Miranda
Warnings: Should They Stay or Should They go
Leslie
K. Penny
Module
5 Research Assignment 3
Chancellor
University
Miranda
Warnings: Should They Stay or Should They go
Miranda
warnings have been around for longer than I have been on this Earth. The question of should Miranda be overturned
or not is rather controversial with many reasons for and against. Miranda was put into place upon the case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 (Kanovitz, 2010). The foundation of this case started with Mallory v. Hogan (1964) which pertained
to the right "against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings and
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) which
allowed consultation with an attorney about the privilege against
self-incrimination" (Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege Against
Self-Incrimination, 2003).
First off, what is Miranda? According to the article " Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege Against
Self-Incrimination", "Miranda is a 'bright line' rule (beyond which
nobody should cross) intended to forever extinguish the use of COERCIONS but
allowing PRESSURE". The article
goes on to point out that Miranda's purpose is to neutralize "the distinct
psychological disadvantage that suspects are under when dealing with
police". Before Miranda came into
action, confessions only had to meet the requirement of the voluntariness test,
"a requirement that all confessions must be voluntary, an exercise of free
will on the part of a suspect" which "was usually met if the
suspect's physical, mental, and emotional condition was stable at the time of
making a confession" (Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege
Against Self-Incrimination, 2003).
The landmark case that began the
debate over Miranda was Dickerson v. U.S.
(2000) which was in support of suspect rights advisement (Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege Against
Self-Incrimination, 2003). This article produced a sufficient list of
pros and cons for this debate that were pulled from various briefs, opinions,
and dissents in Dickerson. According to Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege
Against Self-Incrimination", reasons given by petitioner's for letting the
Miranda law stand include:
·
Principles of stare decisis dictate that Miranda not be overruled. Over 33 years precedent have engrained
Miranda law as a bedrock principle of law and legal opinion.
·
Miranda warnings have been
proven to be "workable" in practice.
Police officers do not find it difficult to administer because of its
easy and clarity of application. It has not
been shown to undermine law enforcement.
·
Public expectations
have been shaped favorably and reliantly by the popularization of Miranda.
It promotes a perception of fairness, integrity, and respect for the
Constitution and criminal justice system.
·
The various exceptions
to Miranda's exclusionary rule have
not "eroded" Miranda, but
instead have been remarkably consistent and true to the core holdings of
law. In other words, Miranda has shepherded a number of
"good" laws and doctrinal developments in its wake.
·
The factual premisses
under which Miranda was founded still
exist. Although police brutality and coercion
have lessened, it cannot be said that psychological coercion no longer
exists. Police interrogation procedures
are still inherently menacing.
·
Miranda is sound in
principle and consistent with the text of the Fifth Amendment which it flows
logically from, and closely matches.
Although the historical record is sparse, Miranda can be seen as the natural outgrowth of over a hundred
years of Fifth Amendment guarantees.
·
Miranda should not be
overturned because it is cost-effective in terms of good and evil. There are undeniable instances in which it
imposes costs on the truth-seeking function of trial, but overall, it has made
law enforcement more efficient and good.
·
Miranda's core procedures
are workable, and police find little difficulty in its administration. What problems exist occur in extensions as
the Edward context. ATF has long adopted the practice of
requiring Miranda even in non-custodial settings because of its ease and
clarity.
·
A return to a
totality-of-circumstances voluntariness test is unlikely to be more workable
than Miranda. If Miranda
warnings are not required, the results will be uncertainty for the police and
an additional volume of litigation on the totality standard.
·
Overturning Miranda would upset settled public
opinion by overruling a well-known and widely applied law that has had a stabilizing
effect on public confidence and reliability in the criminal justice system.
·
Arguments that Miranda's "prophylactic"
requirements sweep more broadly than the Fifth Amendment requires are
unfounded. Miranda is a procedural safeguard, not an attempt to mold police
conduct for its own sake. There are
other contexts in which the Court has recognized prophylactic rules to
safeguard constitutional rights.
·
Although it is
debatable if the coercive environment of police interrogation is the same today
as thirty years ago, there is still a need for Miranda because of the risk that pressure may undermine an
individual's will to resist.
