Introduction
In 1966, United States Supreme court made a “landmark ruling in the case of Miranda v. Arizona that established that a suspect has the right to remain silent and that prosecutor may not use statement made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights” (Montaldo, 2009). The ruling was made to protect a “criminal suspects Fifth Amendment right to help avoid self incrimination during police interrogation” (Schmalleger, 2008). This provision brought major changes in the way police interrogate suspected criminals. Police are now required to read Miranda warning to a suspect before they can question them.
Circumstances that Gave Rise to the Ruling
Prior to the establishment of Miranda warning, police interrogations were marked by coercion and intimidation. The suspect confession was all that was required to initiate a trial. This created a lot of difficulty for police especially during trial because they were always faced with “evidence at trial that the person was not sound mind or were under circumstantial duress when they gave their confession” (Miranda Warning.org, 2007). This would normally result in termination of the case.
On June 13, 1966, a Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona “provided that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when they are placed under arrest” (Miranda Warning.org, 2007). The ruling was based on the case involving Ernesto Miranda, “who was arrested in phoenix, Arizona and was accused of kidnap and rape of a young woman (Schmalleger, 2008). After his arrested, Miranda was taken to the police headquarter where the victim identified him. After two hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crime. Miranda trial and conviction was based on the Signed confession that he gave during that interrogation.
Implications of Miranda Warning
When Miranda appealed the case, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that Miranda conviction was “unconstitutional because the entire aura and atmosphere of police interrogation without notification of rights and an offer of assistance of counsel tend to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner” (Schmalleger, 2008). The court further established that the suspect must be…
“Warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he say can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer the questions or make statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him” (Schmalleger, 2008)
The establishment of Miranda warning ensured protection of “individual rights guaranteed under the constitution as provided by the Fifth Amendment” (Schmalleger, 2008).
In order to ensure that the suspect receives proper advice during the time of arrest, Miranda rights are read before the suspects can be questioned. It’s a common practice for suspects to be asked to sign a “paper that lists each right in order to confirm that they were advised of their rights and that they understand each right” (Schmalleger, 2008). Afterward if the suspect waives the right not to have a lawyer during interrogation, police can start interrogation.
Since police is the only agency present at the initial stages of instituting a criminal justice process, the Supreme Court gave it the power to administer Miranda warnings. This put police agency in a contradictory and uncomfortable positions in enforcing the law, because they have to offer “defendants advice on how they might circumvent conviction and punishment” (Schmalleger, 2008). The police have to assume the role of a legal adviser to the suspect before he can interrogate the suspect.
Benefits of Miranda to Modern Law Enforcement
Miranda rule has brought efficiency to modern law enforcement. The procedures provided by Miranda are practical and police experience little or no difficulty in administering it. Without the requirement of Miranda, police would be required to have large volume of litigation in criminal trial. As a result of Miranda, the police agents have become creative, by finding ways to give “Miranda warnings without deterring confessions” ( (Montaldo, 2009).
According to Charles Montaldo, Miranda Rights and Warning, Miranda rule “allows police to conduct general questioning at the scene of crime without providing the warnings” (2010). This provision allows police to interrogate a criminal suspect at his/her home or place of work without necessary advising him/her of the rights “provided the questioning takes places in a context that does not restrict the person’s freedom to terminate the meeting” (Answers Corporation, 2010). Even when a crime suspects has been taken into custody without being informed of his rights, Miranda allows the police to “hear and act on volunteered statements” (Schmalleger, 2008).
Miranda in the Age of Global Terrorism
In this age of global terrorism, everyone wants security, but only few people “recognize that security and liberty are basically flip sides of the same coin” (Karawan, 2009). In essence, there can never be real liberty without security. Its then becomes controversial when balancing the need to provide security, and maintain liberty. As a matter of fact, there is an ongoing debate on whether Miranda warnings should be applicable to terrorist captured by U.S. force in the country and outside U.S.
Before Miranda ruling became a law, the FBI and CIA “adopted and implemented such a procedure as part of its professional approach to interrogation” (Rowley, 2010). This was made possible by carving emergency exception in to the law. Creating emergency exception ensured that new criminal procedure law did not create a barrier to efficient investigation. The FBI and CIA have since been using these emergency procedures when dealing with suspected terrorist in the U.S. and abroad.
The emergency exceptions “allows a law enforcement officer to dispense with the protection ordinarily afforded by Miranda warning” (Rowley, 2010). This has created growing concern because law enforcement agency disingenuously used these exceptions to justify tortures. According to Rowley Colleen, How not to Counter terrorism; Under current criminal law procedure, emergency exceptions “means there is no need to paint over civil liberties with a broad brush from on high, in order to effectively detect and disrupt terrorism” (2010).
Currently law enforcement agencies are under intense political pressure from the way detained suspected terrorist are handled. Member of congress have raised concern to the fact that suspects terrorists captured in Afghanistan and Iraq are advised of their rights as provided by Miranda. Stephen Hayes, Miranda Rights for Terrorists; gives a rationale why the U.S. counter terrorism force are extending Miranda rights to suspected terrorist, saying..
If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they’re likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspects and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspects can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future (2010).
Many law makers in Washington, especially member of the House Intelligence Committee are opposed to this notion. According to Pete Hoekstra, a Republican and a member of House Intelligence Committee, “the last thing we want is al Qaeda terrorist to remain silent…Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation” (Hayes, 2009).
Many people feel that affording terrorist Miranda rights is creating confusion in combat zone among CIA, FBI and the United States military. There have been cases where terrorist have been caught making bombs and planning to attack US interest abroad, and human right activist will advise them to take lawyers. In such cases, it is very hard to interrogate suspects because “a detainee who is not talking cannot provide information about future attacks” (Rowley, 2010).
Conclusion
Miranda warnings were established and mandated by the United States Supreme Court in 1996, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. Under Miranda, police are required to advise a suspect his rights before they can ask any questions regarding the crime. Miranda ruling has created efficiency in modern law enforcement. The use of Miranda by CIA, and FBI in the fight against terrorism has created a lot of controversy and the issue is at the center of political debate among lawmakers. Many people feel that suspected terrorist do not provide vital information about eminent attacks to the U.S. once they know they have the right to remain silent. This has created confusion within law enforcement in the fight against terrorism.
References
Answers Corporation. (2010). Miranda v. Arizona. Web.
Hayes, S. F. (2009). Miranda Rights for Terrorists. Web.
Karawan, I. A. (2009). The Importance of Values in the Fight Against Terrorism. Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands.
Miranda Warning.org. (2007). History of Miranda Warning. Web.
Montaldo, C. (2009). Miranda Rights and Warning. Web.
Rowley, C. (2010). How Not to Counter Terrorism. Web.
Schmalleger, F. (2008). Criminal Justice. Hagerstown: Prentice Hall.