Point/Counterpoint on the Miranda Decision: Should It Be Replaced or Retained?

Abstract

In this point/counterpoint exchange, Professors Paul Cassell and Amos Guiora debate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Cassell challenges the decision, arguing that it has had harmful effects on American law enforcement efforts. Cassell cites evidence that the decision led to reduction in crime clearance rates and urges that the restrictions in the decision be replaced by a requirement that the police videotape interrogations. Cassell urges prosecutors to consider arguing that modern tools like videotaping creates a legal regime that allows the technical Miranda rules to be regarded as superseded relics of an outmoded and harmful prophylactic regime. Guiora responds that the Miranda decision was required to protect vulnerable suspects during inherently coercive police interrogation. Guiora reviews the language Chief Justice Warren used in the Miranda decision, noting that Warren was concerned to ensure that a suspect’s basic constitutional rights were respected by law enforcement while conducting custodial interrogation. Guiora concludes that the decision remains as important today as it was when handed down in 1966.