Miranda Rights efficacy and law enforcement compliance in modern criminal justice

Miranda Rights

Criminal Justice Courts - Miranda Rights

Exploration of Utility of Miranda Rights in Modern Society

Opposition to Miranda Rights

Discourse of Efficacy and Controversy Related to Miranda Use

Implications of Miranda Rights

How changes in policy may or may not benefit those affected by the Miranda Rights

Discussion of how proposal and conclusions would affect the cjs.

Abstract discourse and analysis of the Miranda Rights, providing an analytical debate of both sides of the current legal issue in constitutional criminal justice. Researcher proposes that the Miranda Rights are questionable related to their efficacy largely due to the misuse of the Miranda Rights by the Law Enforcement Agents "enforcing" or failing to enforce it. This researcher paper reviews an issue the courts have recently decided involving the Miranda Rights, beginning with a factual analysis of the issue and synopsis of how it pertains to current criminal justice events. The researcher also proclaims why this issue is worthy of consideration and provides the present status of the issue as well as both sides of the issue prior to offering any conclusions about the case at hand.

Introduction

The Miranda Rights are a subject of controversy and interest in the criminal justice field. Within the United States, the Miranda Rights refer to a warning provide by law force agents when a suspect becomes apprehended under police custody for one situation or another. The Miranda Rights also involve the courts, as they are presented to witnesses when they are in court and asked questions regarding their recollection or involvement with a suspected criminal or suspected criminal activity. The Miranda Rights for many are part of the rights provided to citizens as part of the Constitution. The Miranda Rights clearly state the incarcerated individual or one in police custody cannot be harmed by any statements made that are incriminating if the law enforcement agent in question failed to delivery the Miranda rights. There are many cases brought before the courts involving suspects that proclaim their Miranda Rights have been violated. This research proposal will review many such cases to determine the efficacy of the Miranda Rights in modern day law enforcement.

Purpose/Review

The purpose of this paper is an in-depth exploration of the utility of the Miranda Rights. The author argues the Miranda Rights are not always used efficiently and thus, may be subject to question. To understand how the Miranda Rights affect citizens, it is critical to first examine case decisions involving the Miranda Rights to see if law enforcement agents are using the Miranda Rights correctly. This evaluation of cases will also enable the researcher to identify current gaps in research and determine whether courts have violated the Miranda Rights clause in many cases held before the courts.

The Miranda Rights or warnings as some refer to them were first put into effect during the late 1990s. The case of Miranda v. Arizona was among the first cases to show just how the Miranda Rights can protect a suspect utilizing the fifth amendment of the constitution to proclaim their innocence until proven guilty. The fifth amendment claims that no U.S. citizen can be coercively forced to incriminate themselves when questioned, and if they feel such has occurred, the criminal may plead the fifth amendment to protect their rights to privacy. Many refer to the fifth amendment protection as the "right to silence" or the legal right of a criminal suspect to withhold or remain silent on issues except when questioned on matters including his or her birth, name and address. Other personal identifying information may also be collected by law enforcement agents.

There are several cases brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, none the least of which is the Miranda v. Arizona U.S. 384 No. 759, which includes a conglomeration of many preceding cases including the case of California v. Stewart No. 545; Vignera v. New York, No. 760; and Westover v. United States, v. No. 761. The Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was largely hailed as a landmark case in which the Supreme Court argued in favor of the Miranda Rights or warning, stating a criminal was innocent until proven guilty and had the right to withhold information and request an attorney before implicating him or herself to the authorities relative to a crime. This right helped protect the parties involved from prosecution by the law if they incriminate themselves accidentally or without meaning during the arrest and incarceration procedure (384 U.S. 436, 1966).

