In making their decision in Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court let some bad people off the hook. Yes, many of those criminals returned to court and were still found guilty. But let's face it, in trying to protect the Constitutional rights of citizens, the Court made it easier for the bad guys to get away—or at least made it harder for the cops to get those bad guys into jail. What's more important: making sure the police are following the rules, or making sure they're keeping us safe by locking up criminals?
The Court is trying hard to do the right thing. And that's not always the legal thing. Think about Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court said that it's not a violation of the Constitution to allow the states to require segregated public schools and facilities, as long as they're equal. (They weren't, but that's another story.)
The Opinions v. Dissents in Miranda v. Arizona illustrate that you can draw very different ethical conclusions based on the very same situation. What's going to produce the most good for society? Is what's good for suspects good for society at large? Do laws always have ethical purposes?
Answer: it's complicated.
Questions About Morality and Ethics
- Does the court's Opinion say it's okay for the police to do some coercive things in order to remove a criminal from the streets? Put another way, does the end justify the means?
- Does the Miranda ruling favor the bad guys?
- Was the Miranda decision sidestepping morality issues in giving rights to suspected criminals?
Chew on This
In Miranda v. Arizona, the court made a strong moral statement that the law has to apply equally to the good guys and the bad guys.
The end justifies the means: as long as bad guys go to jail, that's the greater good. It's okay to give the police a little leeway in how they catch and convict those criminals.