Technological substitutes, such as videotaping, are promising but as of
yet offer no assurances on as large a scale as Miranda warnings.
That is a lot of pros to mull
over. Those that argue Miranda law
should not be overturned have valid reasons to support their standing. But what about those that argue against
Miranda law? They have provided some
strong support in their stance such as the Cassell Breif and the Scalia Dissent
against Miranda law (Miranda
Law: A Guide to the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 2003):
·
The benefits of Miranda are preserved virtually intact
by Section 3501, which is more constitutionally valid law as opposed to Miranda's draconian remedy. The automatic
character of Miranda's exclusionary
rule is excessive while Section 3501's remedy thwarts involuntary confessions
more in keeping with the text of the Fifth Amendment.
·
Miranda created a new,
non-constitutional right and prophylactic rule that sweeps more broadly than
the Constitution. No one ever sketched a
consistent theory explaining Miranda's
constitutional basis in the Fifth Amendment.
By comparison, the search and seizure exclusionary rule is based on
actual violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Miranda's exclusionary rule is based on technical violations of
judge-made law.
·
The Court overstepped
its authority in handing down Miranda. It is best seen as an exercise of the Court's
power to craft safeguards in the absence of legislative action. It leaves nothing for Congress to do, and
embellishes the judicial branch for all time as law-giver.
·
Widespread application
of Miranda warnings by the states
does not make Miranda law constitutional or law of the land. A rule that has changed in many respects
through various expectations is not the strongest candidate for common law
doctrine.
·
Miranda has harmed and
"straight jacketed" law enforcement. DEA, as opposites to ATF, holds
many more custodial interrogations, and they report problems. The government's position even seems to imply
unspoken problems in enforcement, or only if the Edwards
context were clarified.
Miranda is extraconstitutional
because it requires police to affirmatively
assist the suspect in making a shrewder decision about whether to talk.
·
Other remedies, such as
civil liablity, exist to safeguard suspect advisement rights. 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 also protect
deprivation of rights under color of law.
A number of state ethics rules forbid contact with suspects represented
by counsel. Internal investigations of
police agencies themselves are more advanced than thirty years ago.
·
The Court should at
least overturn Miranda's irrebuttable
presumption that confessions obtained without technical compliance to Miranda procedures are inherently
involuntary. Such a presumption is just
not congruent with the facts of most confessions, and is out of proportion to
the vast majority of cases. Per se rules
should not be applied when there are important exceptional contexts.
·
Upholding Miranda law
plays little role in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice
system. Much more important is the
search for the truth. Public confidence
cannot possible be enhanced by a rule that conceals truth.
·
The Court did not just
apply the Constitution when it handed down Miranda,
it expanded the Constitution,
imposing an immense and antidemocratic prophylactic rule upon Congress and the
states. It was an example of raw,
judicial power that simply asserted a
constitutional right.
·
Preventing foolish
people from incriminating themselves is the only purpose of Miranda, and that is a far cry from what
the Fifth Amendment requires in terms of protecting someone from being
compelled to incriminate themselves. Nor
is a lawyer required because the interrogators can do the same as any lawyer can--tell
the suspect they have a right to be silent.
The Constitution is not offended by a criminal's commendable qualm of
conscience or fortunate fit of stupidity.
·
There is not support
for a Miranda right in history, precedent, or common
sense. In fact, later cases, such as the
60 or so that the Court has heard in the 34 years since Miranda have easily undermined its doctrinal underpinnings and
pointed out that its application and enforcement is problematic.
·
It is not clear why the
totality-of-circumstances test is more difficult for law enforcement to
administer than Miranda. As Justice O'Connor has pointed out many
times, voluntariness is not without its strengths by permitting each fact to be
taken into account without resort to formal and dispositive labels. Voluntariness is indeed the more
constitutional standard.
·
Miranda should not be
preserved simply because it occupies a special place in the public
consciousness. There is little harm in
admitting that we made a mistake in taking away from people their ability to
decide for themselves. By overturning Miranda, we reaffirm for the people the
wonderful reality that they govern themselves, as stated in the Tenth
Amendment.
