Assignment Instructions/ Description
Image transcription textThere is a world of difference ... between compelling a suspect to
incriminate himself and preventing him from foolishly doing so of
his own accord.
Preventing foolish (rather than compelled) confessions is likewise the
only conceivable basis for the rules (suggested in Miranda...) that
courts must exclude any confession elicited by questioning
conducted, without interruption, after the suspect has indicated a
desire to stand on his right to remain silent. ... The Constitution is
not, unlike the Miranda majority, offended by a criminal's
commendable qualm of conscience or fortunate fit of stupidity.
Finally, I am not convinced ... that Miranda should be preserved
because the decision occupies a special place in the "public's
consciousness." As far as I am aware, the public is not under the
illusion that we are infallible...."
Reflect on what you believe the judge is saying in this dissenting
opinion.
Written Discussion
1. In the 34 years following the Miranda decision, the Court was
asked to decide 60 cases involving the rules it established. Why
does this dissenting justice object to the rules established in
Miranda v. Arizona? Make sure to be specific and detailed in
your answer.
2. Do you think holdings should be preserved because they are
firmly in the "public's consciousness"? Why or why not? Make
sure to include what you believe it means for a holding
(like Miranda) to be a part of the "public consciousness.
Make sure to incorporate your understanding of the Miranda
decision and impact that you gained from your prework when
answering these questions.
Peer Engagement... Show more