examine the public policy of the exclusionary rule with respect to the 5th Amendment requirement of self-incrimination. Your explanation should include an assessment of the major U.S. Supreme Court cases that have contributed to applying the rule to police interrogations. Should the Miranda rule be modified in some way to permit submission of statements that have been obtained in violation of Miranda Warnings? Where can I find this information?
the 5th Amendment requirement of self-incrimination
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
US Supreme Court & 5th Amendment
http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=scotus+5th+amendment+decisions
Should the Miranda rule be modified in some way to permit submission of statements that have been obtained in violation of Miranda Warnings?
This is an opinion question; only you can write it. Base your opinion on what you learn from the links above.
To examine the public policy of the exclusionary rule with respect to the 5th Amendment requirement of self-incrimination, we need to understand the history and major U.S. Supreme Court cases that have shaped its application to police interrogations. Additionally, we should assess whether the Miranda rule, which provides warnings to individuals in police custody, should be modified to allow the submission of statements obtained in violation of those warnings. Let's go through these points step by step.
1. Exclusionary Rule and Self-Incrimination:
The exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments to the United States Constitution may be excluded from use in criminal prosecutions. This rule helps ensure that defendants' rights are protected and promotes the idea that evidence obtained through illegal means is tainted and unreliable. In the context of the 5th Amendment's self-incrimination clause, the exclusionary rule serves to prevent coerced confessions or statements from being used against a defendant in court.
2. U.S. Supreme Court Cases:
Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have been influential in applying the exclusionary rule to police interrogations. Here are three notable cases:
- Escobedo v. Illinois (1964): This case established that an accused person has a right to legal counsel during police interrogations. It emphasized the need for the accused to be aware of their rights before making any potentially self-incriminating statements.
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966): This landmark case created the Miranda rights, stating that individuals in police custody must be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Failure to provide the Miranda warnings before custodial interrogations can result in the exclusion of any statements obtained during that interrogation.
- Dickerson v. United States (2000): This case confirmed that the Miranda warnings are constitutional requirements and cannot be modified or weakened by legislation. The decision solidified the Miranda rule's role in protecting the 5th Amendment rights of individuals subject to custodial interrogations.
3. Modifying the Miranda Rule:
The question of whether the Miranda rule should be modified to allow the submission of statements obtained in violation of Miranda Warnings raises complex legal and policy considerations. Some argue that modifying the rule could enhance law enforcement's ability to prevent and solve crimes. However, others contend that such modifications could undermine the constitutional rights of individuals and potentially lead to coerced confessions.
To form an informed opinion on this matter, it is important to analyze legal scholarship, scholarly articles, and recent judicial decisions that discuss the potential consequences and merits of modifying the Miranda rule. Law libraries, academic databases, and reputable legal websites are good places to start your research. Websites of legal institutions such as the American Bar Association, legal journals, and online law databases like Westlaw or LexisNexis can provide comprehensive information on this subject.
Remember, it is vital to review multiple sources with differing perspectives to develop a well-rounded understanding of the issue.
In summary, to understand the public policy of the exclusionary rule with respect to the 5th Amendment requirement of self-incrimination, it is crucial to analyze significant U.S. Supreme Court cases and the development of the Miranda rule. Assessing the potential modification of the Miranda rule requires examining legal literature and reliable legal sources that analyze the implications and perspectives surrounding this issue.