Miranda Rights Issues - Essay Example

Innocent until proven guilty is the phrase that is used to describe someone who has not been found guilty of a crime, such as a suspect, who must await trials until that decision can be made. Terrorist suspects are in the same boat as robbery suspects in that they have yet to be found to be completely guilty. Many people who are suspects often end up not being guilty of the crime for which they are being accused. As every suspect is considered to be innocent until they are proven guilty, they should be entitled to the rights that are drawn out in the Miranda warning. A suspected terrorist is as innocent as any suspected criminal until decided otherwise before a court.

Terrorist suspects are just like any other criminal suspects. They have committed a crime, they have done something wrong against another person, organization, or something larger, such as the United States, and they have been caught. Someone who is suspected of terrorist activity should get the same treatment and rights as a person who is suspected of robbing a store or murdering a family member. Indeed, it seems that people who have committed a heinous crime such as murder or rape are entitled to more rights than someone who is suspected of engaging in terrorist activity. In reality, there is no difference between the different types of criminals. If one criminal is entitled to the laws that are displayed in the Miranda warnings, then those that are accused of terrorist activity should get the same benefits.

As was the case in Miranda versus Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court case that birthed Miranda rights (Sonneborn, 2003), the criminal suspects that are denied their Miranda rights are essentially denied their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment protects criminals from abuse of government authority, while the Sixth Amendment enables the person to have a fair trial, be informed of what he is being accused of, and have witnesses come up for and against him, all in front of an impartial judge. If these rights are inherent to the United States of America, especially regarding criminal proceedings, then they should be as such to any criminal offender, including one being accused of terrorist activity. In a country that prides itself on its fair criminal proceedings and trials, age-old Amendments should not be violated over the type of suspected criminal that someone is.

While many people are all for denying the Miranda rights of terrorist suspects, it all comes down to the fact that these terrorist suspects are no different than any other criminals. They are innocent until proven guilty, just as any other suspect, and should therefore be offered the rights as outlined by the Miranda warning. Being a suspected terrorist is no different than being a suspected drug dealer or a suspected murderer, but the latter criminals are still entitled to their rights. Finally, by denying suspected terrorists their rights they are having their Amendment rights also violated. It is these aspects that show that terrorist suspects should be allowed their Miranda rights.