The Miranda Warning

551 Words2 Pages

The Miranda Warning For the past decade, many Right Wing organizations have sort to change many of the laws, governing our rights and freedom. These laws were passed by congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Miranda Warning is one of these laws. The Miranda Warning is intended to protect the guilty as well as the innocent and should be protected at all costs. Without the law, many suspects may be treated unfairly. It is a necessary safeguard. Miranda is a ruling which says that the accused have the right to remain silent and prosecutors may not use statements made by them while in police custody, unless the police advice them of their rights. In other words, a police officer must inform a suspect of this fundamental right, under the Fifth Amendment, at the time of their arrest and or interrogation. Miranda protect ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves. Miranda also protects suspects from overzealous police officers. Although most law-enforcement agents in the United States are decent men and women, some abuse their power. They may try to coerce suspects into giving false confessions. Time and time again, we read of cases where suspects were forced to make confessions because an overzealous or prejudiced police officers want to close a case. The story of Rubin Hurricane Carter, made popular by the motion picture of the same name, demonstrated how lives could be destroyed when vindictive and manipulating detectives abuse their power. The Miranda Warning helps keep abuses in check. If the law is used correctly, the guilty would receive their due punishment. When police officers inform suspects of their rights before interrogation, it is very unlikely that the judge presiding over any case would throw out statements made during questioning. Many high ranking law enforcement agents around the country support the Miranda Warning rule because it is a necessary safeguard; it helps and does not hinders the judicial process. William J. Bratton former police commissioner for the New York City Police Department said, "Miranda works at a minimal social cost. The Supreme Court should reaffirm a decision that has served this country well." I believe that the Miranda warning protects all citizens, guilty and innocent, victim and perpetrator, from unscrupulous officers. The law was designed to insure that the statement given is voluntary and not extracted by force or coercion. Many courts including the Supreme Court have made thousands of decisions using the Miranda ruling without any indication that the law was unconstitutional or benefit criminals.

Open Document