Lawrence S. Wrightsman and Mary L. Pitman
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- May 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199730902
- eISBN:
- 9780199776986
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730902.001.0001
- Subject:
- Psychology, Forensic Psychology
In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law-enforcement officers were required to inform criminal defendants about their rights to remain silent or have an attorney present during their interrogation. ...
More
In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law-enforcement officers were required to inform criminal defendants about their rights to remain silent or have an attorney present during their interrogation. In the 40 years since the inception of the “Miranda rule,” its anticipated effect has not been realized. The purposes of this book are to examine the reasons why the goal of the authors of the Miranda ruling has not been met and to identify procedures that move the criminal justice system closer to this goal. Separate chapters deal with four causes: the limitations and compromises in the original decision, the problems in comprehension of the Miranda warnings by various vulnerable populations (adolescents, non-English speakers, the deaf, and the mentally-challenged), the decisions subsequent to the 1966 decision that have eroded its breadth and application, and the efforts by police to avoid the curtailments from the ruling. The final chapter examines possible remedies such as requiring the presence of an attorney when the rights are given and videotaping the entire interrogation.Less
In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law-enforcement officers were required to inform criminal defendants about their rights to remain silent or have an attorney present during their interrogation. In the 40 years since the inception of the “Miranda rule,” its anticipated effect has not been realized. The purposes of this book are to examine the reasons why the goal of the authors of the Miranda ruling has not been met and to identify procedures that move the criminal justice system closer to this goal. Separate chapters deal with four causes: the limitations and compromises in the original decision, the problems in comprehension of the Miranda warnings by various vulnerable populations (adolescents, non-English speakers, the deaf, and the mentally-challenged), the decisions subsequent to the 1966 decision that have eroded its breadth and application, and the efforts by police to avoid the curtailments from the ruling. The final chapter examines possible remedies such as requiring the presence of an attorney when the rights are given and videotaping the entire interrogation.
Janet Ainsworth
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- May 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780199673667
- eISBN:
- 9780191751769
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673667.003.0201
- Subject:
- Law, Comparative Law, Philosophy of Law
In contemporary jurisprudence, the right to remain silent has been valorized as foundational to human dignity and to human expressive freedom. The right to remain silent is also likely the criminal ...
More
In contemporary jurisprudence, the right to remain silent has been valorized as foundational to human dignity and to human expressive freedom. The right to remain silent is also likely the criminal law doctrine most recognized by the American general public. In fact, given the worldwide marketing of American movies and television dramas, the Miranda warning, beginning, ‘You have the right to remain silent’, may well be the single most widely known principle of criminal law in the world. Yet, despite its deep roots in American legal history and its entrenched status in current popular culture, the right to silence as articulated in Miranda has been subject to a barrage of judicial limitations, qualifications, and exceptions in recent years, to the point where it currently can scarcely be said to provide any meaningful constraint on police interrogation at all. This chapter begins by tracing the origins of the Miranda rule. It then discusses remaining silent as an exercise of the right to remain silent; Berghuis v. Thompkins and its consequences for the right to remain silent; speaking to claim the right to remain silent; and whether Miranda warnings are still relevant.Less
In contemporary jurisprudence, the right to remain silent has been valorized as foundational to human dignity and to human expressive freedom. The right to remain silent is also likely the criminal law doctrine most recognized by the American general public. In fact, given the worldwide marketing of American movies and television dramas, the Miranda warning, beginning, ‘You have the right to remain silent’, may well be the single most widely known principle of criminal law in the world. Yet, despite its deep roots in American legal history and its entrenched status in current popular culture, the right to silence as articulated in Miranda has been subject to a barrage of judicial limitations, qualifications, and exceptions in recent years, to the point where it currently can scarcely be said to provide any meaningful constraint on police interrogation at all. This chapter begins by tracing the origins of the Miranda rule. It then discusses remaining silent as an exercise of the right to remain silent; Berghuis v. Thompkins and its consequences for the right to remain silent; speaking to claim the right to remain silent; and whether Miranda warnings are still relevant.
