When the nation’s right to remain silent was enshrined in law
“You have the right to remain silent.”
We’ve all heard these words, on television or in person, but they mean much more than you might think. They build on centuries of reforms against self-incrimination, as well as upon numerous court cases before the famous case Miranda vs. Arizona.
Few people realize that these rights we take for granted began with John Lilburne in the early 1600s. He was meant to go before the Star Chamber, a British court notorious for torturing victims into confessing guilt. Lilburne, in an uncommon move, refused to admit to a crime which he did not commit. With help from Oliver Cromwell, the English military and political leader, he was set free, and led the campaign against forced self-incrimination.
In modern times, the balance had to be set between aiding police in apprehending criminals and allowing people to exercise their rights not to incriminate themselves. This right is included in the Bill of Rights as the Fifth Amendment, yet before the Miranda case it was considered valid only in court, not at the police station. A similar principle applied to the Sixth Amendment, which outlined the right to a speedy trial and the right to a lawyer, which was only expected to apply in the courtroom. These principles gave police the means to use “the third degree” to elicit confessions, but in the courtroom each case had to be examined to determine whether that confession was voluntary.
This all changed with Miranda vs. Arizona.
Ernesto Miranda was subject to a police interrogation that produced a confession and sealed his conviction. He was charged and later convicted of armed robbery, rape and kidnapping based on his confession. His appeal went all the way to the Supreme Court on the claimn that Miranda had not understood that he had the right to not incriminate himself. He had no lawyer to inform him of this right, nor did he understand it when it was explained to him by police. The U.S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, set aside Miranda’s conviction, establishing a completely new precedent, which borrowed from the Fifth and Sixth amendments, its repercussions many and controversial.
Dissenters of the decision thought that the courts were making it too difficult to convict criminals. Supporters agreed, but saw it as a good thing. A fundamental part of the Constitution is that citizens cannot be unjustly tried and everyone has the right to a fair trial. Miranda rights are part of this.
These boundaries were set in place by the Founding Fathers to ensure freedom for the innocent.
Though Miranda was acquitted, his life did not end well. He was stabbed in a bar fight in Phoenix in 1976, dying from his wounds. In a moment of irony, the main suspect in the case was brought in for questioning and was read his Miranda rights. He declined to incriminate himself, and was not charged with Miranda’s death. These rights have become a big part of our society, though few people know the interesting stories behind them.
With all this in mind, I must ask, “Do you understand the rights I have just explained to you?”
Natalie Cummings is a junior at Canon-McMillan High School. This is the first-place essay in the Washington County Bar Association’s annual Law Day Essay Contest. Law Day was established in 1958 by President Dwight Eisenhower and is celebrated on May 1 every year to recognize the role of law in our society and to cultivate a deeper understanding of the legal profession. This year’s Law Day theme, “Miranda: More than Words,” marks the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda vs. Arizona. For a complete list of Law Day Contest winners and activities, refer to the Newspapers in Education insert in today’s Observer-Reporter.