Do Miranda Rights serve any useful purpose?

Question

If the police do not read them to a suspect, all it means is that any statements given by the suspect can be dismissed in court.

But shouldn't it be your responsibility to inform yourself of your constitutionally protected 5th amendment rights? If you don't know your rights then you can't defend them, and if you can't defend them then you don't have any left. I don't think that's the cop's job to do that for you.

As a side note, I think it's curious that Ernesto Miranda was still convicted of the original kidnapping and rape charges after the Supreme Court case resulting in the warnings that currently bear his name, as it turned out that the State of Arizona had ample evidence to the crimes he was accused of committing. Following his release from prison, his murderer refused to make a statement to the police after being read his Miranda Rights, and the charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.

Irony?

jjjjjjjjj:

Correction, the suspect is not exempt from answering questions regarding basic background information to establish identity. However, most other statements made without Miranda Warnings will NOT constitute admissible evidence in court.

AClaire:

Yes, everyone does have equal access to the information concerning constitutional rights. If you're interested in knowing, it's available for you. That's what attorneys are for, and it's not the cop's fault if the you are illiterate in basic English and posses neither the will nor the desire to remain informed of your rights.

jjjjjjjjj:


Correction. I called up the county attorney this morning and she confirmed that without Miranda warnings, any statements made to the police during direct questioning (and any evidence recovered as a result of said statements) CAN be thrown out in court, and usually are.

Statements made to the police that are NOT prompted by questioning are considered VOLUNTARY, and it is assumed that the suspect is aware of his/her constitutional rights and wishes to waive them. Those statements (and any evidence recovered as a result of said statements) CAN be used in court.


The facts and circumstances needed a bit of fine-tuning, but it doesn't invalidate my question.

Answer 1

Actually, due to the commonality of the Miranda Rights being quoted on TV, it has become "acceptable" if the police forget to say them. The lawyer is the one who protects your rights if you are accused of a crime. NOT the cops -- you're right.

People should educate themselves about their rights, but the number of people who don't understand their basic rights is exponentially larger than you think it would be.

Irony. Gotta love it.

Answer 2

I think if you did a poll on the street, despite the Miranda rights being read a million times on cop shows, people would still get it wrong and not truly know their rights.

If you are illiterate or uneducated or something that means you don't know these rights then you wold be unfairly punished by the judicial/law enforcement system. A person who was aware of these rights would have a *significant* advantage over the one who was unaware; the judicial system isn't meant to punish people according to their civics knowledge but instead based on the evidence of the crime committed. It is a question of equal treatment under the law.
If you ask most police officers they are probably fine with reading someone their rights.

Answer 3

Not being read your Miranda Rights does not automatically invalidate any statements made by the suspect. That is a misconception.

Additional: Sorry, but you are wrong. An easy and free way for you to check this is to call up a PD in the Public Defenders office and ask them.

Answer 4

Saying that it is an individual's responsibility to inform him or herself is assuming that everyone has equal access to the information. That is not true in our society. Sure, some of us get great civics lectures in school, or have read about the issues, but not everyone is that lucky.

You say that "if you don't know your rights you can't defend them, and if you can't defend them you don't have any left." To me, that is exactly why the rights need to be read. Just because someone is arrested does NOT mean they are guilty of a crime. They still have rights. That is one of the foundations of our society. So they need to be informed as to what those rights are.

Answer 5

That is ironic.

It limits police brutality. What if a police officer beat up a victim to make him.her to sign something or admit he/she is guilty.

It was not intended, as the exclusionary rule was, to reform the police or improve society, but to simply draw the line on coercion. The purpose of Miranda is to neutralize the distinct psychological disadvantage that suspects are under when dealing with police.

Answer 6

First proposed as a way to thwart the police investigative process they seem to have emerged as a useful tool. The police can actually intimidate a suspect into talking by beginnin to 'read him his rights'. It definately adds gravity to the situation.

On the whole, they have little effect on the outcome.

.

Answer 7

There are some folk who may not ever get a decent education.

It is unconstitutional to fail to take steps whenever possible and feasible to ensure that not only are police well trained, but that we improve the efficiencey of the criminal justice system

Answer 8

It's still prudent to inform people of their rights as you never know what their backgroud situation/knowledge is.

Before you are convicted we are in a system wherein you are innocent until proven guilty and thus people need to retain their rights.

Answer 9

Most police just ask if you know your rights when you get arrested now days.

Answer 10

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha - Miranda what?? Ha, ha, ha, ha, Try telling that to midwesterners who were in Miami, Florida peacefully assemblying during the World Trade Organization a few years back. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha