MY SAY: GERALD WALPIN ON MIRANDA….THE SUPREME COURT INVENTION OF A RIGHT TO LET THE GUILTY GO FREE
How many times have we seen a movie or a column on a criminal being told his “Miranda rights?” Have you wondered as I have, why violent criminals have these rights which exclude confessions from admissible evidence?
In his book “The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution” Gerald Walpin reminds us “…the primary function of government…is to render security to its subjects. And any mischief menacing that security demands a remedy commensurate with the evil.”
In fact “Until the Miranda decision, when five justices, outvoted four colleagues, the Supreme Court many times reiterated that a confession obtained while the defendant was in custody was admissible, without any specific required procedures, as long as evidence showed that it was freely given and not induced by fear or threats.”
Twenty years after the Miranda ruling, in 1985, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor voices views that contradicted the reasoning behind the Mirnada rule. “The failure of police to administer Miranda warnings does not mean that the statements received have actually been coerced’ and”when the admission is not coerced, little justification exists for permitting the highly probative evidence of a voluntary confession to be irretrievable lost to the fact finder.”
It makes you think doesn’t it? Read the book for more of these judicial pearls…..rsk
Comments are closed.