Each of these cases mentioned above were situations where the police placed into their custody a citizen for questioning, and placed the incarcerated individual into a room for questioning. The room in each situation was isolated and the individual in custody was denied the right to a lawyer and/or his or he rights to remain silent as given by the fifth amendment of the United States. The defendants in these cases were not provided with information about their Miranda Rights at the very beginning of the case where law enforcement agents took them into custody. Despite this in the preliminary case the defendants were incarcerated; in the case of California v. Stewart, No. 584 however, the courts reversed the decision in part because of the Miranda Rights clause.

In many cases law enforcement agents suggest they may withhold the right to silence and bring into custody and isolation a suspected criminal if they feel they are in need of protection from the individual being questioned. This process is demonstrated by the Escobedo v. Illinois decision where the law enforcement agents successfully argued they may need to use protective devices including isolation to assist with law enforcement interrogation. In the Escobedo case (1964), a young Mexican person and sister were arrested and taken into custody for interrogation regarding the homicide of the young adult's brother-in-law (Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964). In this case the Mexican Petitioner or defendant requested the services of a lawyer, as was his constitutional right, and made no statements regarding his involvement with the alleged shooting that he was incarcerated for. The lawyer in this case noted the Petitioner did not receive an explanation of his Miranda Rights, and subsequently made damaging or self-incriminating statements while in custody. He did not have the opportunity once in police custody to see his lawyer for counsel to remain silent. In this case however, the lawyer was able to obtain documents that allowed for her release because of these terms. However the individual did make incriminating statement that was presented into court and the court subsequently convicted the Petitioner. This conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court however, mostly because there was a wealth of documented testimony stating the defendant was not able to consult with his lawyer, and the Petitioner was made to believe during the interrogation process that he would have permission to go home once he implicated someone in the crime.

The actions of the interrogators and law enforcement agents in this case clearly provided the suspect with immunity because they violated the fifteenth and sixth amendments of the Constitution by violating the petitioner's right to the Miranda Rights, to clear understanding of the matters at hand and violated the Petitioners right to silence. Evidence that was submitted that first resulted in incarceration was not permissible as law enforcement agents gathered this information without informing the Petitioner of his rights. The law enforcement agents argued they held the prisoner in customer and isolation because the case was a homicide case and they had reason to fear for their safety. However, their failure to allow the lawyer to see the Petitioner or the Petitioner to consult with the lawyer resulted in a violation of the law.

This is one of many cases in which much the same has happened. Other cases where convictions were reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States include trial 375 U.S. 902 and 357 U.S. 433. In 375 vs. 902, the case of Corey v. United States (1963) the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the petitioner a reversal of decision providing for his freedom, stating the Constitution guarantees defendants the right to trial and adequate counsel, and the evidence gathered without fully informing the Petitioner of their legal rights is not evidence that is fully valid under the Constitution of the United States. In the case of Crooker v. People of the State of California (1958) evidence implicating the defendant were admitted into the preliminary hearing however the evidence involved testimony given before the petitioner was fully informed of his legal rights and his ability to withhold information in absence of a lawyer on request. The confessions taken were admitted initially even after the individual in question asked for the assistance of a lawyer, a fact that was dismissed by the earlier courts. The decision in the Crooker case was reversed by the Supreme Court for this very reason.

It is common for the Supreme Court in early history to overturn convictions by lower courts that do not take into account whether the incarcerate was offered their Miranda Rights prior to conviction and cases that did not take into account the law enforcement agent's decision to deny the petitioner their right to counsel as provided by the law. Other examples in which the Court of the United States notes the Constitution had been violated because the defendant was not guaranteed aid of counsel or legal advisement include the case of Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 314, No. 326. This again is a case in which the Petitioner was accused and the interrogation was set up to make the Petitioner admit his criminal actions so that incriminating evidence could be collected and used in the preliminary trials. Once again however, the law enforcement agents involved failed to provide the individual their fair rights as defined by the Miranda Rights and the right to an attorney to counsel the individual before interrogation takes place.

