This judgment intended to protect the civil rights of individuals while facing investigation by the police. As per the Miranda decision, when the accused refused to continue with interrogation, the police cannot insist that they would carry on their investigation. When the accused maintained that their confession to the police was not voluntary and that they confessed because they were forced to do so by the police, then the judiciary does not accept such confessions as evidence to decide regarding the particular case.
In many other cases, provisions of Miranda judgement were upheld. However, attempt was made by the Congress to modify these provisions through the Statute 3501, which tried to state that even involuntary confessions should be considered as important evidence in the court of law. The Miranda judgement created diverse reactions by scholars. Few believed that its aim was to protect the rights of individuals in American society and that it did not limit the powers of the police in investigating various criminal activities.
However, other scholars, such as Paul Cassell believed that this judgement had negative impact on the politics and society of America because this constrained the police powers while investigating various criminal cases. It is suggested the Miranda judgement violated the provisions of Fifth Amendment, which dealt with the authority of the state in monitoring the legal process. Paul Cassell supported the amendments to Miranda decision because this judgement had negative impact on the society and polity. The Miranda decision was applied in the United States v.
Dickerson case, which did not consider the technical specifications of voluntary confession. In the United State v. Dickerson case, the Supreme Court stated also that the federal laws are not governed by the decisions reached in the Miranda case. This was a great shock to the supporters of Miranda. For instance, Yale Kamisar, a great supporter of Miranda did not like this judgement which ignored the provisions of the Miranda judgement which specified certain technical details while considering confession as valid evidence. (Cassell)
Cassell suggested that the government needed to modify the provisions of Miranda judgement by passing a statute after the United States v. Dickerson case. Paul Cassell has presented the information provided by the detective who conducted the investigation regarding the crimes of Miranda who was charged for the rape of a woman. Some scholars assumed that it is not possible for the Congress to pass a legislation, which contradicted the decision of US Supreme Court. However, Cassell argues that this is not the case and that Congress has all powers to frame legislations to make future changes.
The Miranda case had a great impact on the politics because this judgement resulted in reactions in political circles and the members of Congress introduced statute 3501 in order to arrange for certain changes in the future Supreme Court decisions. The media also expressed its views regarding this important case. However, later in the United States v. Dickerson case the Supreme Court suggested that there is need for changes in the existing legislations. Cassell suggests that when Miranda judgement is applied, there is possibility of dangerous criminals avoiding serious punishment.
This will have negative impact on the functioning of the Police. The court maintained that while interrogating, the Police are expected to give Miranda warnings to the suspects. These warnings gave an opportunity for the suspect not to confess voluntarily, he could remain silent, or he could approach his counsel to fight the case against the Police. These warnings have been mentioned as Miranda warnings. This judgement created controversy among political groups leading to debate regarding the issue. Some scholars argued that it is possible for the dangerous criminals to escape punishment by the use of Miranda warnings.
Cassell made a study of the response of various presidents from Nixon to Bush. Thus Cassell did not like the Miranda judgement and suggested that there is need to oppose the various aspects of this judgement as they had more negative impact than positive impact on the politics and society of America. In fact, Cassell has attacked the judiciary department for not defending but attacking the statute 3501 produced by the American Congress.
This, according to Cassell has created a constitutional crisis. For instance, in the case of United States v. Dickerson the district judicial department did not uphold the statute 3501. However, the court itself suggested that the political authority have the right and power to override the judicial decisions through the legislative process. Nevertheless, it is accepted that the judicial decisions have significant impact on the political and social atmosphere. (Cassell) Cassell argued that there is need to provide more powers to the police to investigate the criminal cases. However, other scholars argued that the accused people needed protection from police coercion.