People are more likely to answer something truthfully before being told their Miranda rights. People are more likely to say something in their own self interest after being read their Mirand rights. Truth is more important than someone's narrow self interest.

It is wrong to let someone out of jail based on technicalities. Human beings should be allowed to make judgments that don't fit the one size fits all, assembly line process of justice. All one size fits all rules are stupid. Miranda rights are one size fits all rules that say now matter how good the evidence is that you are guilty, if you are not read your rights, that information you give is somehow wrong.

The facts about what someone said to you before you say something has nothing to do with what you said being true or not.

Miranda rights are a way for lawyers to get around justice.

Why should cops remind potential criminals to remember to lie? Don't we want people to speak from their gut? Don't we want to hear their honest story?

The Miranda decision was decided 5 to 4. It was not unanimous, however we treat Miranda rights as though they were sent down from God himself on a golden tablet.

The "right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning" does not serve justice but ensures more work for attorney's. It was a self serving decisions by judges, who are lawyers, that ensures more work for other lawyers. The police were doing just fine. If they record a witness saying something, before they are told they have a right to a lawyer, that should not make what they said any less admissible in court.

Miranda rights were designed by stupid people to solve the problems of coercive interrogation tactics, but they caused another problem. Miranda rights create the problem of more lying criminals being reminded to talk to a lawyer before they speak to help them lie better. Telling potential criminals to remember to talk to a lawyer before they divulge too much information does not stop cops from using coercive tactics.

There are many times that any sane rational person with common sense could tell that a confession was not coerced (was purely voluntary). If the stated purpose of Miranda rights is to avoid coercion, but you can prove that their was no coercion, then Miranda rights do not serve a purpose in that incident.

Justice Byron White took issue with the court announcing a new constitutional right when it had no 'factual and textual bases' in the constitution or previous opinions of the court for the rule announced in the opinion, he stated 'self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment' nor did Justice White believe it had any basis in English common law. White further warned the dire consequences of the majority opinion; "I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process. In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity."

It is a mandatory information to read before arresting the accuse.

Cops are not able to do their job. If you want proof here you go. These are from studies and are statistics.

The amount of confessions went down by 16 points on estimate

Rates of violent crimes being solved fell from 60 percent to around 45 percent where it has stayed over the years

Because a confession is needed to a convictions in 1 and 4 cases, there has been a rough 3.8 percent drop of convictions.

Every year there is about 28,000 less convictions for violent crimes, 79,000 for property crimes, and 500,000 fewer for any other crimes.

After the suspects waive their Miranda rights, the cops are not even allowed to suggest other wise.