After really diving into the reasons
to overturn Miranda, I am more inclined to agree. What jumped at me the most was the staement
that Miranda is only good for preventing foolish people from incriminating
themselves. That is hard for me to
disagree with. And what do I care if a
moron criminal incriminates himself. Yay
for the good guys, duh for the bad guys.
But it is also hard to forget all the instances I have read about where,
say a teenager was coerced into confessing due to fear and intimidation of the
police. I am honestly on the fence in
this debate. A part of me thinks it is
an easy out for criminals when the police make a mistake or the perp blurts out
a confession before the officer can get a Miranda warning read. But then, on the other hand, you have
innocent people that would be hurting without Miranda.
To conclude, I do not like picking a
side in this debate because I feel it has just as many positives as it does
negatives. But as per requirement for
this essay, I will say I do not think it is a good idea to overturn
Miranda. I feel it is too ingrained in
our police society to revert back now. And
I believe the decsion for Miranda will come to a point where it will be altered
to compromise both sides of the debate. James
Hundley, Charles Dickerson's lawyer, said it well when he said "It's an
easy rule to follow, and when police do, they can rest fairly assured that they
will be able to use the confession" (Biskupic, 2013). In the end, many do not care about the the
rights of the individual being arrested , until they are the ones being
arrested. If that were to happen, they
would be more than happy to have their Miranda warnings in place. Hardened criminals love having Miranda to
fall back on to help better their situation.
Ironic.
Works Cited
Biskupic, J. (2013, April 06). Police put
Pressure on Justices to Overturn Miranda Decision. Retrieved April 07,
2013, from The Seatle Times:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000419&slug=4016284
Kanovitz, J. R.
(2010). Constitutional Law. Albany: Anderson Publishing.
Miranda Law: A
Guide to the Privilege Against Self-Incriminaation. (2003, June 25). Retrieved 04 07, 2013, from North
Carolina Wesleyan College: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect19.htm
Leslie
K. Penny
Module
5 Research Assignment 3
Chancellor
University
Miranda
Warnings: Should They Stay or Should They go
Miranda
warnings have been around for longer than I have been on this Earth. The question of should Miranda be overturned
or not is rather controversial with many reasons for and against. Miranda was put into place upon the case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 (Kanovitz, 2010). The foundation of this case started with Mallory v. Hogan (1964) which pertained
to the right "against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings and
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) which
allowed consultation with an attorney about the privilege against
self-incrimination" (Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege Against
Self-Incrimination, 2003).
First off, what is Miranda? According to the article " Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege Against
Self-Incrimination", "Miranda is a 'bright line' rule (beyond which
nobody should cross) intended to forever extinguish the use of COERCIONS but
allowing PRESSURE". The article
goes on to point out that Miranda's purpose is to neutralize "the distinct
psychological disadvantage that suspects are under when dealing with
police". Before Miranda came into
action, confessions only had to meet the requirement of the voluntariness test,
"a requirement that all confessions must be voluntary, an exercise of free
will on the part of a suspect" which "was usually met if the
suspect's physical, mental, and emotional condition was stable at the time of
making a confession" (Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege
Against Self-Incrimination, 2003).
The landmark case that began the
debate over Miranda was Dickerson v. U.S.
(2000) which was in support of suspect rights advisement (Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege Against
Self-Incrimination, 2003). This article produced a sufficient list of
pros and cons for this debate that were pulled from various briefs, opinions,
and dissents in Dickerson. According to Miranda Law: A Guide to the Privilege
Against Self-Incrimination", reasons given by petitioner's for letting the
Miranda law stand include:
·
Principles of stare decisis dictate that Miranda not be overruled. Over 33 years precedent have engrained
Miranda law as a bedrock principle of law and legal opinion.
·
Miranda warnings have been
proven to be "workable" in practice.
Police officers do not find it difficult to administer because of its
easy and clarity of application. It has not
been shown to undermine law enforcement.
·
Public expectations
have been shaped favorably and reliantly by the popularization of Miranda.
