University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law Professor Paul Cassell recently participated in a debate sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, exploring whether Miranda rights should be remade.
“Fifty years ago, a closely divided Supreme Court decided a criminal procedure case known to almost every American – Miranda v. Arizona. To protect a suspect against what it saw as overbearing incommunicado police interrogation, the Court adopted the now (in)famous “Miranda warnings” – that is, the litany of rights that a police officer must tell a suspect, and the suspect must voluntarily waive, before the prosecution may use a confession obtained from custodial interrogation (“You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right…”). Some argue that the Miranda warnings allow the guilty to go free. Others argue that the warnings are necessary to avoid violating suspects’ constitutional rights.”
News outlet Accuracy in Academia covered the event.