Should the Miranda warning be eliminated?

Question

Should the requirement that cops read suspects their rights ( you have the right to remain silent, to have an attorney, etc) be eliminated?

The reason I ask is because it is an issue that has come up before the courts recently and could come up again. My view? If a police officer has the authority to take away our liberty, even temporarily, then they should be required to inform us of our rights in the situation.

Answer 1

The Miranda warning satisfies the constitutional Due Process requirements for notice, as required by the 5th and 14th Amendments. But the formal warning we hear on TV is not actually what the Supreme Court required. They said that as long as a suspect is made sufficiently aware of their rights during custodial interrogation, the actual form of the warning doesn't matter.

Congress has tried eliminating the verbatim warning, and imposing a fuzzy totality of the circumstances test to determine if Due Process requirements were met.

Police and prosecutors opposed that. They like having the Miranda warning formalized, because it gives them a bright line so they know what satisfies constitutional requirements and what does not.

Also, people forget that Miranda warnings are not required for any arrest. They only apply if the police want to use statements or evidence obtained during custodial interrogation. That's why the remedy for violation of such rights is exclusion of the improperly obtained evidence or statement.

The warnings, and the waivers required before proceeding after a warning, ensure that the suspect is speaking voluntarily and not as the result of police threat or coercion. And that's what our constitution requires as a standard.

The warnings just help formalize that process.

Answer 2

NO. True anyone who watches a lot of cop shows on TV will probably have them memorized, but it is different in the real situation. When a person is being arrested by the police they get nervous and might forget their rights. Reading that person their rights will remind them, and something familiar could calm them down.

Our legal system is based on the idea of giving the accused certain rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Our Miranda rights make us a fairer and more just society. Sure, it means that it will be harder to bring some of the criminals to justice, but our founding fathers intended that ten criminals should get away, rather than one man should be falsely accused. Requiring a police officer to read these rights to their captives is one way to insure this. It is an easy way to do it and only takes a few minutes to conduct. It also is a huge clue that the person is being arrested, a clue that will tell all, but the most distraught person that they are under arrest.

Answer 3

There is an argument that these rights are now so well known, from cop shows, etc., that the warning is no longer necessary. But it's really no trouble for the cops to read suspects their rights, and it's in the interest of law enforcement to do that, because if they do, they can be more sure that any confession that they might get is voluntary. Remember what you don't want is for a suspect to say that he was coerced into confessing and then try to retract his confession at trial. You want to be able to show that he made his statement freely. And it certainly helps if you read him his rights first. So a lot of law enforcement would prefer to keep Miranda for that reason.

Answer 4

coragryph has it completely right. and it is good know that someone out there really understands Miranda. I can't tell you how many times I hear people say, "you did not give me my rights" or "what about my one phone call" its seem the American public gets all of their knowledge on the law from movies and TV, and that is sad because it is very false.
I personally don't care if Miranda is around or not, because most people like to talk anyways. For further knowledge when a suspect starts talking to the police, they do NOT have to advise Miranda, its only when you are under arrest for a crime and the police question you about that crime.

Answer 5

No - it is one of the best rulings by the Supremes. It keeps cops honest and protects both sides of the aisle. It should be enhanced as well. Officers should be compelled to say whether or not any stop could result in a enforcement.

Answer 6

I would say no beacuse everyone should be reminded their rights. In times of trauma a person may forget their rights and therfore should be reminded so that they can consult their attorney, etc. They should be able to give their testimony voluntarily and not by intimidation.

Answer 7

No, it's important that people be informed of their rights. And it's even more important that these rights continue to exist. The alternative is fascism and freedom of the state to treat its citizens arbitrarily and unequally, like in China or Nazi Germany.

Answer 8

why? It only takes a minute to read some one their rights. At least then they can't come back and say I didn't know! Even though ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Answer 9

no,
we assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

also the reason miranda rights exsist is because of the abuse done before these rights had to be read mandatoryly.

what would be the benifit........a system full of more abuse?

Why don't you read Miranda vs Arizona....might help.

Answer 10

No. I think it needs to be said. It's part of the legal process and we shouldnt just take that for granted by skipping over that part. People need to know it and we cannot assume everyone does.