It promotes a perception of fairness, integrity, and respect for the
Constitution and criminal justice system.
·
The various exceptions
to Miranda's exclusionary rule have
not "eroded" Miranda, but
instead have been remarkably consistent and true to the core holdings of
law. In other words, Miranda has shepherded a number of
"good" laws and doctrinal developments in its wake.
·
The factual premisses
under which Miranda was founded sitll
exist. Although police brutality and coercion
have lessened, it cannot be said that psychological coercion no longer
exists. Police interrogation procedures
are still inherently menacing.
·
Miranda is sound in
principle and consistent with the text of the Fifth Amendment which it flows
logically from, and closely matches.
Although the historical record is sparse, Miranda can be seen as the natural outgrowth of over a hundred
years of Fifth Amendment guarantees.
·
Miranda should not be
overturned because it is cost-effective in terms of good and evil. There are undeniable instances in which it
imposes costs on the truth-seeking function of trial, but overall, it has made
law enforcement more efficient and good.
·
Miranda's core procedures
are workable, and police find little difficulty in its administration. What problems exist occur in extensions as
the Edward context. ATF has long adopted the practice of
requiring Miranda even in non-custodial settings because of its ease and
clarity.
·
A return to a
totality-of-circumstances voluntariness test is unlikely to be more workable
than Miranda. If Miranda
warnings are not required, the results will be uncertainty for the police and
an additional volume of litigation on the totality standard.
·
Overturning Miranda would upset settled public
opinion by overruling a well-known and widely applied law that has had a stabililzing
effect on public confidence and reliability in the criminal justice system.
·
Arguments that Miranda's "prophylactic"
requirements sweep more broadly than the Fifth Amendment requires are
unfounded. Miranda is a procedural safeguard, not an attempt to mold police
conduct for its own sake. There are
other contexts in which the Court has recognized prophylactic rules to
safeguard constitutional rights.
·
Although it is
debatable if the coercive environment of police interrogation is the same today
as thirty years ago, there is still a need for Miranda because of the risk that pressure may undermine an
individual's will to resist.
Technological substitutes, such as videotaping, are promising but as of
yet offer no assurances on as large a scale as Miranda warnings.
That is a lot of pros to mull
over. Those that argue Miranda law
should not be overturned have valid reasons to support their standing. But what about those that argue against
Miranda law? They have provided some
strong support in their stance such as the Cassell Breif and the Scalia Dissent
against Miranda law (Miranda
Law: A Guide to the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 2003):
·
The benefits of Miranda are preserved virtually intact
by Section 3501, which is more constitutionally valid law as opposed to Miranda's draconian remedy. The automatic
character of Miranda's exclusionary
rule is excessive while Section 3501's remedy thwarts involuntary confessions
more in keeping with the text of the Fifth Amendment.
·
Miranda created a new,
non-constitutional right and prophylactic rule that sweeps more broadly than
the Constitution. No one ever sketched a
consistent theory explaining Miranda's
constitutional basis in the Fifth Amendment.
By comparison, the search and seizure exclusionary rule is based on
actual violations of the Fourth Amendment.
Miranda's exclusionary rule is based on technical violations of
judge-made law.
·
The Court overstepped
its authority in handing down Miranda. It is best seen as an exercise of the Court's
power to craft safeguards in the absence of legislative action. It leaves nothing for Congress to do, and
embellishes the judicial branch for all time as law-giver.
·
Widespread application
of Miranda warnings by the states
does not make Miranda law constitutional or law of the land. A rule that has changed in many respects
through various expectations is not the strongest candidate for common law
doctrine.
·
Miranda has harmed and
"straight jacketed" law enforcement. DEA, as opposites to ATF, holds
many more custodial interrogations, and they report problems. The government's position even seems to imply
unspoken problems in enforcement, or only if the Edwards
context were clarified.
Miranda is extraconstitutional
because it requires police to affirmatively
assist the suspect in making a shrewder decision about whether to talk.
·
Other remedies, such as
civil liablity, exist to safeguard suspect advisement rights. 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 also protect
deprivation of rights under color of law.
