Legal Issues in Miranda V. Term Paper

Total Length: 1799 words ( 6 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 4

Page 1 of 6

" (p. 471).

Finally, the Court ruled that the police could not interrogate suspects who expressed the desire to exercise their right to remain silent and that. "Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease." (pp. 473-74). If the interrogation continues and if the suspect confesses, the confession cannot be admitted at the suspect's trial. (p. 471).

Personal Analysis

I think that the Court went too far in ruling that the Fifth Amendment privilege protects criminal suspects during police interrogations. The majority's rationale about protecting a zone of mental privacy is not very convincing. As Amar and Lettow have pointed out, the legal system routinely compels individuals to testify about highly personal or intimate matters that they would prefer to keep private.
(1995, pp. 890-91). It seems odd to say, as the Miranda majority did, that such compulsion is wrong in the context of criminal cases, when it is perfectly appropriate in other contexts. It is hard to understand why the framers of the Constitution would conclude that the privilege against self-incrimination should protect individuals who face coercion during police interrogations but not in any other situation. Kamisar defended the rationale of the Miranda decision and argued against Amar's and Lettow's conclusion by saying that the police will have a strong incentive to engage in abusive interrogation practices unless coerced confessions are excluded from trial. But Kamisar's conclusion is not persuasive because the Constitution is simply not designed to restrict police interrogation practices, as Amar and Lettow, along with Justice Harlan, proved.

References

Amar, a. & Lettow,….....

Need Help Writing Your Essay?