The impact of Miranda (3 peer reviewed sources)
Vidal, S., Cleary, H., Woolard, J., & Michel, J. (2017). Adolescents’ legal socialization: Effects of interrogation and Miranda knowledge on legitimacy, cynicism, and procedural justice. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(4), 419-440.
The study’s goal was to determine how detained youths’ opinions about the involvement, equality, and reliability of police are affected by their actual interactions with the law, such as how often they come into contact with the police and whether or not they are aware of Miranda warnings and interrogation practices. As a result of these encounters, people had a lower regard for police legitimacy, were less inclined to follow the law, and had a more pessimistic view of the justice system overall. Interrogation techniques experts felt less obligated to follow the law and the rules of procedure, while Miranda warnings experts felt more bound by the rules of procedure to follow. Adolescents at risk may benefit from programs that promote positive interactions between them and police officers in order to reduce negative attitudes toward law enforcement and foster a sense of trust and fairness. This period is when an individual’s attitudes and views toward various societal institutions and values are formed. Law education can have significant effects on how adolescents respond in different legal contexts and behave, while also encouraging a more long-term and comprehensive view of the law. Knowledge of and fully comprehend the processes and techniques used during the interrogations, as well as dialogues with law enforcement agencies, as we’ve learned from detained youth, can influence how criminals interpret legal procedures, which, in turn, influences how they see and perceive police and the law. On the basis of the data collected here, it appears that legal socialization principles are closely linked to offending adolescents’ real-world experience, familiarity, and comprehension of legal procedures and processes are obliged. Unfair treatment and case outcomes for juveniles by police can have a negative impact on the lives of everyone involved even when those interactions are not always irrational.Therefore, increased knowledge and experience with juvenile justice processes may not always result in more positive attitudes and beliefs towards law enforcement and the legal system. Despite this, our research indicates that criminals who lack social support may benefit from legal socialization as a strategy for intervention. Encouraging better relationships between young people and law enforcement can help combat negative public perceptions of the justice system while also helping to build trust and respect among the general public.
Thomas III, G. C., & Leo, R. A. (2002). The effects of Miranda v. Arizona:" Embedded" in our national culture?. Crime and Justice, 29, 203-271.
It was mandated that police inform suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning them while in custody after the Miranda v. Arizona case. Before any confession could be used against them in court, suspects had to knowingly and intelligently waive their Miranda rights. Since the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Miranda, suspects have been informed that they have the right to resist police interrogation instead of being urged to do so. To better reflect American law and culture, the Miranda ruling protects a suspect’s "free choice" of whether or not to answer police questions during interrogation. There has been no discernible impact on police ability to obtain confessions or prosecutors’ ability to secure convictions after two generations of empirical research on Miranda requirements. Neither the decrease in confession rates nor the increase in criminal justice system costs can be demonstrated with certainty thanks to Miranda. Miranda’s benefits to detained suspects may be non-existent as well. Miranda and the rules that govern its citation have been violated numerous times by police officers who have devised ways to avoid, circumvent, nullify, or simply ignore Miranda. Whether or not police interrogation rooms should have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination can be debated by scholars and historians. Instead of the culture believing innately in Miranda’s requirement for notice, the opposite is likely to be true. So police were allowed to question the suspect because Miranda did not forbid or demand the presence of a lawyer during the interrogation. There was some information provided to presumed self-sufficient agents about the consequences of answering or refusing police questions. Miranda’s criticisms were taken seriously by Fourth Circuit judges, but the Supreme Court ultimately saw Miranda warnings as a matter of basic fairness rather than a safe haven for criminals, despite Fourth Circuit judges’ sympathies. In light of what Miranda Dickerson said, this explanation makes sense. Cassell, Grano, and the other Miranda dissenters were heard by a conservative court of appeals. Warnings were mandated to be fair to suspects by letting them know they did not have to convict themselves, even if the Miranda Court was correct. This right to protect oneself from coercion may allow a small concession to be made no matter how guilty someone is found to be.
Cassell, P. G. (1996). Miranda’s negligible effect on law enforcement: Some skeptical observations. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 20, 327.
"Miranda has no effect on law enforcement." many of the nation’s top criminal procedure academics have told and retold this story.Warming to the task, some even go so far as to maintain that the Miranda requirements "actually facilitate law enforcement efforts."Yet, consider for a moment the striking incongruity of the tale. To a degree unparalleled in our nation’s history, Miranda restricts police interrogation of criminal suspects the "nerve center of crime detection." It requires every criminal suspect to be encouraged, before custodial questioning, to keep quiet. It allows suspects to prevent any police questioning by the simple expedients of declining to waive their rights or asking for a lawyer. Such constraints make no difference at all!?
This Article raises some skeptical notes about this conventional wisdom.The myth of Miranda’s benign effects is unsupported and unsupportable in the available empirical data. To the contrary, there is every reason to believe our intuitions have it right in suggesting indeed, crying out that Miranda has impeded law enforcement. Miranda’s costs should be given more consideration as we owe it to those harmed by unsolved crimes and unconvicted criminals. Before turning specifically to Miranda’s harms, let me note in passing that this Article will not develop at any length another promising line of attack against Miranda: that nothing in the Fifth Amendment authorized the Court to create such a code-like set of rules. That sort of conclusion seems almost preordained. It is hard to argue that Miranda follows from the constitutional history and traditions of this country. Professor Grano’s thorough book Confessions, Truth and the Law’ explicates this point brilliantly. Indeed, one of the other participants in this Panel, Professor Stephen Schulhofer, recently acknowledged that the Miranda holding was "a radical departure .from the assumption of the times" and thatIn light of then-current precedent, Miranda’s attorneys decided not to pursue the Fifth Amendment claim because the approach to regulating police interrogation proposed by the Amendment seemed so out of step. The characterization that the moderator of this Panel, Professor Ely, has given to Roe v. Wade seems equally applicable to Miranda. The decision, he wrote, is bad "because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
While Miranda’s social costs are significant in themselves, what makes them an undeniable tragedy is that they are in large measure avoidable. Interrogation regulations consistent with the historical understanding of the Fifth Amendment include many approaches, and Miranda is only one example of such a strategy. Before Miranda, a wide range of options were under consideration, such as taking arrested suspects to magistrates for questioning or tape- recording police interrogations, as the American Law Institute proposed around the time of Miranda.” The longstanding, pre- Miranda “voluntariness test” must also be regarded as a constitutionally viable, less-costly approach to regulating police questioning." All these alternatives would lead to many more confessions, and thus more convictions, of dangerous criminal suspects. Some of them, such as videotaping, would undoubtedly provide better protection for innocent suspects." Yet Miranda’s supporters seem uninterested in finding the least restrictive constitutional means of regulating society’s agents of law and order. Instead, Miranda seems to have petrified the discussion about how to regulate police questioning.
It is time for a new Miranda narrative not the myth that it is costless to indulge this Warren Court invention, but an accurate account of real-world consequences from unprecedented shackles on the police. As common sense told us all along, tradeoffs inhere in the Miranda regime no less than in other controversial social policies. So far, legal academics (or the Court itself, for that matter) have failed to offer a convincing explanation of why we should ignore the human suffering Miranda inflicts.From the top of the ivory tower, these human costs may not seem important. However, the countless victims of Miranda’s crimes would undoubtedly have a different perspective.
