You have the right to remain silent, anything that you say may be used against you in a
court of law, you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him/her present with you while you
are being questioned, if you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before
These words have become a commonplace in law enforcement across the United States.
Miranda warnings, by their formal name, have been subject to much controversy since they were
first birthed in the 1960's. So powerful are these words, many criminals are set free if they are not
spoken. Courts have long recognized that a person's confession, if not Miranda was not issued, is
not admissible in court. I feel that Miranda warnings are not necessary in the criminal justice
Miranda warning are currently used when a suspect to a crime is interrogated or
questioned. The underlining theme in Miranda is to prevent police officers from obtaining
involuntary or coerced confessions to a crime.
In a recent U.S. supreme court case, Dickerson v. United States (2000) regarding Miranda,
Justice Scalia dissents - "an Act of Congress will not be enforced by the courts if what it
prescribes violates the Constitution of the United States. That was the basis on which Miranda
was decided. One will search today's opinion in vain, however, for a statement (surely simple
enough to make) that what 18 U. S. C. §§3501 prescribes--the use at trial of a voluntary
confession, even when a Miranda warning or its equivalent has failed to be given--violates the
Constitution. The reason the statement does not appear is not only (and perhaps not so much) that
it would be absurd, inasmuch as §§3501 excludes from trial precisely what the Constitution
excludes from trial, viz., compelled confessions; but also that Justices whose votes are needed to
compose today's majority are on record as
...