The Miranda rights provide that defendants cannot be questioned in the context of custodial interrogation until they are informed of their right to remain silent, to consult with an attorney, have an attorney present during interrogation, and have an attorney appointed if indigent. It is important to read the Miranda rights to an individual regardless of the circumstances since they protect them from coercion and giving of self-incriminating information. However, an individual right cannot override public interest. Terrorists are not entitled to Miranda rights since their responses are crucial for public safety.
Just and fair trials are the basis of any liberated legal system. Therefore, the Miranda rights were developed in the case of Miranda v. Arizona to protect the defendants (Locke, 2021). Reading the rights of the defendants, regardless of the prevailing circumstances, help protect the constitution and individual human rights (Locke, 2021). The rights allow an individual to access justice without coercion, enforcing the principles of natural justice. Moreover, allowing the defendants to be interrogated in the presence of their lawyers helps them avoid giving information that may lead to an unfair trial (Locke, 2021). Furthermore, the involvement of lawyers provides the defendants with expert opinion that is significant in avoiding falsified charges. Therefore, Miranda rights are significant in protecting individual rights and the justice system.
Although the Miranda rights are significant to the arrested persons, they have limitations. Terrorists are dangerous to the public and may have information that is crucial to the intelligence system. Terrorist suspects should not be entitled to the Miranda rights since their confession is crucial to protect the public and property (Cagle, 2018). Therefore, the police should use all the possible ways to get information from terror suspects. Such information can be used to conduct further investigations and warn the public about possible terror activities (Cagle, 2018). While reading the Miranda rights helps protect the arrested persons, a terrorist can be denied the rights since their withholding information is risky to the public.
The Miranda rights protect defendants from self-incrimination. The rights allow the individuals to remain silent and access attorneys for a fair trial process. Therefore, the Miranda rights protect individual freedoms and the justice system. However, defendants such as terrorists may have information that is crucial for public safety. Therefore, the police are not obliged to read the Miranda rights to terrorists.
References
Cagle, L. K. (2018). Charleston v. Gilmore: understanding the admissibility of incriminating statements made before and after the reading of Miranda rights.Am. J. Trial Advoc., 42, 449. Web.
Locke, E. (2021). The incriminating sound of silence: a need for protection of post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence. Neb. L. Rev., 100, 524. Web.