Read 'em ... nothing?

Preserve the Miranda warning

If you ever watched a police drama or movie then you probably are familiar with the Miranda warning. Read to suspects prior to arrest and processing, the Miranda warning is a critical part of a suspect's basic rights. Despite the past 30 years of use, the Miranda warning is now coming under attack, placing citizens' rights in serious jeopardy.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona forces law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to speak with an attorney and their right to have an attorney present during questioning. Suspects are also warned that anything they say can be used in court, that they will be provided with an attorney if they cannot afford one, that special rules apply if they are under the age of 18 and are asked whether or not they understand these rights.

Despite the Court's ruling, it took only two years for the Miranda warning to come under attack. Congress issued a statute in 1968 saying that any statement made voluntarily by a suspect will be admissible in court. This does not protect suspects from police interrogation methods that are designed to elicit "voluntary" statements. Luckily, this obscure statute has not been enforced in the past 30 years. Until now.

Last February, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in United States v. Dickerson that the 1968 statute effectively overturned the Miranda ruling of 1966. This means that police do not have to read suspects their rights; as a result some suspects may be unaware of their rights, and may incriminate themselves.

One of the nation's most basic Constitutional principles is that suspects should not be compelled to provide damaging testimony. By reading suspects the Miranda warning, police do a great deal to ensure that suspects retain their Constitutional rights. The 1968 statute goes directly against the spirit of the Constitution and the previous Miranda ruling. It thus violates two important precedents. As such, it should be overturned immediately. The statute has not been enforced in 30 some years, having been ignored by courts, law enforcement officials and attorney generals. There is absolutely no reason to begin enforcing the statute after all this time, especially considering its questionable nature.

Proponents of the 1968 statute claim suspects already know their rights and that there is no reason to read them. This may be true in some cases, but it certainly is not true across the board or even for a majority of suspects. Not all suspects are aware of their rights, and they should be informed before any action is taken against them.

Without the Miranda warning, rights in this nation would take a serious blow. The United States has long existed at the opposite end of the spectrum from police states such as the Serbia, Iraq and China. By eliminating the Miranda warning, the nation will have taken a large step towards opposing ideologies.

Unless the nation wishes to turn its back on its most cherished ideals, the 1968 statute must be overturned. It is of the utmost importance that suspects retain protection from overzealous law enforcement officials. If the United States is to continue in its place as the land of the free, it must preserve the Miranda warning.

12-10-99