Should the high court restrict a suspect's right to remain silent? Soon it could be, "you have the right to remain silent--after the police question you." The Supreme Court will decide this year.YES In 1966, the Supreme Court issued the Miranda decision, requiring police to tell criminal suspects of their right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. While well-intentioned (it's designed to prevent police misconduct Police misconduct refers to objectional actions taken by police officers in connection with their official duties, which can lead to a miscarriage of justice. Types of misconduct
leather straps fastened around the pasterns of horses, mules and donkeys. Placed on all four legs and pulled together by a rope, it provides an effective means of casting the horse. police work and threaten just outcomes in court. The idea behind the Miranda warning is that once a suspect is in police custody--and Miranda only applies when the suspect has been arrested--the person has a right to know he or she does not have to talk to the police The Supreme Court is often asked to clarify just how far police must go to protect a suspect's rights during interrogation interrogation In criminal law, process of formally and systematically questioning a suspect in order to elicit incriminating responses. The process is largely outside the governance of law, though in the U.S. . This year, it's reviewing a Missouri case in which a woman was questioned by police without being read her rights, then subsequently read her rights and reinterviewed. A lower court allowed the second set of statements to be used as evidence, but not the first. The case has wound its way to the nation's highest court, which must decide if this two-step interrogation process is legitimate. I believe this kind of interrogation should be allowed even if it narrows the scope of the Miranda ruling. The Miranda ruling has at times been taken to ridiculous lengths. In one recent case, a suspect told officers to quit reading his rights because he knew them. Should a court throw out the statements he gave police just because the police didn't read him his rights--over his own objection? I don't believe so. Some defense attorneys argue that the failure to read Miranda rights Miranda rights (Miranda rule, Miranda warning) n. the requirement set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Alabama (1966) that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: "the right to at the beginning of an interrogation should always result in suppression of any statement obtained by police--regardless of the officer's good intentions. But if the truth is what the system seeks, why keep relevant evidence from a jury simply because police officers made an honest mistake? Joshua Marquis District Attorney, Ctatsop County, Oregon NO The Miranda warnings are an important part of our justice system, and there is no good reason for the courts to scale them hack. Miranda warnings have served their purpose well without unnecessarily inhibiting law enforcement; and the circumstances that prompted their adoption have not changed. The Fifth Amendment spells out the right not to be forced to incriminate To charge with a crime; to expose to an accusation or a charge of crime; to involve oneself or another in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof; as in the rule that a witness is not bound to give testimony that would tend to incriminate him or her. oneself. The Founding Fathers intentionally included this in the Bill of Rights, because they had experienced the tyranny of the British government and wanted to make sure American citizens--both innocent and guilty--would be free from government abuses. It is absurd to argue that police should be allowed to question suspects without reading them their rights, as long as they subsequently advise them of their fights, which is the gist of the prosecution's argument in the Missouri case. This is essentially allowing police to violate suspects' rights, and then attempt to sanitize To remove sensitive data from an information system, a database or an extract from a database. See sensitive. the violation by reading them their rights after the fact. It makes a farce of our justice system, because what good is your right to remain silent when you've already given statements to the police? It would be a disservice dis·ser·vice n. A harmful action; an injury. disservice Noun a harmful action Noun 1. to all Americans, and particularly to the most vulnerable among us--the uneducated, the mentally ill, the non-English speaking, and all those who are least likely to understand their right to remain silent--to narrow the Miranda ruling in any way. Interrogation of criminal suspects is an essential law-enforcement tool, but abusive tactics can result in false confessions
False Confession was a hardcore punk band in the early 1980s that emerged in the Oxnard, California area. They were one of the founding members of the "Nardcore" punk movement. . For our justice system to function fairly, it is essential that suspects in police custody be warned immediately of their right to remain silent, so they can make an informed decision about whether to waive that right and speak to police. The Supreme Court should uphold the Miranda ruling as it now stands. Frank Bress Professor, New York Law School History New York Law School is one of the oldest independent law schools in the United States. The Law School was founded in 1891 by a group of faculty, students, and alumni of Columbia Law School led by their founding dean, Theodore William Dwight, a prominent figure in the |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion