Should terrorist have miranda rights based on the constitution - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned History and Political science February Should Terrorists have Miranda Rights based on the Constitution? Any sane and organized democracy is identified by its predilection to create a just and ordered society based on a constitutional recognition of the rights of the people. Miranda Rights brought into existence by the Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) are important in the sense that they sustain the democratic fabric of the American society by striking a balance between police jurisdiction and the right of a suspect to protect oneself.

However, terrorists simply cannot be extended the Miranda Rights because these are the people who aspire to brutally demolish this very society based on human dignity and the rule of law. Seen in a political and historical context, since times immemorial, constitutions around the world though being sacrosanct tend to be dependent on a plethora of factors in terms of the extension of rights and their interpretation. Historically speaking right from the times of the Greeks, the city states drafted and exercised their constitutions in the light of the geo-political environment amongst which they were placed and the consequent friends and enemies they had to contend with (Manferedi 127).

In a post 9/11 scenario, America has found itself in a precarious and unique situation where it happens to be the choicest target of international terrorist organizations. Hence, the constitution should aptly respond to these peculiar circumstances by denying all democratic rights to the terrorists, including the Miranda Rights. One major aspect of Miranda Rights is that the Constitution does recognize the fact that there may be exceptional circumstances, posing a grave threat to public safety, where the extension of Miranda Rights to a suspect may not be pragmatic and safe.

In New York v. Quarles (1984), the US Supreme Court did recognize the fact that in circumstances where there is a clear and imminent danger to public safety, exceptions to Mirada Rights are constitutionally relevant. Now, after the gargantuan loss and bloodshed America had to bear with in the 9/11 terror attacks, the very existence of a terrorist pose a clear and imminent threat to public safety. So automatically the terrorists should be excluded from the ambit of safety extended by the Miranda Rights.

Terrorists are not like regular criminals to whom the Miranda Rights are extended by the Constitution. At the basis of most of the regular crimes lie two reasons, either need or some form of mental illness. However, terrorists do not kill people because they are in need or are mentally challenged. Rather, most of the terrorists happen to be highly skilled, competent, resourceful and motivated individuals who intend to further their political agenda through a barbaric and ruthless exercise of violence.

So terrorists are unlike regular criminals and hence do not deserve the Amanda Rights protection extended to ordinary criminals. The established historical precedence, the exceptional circumstances warranting the withholding of rights recognized by the Constitution, and the anomalous nature of terrorism as a crime strongly justify the denial of Miranda Rights to terrorists. Works CitedManferedi, Valerio Massimo. Alexander: Child of a Dream. London: Pan Macmillan, 2001. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436(1966).

New York v. Quarles 467 U.S. 649(1984).