In Miranda: The Story Of America's Right To Remain Silent, Gary L. Stuart writes:
The most frequent criticism of Miranda, in the years after it was handed down, has been that the ruling makes law enforcement more difficult because the primary advantage of the “old world of criminal procedure” has been lost: Police can no longer interrogate a suspect quickly, before the suspect has a chance to concoct an alibi or reflect at length on the legal consequences of truthful confessions....
Perhaps the most radical and foolish attack in this vein came from former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who, when asked whether “suspects” should have the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning, replied “Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”
Utterly amazing. The former attorney general of the United States of America actually believes that everyone suspected of a crime must necessarily be guilty, otherwise they wouldn’t be suspected in the first place. Edwin Meese apparently doesn’t believe that people are innocent until proven guilty; not only are people guilty until proven innocent, they are guilty from the moment they are suspected.
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. Do you understand these rights? Apparently some prominent conservatives don’t — if they did, they wouldn’t object to them so strongly.