The Miranda Debate Miranda is one of the best-known cases in the history of
the Supreme Court. It represents the Court's determination to treat even the
lowliest of criminals with the same dignity and respect as the wealthiest
celebrity. This case established the Fifth Amendment right of the accused to be
informed of their right to counsel and their right not to answer questions.
In The Ethical and Policy Debate Regarding Miranda, Section II questions:
“First, can Miranda’s approach to regulating the interrogation process be
justified as a reading of the Fifth Amendment, on either constitutional or
policy grounds?..” In summarizing this question, there are several
considerations supporting the recommendation that the Miranda should be
overruled.
First, if the Miranda is continued, it violates the constitutional separation
of powers and basic principles of federalism. In its current state, it sets a
code of procedure for interrogations based on fictions and arguments. Secondly,
Miranda impairs the ability of the Government to protect the public by impeding
the prosecution of crime. Using the Miranda reduces the willingness of suspects
to respond to police questioning. In most criminal cases, the defendants’
statements are necessary in prosecution, without these statements, criminals can
go free.
Third, the Miranda is damaging to public confidence, as well as, resulting in
injustices to crime victims. It can result in cases where known criminals are
released and the victims of these crimes can go through years of pain and
insecurity. The Miranda system has “handcuffed” the judicial system and not
allowed a better way of dealing with criminals to be implemented. In my opinion,
the Miranda would be unnecessary as long as we abide by the Fifth Amendment
rules.
“…Second, what would replace Miranda if it were overruled?…” It is
recommended that the department of justice develop a set of rules or guidelines
that carry out interrogations and implement these rules with the renewal of a
litigation challenge to Miranda. It is suggested that interrogations be video
taped or recorded. The desire for additional guidelines restricting and
prohibiting deceptive practices during interrogation should be implemented.
Abolishing the Miranda would open the way for comprehensive consideration of
pretrial interrogation and related areas of self-incrimination. “…Third, if
Miranda is not overruled, can it be improved and, if so, in what ways?...”
In The Report to the Attorney General, in chapter 7, states: “There are
several considerations supporting the recommendation that we should see to have
Miranda overruled.” It’s quoted that “We have at our disposal a uniquely set of
circumstances—several resent decisions by the Supreme Court holding in effect,
that Miranda is unsound in principle and a statute 18 U.S.C. 3501, that is
specifically designed to overrule it. It is difficult to see how we could fail
in making our case.” In my opinion, we should go back to following the Fifth
Amendment instead of using Miranda as our guideline. Criminals should have the
right to a fair trial, but law-abiding citizens should have a right to a feeling
of security.
