The Directives of the Miranda Act - Essay Example

The entire literature on the impact of the Miranda Act on individuals and law enforcement personnel originates from studies that were carried out during the early years of Miranda (Cassell & Fowles, 1998). Because the more enduring effect of a court resolution is more relevant to academics than its immediate impacts, as expressed by Leo (1996), it is astonishing that no academic has investigated the effect of the Miranda Act in almost three decades.

The Miranda Act has been the most contentious and the most condemned case of the Supreme Court in the United States criminal justice (Fridell, 2006). Even though nobody has methodically studied the continuing impacts of Miranda on collective awareness, court cases, or law enforcement methods and behavior, the subject matter of Miranda’s effect is still a root of contention among academics and practitioners (Leo, 1996).
Despite the unending debate between liberal and conservative scholars of the Miranda Act, law enforcement personnel have effectively adjusted to the provision of Miranda of ‘pre-interrogation constitutional warnings’ (Leo, 1996, 628) in recent years. A significant portion of the law enforcement community respects the ideals and logic of Miranda and does not challenge its legitimacy anymore. Law enforcement personnel, according to Cassell and Fowles (1998), like detectives and police officers, nowadays have also embraced the legitimacy of the Miranda Act and accepted its importance as a representation of police competence.

In Miranda vs. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court declared suspects within detention - or a logical custodial condition - have to be recommended of their right to stay silent, that no matter what they state, could be utilized against them, and that they have a right to a legal representative. Once a legal representative is called, the police force can only utilize statements made in the presence of a legal representative as proof in any trial (Wise, 1996).
The case involves is about a 13 years old boy from North Carolina, charged with two break-ins within Chapel Hill. The boy was dragged from his classroom and was inquired by police officials along with school officials in a closed conference room. Finally, the boy admitted to the break-ins.
Just after the admission, the investigator notified that he did not have to talk with him and that he was allowed to go to, the court proceedings mentioned. After that, the boy was permitted to go home; however, a police officer armed with a warrant later looked around his home for the items stolen (Gardner & Anderson, 2009). Two adolescent appeals were filed, charging him with “breaking and with aggravated burglary. His public advocate encouraged him to suppress his statements and the evidence derived from them” (Schmalleger, 2001), declaring that he had been cross-examined within a custodial situation without being provided Miranda advises and that his statements were unconscious. The legal representative of the trial refused the proposal.

Studies on the effect of the Miranda Act used various methodologies, such as interviews, secondary data analysis, and participant observation. The common agreement of these studies is that after adapting at first to the new directives promulgated in the Miranda resolution, law enforcement abided by the rules, but not the essence, of the mandated fourfold notices, despite these general notices large numbers of criminal suspects habitually relinquish their constitutional rights (Cassell & Fowles, 1998). The directives of the Miranda Act have had merely a minor impact on the capability of the law enforcement community to draw out confessions from the accused effectively; hence, the Miranda Act has not wielded a substantial influence either on the frequency of conviction or detainment of criminal suspects (Leo, 1996). The common assumption of these investigations is not only that the Miranda Act has been unsuccessful in negatively affecting the capability of law enforcement personnel to prevent criminal activities, but also that the provision of general Miranda notices has been unsuccessful in attaining the objective or effect (Leo, 1996) initially envisaged by the Warren Court. Read More