Jeani Choe

Period 6

Miranda Essay

For the last few decades, the Miranda warning has been administered by law enforcement

officers to inform suspects of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The original

intent of such a procedure, according to the Supreme Court, was to offer protection to those ill-

informed about their constitutional rights by ensuring the legitimacy of voluntary confessions.

There have been cases where the procedure was successful in protecting the innocent from false

accusations. And unfortunately, there have been cases where the procedure has let guilty

criminals off the hook due to technicalities to upholding the procedure. This leads to the

question that Alexander Nguyen consistently refers back to in his article: does Miranda fall short

in its original intent? Miranda is, and has always been, essential in ensuring to the best of its

ability that suspects in police custody intelligently understand their rights, but the lack of a

uniform way of its administration nationwide and lack of understanding among suspects in

regard to its importance are the two biggest issues deriving from the procedure. In solution,

Miranda should be modified to elucidate its original intent to suspects as well as those who

administer it.

The practice of administering Miranda rights to suspects in police custody should not be

abandoned in its entirety, as it is an important way of informing suspects of their constitutional

rights. Suspects may not have had the privilege of taking a law class in their time in school, and

when such a case presents itself, complete understanding of these rights becomes crucial. When

the question of fine versus no fine, twenty years in prison versus ten, or life versus death comes

into play, the suspect should be able to make voluntary and intelligent decisions in regard to what
information they disclose or conceal, as this information can very well determine their fate in a

court of law. Ensuring the understanding of the constitutional rights they are entitled to, such as

the right to remain silence and the right to counsel, through Miranda will guarantee this. If the

procedure is implemented in a way that guarantees the legitimacy of voluntary confessions, the

problem of wrongful accusation of the innocent resolves in itself.

One of the biggest problems of Miranda is that there is not one uniform way in which law

enforcement officers administer the Miranda rights to suspects, which inevitably poses problems

with preserving the original intent of the procedure. This may not appear to be as big of a

problem as it is. After all, how much can a police officer profoundly impact the fate of the

accused by switching up one or two words? Although police officers have abandoned heinous

third-degree practices such as physical coercion, evident from Nguyens article, there are still

many ways that police officers are getting around Miranda to elicit waiver of rights among

suspects, and this is chiefly due to the lack of stringent rules to govern its administration.

According to the Boston Police Department manual, the best practice...is recitation by the

officer, and more often than not, the recitation is from a card that the officer carries. What the

manual does not state, however, is the underlying importance of how the rights should actually

be administered: in a way that fully elucidates the rights to the suspects so that they can make

decisions voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. According to law professor George

Thomas, the police administer the rights like a routine, which in turn immensely devalues such

rights.

With this arises another issue: the lack of understanding of constitutional rights against

self-incrimination. Nguyen elucidates that the problem is not so much so as understanding what

the rights mean. After all, the right to remain silent should be relatively self-explanatory, if not
already made well-aware, to the average criminal. The problem derives from what underlies

these rights. Nguyen specifically talks about the right to remain silent in his article. Ill-informed

suspects are, more often than not, under the misconception that silence invariably shows guilt,

when in reality, it should be held as nothing other than the continued presumption of

innocence. This can, in turn, explain why so many suspects waive of their rights, and ultimately

ties back to ignorance of not only the suspects, but also the police officers who minimize the

significance of Miranda. Nguyen notes some of the ways law enforcement officers have gotten

around Miranda to elicit incriminating responses. One of which, formally recommended in

Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, the leading training manual for police

interrogations, is that officers hold a folder while interrogating a suspect, giving him or her the

false impression that it contains incriminating information about the suspect. This significantly

affects the suspects ability to intelligently waive their Miranda rights, thus defeating the purpose

of Miranda according to the Supreme Court. Additionally, this particular practice, as well as the

many other deceptive ways the police get around Miranda, undeniably shows that the police

wrongfully believe the purpose of Miranda is to convict suspects.

While there is no doubt that Miranda has some flaws in the way its being administered,

its still a crucial way for suspects to be informed of their constitutional rights. Instead of getting

rid of the procedure entirely, it should be altered in a way that ensures consistency in its

administration as well as be altered to enforce that officers make sure the suspects intelligently

understand their rights. In the article, Nguyen introduces an interestingly made proposition by

public defender Geoffrey Packard. After the line in Miranda that establishes what a suspect may

say can be used in a court of law, Packard suggests that the Miranda should be modified to
include, However, if you choose not to, that fact will not be used against you. This addition to

the Miranda procedure will address the underlying implications of the right to silence.

Despite its flaws, Miranda should be kept as it is an already widely-adapted practice with

a legitimate intent, but elucidate that intent by modifying its administration to ensure that

suspects not merely be made aware of their inherent rights, but understand them its entirety in

order to sign waivers voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Understanding the significance of

such rights should not just be emphasized to the suspects, but the law enforcement officers who

administer the rights. It is important to accept that the legal system will inevitably have flaws

that may give rise to some unfair advantages. However, the Supreme Court and, hopefully,

everyone involved in the law enforcement community, strive to minimize the advantages of those

who may wrongfully have them and work to protect the innocent.