as far as I know that wasn't even brought up. The entire case was centered on whether the guy's confession could be thrown out , not that the officers did anything out of line in the interrogation to cause the guy to falsely confess. So in this particular situation, the law itself is practically a loophole for criminals to use.
---

No problem!
This is a cute and pop genocide of love!