NCJ Number
76321
Journal
Florida Police Journal Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Dated: (Summer 1976) Pages: 19,21,23,25
Date Published
1976
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Confessions, interrogation practices, and principles of the Miranda decision are examined in terms of recent action by the United States Supreme Court.
Abstract
In the 1966 landmark decision of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that suspects must be notified that they need not make any statements without a lawyer present to advise them. Since that ruling, Miranda has been the law under which the police have had to operate. However, it now appears that Miranda, as presently structured, will eventually be overturned. The Supreme Court recently accepted a case that could result in reversal of the controversial Miranda rules. In addition, the Court has recently held that even if a suspect refuses to talk about one crime that police, after giving him the essential warnings, may ask the suspect about another crime and then use these statements against him. The foundation of the Miranda ruling is the basic prohibition against the use of coercion to obtain a confession and against introduction into evidence of a coerced statement. Opponents of Miranda argue that many criminal cases can be solved only by means of admission or confession by the guilty individual or upon the basis of information obtained from the questioning of other criminal suspects. In addition, an unsubstantiated confession hardly ever stands up in court and rarely should be expected to stand alone. A written confession merely serves as a framework for further investigation by police. Finally, those who have spoken out against the utilization of confessions in criminal trials appear to lack understanding of the fundamental psychology involved in confession taking and the basic objectives of confession retention. It is concluded that although there were sound reasons for the Miranda decision, the whole concept articulated therein is about to undergo much needed refinement.