Should U.S. Courts Abandon the Miranda Rule?
Yes
Side Score: 4
Winning Side! |
 |
No
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the courts should abandon the Miranda Rule. I agree with U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Cassell that the use of the Miranda Rule places restrictions on police officers when investigating a crime and it raises social costs. The Miranda Rule ties the hands of law enforcement by expecting them to conform to a strict line of questioning practices in order to get a voluntary confession to hold up in court. If an officer tells a suspect that they do not have to speak and that they are free to leave at any time and the suspect offers a confession anyway, that confession can later be contested by an attorney in court stating a Miranda violation since the suspect was not specifically read his Miranda rights that he could remain silent. If a suspect volunteers a confession without the Miranda warning, it should not be different than making the same statement after the warning. Police are required to give the suspected criminal specific information that encourages them to not participate in the process of solving a crime. The rule creates roadblocks for officers when trying to get a voluntary confession or statement by letting the suspect know that it would be beneficial for them to not agree to talk. The Miranda Rule is used as a tool by criminals to battle against the state and law enforcement to beat the system, allowing them to walk free. By giving criminals the upper hand when faced with being convicted for a crime they committed, society suffers. Every time a violent criminal is not convicted for their crimes because of a Miranda violation, the community loses their right to feel safe and secure in their own home. The role of the government and law enforcement is to protect the people. Miranda violation rulings in favor of violent criminals, puts the community at risk by increasing the chances of more damage done to the people and neighborhood by the released offenders. Side: Yes
1
point
Realize, everyone who is interrogated is not a criminal, so don't call them such. They are suspect. I know what it feels like I was a suspect. I was arrested, interrogated and had to wait over two years to be found innocent. That was the most horrific period in my life and the interrogation was the single most terrifying part. The police already have the upper hand. Other than reading the Miranda rights they can lie, manipulate and use psychological games and they do. The only thing the accused can do legally is not speak. Side: No
The question was in regard to using the Miranda Rule as the way to determine whether someone gives voluntary information. If it is considered not voluntary, it can be contested and not used as evidence in a criminal trial. There are some officers who do not follow the book and treat some suspects poorly but if an officer conducts questioning in a good and fair manner, the information received voluntarily should be enough to proceed. Side: Yes
There is harm done to society. In some cases, like State v. Oldham, the suspect commited a violent crime against a young family member and was jailed without answering questions. After a police shift change he confessed, the confession was over turned due to a Miranda violation. The suspect was released and he went back home to possibly abuse the child again. I would say the child and society both suffer. Side: Yes
|
1
point
I think the police have far too much power as it is. The first thing you need to realize is you are not talking about criminals, but suspects. I did nothing illegal and yet they charged me and I am certainly not alone. Beyond reading you your Miranda rights, when you are suspected, the police are you enemy. They see their job as finding evidence to put you away-not to seek the truth. They will lie and manipulate you to do this. Interrogation is a terrifying process if you are not prepared for it and more so if you are innocent. You want to explain what happened and tell them the truth, but that is ill advised because they are only seeking evidence to put you away and they are quite legally protected. You are not. Side: No
0
points
from gscott: "By giving criminals the upper hand when faced with being convicted for a crime they committed, society suffers." Criminals rarely have the upper hand when committing a serious crime they are being suspected of having committed. Generally, the more serious the crime, the greater attempt by law enforcement to gather the appropriate evidence and file a charge. Side: No
|
