You have the right to remain silent …

2 thoughts on “You have the right to remain silent …”

1. After all these years, Miranda was something that needed to be “reaffirmed”?

   Reply

2. As I understand it, there were a couple of arguments raised against it (and I’ll admit I’m conjuring this from memory).

   First, we’ve had decades and decades of “You have the right to remain silent.” I suspect most people could say that from memory. The argument was made (poorly, to my mind, since it’s one thing to “know” something sitting in your La-Z-Boy at home, another when cuffed and sitting in the back seat of the prowl car) that the rights were basically known, and thus throwing out legitimate evidence because the presumed knowledge was not formally restated was a miscarriage of justice.

   The other argument was that the original Miranda decision was a bit more narrow in scope than how it’s been commonly interpreted. It was argued that that allowed certain activities or loopholes that were not addressed in Miranda but which had been inferred by other Federal courts.

   I, for one, am glad to see it reaffirmed, though I am aware that it means that some evidence may get thrown out that would lead to a conviction. The countervailing cost seems too high, though.

   Reply