Miranda Rights Controversy

Since the introduction of the Miranda Rights, there have been many concerns surrounding the issues of the validity of the law. Some may argue that this law is unconstitutional; while others argue that it is just an "extension" of the constitution and is much needed when dealing with criminal investigations today. The law was enacted by way of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) as the result of a coerced confession by the named petitioner (Miranda v. Arizona, 2006). The question today is: do the Miranda Rights do more harm to the criminal justice system than they give help?

In my opinion, I believe that the Miranda Rights are not all that beneficial to the criminal justice system. The only benefit the law gives is giving the suspect a choice to speak now or to speak when his/her attorney is present. If someone who commits a crime is not aware of their rights, should that not be his/her responsibility as a citizen of this great country? The Miranda Rights are not mandatory to be given by the arresting police officer but are used as a "safeguard" to make sure that the police have acted within the constitution (O'Connor, 2004).

There are certain petitioners that would like to see the Miranda Rights upheld. One of the major arguments for this is because the general population is used to seeing this procedure given and has assumed that this means the criminal justice system will work properly (O'Connor, 2004). Another argument for keeping these rights upheld is because it has the ability to be administered with little difficulty (O'Connor, 2004). With this in mind, the Miranda Rights and their administration is very difficult and may subject the officer to embarrassment in court if the rights are not given properly and not in the entirety laid out by the Supreme Court (O'Connor, 2004). If an officer does not give the rights in the exact wording that is stated under the law, the whole case can be thrown out as the officer failed in "thoroughly" explaining the suspect's rights.

]Opponents of Miranda Rights argue that it is non-constitutional since it does not follow the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. Instead, the Miranda Law holds its own exclusionary rule to technicalities (O'Connor, 2004). With this said, it is much better to follow the laws that are stated in the United States Constitution than use the rights under the Miranda Law in criminal investigations. If the constitution is followed, there should be little to no error when it comes to criminal interrogations and investigations.

In conclusion, Miranda has provided another technicality that provides a hindrance to criminal investigations because it is unnecessary and unconstitutional in its context. In my opinion, the law should be overturned and not be apart of today's criminal justice system because it is not stated in the United States Constitution. We must, however; follow the rules set before us as we are representatives of the criminal justice system. We need not agree with every law and rule given to us, but we must ensure that we follow the law as we serve and protect our communities.

References

Miranda v. Arizona. (2006). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved 17 January 2006 from

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/documents/miranda.html .

O'Connor, T. (2004). Miranda Law and Self-Incrimination. Retrieved 17 January 2006

from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/miranda.htm .