Some people even today dispute the appropriateness of issuing Miranda warnings. The Constitution doesn’t specifically say that you have a right to remain silent; the Fifth Amendment protects people from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves, but that was traditionally interpreted to apply only during court proceedings and not during interrogations. There is also disagreement over what constitutes “compelled.”
The Constitution does say that you have a right to have an attorney during criminal prosecutions, but it doesn’t say that you have a right to have an attorney present during questioning by authorities. The Constitution certainly doesn’t say that your right to legal counsel means that the government will provide that counsel if you cannot afford to do so — this was one of the most radical findings of the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda.
Many people limit the scope of the Constitution to the words that appear there — religious conservatives, for example, are often quick to point out that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution and therefore it doesn’t exist as a constitutional principle. Such people must therefore oppose the claim that there are “constitutional rights” to remaining silent during police interrogation or free legal counsel from the government. This is “judicial activism” at its worst.
For everyone else, these rights are fundamental to a free society because they protect us from the abuse of power from police, prosecutors, and others working for the government. These rights may matter today more than ever, with the government attempting to assume ever more police powers in an effort to thwart terrorist attacks.
The Bottom Line
This is a book aimed more at a popular rather than a legal audience. This isn’t appropriate for law students looking to get at all the details of an important legal case. It is, however, perfect for the average reader who doesn’t want to get bogged down in arcane legal terminology. Stuart’s prose is easy to read and very engaging. He focuses more on the people and personalities that made the case what it is than on legal theory and history.
« Back...
