MIRANDA WARNINGS -- Do We Really Need Them?
“You have the right to remain silent and need not answer any questions. You have the right to consult with an attorney before and during any questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed and provided for you at no cost to you. If you decide to answer any questions, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand these rights?”
On June 13, 1966, The United States Supreme Court announced its landmark decision of Miranda vs. Arizona which brought about drastic changes in law enforcement interrogation techniques. It was designed to make law enforcement officials more professional in their pursuit of credible confessions by advising suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights. Before Miranda, Fifth Amendment rights were never self-executing and always had to be initiated or invoked by the suspect – “pleading the Fifth.”
There are many Americans, mostly those associated with law enforcement, who believe the Miranda requirements hamper police investigations and often allow guilty perpetrators to go free because of technicalities. They also believe the mere absence of informing potential suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights should not exclude the “voluntary” confessions or evidence extracted through law enforcement’s intensive interrogation process. These individuals were possibly descendants of proponents for the ancient “Spanish Inquisitions” or the “Salem Witch Hunts.” The opponents to this ruling applied extensive pressure to the United States Congress; and in 1968, Congress passed a law circumventing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Miranda vs. Arizona.
For thirty-one years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Miranda was never challenged and this new 1966 law was never enforced. The United States Justice Department believed the new 1966 law to be unconstitutional. However, in 1999, a lower federal appellate court, the 4th Circuit, invoked this law and reversed a decision of its lower federal court. That action forced this Fifth Amendment issue back to the United States Supreme Court and placed it in the hands of America’s true rulers – the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
In an effort to create a “more perfect union,” the United States Supreme Court was established by the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Various other lower level federal courts were also established by the U.S. Congress – but the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are final and may not be appealed to any other body – their jurisdiction is nationwide. However, the U.S. Supreme Court itself may, at a later date, overturn and reverse a prior ruling. It holds both original and appellate jurisdiction.
The United States Constitution was designed to provide a strong flexible national government that met the needs of the republic, but protected the guaranteed rights of its citizens. It created a balance between society’s need for order and an individual’s right to freedom. To achieve these ends, the architects of this Constitution created three separate, independent, and co-equal branches of government. Each branch was endowed with its own unique and distinct powers. The Legislative Branch was charged with making the laws and the Executive Branch was charged with enforcing those laws. The Judicial Branch, having the most complex role in this system, must interpret those laws by invalidating legislation or executive actions which in its considered judgment is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
The power of “judicial review” has given the Judicial Branch a crucial responsibility in assuring individuals rights while preserving and maintaining a “living constitution.” In addition to the power of “judicial review,” courts now practice “judicial activism” or “legislating from the bench.” It is the act of replacing an impartial interpretation of an existing law with the judge’s personal feelings about what the law should be.
Many times these rulings can be contrary to popular opinion – but revolve around issues concerning the equal protection clause, due process rights, and the right to privacy. Bench legislation is called “Decrees.” Decrees can be anything from mandatory jail population limits to hiring practice quotas. U.S. Supreme Court Decrees become the laws throughout the nation without any action from the United States Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court uses the Executive Branch to enforce these Decrees.
Critics believe this to be a subversion of the democratic process – an unreasonable concentration of power in the hands of a privileged few. However, others see it as a way of preventing a “Tyranny of the Majority,” which is viewed as worse than the “Tyranny” of the few judges. As the final arbitrators of the law, U.S. Supreme Court Justices function as the guardians and interpreters of the U.S. Constitution. They are charged with the heavy responsibility of ensuring equal justice and due process under the law to all Americans.
Whatever the case, their decisions are final and become the law of the land, governing the entire United States. Appointed for life, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are the true rulers of the American people.
In June of 2000, the U.S. Supreme reaffirmed the Miranda rights and issued the following Decree:
“1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.
(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458.
(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 436, 437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.
(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466. (d) In the absence of other effective measures the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.
(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.
(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 475.
(g) Where the individual answers some questions during incustody interrogation he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. Pp. 475-476.
(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant. Pp. 476-477.
2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. Pp. 479-491.
3. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 491-499.
With a 7 to 2 vote, the nations highest court refused to discard its 1966 Miranda ruling and replace it with a less stringent federal law that allows voluntary confessions without Miranda warnings. Miranda and all its progenies will continue to govern the admissibility of evidence obtained during custodial interrogation in both the state and federal courts. This decision is hoped to prevent police coercion and misconduct once suspects have been taken into custody for questioning. This decision sends a clear message – so there can be no doubt – that Fifth Amendment rights are also available outside courtroom proceedings; and serve to protect people, in all types of settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way, from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
Once again our true rulers diligently performed their duties and protected the guaranteed rights of all Americans. They firmly reiterated that the legal principals established in the Bill of Rights, on fairness and due process – must be upheld at all costs, even if it means that a patently guilty person is freed. Preserving our fore-fathers’ ideals of equal justice and due process of law takes precedence over the need to punish the guilty.
