Miranda v. Arizona

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SkipJohnson (Talk | contribs) at 19:01, November 26, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (June 13th, 1966), was a landmark decision by the Warren Court requiring the police to warn suspects of their rights before conducting custodial interrogations. These warnings, known as the "Miranda warnings," include:

the right to remain silent
the right to have an attorney present
the right to have an attorney appointed if desired
the right to know that anything said can and will be used against the accused

Conservatives objected strenuously to this decision, which freed many criminals who had not received these warnings. Some historians have recently cited Miranda for a "complete collapse in society."[Citation Needed]

A majority of the Rehnquist Court was on record with the opinion that the U.S. Constitution does not require a reading of the Miranda warning. But in Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist upheld the Miranda warnings by saying that "the warnings have become part of our national culture." Justice Antonin Scalia railed against this decision in dissent, but the Miranda warnings remain mandatory to this day.

References