Dissent

Dissent
Miranda v. Arizona was not decided 9-0 by the Supreme Court, but 5-4, with the majority voting on the side of Miranda. Justices Harlan, Stewart, White, and Clark wrote dissents. “We do know that some crimes cannot be solved without confessions, that ample expert testimony attests to their importance in crime control, and that the Court is taking a real risk with society's welfare in imposing its new regime on the country” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/dissenting.html). The justices who ruled against the majority opinion thought that people who are willing to lie in court could just as easily lie about being warned of their rights. The main dissenting opinion states “The Court's new rules aim to offset . . . minor pressures and disadvantages intrinsic to any kind of police interrogation. The rules do not serve due process interests in preventing blatant coercion since . . . they do nothing to contain the policeman who is prepared to lie from the start” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/dissenting.html). The justices state that with these new rules in place, the justice system can’t be fairly and accurately predicted. Also, Ernesto first denied being guilty, and within two hours of interrogation, he gave an oral confession and signed a statement admitting and describing his crime. This happened “without any force, threats or promises, and without any effective warnings at all” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/dissenting.html).