On June 13, 1966, The United States Supreme Court announced its landmark decision of Miranda vs. Arizona which brought about drastic changes in law enforcement interrogation techniques. It was designed to make law enforcement officials more professional in their pursuit of credible confessions by advising suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights. Before Miranda, Fifth Amendment rights were never self-executing and always had to be initiated or invoked by the suspect – “pleading the Fifth.”
There are many Americans, mostly those associated with law enforcement, who believe the Miranda requirements hamper police investigations and often allow guilty perpetrators to go free because of technicalities. They also believe the mere absence of informing potential suspects of their Fifth Amendment rights should not exclude the “voluntary” confessions or evidence extracted through law enforcement’s intensive interrogation process. These individuals were possibly descendants of proponents for the ancient “Spanish Inquisitions” or the “Salem Witch Hunts.” The opponents to this ruling applied extensive pressure to the United States Congress; and in 1968, Congress passed a law circumventing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Miranda vs. Arizona.
For thirty-one years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Miranda was never challenged and this new 1966 law was never enforced. The United States Justice Department believed the new 1966 law to be unconstitutional. However, in 1999, a lower federal appellate court, the 4th Circuit, invoked this law and reversed a decision of its lower federal court. That action forced this Fifth Amendment issue back to the United States Supreme Court and placed it in the hands of America’s true rulers – the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
In an effort to create a “more perfect union,” the United States Supreme Court was established by the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Various other lower level federal courts were also established by the U.S. Congress – but the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are final and may not be appealed to any other body – their jurisdiction is nationwide. However, the U.S. Supreme Court itself may, at a later date, overturn and reverse a prior ruling. It holds both original and appellate jurisdiction.
The United States Constitution was designed to provide a strong flexible national government that met the needs of the republic, but protected the guaranteed rights of its citizens. It created a balance between society’s need for order and an individual’s right to freedom. To achieve these ends, the architects of this Constitution created three separate, independent, and co-equal branches of government. Each branch was endowed with its own unique and distinct powers. The Legislative Branch was charged with making the laws and the Executive Branch was charged with enforcing those laws. The Judicial Branch, having the most complex role in this system, must interpret those laws by invalidating legislation or executive actions which in its considered judgment is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
The power of “judicial review” has given the Judicial Branch a crucial responsibility in assuring individuals rights while preserving and maintaining a “living constitution.” In addition to the power of “judicial review,” courts now practice “judicial activism” or “legislating from the bench.” It is the act of replacing an impartial interpretation of an existing law with the judge’s personal feelings about what the law should be.
Many times these rulings can be contrary to popular opinion – but revolve around issues concerning the equal protection clause, due process rights, and the right to privacy. Bench legislation is called “Decrees.” Decrees can be anything from mandatory jail population limits to hiring practice quotas. U.S. Supreme Court Decrees become the laws throughout the nation without any action from the United States Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court uses the Executive Branch to enforce these Decrees.
Critics believe this to be a subversion of the democratic process – an unreasonable concentration of power in the hands of a privileged few. However, others see it as a way of preventing a “Tyranny of the Majority,” which is viewed as worse than the “Tyranny” of the few judges. As the final arbitrators of the law, U.S. Supreme Court Justices function as the guardians and interpreters of the U.S. Constitution. They are charged with the heavy responsibility of ensuring equal justice and due process under the law to all Americans.
Whatever the case, their decisions are final and become the law of the land, governing the entire United States. Appointed for life, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are the true rulers of the American people.
In June of 2000, the U.S. Supreme reaffirmed the Miranda rights and issued the following Decree:
“1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491.
(a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458.
(b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 436, 437] as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Pp. 458-465.
(c) The decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , stressed the need for protective devices to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege. Pp. 465-466. (d) In the absence of other effective measures the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed: The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Pp. 467-473.
(e) If the individual indicates, prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease; if he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present. Pp. 473-474.
(f) Where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the Government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. P. 475.
(g) Where the individual answers some questions during incustody interrogation he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter. Pp. 475-476.
(h) The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant. Pp. 476-477.
2. The limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of the individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions. Pp. 479-491.
3. In each of these cases the statements were obtained under circumstances that did not meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 491-499.
With a 7 to 2 vote, the nations highest court refused to discard its 1966 Miranda ruling and replace it with a less stringent federal law that allows voluntary confessions without Miranda warnings. Miranda and all its progenies will continue to govern the admissibility of evidence obtained during custodial interrogation in both the state and federal courts. This decision is hoped to prevent police coercion and misconduct once suspects have been taken into custody for questioning. This decision sends a clear message – so there can be no doubt – that Fifth Amendment rights are also available outside courtroom proceedings; and serve to protect people, in all types of settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way, from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
Once again our true rulers diligently performed their duties and protected the guaranteed rights of all Americans. They firmly reiterated that the legal principals established in the Bill of Rights, on fairness and due process – must be upheld at all costs, even if it means that a patently guilty person is freed. Preserving our fore-fathers’ ideals of equal justice and due process of law takes precedence over the need to punish the guilty.
posted by ytownherb at 7:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home