NCJ Number
111712
Journal
University of Chicago Law Review Volume: 54 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1987), 435-461
Date Published
1987
Length
27 pages
Annotation
Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice attacked the Miranda decision as an illegitimate act of judicial policymaking that the U.S. Supreme Court should overrule on the grounds that it 'handcuffs' police and favors criminal forces.
Abstract
While critics are usually concerned over the warnings required by the Miranda ruling, the decision actually involves a series of holdings. First, the Court held that informal pressure to speak can constitute compulsion within the meaning of the fifth amendment. Second, it held that this element of informal compulsion is present in any questioning of a suspect in custody. Third, the Court specified warning to dispel the impelling compulsion of custodial interrogation. An analysis of these requirements indicates that, contrary to the assertions of critics, the Miranda warnings actually liberate the police by allowing custodial interrogation to continue. Further, studies of the impact of the Miranda ruling fail to confirm that it has reduced law enforcement effectiveness: suspects continue to agree to talk without the need for pressure or deception, and convictions are still obtained without confession. While the overall effect of the Miranda decision may be largely symbolic, it is an important symbol. It reaffirms the constitutional commitment to limited government, it provides a measure of reassurance to suspects who may fear abuse, and it provides at least some procedural safeguards during questioning. 62 footnotes.