Thoughts on Miranda v. Arizona?

[BRG253]

How do you guys feel about the Miranda v. Arizona decision?

It is the 1966 Supreme Court decision which resulted in the requirement for police to read criminal suspects their rights.

This is nothing in the Constitution which requires police to do this, but the judges believed that custodial interrogations are inherently coercive and so they saw the requirement as upholding the Constitution rather than violating it.

The dissenting opinion, of course, was that the decision was unconstitutional.

Thoughts?

[james1844]

Love it.

Limited government means limited police power.

[mwkaufman]

Custodial interrogations are inherently coercive. I think it's good that they do that and it happens, but the judges making this law is creative to say the least.

So end result: great. Means: not so good.

[Pericles]

In any case, I love to use it against gun control advocates who think the 2A only applies to the feds, and states can pass whatever firearms laws they want. If that is true, then why do local cops have to read a Miranda warning - that should only apply to the feds.:D

[AutoDas]

It doesn't do anything to solve the problem that is the coercive style of police interrogation.