It is important to note also in many of these cases the Supreme Court notes many Petitioners are intimidated by the legal system and "forced" into confessing or admitting their crimes. While this may seem a fair way of gathering information and evidence it is not, especially if the Petitioner is ill-informed of their rights and taken advantage of. All of these cases show the United States Supreme Court working to protect the rights of the defendant as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Columbia Law Review (1961) affirms many cases overturned by the Supreme Court have to do with law enforcement's failure to adhere to due process requirements as defined by the Constitution. The due process requirements enable citizens the right to an attorney, to questioning in safe conditions under the advisement of an attorney and the right to know and understand what their rights are as stated by the Constitution. Many Petitioners incarcerated are not native English speakers; in these cases the law enforcement agents have a duty to provide the Petitioner with a discourse of their Miranda Rights and the right to a lawyer that speaks their native language so their understand what exactly is happening to them during interrogation (Columbia Law Review, 1961: 748).

It is interesting to note the number of non-native speakers questioned and interrogated, and later convicted yet released because the Supreme Court finds their rights to counsel are violated simply by the fact that law enforcement agents failed to provide the person in question with a translator or someone that could interpret the statements made by the law enforcement officials to protect their rights. The Constitution does not care whether the Petitioner is white or black or native or non-native speaking; as long as the individual captured for questioning is a citizen they are entitled to due process and their rights as dictated by the Constitution of the United States.

Frequently the judges overhearing cases note that those incarcerated without fully understanding their language or the rights of the law admit to crimes they did or did not commit, incriminating themselves solely because of fear or fear tactics engaged in by law enforcement agents. There are cases where the interrogators place into the mind of the person being interrogated the possibility that they have no choice but to admit to some crime if they want to see home again, as is exemplified or exampled by the case of Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 No. 562. In this case the Petitioner had hoped to remove all suspicion but produced a conviction that derived from fear of silence; while the Petitioner had hoped to establish his rights using silence or failure to talk as dictated by the rights of the Miranda, the interrogators forced the individual fearfully into believing silence meant the person was automatically guilty, a common tactic used by law enforcement agents to engender a false confession, which some may view as better than no confession in cases of the law.

While many of the cases cited are earlier cases overturned by the Supreme Court, there are still instances today where minorities or others are convicted without due process. This happens predominately in areas of high crimes where law enforcement agents are more likely to convict someone without hesitating to believe they are guilty before it is proven true. Minority groups and those living under low socio-economic conditions are more likely to become victims in cases as this. It is also important to realize however that the Miranda Rights are not infallible. There are cases where the United States Supreme Court may overrule the right to due process in cases where it is clearly evident the person arrested is guilty and the lives of individuals or law enforcement are at risk (on the Issues, 2000).

Einesman (1999) notes the Supreme Court issued the most relevant milestone when it ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. The courts recognized that police interrogators do indeed sometimes use "devious techniques" to "extract confessions" from suspects they may consider vulnerable, including those with limited knowledge of the law, minority groups or those with low socio-economic status (Einesman, 1999:1). Further, the fifth amendment privilege is sometimes ignored by law enforcement agents that use it to scare victims, as demonstrated by the last case, where the person arrested is told silence is often a marker of guilt and therefore, the person arrested is far better off providing a confession or information even without guidance from a lawyer (Einesman, 1999). These actions are just as in violation of the law as outright failure to deliver the Miranda rights to individuals that are arrested. Many law enforcement agents attempt to argue the person they take into custody "voluntarily waves their rights" in which case any statement may be used against them (Einesman, 1999). It is important however to recognize this statement says "voluntarily waves" the right, suggesting some ambiguity of the term voluntarily. Police or other law enforcement agents may use other tricks or deceptive techniques to get someone to wave their rights without their knowledge, and at that point it is the law enforcement agent's word against the word of the person arrested or taken into custody.

