The Miranda warning is an obligation of the law enforcement personnel to notify suspects of their rights. This regulation extends the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and was first implemented after the 1966 case Miranda v. Arizona (Lonky, 2017). While the Miranda warning is considered to be an obligatory legal right of the suspect, some authorities believe that it should not be used in several circumstances, such as an arrest of terrorists. The current work discusses the juridical status of the Miranda warning and whether it should be omitted on certain occasions.
According to the legal authority of the regulation, all suspects should be presented with their rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer during questioning. The Miranda warning is supported by the Constitution of the United States; and, therefore, should be implemented in the juridical process regardless of the circumstances. The regulation allows for the prevention of unjustified arrests and restricts the coercive power of the law system.
Nevertheless, some authorities present counterarguments to this position and believe that in certain circumstances it is justified to ignore the Miranda warning. The exception to this regulation was first implemented after the New York v. Quarles 1984 case when the omission of the Miranda warning was justified due to public safety considerations (Lonky, 2017). Although not accepted universally, the exception was later extended to the cases of terrorism when the perpetrator poses a direct threat to the civilians or law enforcement personnel. Nevertheless, after disarming the criminal and ensuring the safety of the surrounding people, officers are still obliged to notify the suspects of their rights (Lonky, 2017). This approach allows for a functional system of crime prevention and reduces the number of potential casualties.
Summing up, the Miranda warning is an essential right of the suspect in case of arrest or custody and allows to minimize the amount of unjustified arrests. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, the regulation should be disregarded due to public safety considerations, e.g. when an individual poses an immediate threat. Ultimately, the omission of the Miranda warning is necessary to minimize the consequences of crimes and terrorist acts.
Reference
Lonky, H. (2017). Revisiting the public safety exception to Miranda for suspected terrorists: Dzhoktar Tsarnaev and the bombing of the 2013 Boston marathon. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 107(3), 392-420.