The Original Principles of Criminal Procedure

The Miranda judgement has given opportunity to many accused people of committing crimes to take shelter in the provisions of what is termed as the Miranda rights. However, it is suggested that although its principles were laid down in the judiciary, many subsequent cases such as Harris v. New York, Oregon v. Hass and Michigan v. Harvey, the judiciary did not agree with the guidelines of the Miranda judgement. Thus, there are many other judgments, which have been announced.

This indicates that after the Miranda decision, through many other judicial decisions, an attempt was made to nullify the positive and negative impact of this decision on the American polity and society. In addition, it is argued that innocent people, when they are confident that they have not committed any crime, did not request the authorities to give them protection according to provisions of the Miranda rights. For instance, mentally ill people and juveniles who were not aware of the Miranda rights, did not insist on protection to be given to them as per the provisions of the Miranda decisions.

This had reduced the harmful effect, if there is any as argued by Cassell, of the Miranda judgement. It is found that majority of accused people did not take cover under the Miranda rights and subjected themselves to questioning by the police. It is also suggested that the police also devised various techniques to obtain co-operation of the accused people by showing sympathy towards them. Among those accused, those who had the first time experience were not aware of the Miranda rights. Ignorance and confidence that they did not commit the crime allowed these people to accept the police questioning process.

Thus, it is argued that in that case, the Miranda decision was not able to restrict the powers of the police in interrogating the criminals. (Kassin and Norwick, 2004) A study has been made regarding the impact of the judicial decisions of the Supreme Courts on lower level courts. This analysis is based on the data available in the regional courts. It is found that although decisions are taken at the Supreme Courts, not all these decisions are followed and implemented in the cases that emerge in the lower courts.

Thus, it is suggested that the Miranda v. Arizona case did not have great impact on the local courts when they discussed regarding the various cases, which emerged in these courts. This fact indicates that even if the Miranda decisions had harmful effect on the political and social atmosphere, these effects were nullified because they were not compulsorily followed in the courts at the lower level. Few questions relating to judicial decision was left unanswered by the Miranda decision.

In such cases, the local courts enjoyed discretionary powers to take their own decision regarding the various cases, which emerged in their courts. In few cases, the local courts cited the Miranda rights. However, these decisions were not mentioned in the legal databases such as Shepherd’s. This finding does not substantiate the argument of Cassell that Miranda decision and Miranda rights protected the criminals and that this decision reduced the power of the police over the criminals. (Songer, 1988) Conclusion

The empirical study of the Miranda case discusses the impact of judicial decisions on political and social atmosphere in United States of America. One view argues that the Miranda decision created a crisis in the American constitution by giving greater powers to the criminals. It was thought that this had negative impact on the powers of the police to question the criminals. However, it is suggested by another set of scholars that the Miranda decision did not have great impact on the later judicial decisions and there was not much impact on political and social aspects of America.

However, it is recognized that the accused people needed protection from the police techniques of questioning to cull evidences regarding the crimes committed by the accused people.

References

Cassell, G. Paul. (1999). “The Statute that Time Forgot: 18 U. S. C. § 3501 and the Overhauling of Miranda”, America Online. Gee, Harvey. (2001). “The Original Principles of Criminal Procedure”, Criminal Law Forum, 12, 119-127.