Implications

There is no doubt the Miranda Rights play an important role in the way law enforcement officials govern the capture and confinement of suspected criminals. In the early years of implementation many felt the Miranda Rights were helpful for law enforcement agents and the suspects they captured. The Miranda Rights allowed legal enforcement agents to explore the innocence or guilt of suspected criminals with their informed consent, and on terms that did not require any bending of the "rules" of government. However, despite the many seeming success stories associated with the Miranda Rights, there is also much controversy surrounding this issue. Many still believe the Miranda Rights do not benefit society. Some including members of law enforcement agencies insist it is the Miranda rules, not the state or local rules, that cause conflict and lead to increasing crime levels and breaches of conduct.

This proposal will impact the criminal justice field by providing information about alternatives to the Miranda Rights. The researcher suggests the Miranda Rules are not an efficient tool in all cases despite the good intentions behind the act. While many are supportive of the Miranda Rules, still others suggest law enforcement has become much more brutal on questioning suspects because they now suspects can now plead the fifth amendment and can now ask for an attorney to represent them before an "inquisition." Many law enforcement agencies seem to be getting around this regulation however, by forbidding lawyers or others to enter the room where a suspect is interrogated.

As noted in the early literature review, such actions can leave the potential suspect feeling vulnerable, in a position where police officers may threaten or use compelling scare tactics to force individuals into confessions that may or may not be valid. Clearly more legislation is needed to sort fact from fiction with respect to the Miranda Rights.

The researcher concludes that revision is necessary in the criminal justice system. The higher powers including the Supreme Court must consider the number of claims of injustice following cases settled based on the Miranda Rights. Of key interest are (1) the practices of law enforcement agents that appear to be misusing or not using the Miranda Rights correctly; and (2) statements made by individuals in custody that claim they are forced into confession or not given their Miranda Rights despite the constitutional right to receive them.

The latter party often claims their rights are violated when interrogators do not allow them access to their attorney prior to questioning. Many law enforcement officials to this day feel that such actions are not necessary because they contribute to crime much more than they prevent crime. The Miranda Rights according to many police officers are nothing more than cheap scapegoat criminals can use to get out of a conviction even if they are clearly to blame for the goings on resulting in custody. Those that are freed by the Miranda Rights continue to support their use. At this stage the government and citizens are at a standstill regarding the Miranda Rights. The only logical conclusion would be to revamp and rewrite the rights so they benefit the consumer by guaranteeing integrity of service, and benefit the legal system by enabling them to capture and interrogate legitimate criminals in a legal, ethical and moral manner. Only then will people start to agree on the efficacy and utility of the Miranda Rights in modern society.

Conclusions

The Miranda Rights were implemented as a tool to enable victims or those suspected criminals incarcerated the right to the Fifth Amendment or right to silence, and the right to due process. Alone, due process is a beneficial part of the judiciary system because it works to inspire fairness and equity in decisions made by lower and upper courts. However, since the inception of the Miranda Rights in what many refer to as a large-scale victory; much controversy has existed as to their efficacy. Law enforcement agents in many cities feel these rights and the right to due process may let criminals guilty of felonies including homicide free for no good reason at all.

Despite this claim, there is evidence of abuse of the rights and claims made by those accused of murder that they are forcefully led into false confessions for fear someone will suspect they are guilty whether they make a statement or not. The preliminary results of the research suggest tighter rules should be established that govern the practices of the Miranda Rights.

The overwhelming consensus at this point based on the literature available suggests the rights are far from perfect, and in many cases in need of oversight. The researcher agrees and supports the idea of creating revisions to the current law that would allow law enforcement agents the power they need to interrogate without breaking the law. Revisions made must also secure the rights of the innocent and the rights of victims locally, at a state and federal level. There are many ways to accomplish these goals, although all will require intense and heated negotiations. Studies should explore the utility of other means of enforcing or assuring a person's innocence or guilt before formal changes are made to the current legislation.

It may be necessary to have court appointed lawyers on hand to protect those incarcerated for questioning from abusive practices. Do the Miranda clauses allow criminals to walk free of punishment? They might, which is all the more reason the courts should investigate this matter further and revise or revamp the Miranda clauses to compensate in changes of culture, beliefs and population statistics.