Fifth Amendments Product in the US - Essay Example

The rule could be taken as following the Fifth Amendment’s self-incriminating command that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (David W Neubauer. 2006)

During arrests or any police interrogations, the court held in the 1897’s Bram v. United States that involuntary confessions are inadmissible as evidence, though as Davies, Thomas (2003, pg679) commented, “The distinction between testimonials versus other self-incriminating evidence is an issue of continuing debate”. The Miranda rule, therefore, requires somewhat to be modified. This is on the basis that the Miranda warnings as mandated by the 1966 US Supreme Court decision in the Miranda v. Arizona case are a means of protecting a criminal suspect’s right of avoiding coercive self-incrimination.

The modification would also be necessary to further strengthen the omission of the Miranda reading as the current rule stands i.e. the Miranda reading may be omitted during arrest e.g. when the evidence is already sufficient for indicting the suspect, or in cases when the suspect is talkative and volunteers information, without being asked. However, the admissibility of conversations, as evidence is only considered for judgment on a case-by-case basis and is also subject to appeal (pg 810).

If the Miranda rule is modified to allow the submission of statements obtained in violation of Miranda warnings, it will be more beneficial to the police and the general population because the exclusionary rule prevents the police from effectively solving crimes from violating the civil liberties of the general population. It makes the work of the arresting officers unbearable since warrants are only issued by judges, on condition that there is “probable cause” to believe that evidence of the alleged crime will be found. The exclusionary rule prevents the police, in their zealousness to solve crimes, from violating the civil liberties of American citizens. Warrants can only be issued by judges if there is "probable cause" (Davies, Thomas 2003, pg 811)

Conclusion
Even if such institutional safeguards are what distinguishes the United States from less civilized nations i.e. that the citizen's civil liberties must be protected at all costs (Davies, Thomas 2003, pg 811), a person should not have contraband in his/her possession, to begin with. A police officer or an investigator who unconstitutionally uncovers contraband feels bound by the constitution that commands him/her to maintain law and order. Such a status quo, allows criminals to escape justice by loopholes such as those provided by the exclusionary rule. Read More