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).

My Own Argument

My Own Argument
I do not agree with the majority vote on this case. I think that it suits people who don’t know how to lie for themselves and need lawyers to do it for them. If someone is given the Miranda Warning and still wants to confess to the crime they may have committed, I think that’s great and fine. But, if someone is too scared of the repercussions of their actions to admit what he or she had done, once given the warnings, they might back out of remotely even wanting to give a confession, and their case could end up never providing true justice to his or her wrongful action, whatever it may be. As said in Justice Harlan’s dissent, “We do know that some crimes cannot be solved without confessions” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/dissenting.html). It is true that some suspects might knowingly confess to committing whatever crime they are being accused of, but most often that is not what happens. I think that suspects shouldn’t have to be warned of self-incrimination. I believe in the saying that goes “those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing,” and an innocent suspect might say something questionable, but the truth comes out more times than not.

Rule of Law

Rule of Law
The main precedent that had been established with the Miranda v. Arizona ruling is that “The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/majority.html). The suspected person must be clearly informed of his or her rights in order to comply with the Fifth Amendment. This ruling applies to every single person in the United States. If there has been no such Miranda Warning, any thing the suspect says without first being warned cannot be admitted at trial, stating in the majority opinion that “Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/majority.html).

Reasoning of the Court

Reasoning of the Court
The reasoning of the justices who voted for Miranda considered his side of the case to be a violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Justice CJ Warren: “Warnings are a judicial prophylactic to protect the fundamental right against compelled self-incrimination because of the oppressive nature of station house questioning. This case does not hamper police officers in investigating crime because general on-the-scene questioning is not affected. Conviction reversed” (http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/miranda.htm). He states that if a person is taken into custody or deprived of any of his or her freedoms, he or she must be warned that they have a right to remain silent, and anything they say can be used against them in the court of law. “No evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against a person unless the prosecution has shown that the person had been informed of his rights. If a person indicates a desire to remain silent or have an attorney present at any time during questioning, the interrogation must cease or cease until an attorney is present” (http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/miranda.htm). If the suspect has been warned, he or she may knowingly waive his or her rights and make statements and answer questions without counsel.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court came to the decision that statements previously made by the defendants during custodial interrogation unless the proper procedural precautions were taken "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition"(www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759). Specific rules were laid out by the Supreme Court as to what police are supposed to say while giving warnings to suspects, "including the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel during interrogations"(www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759). And, “the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights” (http://www.thecapras.org/mcapra/miranda/rights.html#MirandaVsArizona) .The Supreme Court decided the case with 5 votes for Ernesto Miranda and 4 votes against him, with the legal provision of self-incrimination. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren wrote the full majority opinion. I agree more with the dissent opinion because lawyers are good at hiding things and if a guilty person had not been advised of his or her right to counsel, they may have admitted to the crime they committed. If, however, they chose to have a lawyer present, the lawyer would prevent the guilty suspect from making any incriminating statements, making justice harder to be served.

Illicit Trafficking

Illicit Trafficking
I think that the Black Market is terrible for the world’s economy, governments, and peoples’ safety, health, and general welfare. However, I think that illegal trading will be around forever. The movie mentioned that it’s nearly impossible to stop because of all of the networking and how it’s so huge that it’s all over the whole world. Another reason I think it will be around forever is that it has been going on since the beginning of modern civilization. If people see something they crave, for the attention, envy, or glory they think it will give them, and then they see what appears to be the same exact item for an affordable price, they will most likely buy it. Even though the person might know the item is made illegally, they have the mindset of only being one person, for example: “If I buy this, I’m contributing to the world of bad that is the Black Market…but it doesn’t really matter because I’m only one person, I probably won’t get caught, and one person isn’t making the world terrible, so other people can take the blame.” But, they don’t realize that if a billion people share that same exact feeling, then every person is the problem and almost 1/7 of the world’s population is the problem. However, people have always and will always feel that they’re not the one responsible for such problems, so they will continue to do wrong and brush it off their backs like nothing.

Issue of the Case

Issues of the Case
The case of Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona was brought before the Supreme Court because Miranda’s lawyer thought it had been unfair that his client had not been notified of his right to silence or right to have an attorney present when he spoke, so he had willingly admitted to a crime he had committed, which the court used as evidence against him in trial. His lawyer brought the case to the Supreme Court because it was in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. “The Fifth Amendment protectspersons from being forced to testify against themselves. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to a layer.” (Stanley Kutler, World Book Encyclopedia 2008 Volume M)