The Miranda DebateMiranda 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 Mirandas 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.
Its quoted that We have at our disposal a uniquely set of circumstancesseveral resent decisions by the Supreme Court holding in effect, that Miranda is unsound in principle and a statute 18 U. S. C. 3501, that isspecifically 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.
