Posted on 10/20/2016 10:06:19 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
Should the U.S. Supreme Court reconsider the famous 'Miranda' rights? One law professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, Paul Cassell, made a case for remaking what we know today as the 'Miranda' rights at a Heritage Foundation debate.
Cassell noted, "Whenever we talk about the Warren Court decisions, the sense is often the world didn't exist until the Warren Court came along." For the audience, he reminded them that before the court case and decision, confessions given to law enforcement were admissible in court. He gave background information on the Miranda v. Arizona case, where Ernesto Miranda raped an eighteen year-old woman and later confessed to the crime to police. However, the Warren Court ruled that Miranda’s voluntary confession had to be excluded from the case.
Does he also want to repeal the 6th and 7th Amendments?
Ironically the court ruling in his favor hurt him more than helped him. While he was found not guilty of the rape and thus freed, He was murdered a few years later. Had he been imprisoned he might’ve lived longer. Since the ruling subsequent courts have reduced the scope of the warnings.
CC
Adios Miranda, then we are stuck with Escobedo ?
Legend has it that a cop in the scene of the murder dropped a Miranda card on Miranda’s body.
As with the PATRIOT act, be careful what you wish for, because it can be used either way. There were several folks, even on this site, who changed their tunes about it when a new administration came in.
Can you show me where Miranda is in the fifth?
bookmark
Not true. Miranda sold them, autographed for $1.50 . He had several of them on him at the time he was stabbed to death in a bar fight. Nice thought though.
CC
I think the court’s logic was that a suspect’s knowledge of his rights can’t be assumed by the police, he must be told. That said, I believe British police (or at least they do in very old movies) have been warning suspects of their rights for a long time.
You should never get let of “on a technicality”
If a cop does something ILLEGAL to discover your crime, then you BOTH did something illegal. And both should be charged.
But if you get arrested and spill your guts- before they “read you your rights” then you’re a dumbass. Its not their fault you are. You were probably a dumbass long before you met them.
I have mixed feelings on this; on the one hand there are cases where the suspect wouldn't have done anything illegal without influence from the authorities — think about entrapment and the reason a lot of people are suspicious of [citizen-formed] militia.
Miranda has pretty much been destroyed by subsequent courts. It’s power exists much more in popular opinion and media than in actual courtrooms.
Absurd. .Gov has enough power. Giving it more, will not make the world a better place.
Our constitution was written for an informed populace. It was never intended to protect people from themselves, that is what the Democrats believe. And seriously, at this point who doesn’t know the words, “You have the right to remain silent...”
But maybe you DIDN’T do something illegal. That’s the point of due process, if that is violated you could be coerced into false confession or false evidence could be created. Truly nobody gets out on a technicality, that’s pure TV mumbo jumbo, what happens is evidence becomes inadmissible and without that evidence the case cannot be proved. We have a system deliberately designed to err on the side of NOT jailing people.
It’s not protecting people from themselves, it’s protecting them from abusive cops who would coerce confessions out of people. One of the biggest reasons to have a lawyer present is to keep the cops in line, somebody there to remind them they’re not allowed to keep you locked up for days at a time unless they’ve actually got charges to press.
Our constitution was written for an informed populace.
As to the idea that everyone should know “...you have the right to remain silent...” —you are right, but was that warning universally given before Miranda?
As I said, the Brits have given that warning for a long time and their legal system is the parent of ours. Maybe the idea goes back to common law or the Magna Carta.
I don’t have any problem with the idea of Miranda, my comment was mostly directed to the idea revisiting Miranda is judicial activism, in fact, Miranda is Judicial activism. The courts legislated the admonishment requirement. The last time the courts visited Miranda, many court watchers believed they were going to throw it out, but they kept it, and limited it. This is something the states should have established by legislation. Even before Miranda, courts could toss statements if they thought they were obtained while in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.