What is the Constitutional issue being decided in this case (as delineated by Chief Justice Warren in section I)?
The Constitutional issue being decided in this case as delineated by Chief Justice Warren in section I is on interrogation, and the issues it has the capacity to bring with it. It involved the questioning of the defendants by the police in a room in which the defendants were completely cut from the outside world, while in police custody. The defendants were not informed of their rights at the onset of the interrogations. Oral admissions were elicited through the questions used during the interrogation process. The police ended up forcing the defendants to confess for a crime that they had not committed. Upon the defendant’s objection during his trial, the state introduced the confession against him. The decision therefore was that a defendant should be warned of his rights before any interrogation.
When, then, is it necessary for officers to read an individual on his or her rights?
Only with the requirement of interrogation of a person under custody should the police Mirandize a suspect. In such a situation, arrests can be made without the issuance of a Miranda Warning. However, the police are required to give a warning at the time during which they later intend to carry out the interrogation. By their vigilance to these rules, the chances of cases being overturned in court owing to their poor procedure are reduced.
In circumstances where public safety is an issue, the interrogation process can be conducted without Mirandizing the defendant. Any evidence attained from this questioning may well be used in opposition to this suspect in these conditions. The Miranda Warning is all about the process of questioning as well as protecting a suspect from self incriminization according to the Fifth Amendment. It does not include the arrest of a suspect. The individual who is arrested in this case is under the obligation to answer all the questions that are asked about their name, their age and address among other inquiries.
In order for the police to be protected, a search can be conducted on the suspect. It is important to note that a confession that is given by a suspect before the Miranda Warning has been read to a suspect could be entered as evidence before a court of law. When an individual has been Mirandized and thereafter decides to waive their rights, they can change their mind at any time and ‘plead the fifth’. This means that the individual does not wish to answer any questions anymore.
It could also mean that the individual has changed their mind and could therefore wish to be accorded the presence of an attorney. Juveniles have the right to remain silent in the presence or absence of their parents or guardian in some states. The suspect is issued with a form for his signature by the US military branches to keep him from self incrimination. This form provides information to the suspect of the charges and their rights.
In your opinion, what are the benefits and/or drawbacks associated with this decision?
The importance of this decision is to keep a suspect from self-incrimination. This is in consideration to the fact that whatever a person says is usable against them in a court of law. Besides the warning to self incrimination, the suspect is also informed of his right to counsel. This is beneficial to a suspect who could be wrongly incriminated through forceful confessions like is the case in Justice Warren’s concern. It served to civilize police behavior.
The drawbacks associated with this decision are that the warning issued to the suspect on their right to silence makes the police to have a hard time when looking for incriminating information, during the process of trying to make the suspect to confess.
References
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436.
