Edwin Meese and Mark Twain

Edwin Meese and Mark Twain

The Supreme Court's Miranda ruling (giving defendants the right to have a lawyer present during questioning) is wrong and only helps guilty defendants. Suspects who are innocent of a crime should be able to have a lawyer present before police questioning. But the thing is you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect. (Attorney General Edwin Meese, quoted in the Oakland Tribune, October 6, 1985.

What are fallacies in logic that Meese makes? Look carefully at the very language in the statements. What do terms mean and are these terms like "guilty" used correctly? Read carefully and challenge each word, as he used words.

There is a fundamental fallacy in Meese's logic as he expresses it in the first two sentences. Any person whose crime has not been proven yet in the court but is detained by police is a suspect. It is impossible to determine whether the person is a "guilty defendant" or a "suspect," as Meese calls them. So, one the one hand, Meese says the Miranda ruling is wrong as it protects "guilty defendants." But he also says those detained by police are protected by the Miranda ruling and have the right to have a lawyer. Meese contradicts himself. How can a court or a policeman decide whether the person is a "guilty defendant" or is just a "suspect" before the person is questioned and tried in the court? And questioning and the court process cannot be conducted without a lawyer. If a person questioned is denied a lawyer, then it means he or she is presumed "guilty" before having his or her guilt proven. Meese's use of the word "guilty" is incorrect, as he presumes that any arrested person is ipso facto guilty. His last sentence is also fallacious, as he presumes that any suspect is a guilty person. Meese's presumption is wrong because suspect is a suspect and through a due court process may be proven either innocent or guilty.

2. What does Meese assume to be true as a major premise?

It is hard to figure out what Meese assumes to be true since his statement is incoherent and contradictory. However, the ending of the statement suggests that innocent people are never going to be suspect and arrested. Therefore, all arrested people are ipso facto guilty. But this is also uncertain since Meese says that innocent suspects have the right to have a lawyer before being questioned. Either Meese's understanding of a "suspect" is different or has several meanings, or Meese's own reasoning is a suspect.

3. What language does he confuse, even though he was the U.S. Attorney General?

Meese confuses the meaning of "suspect." It is not clear from his statement how to define a "suspect." How can a "suspect" be guilty and innocent by presumption at the same time? His understanding of the word "suspect" is confusing.