The Miranda warning and its impact on criminal justice

Miranda Rights

Scenario #1

In 1966 the Miranda v. Arizona case ushered in the era of police informing suspects of their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This case is universally accepted as critical to protecting the rights of suspects while in the custody of the police, however, the impact on the effectiveness of the police is not usually discussed. In a 1998 study John Donohoe discussed the empirical evidence which supported the argument that the imposition of Miranda rights significantly hampered the effectiveness of the police to clear cases. But while he admitted that there were statistical drops in the clearing of cases by police, he could not make a direct connection between that and Miranda. (Donohoe, 1998) In effect, the imposing of the Miranda rights warning does not impede the police and their attempts to catch criminals.

What the Miranda rights warning does is lessen the likelihood that innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. This is an view that has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in the Dickerson v. U.S. case when the court ruled that Congress could not create a law that superseded the constitutional rights guaranteed in the Miranda rights warning. ("Dickerson v. U.S.") But the court did not interfere with the ability of the police to question suspects in the case of an immediate threat to public safety. In a situation where the safety of the public is at risk, the police still have the right to question suspects without informing them of their Miranda rights.

Informing suspects of their constitutional rights protects those people who are innocent, and, while some who are guilty may slip through, if they are truly guilty the police should be able to convict. After all, if the suspect is guilty there should be evidence. Self-incrimination is a tool that is best used against the confused and frightened, something that most innocent people falsely accused of a crime are. The Miranda rights warning may force the police to act in a more professional manner but does not impede their effectiveness.

Scenario #2

In a scenario where the trial judge forced a suspect to smile and display a gold tooth as a means of identification it is unlikely that the suspect's constitutional rights were violated. While the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a person's right against self-incrimination, the Supreme Court has found that this protection only covers a suspect's right to remain silent. Fingerprints, and now DNA evidence, have been determined not to be covered under the constitutional right against self-incrimination. Verbal communication is the determining factor of whether or not a suspect's rights have been violated, not the fact that the defendant has been identified. Therefore, any other type of identification that does not involve a suspect actually speaking and giving information should be allowed.