A number of state ethics rules forbid contact with suspects represented
by counsel. Internal investigations of
police agencies themselves are more advanced than thirty years ago.
·
The Court should at
least overturn Miranda's irrebuttable
presumption that confessions obtained without technical compliance to Miranda procedures are inherently
involuntary. Such a presumption is just
not congruent with the facts of most confessions, and is out of proportion to
the vast majority of cases. Per se rules
should not be applied when there are important exceptional contexts.
·
Upholding Miranda law
plays little role in maintaining confidence in the criminal justice
system. Much more important is the
search for the truth. Public confidence
cannot possible be enhanced by a rule that conceals truth.
·
The Court did not just
apply the Constitution when it handed down Miranda,
it expanded the Constitution,
imposing an immense and antidemocratic prophylactic rule upon Congress and the
states. It was an example of raw,
judicial power that simply asserted a
constitutional right.
·
Preventing foolish
people from incriminating themselves is the only purpose of Miranda, and that is a far cry from what
the Fifth Amendment requires in terms of protecting someone from being
compelled to incriminate themselves. Nor
is a lawyer required because the interrogators can do the same as any lawyer can--tell
the suspect they have a right to be silent.
The Constitution is not offended by a criminal's commendable qualm of
conscience or fortunate fit of stupidity.
·
There is not support
for a Miranda right in history, precedent, or common
sense. In fact, later cases, such as the
60 or so that the Court has heard in the 34 years since Miranda have easily undermined its doctrinal underpinnings and
pointed out that its application and enforcement is problematic.
·
It is not clear why the
totality-of-circumstances test is more difficult for law enforcement to
administer than Miranda. As Justice O'Connor has pointed out many
times, voluntariness is not without its strengths by permitting each fact to be
taken into account without resort to formal and dispositive labels. Voluntariness is indeed the more
constitutional standard.
·
Miranda should not be
preserved simply because it occupies a special place in the public
consciousness. There is little harm in
admitting that we made a mistake in taking away from people their ability to
decide for themselves. By overturning Miranda, we reaffirm for the people the
wonderful reality that they govern themselves, as stated in the Tenth
Amendment.
After really diving into the reasons
to overturn Miranda, I am more inclined to agree. What jumped at me the most was the staement
that Miranda is only good for preventing foolish people from incriminating
themselves. That is hard for me to
disagree with. And what do I care if a
moron criminal incriminates himself. Yay
for the good guys, duh for the bad guys.
But it is also hard to forget all the instances I have read about where,
say a teenager was coerced into confessing due to fear and intimidation of the
police. I am honestly on the fence in
this debate. A part of me thinks it is
an easy out for criminals when the police make a mistake or the perp blurts out
a confession before the officer can get a Miranda warning read. But then, on the other hand, you have
innocent people that would be hurting without Miranda.
To conclude, I do not like picking a
side in this debate because I feel it has just as many positives as it does
negatives. But as per requirement for
this essay, I will say I do not think it is a good idea to overturn
Miranda. I feel it is too ingrained in
our police society to revert back now. And
I believe the decsion for Miranda will come to a point where it will be altered
to compromise both sides of the debate. James
Hundley, Charles Dickerson's lawyer, said it well when he said "It's an
easy rule to follow, and when police do, they can rest fairly assured that they
will be able to use the confession" (Biskupic, 2013). In the end, many do not care about the the
rights of the individual being arrested , until they are the ones being
arrested. If that were to happen, they
would be more than happy to have their Miranda warnings in place. Hardened criminals love having Miranda to
fall back on to help better their situation.
Ironic.
Works Cited
Biskupic, J. (2013, April 06). Police put
Pressure on Justices to Overturn Miranda Decision. Retrieved April 07,
2013, from The Seatle Times:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000419&slug=4016284
Kanovitz, J. R.
(2010). Constitutional Law. Albany: Anderson Publishing.
Miranda Law: A
Guide to the Privilege Against Self-Incriminaation. (2003, June 25). Retrieved 04 07, 2013, from North
Carolina Wesleyan College: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect19.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment