¶ … Criminal Justice & Criminology Has the Miranda vs. Arizona ruling decreased the percentage of arresting official violations of defendant Fifth Amendment rights?

(Rian)

CJ327W Research Methods in Criminal Justice

The Miranda vs. Arizona ruling has attracted notable attention to the treatment of the accused in the hands of the law. Specifically, the ruling affirmed the rights to the accused under the law and to the legal rights of the accused. The research was to reveal the degree of law enforcement lack of enforcing the Miranda rights to the accused. A questionnaire presented to four group types that have a stakeholder interest in the law enforcement and legal rights aspect of the case was distributed to determine the activity relevant to Miranda enforcement process. The findings are expected to reveal abuse within the system and a notable increase in the Miranda violations for the accused.

Purpose & Audience

The Miranda vs. Arizona (III, G.C.T., 2000) decision ostensibly produced a profound transition in the U.S. legal system. Indeed, M v A is a particular Supreme Court ruling verified the rights of the defendant when placed under arrest and coerced (Kassin, Leo, Meissner, Richman, Colwell, 2007) using intimidation to produce a confession under duress. Now in the 21st century, we often hear of violations regarding defendant rights (Criminal Law Reporter, 2000) when placed under arrest. (Saltzburg, 2009) Specifically, often we hear of violations of the defendant Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and obtain an attorney for representation.

As the story goes, an individual is picked up on the street and told that he/she "matches the profile," of a suspected criminal in the area. The now labelled defendant, for lacking a reliable alibi to account for his whereabouts given the time range of the incident, then arrested and brought to the station for questioning and subsequent interrogation with the intention of producing a confession.

The purpose of this research is to acknowledge this particular problem concerning the street level bureaucratic process (Leo, 1996) of prejudicial prosecution. The audience, is comprehensive and includes police personnel, judges, defence and prosecution attorneys, legal researchers, sheriffs, detectives, police sergeants and chief of police, state troopers, highway patrol officers, state ranger patrols, and all other officials with the granted authority and means to detain, arrest, and jail. H0: There is no difference in the percentage of arresting official violations of defendant Fifth Amendment right.

Literature Review

A review of the literature of Miranda v Arizona (Asch, 1971) reveals the Supreme Court decision to have potentially caused the increased difficulty in the daily work activity of the police officer. Given the age of the study, the indication of the early affect of the decision is evident as a framework for police officers to not limit the protection of the accused under the law. Asch (1971) argues that such protection is long overdue and is certainly in need however, has added the additional yet undesirable result of adding a level of increased difficulty to the officer's job. Additionally, Asch argues for tougher and more stringent "selection, training, and education of police and other criminal justice personnel." (Asch, 1971)

Kilpatrick (1986) argues that the law was a mistake from the beginning. The law obfuscates the fifth and sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "The court has found compulsion where there has not been compulsion; it has elevated investigation to the level of criminal prosecution and it has defined suspect to mean accused." (Kilpatrick, 1986) Kilpatrick deems Miranda v Arizona to be a judiciary approval to refer to the accused, as the 'accused'. As this term is used throughout the paper, the accused is a function of Kilpatrick's understanding to the nature of the ruling.

Escobedo v Illinois (1964) (Kilpatrick, 1986), is a preceding case to Miranda v Arizona that established a broader parameter to include the voluntary contribution of statements by the accused placed under arrest and held in jail however, prior to further adjudication as when indicted or placed for arraignment. The Escobedo ruling set the precedent for deeming such voluntary statements as insubmissible as evidence. The Miranda ruling established the absolute right to counsel prior to interrogation. The Supreme Court ruling Mathis v U.S. (1969) (Kilpatrick, 1986) further went to state Miranda v Arizona succinctly interpreted the fifth amendment in a manner hazardous to the efficient and effective upholding of legal rights for the accused. Brewer v Williams (1977) (Kilpatrick, 1986), defines the Miranda ruling as an injustice and a breach of policeman conduct.

However, what was really the point of the ruling?...

Yet the effectual reasoning for the law to exist has not directly been addressed. Miranda v Arizona (Thomas, Leo, Tonry, 2002), describes the ruling as a means to mandate police to inform arrestees prior to interrogation of legal rights under the constitution that include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Additionally, arrestees, or suspects, must wilfully relinquish these rights in order for a confession to be remitted as evidence at trial.
"The rational of Miranda, as elaborated by the Supreme Court, has evolved from encouraging suspects to resist police interrogation to informing suspects that they have a right to resist. Reflecting a fundamental tenet in American culture and law, Miranda today seeks to protect the free choice of a suspect to decide whether to answer police questions during interrogation." (Thomas, Leo, Tonry, 2002)

Empirical research on the Miranda ruling has rendered hardly any effect on conviction rates nor evidence that indicates a lowered confession rate or "imposed significant costs on the American criminal justice system. Overall, therefore, police have developed multiple strategies to avoid, circumvent, nullify, or simply violate Miranda and its invocation rules." (Thomas, Leo, Tonry, 2002)

Allen (1967) finds Miranda v Arizona as against the proper law enforcement methodology that enables authorities to interrogate suspects when objectively deemed necessary. Additionally, such decisions are rendered as a function of society's desire to implicate a suspect based on criminal profiling and therefore is more important than defending the criminals right to avoid interrogation. (Allen, 1967)

Milner, (1971) investigates Miranda v. Arizona and its impact on the "Wisconsin police departments of Racine, Madison, Green Bay, and Kenosha during the first fourteen months after the decision." (Milner, 1971) The level of professionalism and participation among each city is made and a comparative analysis between the relationship between the interrogation behaviour and the Miranda consequences. The analysis identifies that more professional law enforcement departments will employ Miranda and not see the ruling as a restriction on policing. The subsequent change in interrogation behaviour is adhered to and not avoided as is indicated would be the case within a less professional law enforcement department. (Milner, 1971)

Markman, (1987) surmises a conclusion from William H. Erickson stating that Miranda has ultimately led to an ineffective result in the desire to protect the rights of the accused and in preventing police misconduct including coerced interrogation. (Markman, 1987) Although the notion that the intention to be ineffective was not the end result to the opinions rendered regarding the ineffectiveness to the ruling, judicial scholars acknowledge the premise of Miranda and understand the function of its establishment.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) (Lewis, Allen, 1977), "the U.S. Supreme Court held that, before custodial interrogation, the suspect must be informed that (1) he has a right to remain silent, (2) anything he says can be used against him in a subsequent criminal proceeding, (3) he has the right to the presence of an attorney during the interrogation, and (4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him at the state's expense." (Lewis, Allen, 1977)

The decision according to Lewis, Allen (1977), was an attempt to undermine surreptitious activity by law enforcement used to obtain coerced confessions that may not be reflective of the actual truth. Studies indicate the Miranda rights are read from a card by officers in what is described as a monotone and disconnected voice. Defendants under arrest often do not understand the procedure of Miranda nor the process of the rights they have been provided under the law as the officers are not seeking to convey this message but are solely looking to rudimentary roll off the 'legality' of Miranda as quickly as possible. (Lewis, Allen 1977)

The recent legal question of police searches of public and private buses stopped while on patrol of public roads. The case of suspicionless bus sweeps (Brazier, 2010), arises as an infringement of fourth amendment rights. The relationship to Miranda is apparent, however, the difference now involves more than one individual in a public vehicle.

The case involves a bus stopped by a police patrol consisting of three officers. The officers board the bus and the bus driver exits the vehicle. The first officer kneels on the seat facing the travellers, the second and third officers proceed to the back of the bus. The second officer stands and guards the back exit of the bus and the third officer proceeds to question each traveller. Prior to the questioning however, the first officer describes…