Miranda v. Arizona: Main Idea
Miranda v. Arizona: Main Idea
Hey, get this. The Constitution applies to everyone. Thanks to Miranda v. Arizona, a person's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights—to be advised of their right not to incriminate themselves and right to have an attorney present during questioning—extends to suspects in custody for police interrogations. Unless suspects are read their rights, what they say during the interrogation can't be used by the prosecution. Even if they confess.
Questions
- Do people who commit crimes deserve the protections written in the Constitution? What does Miranda v. Arizona have to say about that?
- What should happen if someone is accused of a crime and is forced to confess, through mental or physical intimidation? What does Miranda v. Arizona have to say about that?
- Does allowing someone the right to remain silent impede the justice process?
- Who are the chumps who still don't know they have a right to remain silent after umpteen years of Law & Order reruns?
Chew On This
Every American deserves to be reminded of their rights when they get in trouble.
People who commit crimes don't deserve to be given protections in the Constitutions; they forfeit those protections when they decide to break the law.
Quotes
Quote #1
The constitutional issue we decide […] is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. (Syllabus.I.1)
Notice the important word choice here: a defendant in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action. If you're in a locked room with a police officer, you are certainly deprived of your freedom of action. What about in the back of a squad car? What about in the waiting room of the police station? The rules only apply if you're not allowed to leave. In other words, if an officer simply came up to you and questioned you on the street, he/she does not have to read you your rights. The Court recognized the extra psychological stress you carry when you're stuck somewhere you can't leave.
Quote #2
It is not admissible to do a great thing by doing a little wrong […] It is not sufficient to do justice by obtaining a proper result by irregular or improper means. (Syllabus.I.5)
Classic Earl Warren here (referencing Lord Sankey of England). He has a penchant for dramatic one-liners. Do you agree with him here? Does the end justify the means? Is it okay to scare someone a little bit in order to get them to confess to a horrible crime so you can put them behind bars?
Quote #3
We have concluded that, without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely. (Syllabus.III.1)
Notice the use of the word "compel" here. The Court's saying that if someone feels pressured to say something that they wouldn't otherwise say, that's not okay. Anything the police do to pressure you into a confession is illegal. But Warren goes further: he recognizes that the custody situation itself has its own compelling pressures, regardless of how the police handle it. You can't leave; you want to get out. Maybe you'll say anything you think they want to hear, even if they've been perfectly nice about it.
Quote #4
At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it […]. It is not just the subnormal or woefully ignorant who succumb to an interrogator's imprecations […]. (Syllabus.III.3)
This is where we get the famous "right to remain silent" wording. But check out what comes next: anyone who doesn't know their rights gets to be made aware of them. Thank goodness we don't have to memorize all of those rights. Oh, and you gotta love Mr. Warren's last line there: just because you forgot one of the Amendments, you're not subnormal. That's a relief. The Court realized that, under the pressure of arrest and questioning, we might not have all our marbles with us.
Quote #5
With a lawyer present, the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and, if coercion is nevertheless exercised, the lawyer can testify to it in court. (Syllabus.III.7)
Anyone who's seen a cop show can recognize this scene: the police ask the prisoner a question, and the lawyer (sitting right next to the prisoner) tells him not to answer the question. That might seem like we're helping criminals get out of trouble, but remember—the whole idea is to protect against unfair police pressure.